Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/29

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
28 October 2024
30 October 2024
Deletion requests on 29 October 2024

October 29

[edit]

File:Lismore flood levels to 2022.jpg

[edit]

My image, but I have been advised that the subject material (signage) is probably copyright, so I am happy for it to be removed. Tony 1212 (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep now looks fine. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I find the current collage confusing.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Could split it into 2 images if that helps, but then how to display on relevant Wikipedia page so that one appears as detail of the other? Tony 1212 (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jamesbasdnais2021.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of Police Lines School and College, Rangpur.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Adeletron 3030 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be accurate, the "no permission" tag was initially added by Fry1989, then removed by the uploader Cerium4B with the edit summary, This logo has no copyright restriction See their website. I reverted the tag removal after going to https://www.plscr.edu.bd and seeing no evidence of a Creative Commons license and the bottom of the page has the ©️ symbol, indicating the content there is protected by copyright.
The uploader also has a history of adding “own work” licenses to third-party works and has claimed at least one commercial stock photo as their own, so their understanding of licenses may not be entirely reliable. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adeletron 3030
Please visit the website again and check that the image I’ve uploaded here is different.
I have made this image!! It’s a replica! Cerium4B (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cerium4B If they're different images, why did you remove the "no permissions" tag with instructions to visit their website? But more importantly, recreating someone else's work does not transfer the rights to you. You simply created a derivative work. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adeletron 3030
Okay
but isn’t there any way to upload that logo here? Cerium4B (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cerium4B Probably not. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jean Gabin 1939.jpg

[edit]

Screenshot from a French film, still under a copyright in France, and in USA. Yann (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hajiakhund.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not own work
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. As the depicted had died in 1910, the image is likely in the PD. However, a bit of research for the author would be welcome. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Vallée des Saints - no freedom of panorama

[edit]

Freedom of panorama in France is restricted to non-commercial use, which is not feasible in Wikipedia. All of the statues in here would request artist's permission. Some of the files came with a Flickr verification. In such case, however a cc-by-sa is also illegal on Flickr without the permission of the artist, following French copyright legislation.

La liberté de panorama en France est limitée à un usage non commercial, ce qui n'est pas possible dans Wikipédia. Toutes les statues présentées ici requièrent l'autorisation de l'artiste. Certains fichiers sont accompagnés d'une vérification Flickr. Dans ce cas, un cc-by-sa est également illégal sur Flickr sans l'autorisation de l'artiste, conformément à la législation française sur le droit d'auteur.


List of Files (121)
* File:Carnoet - Vallée des saints - Santez Enora.jpg

Mussklprozz (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the statues cannot be free, I'm surprised by the inclusion of those ones:

Romainbehar (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be discussed. First and second image show statues in different states of completion. IMO they fall already under copyright, since the artist's intention already becomes visible. Third one might fall under PD-text. Fourth picture shows essential parts of an almost finished statue. Fifth one shows several completed statues. Mussklprozz (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the drawing of the bearded Saint, the third image also falls under copyright. Mussklprozz (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Stas1995

[edit]

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:Clouds (National Weather Service).jpg
Photographer tentatively identified and messaged on September 22; no response. VRT ticket:2024102910004941
File:Sunset (National Weather Service).jpg
Photographer identified and messaged on September 22; no response. VRT ticket:2024102910004986
File:Winter Sunset (National Weather Service).jpg
Photographer confirmed taking the photo; seemed open to releasing freely, but stopped responding September 22 before finalising. VRT ticket:2024102910005029

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Sir MemeGod

[edit]

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:Dead man walking Jarrell.jpg and File:Jarrell tornado at F5 intensity2.jpg
these two images were part of a famous sequence taken by Scott Beckwith who does not seem to have an online presence.

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete All per PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlandmann, as a side note. Sir MemeGod was recently renamed to EF5. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Michael Lee Weather

[edit]

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:La Plata 2002 tornado damage.png
Copyright holder emailed; seemed open to free licensing, but stopped responding October 5 after shown the release template. VRT ticket:2024100110011645
File:2002 La Plata Tornado Damage.png and File:2002 La Plata tornado high-end F3 or F4 damage.jpg
these damage photos were not taken by an NWS employee but by a SKYWARN volunteer

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all of them per nomination. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Logo of the Europe of Sovereign Nations Party.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Logo
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion about whether PD-Textlogo is really applicable here. (The source from where the file was taken, is fully copyrighted). -- Túrelio (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of context for anyone reading this. I added this file, which is the logo of a recently created European political party. All other European political parties already have their respective logos on Commons (see here). I therefore had a look at the copyright information available for other logos and used the same one, out of consistency (see, for instance, here). The logo of the ESN does not seem markedly different from any of the other logos in terms of uniqueness or originality.
I am admittedly not an expert in these matters, so I welcome the discussion and advice. My own impression is that it is very common for political parties to have their logos included here, and it would be surprising to have an exception just in this case. Conversely, if this logo was not included (for a good reason), then we might need to reconsider the inclusion of the logos of other political parties (which I would personally find unfortunate).
At any rate, @Túrelio is right, the website of the ESN does read "Copyright © 2024 ESN Party - All Rights Reserved.", but then again so do the websites of all other European parties (EPP: "© EPP 2024. All Rights Reserved."; PES: "© 2024 The Party of European Socialists"; EGP: "© 2024 European Greens"; etc.). So I am not sure what the difference is here, but am happy to get input. Julius Schwarz (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. PD-textlogo only applies to logos which consist entirely of "simple geometric shapes or text", and the tree in this logo is not a simple geometric shape. The only other EU party logo which comes close in terms of complexity is ACRE (the lion), and that logo was freely licensed by the author. Omphalographer (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Omphalographer. But doesn't that feel a tad subjective? I mean, what about the logo of the European Green Party, or of the Part of the European Left?
At any rate, if this was going to be the consensus, what would be the way forward, getting an email from the ESN saying they agree to the use of their logo on Wikimedia platforms? Julius Schwarz (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, that would not be sufficient, as "for-Wikipedia-only"-licenses/permissions are not allowed. If not PD per se, it needs to be one of the COM:L-acceptable licenses. --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Ks0stm

[edit]

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete All per PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Jdorje~commonswiki

[edit]

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:1928 Okeechobee Flood.png
Map is taken from a PhD thesis published in 1995. Author messaged September 23; no response. VRT ticket:2024102910006153

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nomination. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Photos by Stan Blazyk hosted by the NWS

[edit]

These images were all sourced from a webpage of the US National Weather Service but are the work of a named, third-party photographer. However, we have no evidence that any of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

all files
Photographer emailed September 23. No response. VRT ticket:2024102910006359

All these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owner, we must delete all the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they all are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all of them per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Murales Roberto Mancini.jpg

[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in Italy, meaning photographs of public art like this are subject to copyright belonging to the original artist. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Siikajoen taistelu mm.JPG

[edit]

Derivative work of Memorial to Battle of Siikajoki, sculpture by Finnish visual artist Matti Visanti (Wikidata:Q17384698), died in 1957. Not in PD. No Freedom of Panorama in Finland for sculptures, only buildings. Htm (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:'The Two Haystacks' (1950) by Maurice de Vlaminck - Museo Soumaya - Mexico 2024.jpg

[edit]

Not in public domain : Maurice de Vlaminck died less tan 70 years ago Zen 38 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Snowy Landscape' (1950) by Maurice de Vlaminck - Museo Soumaya - Mexico 2024.jpg

[edit]

Not in public domain : Maurice de Vlaminck died less tan 70 years ago Zen 38 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works by Sarah Sze

[edit]

NFC, DW, No FoP/out of bounds of FoP. Images contain copyrighted sculpture by a living artist (Sarah Sze), photographed at a temporary exhibition in the United Kingdom (out of bounds of FoP) and in France (no FoP). --19h00s (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosebusch Verlassenschaften Material Teile.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by AxelHH as no permission (No permission since) AxelHH (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Foto wurde in Innenräumen der Rosebusch Verlassenschaften von mir aufgenommen mit mündlicher Genehmigung der verantwortlichen Person dieser Einrichtung. Vor Tagen wurde ich von der verantwortlichen Person dieser Einrichtung gebeten, die Fotos von den Ausstellungstücken wie auch den (von mir verfassten) Artikel löschen zu lassen. Ich meine, die Person kann darüber bestimmen, dass ihre Gegenstände nicht in Wikimedia veröffentlicht sind. --AxelHH (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosebusch Verlassenschaften Material Decken.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by AxelHH as no permission (No permission since) AxelHH (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Foto wurde in Innenräumen der Rosebusch Verlassenschaften von mir aufgenommen mit mündlicher Genehmigung der verantwortlichen Person dieser Einrichtung. Vor Tagen wurde ich von der verantwortlichen Person dieser Einrichtung gebeten, die Fotos von den Ausstellungstücken wie auch den (von mir verfassten) Artikel löschen zu lassen. Ich meine, die Person kann darüber bestimmen, dass ihre Gegenstände nicht in Wikimedia veröffentlicht sind. --AxelHH (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosebusch Verlassenschaften Material Ringe.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by AxelHH as no permission (No permission since) AxelHH (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Foto wurde in Innenräumen der Rosebusch Verlassenschaften von mir aufgenommen mit mündlicher Genehmigung der verantwortlichen Person dieser Einrichtung. Vor Tagen wurde ich von der verantwortlichen Person dieser Einrichtung gebeten, die Fotos von den Ausstellungstücken wie auch den (von mir verfassten) Artikel löschen zu lassen. Ich meine, die Person kann darüber bestimmen, dass ihre Gegenstände nicht in Wikimedia veröffentlicht sind. --AxelHH (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eeeewwww...Being Licked by a Calf! (5944683525).jpg

[edit]

Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added some categories. In Children with hats, for instance, I see similar photos of other kids. I cannot give a good reason why one would delete one of them, and not the others. At least it is in sharp focus, with good colour. JMK (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files found with Special:Search/37249059025

[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:CSP 2017 day 4 (37249037365).jpg (another photo of the same talk), there is no COM:FOP US for the sculpture that's been photographed in the slide.

Belbury (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HeadShotÁngel.jpg

[edit]

Not like own work UltimoGrimm (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gütertriebwagen Nummer 103 beim Bahnhof Ostrava-Svinov (Svinovského), 1967.jpg

[edit]

The picture is was taken in Ostrava, Czechoslovakia (now Ostrava, Czechia). I don't think that the template {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} is valid. Harold (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dieses Bild wurde von mir unter der Vorlage Diese Fotografie eines dreidimensionalen Objekts ist in der Schweiz gemeinfrei (URG Art. 29 Abs. 2bis), weil die Abbildung vor mindestens 50 Jahren erstellt wurde … in der Schweiz hochgeladen. Der Ort der Aufnahme spielt dabei keine Rolle. {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} bezieht sich auf die Umsetzung von europäischen Recht (EU-Recht) das bezüglich Fotografien vor mehreren Jahren beschlossen wurde, um die Handhabung von Bildrechten (im Wesentlichen Fotografien) im Zeitalter des Internets einfacher zu gestalten. Ich weiss, die Schweiz, obschon nicht EU-Mitglied, war eines der ersten Länder, das diese EU-Gesetzgebung in Landesrecht umgewandelt hat; Deutschland als Beispiel war aber auch rasch dabei Bundesministerium für Justiz, Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz) § 72 Lichtbilder. Warum es in der Wikimedia nicht längst entsprechende Europäische Vorlage gibt, ist für mich nicht nachvollziehbar und wohl allein dem Sachverhalt zuzuschreiben, dass es dazu ein Benutzer mit Administratorenrechten braucht der das auch macht. Es bleibt somit nichts anderes übrig als die Schweizer Vorlage zu benutzen; es gibt keinen Grund, dieses Bild zu löschen.--Transfer 2015 (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Verstehe ich richtig, dass du hier mit dem einfachen Lichtbildbild und dessen kurzer Schutzfrist argumentierst, im Gegensatz zum Lichtbildwerk mit langer Schutzfrist? In der Praxis neigen doch (besonders deutsche und österreichische) Gerichte dazu, alles wofür ein Mensch auch nur eine Kamera in die Hand genommen hat, als Lichtbildwerk mit einer Schutzfrist von 70 Jahren nach Tod anzuerkennen - zu Bildern wie diesen existieren entsprechende Gerichtsurteile aus den letzten Jahren. Daher werden zumindest in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia keine "Lichtbilder" akzeptiert. Wissen wir, wie die Tschechen das Thema aktuell handhaben? Das wäre von Relevanz, da auf Commons besonders die Rechtslage im Herkunftsland von Bedeutung ist. Herbert Ortner (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English translation slightly abridged: This image was uploaded by me under {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} in Switzerland. The place where the image was taken is irrelevant. {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} refers to the implementation of European Union law that was adopted several years ago with regard to photographs in order to simplify the handling of image rights (essentially photographs) in the age of the internet. I know that Switzerland, although not a member of the EU, was one of the first countries to convert this EU legislation into national law; Germany, as an example, was also quick to do so Bundesministerium für Justiz, Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz) § 72 Lichtbilder. I cannot understand why there has not been a corresponding European template in Wikimedia for a long time and it is probably only due to the fact that a user with administrator rights is required to do this. There is therefore no alternative but to use the Swiss template; there is no reason to delete this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transfer 2015 (talk • contribs)
Do I understand correctly that you are arguing here with the 'simple photograph' (Lichtbild) and its short term of protection, as opposed to the photographic work (Lichtbildwerk) with a long term of protection? In practice, (especially German and Austrian) courts tend to recognise everything for which a person has even taken a camera into their hands as a photographic work with a term of protection of 70 years after death - there have been corresponding court rulings on images like these in recent years. Therefore, at least in the German-language Wikipedia, no ‘simple photographs’ are accepted. Do we know how the Czechs currently handle this issue? That would be relevant, as the legal situation in the country of origin is particularly important on Commons.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbert Ortner (talk • contribs)
In practice, (especially German and Austrian) courts tend to recognise everything for which a person has even taken a camera into their hands as a photographic work with a term of protection of 70 years after death – I think it's the same practice as in the Czech Republic.
Current Czech copyright law states that the work must be "a unique outcome of the creative activity of the author" for the copyright protection of 70 years after death and for photos, it suffices if the work "is original in the sense that it is the author’s own intellectual creation". There is no mention about "simple photographs" or 50 years protection after the taking a photograph. As far as I know, according the Czech law, if the author of a photo is known: either the photo is not "a unique outcome of the creative activity of the author", then the photo is free immediately after the publication (probably rare occasions for Commons scope), or is "a unique outcome of the creative activity of the author", then there is a copyright protection 70 years after death of the author. I think the composition of a photo is definitely "a unique outcome of the creative activity of the author". If there would be only 50 years protection after the taking of a photo, I would upload many photos like this one. :-) --Harold (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you do that? As I mentioned, I uploaded the image in Switzerland under Swiss law. You can always throw the baby out with the bathwater. For me, the picture could just as easily have been taken by someone else who was in the same place at the same time. There's nothing artistic about it. That's also why the legislation has been changed. And that's what makes it so that the protection period expires after 50 years. Please provide a link or two to a corresponding court ruling. I would be interested. Thank you very much.
Mache das doch. Wie erwähnt, ich habe das Bild in der Schweiz unter Schweizer Recht hochgeladen. Mann kann immer das Kind mit dem Bad ausschütten. Für mich hätte das Bild gerade so gut ein anderer machen können der zur selben Zeit am selben Ort gewesen wäre. Da ist nichts künstlerisches daran. Auch darum die Änderung der Gesetzgebung. Und das ist es was es ausmacht, damit die Schutzfrist nach 50 Jahre abläuft. Bitte gibt doch noch den einen oder anderen Link auf ein entsprechendes Gerichtsurteil an. Würde mich interessieren. Danke schön.--Transfer 2015 (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by SreeBot

[edit]

These images were both sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that either of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:Picher Funnel Cloud.jpg
Photographer messaged September 20; no response. VRT ticket:2024102910011996

Both these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete both the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they both are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete both per nomination. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Showtime2009

[edit]

These images were both sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that either of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:Tg shuck jamestown med.JPG
Contacted the TV station that owns this image via their web contact form; no response. No VRT ticket for this one.

Both these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete both the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they both are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete on the WKYT image. Gray Media copyrights their stuff; although their terms of use does allow for non-commercial use; so NFF would be easy to get for English Wikipedia.  Neutral on the other pending a more detailed rationale from @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion rationale is expressed in the final paragraph of the DR "Both these images..."
It is the same as almost all the third-party content from NWS sites: there is no evidence of permission, and the COM:ONUS is on anyone who wants to keep them to provide that evidence. Up until last month, some folks asserted that the weather.gov general site disclaimer was evidence of permission (the only evidence...) but we now know that this isn't the case. There's no more detailed rationale than that, and the question is really to anyone who wants to keep them: "without the general disclaimer, what evidence for permission is there?"
Any work I've done in finding some of the photographers or asking questions of the NWS offices that published their images is a courtesy only and does not reverse the burden of proof, which resides, as it always has, with those who want to keep. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by Southern Illinois SKYWARN

[edit]

These images were both sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that either of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

Both these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete both the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they both are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak delete for both. Per nomination. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:National Weather Service April 2 tornado outbreak 15.png

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it are attributed to a third party.

I reached out to the creator named in the attribution at the source. They confirmed that they

  • own the copyright on the image
  • permitted the NWS to use it

"The photo was from our UAV Team and rights were not transferred or surrendered. NWS had our permission to use photo."

I forwarded this response to the VRT: (ticket:2024102910012128)

These is not a free image, so we can't host it here.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete – I was the one who submitted the FFU. Please delete it, especially if the Boyd County EMA said it was still copyrighted. @Rlandmann, please notify me the next time you nominate an April 2nd image for deletion; even if it says that Snowmanonahoe created it; I was likely the one who submitted the FFU. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because those images automatically notify @Snowmanonahoe; but I was the one who submitted the FFU before registering here at the end of May. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 1° quesito Affluenza.svg

[edit]

ho caricato la nuova mappa "File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 media Affluenza.svg" che rende superflue le diverse mappe delle affluenze per ogni quesito. Lumok30 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 2° quesito Affluenza.svg

[edit]

ho caricato la nuova mappa "File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 media Affluenza.svg" che rende superflue le diverse mappe delle affluenze per ogni quesito. Lumok30 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 3° quesito Affluenza.svg

[edit]

ho caricato la nuova mappa "File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 media Affluenza.svg" che rende superflue le diverse mappe delle affluenze per ogni quesito. Lumok30 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 4° quesito Affluenza.svg

[edit]

ho caricato la nuova mappa "File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 media Affluenza.svg" che rende superflue le diverse mappe delle affluenze per ogni quesito. Lumok30 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 5° quesito Affluenza.svg

[edit]

ho caricato la nuova mappa "File:Referendum propositivi Provincia autonoma di Bolzano 2009 media Affluenza.svg" che rende superflue le diverse mappe delle affluenze per ogni quesito. Lumok30 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/10/29&oldid=964423390"