Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/20

19 September 2024

21 September 2024

Deletion requests on 20 September 2024

September 20

File:Logo_of_the_Market_Organization.svg

Copyright violation: The website where this file comes from says the file is copyrighted ("© 2016 องค์การตลาด กระทรวงมหาดไทย(อต.)"). The organization is over 50 years old, but that does not mean its logo is also over 50 years old. There is no proof about the age of the logo, so the copyright statement on the source website should prevail. Inmylifewellalwaysgoon (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of the Market Organization.svg is considered an official insignia because the logo of the Market Organization which subsidiary agency of Ministry of Interior adapted from File:Emblems of Ministry of Interior (Thailand) colored.svg Sigha logo, which is also PD-TH-exempt the emblem from the Royal Gazette, which was announced B.E. 2483 (1940). Ginphuaktidfun (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Visa Chile.jpg

The license on this file is clearly bunk and there's zero evidence what-so-ever that the stamps on this passport or the passport itself are otherwise PD in the meantime. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:283Pro Logo.png

The greek column/wing pattern might have artistic value per COM:TOO Japan. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PetitePrincess.Yucie.png

Flower might be a borderline case. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "might be borderline" - If you're arguing for PCP, it's your task to demonstrate "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file" (emphasis original) ~TheImaCow (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Total War Warhammer III logo.png

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo Di (they-them) (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This logo is a screenshot from File:Total War WARHAMMER III - Forge of the Chaos Dwarfs.webm, which was released on YouTube by the copyright holder under a CC license. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The copyleft nature of the video is not inherited to the logo itself.

Delete. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright owner released the entire video under a CC license. There was no additional clarification anywhere that the license only applies to parts of the video. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The developers may have released it under CC, but the logo is a derivative work of the Warhammer logo, which separate from this video. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Screencap of a CCBY video. Nothing to discuss. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DM/{{De minimis}} can very much apply to videos.

"Derivatives of this file which focus more on the non-free element(s) may not qualify as de minimis and may be copyright violations."

Altrough I agree that the copyright holder releasing this video under CCBY also includes their logo (so keep). ~TheImaCow (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if every individual part of a copyleft video is unfree, then the video is unfree. Certainly that does not appear to be precedent— in previous cases videos like this are treated as having an individual copyright distinct from the base work. Dronebogus (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a derivative logo that implies multiple corporate holders of intellectual property is unlikely to be open for a release by the social media team at a specific organization -- the video en-whole would be appropriate to upload, but the individual screenshot seems highly innapropriate for us to assume it was cleared. Sadads (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then this part should be trimmed from the video. There is no reason to believe this particular part is not also meant with the CCBY license set by the organization. They don't have a problem with the logo being CCBY. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spawn in Mortal Kombat 11.png

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. The Mortal Kombat version of Spawn is a clear derivative work of the Spawn Character from Todd Macfarlane's titular comics. The freely licensed nature of the trailer he starred in does not make the character he represents free. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see the previous consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Omni-Man in Mortal Kombat 1.png. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WB games owns the Copyright to this version of Spawn. Nevertheless, it is a derivative of the Original Todd Mcfarlane Spawn.

Delete. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Di Dronebogus (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spawn is still considered a copyrighted character and is not owned by the makers of Mortal Kombat (Warner Discovery). Also delete due to the second discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Videos by Bandai Namco. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sega-sammy-logo.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo Di (they-them) (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is pretty clearly just simple geometry and color gradients. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Might have 3d shaping that makes it above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no 3D elements. It's just color gradients. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'll say it's in the range of PD-textlogo. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 05:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but the gradients may have artistic value per COM:TOO Japan. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Japanese TOO level seems fairly high, sometimes logos exceed TOO US may also be judged public domain by their courts, unless if there are indeed calligraphy features presented, at least I would assume no copyright concerns for this particular one, this meets just trademark rights, not copyrights. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reconstruction the Trans Vietnamese Railway (RVN postage stamp).jpg

Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about stamps and there's zero evidence that they are in the public domain. Let alone that random artwork on a cover would be just because said cover contains a couple of stamps on it. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SEGA SAMMY GROUP logo.png

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo Di (they-them) (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is pretty clearly just simple geometry and color gradients. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see this. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:1960 stamps of Vietnam

Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about Vietnamese stamps being public domain and there's zero evidence anywhere else saying they are freely licensed. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Circular 23/2012/TT-BTTTT Chapter 7, Article 30 says "The Ministry of Information and Communications is the copyright owner of the official postage stamp design. Any use or copying of part or all of the content, images, or ideas of the official postage stamp design must have written permission from the Ministry of Information and Communications." (Google Translation) The only question would be if this applies to old stamps as it does to those issued since 2012. —Tcr25 (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I don't see why it wouldn't apply to older stamps. Recent or otherwise currency doesn't seem to be PD. So it's unlikely stamps are. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Absent evidence it doesn't apply, we should probably assume that it does and that these stamps are under copyright protection. —Tcr25 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Empress of Vietnam stamp.JPG

Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about Vietnamese stamps being public domain and there's zero evidence anywhere else saying they are freely licensed. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vietnam timbre taxe 1952 20c vert jaune.JPG

Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about Vietnamese stamps being public domain and there's zero evidence anywhere else saying they are freely licensed. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:1951 stamps of Vietnam

Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about Vietnamese stamps being public domain and there's zero evidence anywhere else saying they are freely licensed. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added the wrong template at the time, but these should all be "{{PD-South VietnamGov}}" as they were South Vietnamese government works. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Trung: I might be miss remembering, but I thought there was some question a while ago about if the template was valid or not. Regardless, the section for "{{PD-South VietnamGov}}" in the guideline doesn't seem to be sourced to anything and I'm not sure that works from South Vietnam wouldn't be copyrighted just because the Socialist Republic of Vietnam rival governments are illegal. Realistically what does that actually have to do with copyright? Ukraine doesn't think the Russian occupation of the Donbas is legitimate either, but we still delete images that are from there as copyright violations and I'm pretty sure a creator from there can sue if someone violates their copyright regardless. So I don't see how it matters what the government of Vietnam says. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template is based on the fact that the first version of the Vietnamese copyright law stated that works against the state, of a reactionary nature, or of a counter-revolutionary nature are ineligible for copyright ©️. Later laws state (here it's Điều 688 and Điều 689) that the new laws aren't retroactive. The original discussion referenced a law that was at "Nội dung toàn văn Ordinance No. 38-L/CTN1 of December 02, 1994, on protection of copyright" ©️ under Article 7 (seven). These works are ineligible for protection under sub-sections 1 (one), 2 (two), and 4 (four) as the enemy regime was seen as "reactionary" against "the revolution" (the Communist state), current laws don't use these wordings anymore but are explicitly not retroactive. Likewise, the "life + 50 (fifty) years" wasn't retroactively placed back under the copyright regime when the new introduced "life + 70 (seventy) years" as the new standard. "So I don't see how it matters what the government of Vietnam says." Copyrights and other forms of intellectual property are explicitly government granted monopolies, they exist only because of a legal basis ("what the government says"). These works were not protected by copyright under the 1994 law. The URAA also didn't restore the copyrights for these works as it specifically excludes "Works that were in the public domain in their source country on January 1 (first), 1996" at the time the 1994 law already existed (17 USC 104(c) and 17 USC 104A). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I totally believe something that was created to be "against the state, of a reactionary nature, or of a counter-revolutionary nature are ineligible for copyright" by a competing government probably isn't copyrighted. These stamps are clearly based on a portrait of Emperor Bảo Đại that existed before the government of North Vietnam put it on the stamp though. And there's nothing necessarily revolutionary about putting a preexisting photograph on a stamp. I don't think whomever took said photograph originally somehow magically has their copyright to it nullified just because it was re-published after on a stamp after the fact either. If this was a clearly revolutionary stamp that solely created by the government of South Vietnam at the time purely to be reactionary then sure though. I'd agree that they are probably PD, but that's not what these stamps are. You can't just say that something based on a previous that's probably copyrighted by the original creator is now PD simply "because South Vietnamese revolution" or whatever though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These works "go against the unity of the state" (again, article 7 of the 1994 law) as these works claim that a rival government exists (each stamp states that it's from the "State of Viet-Nam" (or issued by one of this government's offices like the Viet-Nam Post) while only the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam officially existed according to Vietnamese law. This is also why the template doesn't simply work for any works from South Vietnam. It goes against the principles of Article 7 (seven) due to highly specific reasons (being against the unity of Viet-Nam and "distorting history", that is claiming that this government is legitimate). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's just circular. Otherwise why wouldn't it just go for anything created in South Vietnam regardless of if it was created by the government or not? Since essentially everything created there claims that a rival government exists through virtue of being created by someone who lives under rule of said government. Regardless, I don't even disagree that "a stamp" would fit what your saying, but you have to separate that from the fact that "the stamp" is of a previously created photograph that probably still copyrighted. Emperor Bảo Đại died in 1945 and whomever took a photograph of him at the time didn't do take it under the rule of the South Vietnamese government. So there's zero reason they wouldn't retain the copyright. Anymore then Mickey Mouse would suddenly be PD if the South Vietnamese government decided to publish an image of him on a stamp. So generally, sure. I don't even disagree with what your saying. In this specific instance though? There's absolutely no reason the photograph Emperor Bảo Đại wouldn't be copyrighted just because it was re-printed on a stamp. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find the original author then and see if I can find his / her date of death ☠️. Though in the above case I think that if it would make a difference if it was an official government portrait or a private photograph re-used by the government. As the above laws would cover original government works, but indeed not any pre-existing works. Then it's also the question of publication, if the photograph was published before 1948 it would be in the public domain in Viet-Nam regardless of its origins. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally fine with that. It looks like the stamp says "H. V. Paris" on the side. Maybe it's the photographer's initials? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this website (The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine) the "H. V. Paris" isn't the photographer but rather the engraver, that is "Hélio-Vaugirad Paris, Pháp" stamps and coins are commonly engraved in other places, for example the coins of Transnistria (Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic) were produced in Poland, but the copyright is usually still with the designer and the publisher (this being the State of Viet-Nam). Unlike for example these photographs (The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine) of the Bảo Đại Emperor which was made in Italy and published in Italy falls under Italian copyright laws, if this image was first made in Viet-Nam it falls under Vietnamese law. I'll report again when I've actually found the photographer, but it's not unrealistic that this is an official government portrait. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it and providing the update. I'm totally fine with defering to you about it if you think the portrait was probably official. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I always prefer to follow the precautionary principle in any case. @源義信: , excuse me for bothering you, but as you're far more knowledgeable about the post-1945 time period of South Vietnamese history than I am, do you by any chance know the origin of the photograph used in these postage stamps? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donald, I'm afraid I don't know who took that photo. The earliest appearance of this photo that I can remember seeing is a document from 1950? See this book: State of Vietnam. At the same time, Bao Dai has also given this photo to other people (Bao Dai Signed Photo, the Last Ruling Emperor of Vietnam and the Man Who Named His Country Vietnam). So all I know is that the photo was supposed to be an official (standard?) portrait of the Chef of State Bảo Đại. 源義信 (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:అబ్బూరి రామకృష్ణారావు.jpeg

Insufficient details of the source book to determine copyright status. There was no response to ealier discussion on user talk page Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arjunaraoc (talk) garu, appreciating your concerns of wiki`s copyright policy, I would submit that the image of uploaded was photographed from a book (now I don't, remember the title) through my mobile camera and cropped it suiting to upload, since wiki commons did not have the same. In the initial years of my writings on wiki, I was not aware to provide much details in description. Wiki articles look incomplete without images. It is also difficult to get images of aged authors of yester decades/centuries unless we find a way to get them like this. In view of the above, I request to retain the image and help to make the articles look better. Vjsuseela (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Vjsuseela (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjsuseela, Thanks for your response. I located a potential source through Google search, with artist credited as Ketha. This painting itself seems to be colourised version of the image on the book about Abburi Ramakrishna Rao published in 2002 by Sahitya Akademi. As copyright compliance is compulsory, we can only use this picture through local uploads on language wikipedias under fair use rationale. So there may not be a issue with deleting it on Commons. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sir Vjsuseela (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I again upload through local commons, it will not accept, since it finds the same upload. Vjsuseela (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vjsuseela, why are you trying to again upload it through Commons? As Arjunaraoc explained above, this is a copyrighted image that has to be uploaded locally to Wikipedias that accept COM:FAIRUSE and must be deleted from Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjsuseela This image is already available on Telugu Wikipeida as a local image. I made license modifications for fair use already. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much sir . I could not distinguish it. Vjsuseela Vjsuseela (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:2000 stamps of East Timor

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/East Timor says nothing about the copyright status of stamps from the country and according to someone on the talk page government works are probably copyrighted for 50 years after the publication date. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuad shukr 1.png

There is no evidence of permission or a release under a free licence at the given source (https://www.jamaran.news/fa/tiny/news-1638891). I tagged it as such, but the uploader (Nmhnhg) removed it without comment (and also broke the source link for some reason). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bellow is further discussion subsequently from Nmhnhg's talk:

Hello, at the bottom of this site
https://www.jamaran.news/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%B1-59/1638891-%D9%81%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%B4%DA%A9%D8%B1-%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%AF-%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1

کلیه حقوق مادی و معنوی برای پایگاه اطلاع رسانی و خبری جماران محفوظ است. استفاده از مطالب سایت با ذکر منبع بلامانع است.

The meaning of this text is that all material and intellectual rights of this site are reserved for Jamaran news and information base. The use of the site's content is allowed by mentioning the source. And the reason I changed the source to 1 is because it has a source and that source is linked to the site. Please remove the delete tag Nmhnhg (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That isn't the CC by 4.0 licence that you included. In addition this declaration doesn't seem to meet all the criteria needed for a free licence (Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses). "use" here gives no assurances that Commercial use is allowed or perpetual and non-revocable as is required. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is written on the site itself that if you declare the source, there is no problem using the content in any way, if there was a problem, the method of use would be mentioned in the same article. Nmhnhg (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nmhnhg Is their license clear about whether modifications to the image are allowed? Does it permit commercial use? Without clarity on these points, I believe this file shouldn't be on Commons until we receive confirmation. – Anwon (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The image is not owned by the above-mentioned website, but rather by Hezbollah's war media channel on Telegram. أحمد 04 (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that that's the case, perhaps you could point out where Hezbollah have released said photo under a free licence, as is required on commons, because I'm not seeing it in your link. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the image is not free. أحمد 04 (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1945-08-29 CanadianFilmWeekly p2 CiC-ad-72dpi.jpg

The date of death of the author is unknown, it cannot be confirmed that the file is in the public domain. Astrinko (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to US federal copyright law, fair use includes the use of a photo for educational purposes, research, criticism, comment and news reporting. One factor in determining fair use is whether it is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit purposes. In this instance I have uploaded it for inclusion on a forthcoming Wikipedia page detailing the life of the author of the original novel behind "Christmas in Connecticut", so its use is both educational and not for profit. Fearless6 (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also safe to assume from published photos the author is now either dead or over 120 years old. Fearless6 (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FAIRUSE does not exist on Commons, whose COM:Licensing terms require commercial use to be acceptable under copyright laws. en.wikipedia and some of the other Wikipedias do allow fair use under specified conditions. However, was publicity for American films ever copyrighted, when that required registration? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use files should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, as fair use files are still under copyright protection. Wikimedia Commons cannot accept copyrighted content unless the copyright owner allows the file to be freely re-shared. Astrinko (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:غلاف كتاب علم وظائف الأعضاء.jpg

لا يوجد ترخيص Rami mohamad (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hokkaido-Air-System-Logo.jpg

tsurumaru logo is copyrighted John123521 (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schauspiel Köln 259.jpg

copyright violation, no permission for the contemporary portraits, no freedom of panorama Martin Sg. (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The portraits might fall under den minimis. But not sure about the interior of the building. It might be below the threshold of originality maybe? Nakonana (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JAL Infotec Logo.jpg

tsurumaru logo is copyrighted John123521 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:March 2, 2012 Henryville, Indiana Tornado.jpg

This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.

Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).

In the absence of an explicit and proximate copyright statement, the only way we can know with any certainty whether an image supplied to the NWS by a third party is free or not is to approach its creator and ask. (And the answer has been "no" in almost every case, as documented here).

Unfortunately, the context in which the NWS published this image (and any attributions) have not been archived. The uploader to the Commons did note the source as TV station WDRB.

I have reached out to WDRB who have identified this as a viewer-submitted image to which they do not own the rights and cannot comment on its licensing. I have forwarded this response to the VRT (ticket:2024092010006931)

the NWS has no record of where they obtained this image, and have published it as "photographer unknown"[1]

Because neither we, nor WDRB, can verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.

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

Rlandmann (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Rlandmann Updating to

Neutral per below. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. @Rlandmann: Don’t that look like a lot like this CC-BY licensed video? Looks like it was at the same location and probably the same person who took it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t know who the author is; all I have figured out is that the video (which appears to be the same person who presumably took the picture) is this YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/predatorylizard Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; it doesn’t look quite like it. Ignore my strike out and my ping. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, very clearly not a screenshot from that video. The fence isn't the same, the landmarks aren't the same, and this image appears to have been natively portrait-mode, not cropped from that landscape-mode video. And that's before we talk about colour and focus. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that this also looks familiar to a video that the NWS labeled “not for rebroadcast” Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link for that one please? --Rlandmann (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: ~~Did you mean to close this?~~ Ixfd64 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ovaltine Cup - Little Orphan Annie and her dog Sandy.jpg

copyrighed image Mateus2019 (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image was uploaded by user:Nash Gordon. I watched him take the picture of the cup shortly before he uploaded it. He inherited the cup from his parents. He selected a license for it, so it's not public domain, but should be fine for Wikipedia. --Anne Delong (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JackBMT.png

This file was initially tagged by Neko hehe as no permission (No permission since). User mass tagged files. Video is no longer on YouTube it seems. MGA73 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it tagged confirmed the license 4 years ago. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montserrat - World Cup 1994 (4384654445).jpg

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Montserrat the country follows the laws of the United Kingdom and modern stamps of Britain are copyrighted until 70 years after the publication date. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jugadores argentinos festejan ser campeones de Qatar 20222.png

Repeated image: it should be replaced by File:Argentina 3-3 Francia - Copa Mundial 2022 - Celebración de victoria.jpg Basenji1908 (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'Union des producteurs agricoles - Logo.png

This is the former logo from 2014 of the "Union des producteurs agricoles" organisation with "pouvoir nourrir, pouvoir grandir" tag line. The new one (2024) is already uploaded and connected to the wikipedia page of the organisation. As it is a minor change, we don't need to keep the 2014 version. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:L%27Union_des_producteurs_agricoles.png Montesburdigalensis (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons doesn't delete history. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]