Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/03

2 September 2024

4 September 2024

Deletion requests on 3 September 2024

September 3

File:ДАЖО 1-77-14. 1871. Метричні книги православних церков Новоград-Волинського повіту.pdf

Замінений файлом вищої якості: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%94%D0%90%D0%96%D0%9E_1-77-14._1871._%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%96_%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8_%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4-%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%82%D1%83.pdf Alexandrtovmach (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no reason to delete the old version Andre🚐 19:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yertysbayev E.K. Predsedatel.jpg

Non-free image Malik Nursultan B (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kuchmin yar, Kiyev, Ukraine - panoramio (89).jpg

No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be copyrightable in this image? The billboard could be blurred if it doesn't fall under de minis. The buildings are mostly de minimis, and, in border line de minimis cases, utilitarian. Nakonana (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Lisa Marie Thalhammer

No FoP for 2D works in the United States of America

A1Cafel (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stefan Martin, Artist, Printmaker - Press photo Oct 24,1973.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: "Uploaded a work by Press Photo, Trenton Times, NJ from Historic Images, Oct. 12-1973 Vintage Photo with UploadWizard". Pre-1978 US photo, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have several of Press Photo, including the backs, they never copyrighted their publicity photos. --RAN (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Postal covers of Ukraine

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine postage stamps of the Ukraine are in the public domain due to being state symbols of payment. There's zero evidence that it would extend to random artwork on a postal cover just because it has a stamp on it though. Postal covers clearly aren't "laws, decrees, resolutions, court awards, State standards, etc." and that's assume they were even created by the Ukrainian government to begin with. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

знаки поштової оплати (далі - ЗПО) - поштові марки, марковані конверти та картки, які випускає національний оператор поштового зв’язку (далі - національний оператор) та які є засобами оплати послуг поштового зв’язку.--『Shiro Neko』^Обг. 07:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of what the law says. I'm not nominating these images for deletion because of the stamps though and these aren't "marked envelopes" either. Their just envelopes that someone put a stamp on. So there's absolutely no reason what-so-ever the artwork on them would be PD. You can't just put Ukrainian stamp on whatever you want and then claim it's PD because the stamp is. That's not how the law works. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this not (File:Konvert-pidkamin.jpg, File:Stamp of Ukraine ua180cvs Cover.jpg, File:Музей Седова 165.JPG) stamped envelope? And — File:345Колекція конвертів України № 2.jpg (Львівська & Покровська stamped envelope, Куліш та Куїнджі - PD-old); File:345Колекція конвертів України.jpg all stamped envelope [1], except Їжакевич [2] maybe PD-Ukraine)) 『Shiro Neko』^Обг. 14:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Worcester Skyline seen from Union Station Parking Garage Garage.jpg

This is a pixel shifted image, and has some artifacts from subject movement that I did not notice when uploading (see the rainbow streak from a moving car and pedestrian on the street on the left, or the artifacted flags on the center-right). This may be useful as an image to demonstrate flaws with pixel shift photography though, and I can provide a non-pixel-shifted version of this image as a comparison if that is worthwhile. 4300streetcar (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A non-pixel shifted image is now here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worcester_Skyline_seen_from_Union_Station_Parking_Garage_No_Pixel_Shift.jpg

If I format it as a comparison, I can do it similar to the other pixel-shifted image I uploaded which had similar issues here, where I point out the specific defects and give a non-pixel shifted reference here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worcester_Union_Station_seen_from_Union_Station_Parking_Garage_Garage.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worcester_Union_Station_seen_from_Union_Station_Parking_Garage_No_Pixel_Shift.jpg

I can eventually update the Wikipedia article on pixel shift photography to note defects that can occur, which it currently does not discuss - there are likely several credible sources on this type of defect that can be cited. 4300streetcar (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it and providing the contrast seems useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Fischer Representative MN 43A.jpg

Image is copyright of the Minnesota House of Representatives Public Information Services. See photo policy here: https://www.house.mn.gov/hinfo/photo_use.htm Petermgrund (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greene022412-0839av.jpg

Image is copyright of the Minnesota House of Representatives Public Information Services. Image is a part of this series on leg.mn.gov (https://www.house.mn.gov/sessionweekly/image.asp?ls_year=87&issueid_=&storyid=3136&year_=2012&imagenum=1). See photo policy here: https://www.house.mn.gov/hinfo/photo_use.htm Petermgrund (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Opium by YSL.jpg

Image subject is an arrangement of copyrighted packaging. The use of the packaging is significanly greater than de minimis, as the packaging is the central focus of the photograph. The image needs to be deleted as a derivative work of non-free copyrighted packaging. BorgQueen (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JoycePeppin.jpg

Image is copyright of the Minnesota House of Representatives Public Information Services. See photo policy here: https://www.house.mn.gov/hinfo/photo_use.htm Petermgrund (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ron Erhardt Official Photo Minnesota House of Representatives.jpg

Image is copyright of the Minnesota House of Representatives Public Information Services. See photo policy here: https://www.house.mn.gov/hinfo/photo_use.htm Petermgrund (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lisa Demuth.jpg

Image is copyright of the Minnesota House of Representatives Public Information Services. See photo policy here: https://www.house.mn.gov/hinfo/photo_use.htm Petermgrund (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hector Pedone.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Wdwd as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G8
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as image is from 1974 and therefore might be PD-Argentina. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg

This file was initially tagged by WeatherWriter as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Per the NWS Public Domain template, Thus, all images on NWS servers are public domain (including "Courtesy of ..." and “Photo by ...” images) unless specifically stated otherwise through a copyright watermark. This specifically has a watermark on the image, therefore it is not in the public domain and is copyrighted. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is more complex than that. The image is watermarked with attribution information only, and I would say that that is not enough to claim copyright given the plain language of the disclaimer at [3] (notwithstanding the template). But that disclaimer seems to only apply to the Sioux Falls, SD office (see URL and header). The correct disclaimer is [4], and provides that "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise", but I don't see anything telling the uploaders that they are dedicating the image to the public domain... —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is assumed through the upload process. In the first disclaimer link you sent: “By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain.” All the NWS offices speak for the NWS, as they are just location-based offices. Here was a previous discussion involving NWS webpage copyrighted images: [5]. The reason that image was deleted was due to it having a copyright watermark. It is rare to have a “unless specifically noted otherwise” instance on NWS webpages. this one for 1979 tornadoes is a rare exception. But looking at this web page for some 2014 tornadoes (deletion example from above), some of the images have a watermark. Some do not. NWS allows copyrighted and public domain images to be submitted. Any image with a watermark (or the rare “noted otherwise cases”) are not public domain, while any images without a watermark are considered public domain. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mdaniels5757 — You may be right. Hopefully this get’s closed soon so a verdict for these type of images. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with keeping this photo. It came directly from NWS Wichita event page, so its public domain. ChessEric (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: An attribution watermark is not an explicit claim of copyright, and per the NWS T&C, it can be reasonably assumed that the photographer understood that his work was going to become PD. —holly {chat} 00:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg

This photograph was taken by Mike Umscheid in the United States in 2022. His website is currently under maintenance (scheduled to complete on August 30), but up to very recently, this image was published there and offered for sale.

Umscheid is or was an employee of NWS Dodge City,[6] but there is no claim that he took this photo while performing his official duties, and the fact that he offers the image for sale suggests that he was taking photos on his own time. There is no reason to think that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

This image was originally uploaded to the Commons under a CC-0 tag, although there was no evidence that this ever applied to this image. Another user then re-tagged it to keep under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The photo was published by the Wichita office).

The image has already been through one DR, with the closing admin concluding that "it can be reasonably assumed that the photographer understood that his work was going to become PD"

Since then, we've learned that:

the idea that the NWS labels copyright-protected images with an explicit copyright notice is almost never true A20
the terms and conditions that place some public submissions to the Sioux City office are only one of many such conflicting terms and conditions scattered around weather.gov A3
NWS offices solicit images that they can use by permission of the photographer. eg

Without clearer evidence that Umscheid intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep — Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the NWS webpage with this image, "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose...The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." On the Commons, the NWS disclaimer may be enough to keep the file. A recently closed deletion request for a file under the PD-NWS template was closed as keep with the main keep rational being the NWS general disclaimer. Public domain images can be used for any purpose and may be used commercially for profit, so arguments about it being sold are not valid in my view. Based on the NWS disclaimer, the recently closed DR, and the previous DR for this image, I believe it should be kept. WeatherWriter (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And @WeatherWriter, they renominated the file. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it’s being sold for a minimum of $50 (USD) is an even bigger indicator of its unfree status. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a week now with no one except myself commenting: I am going to ping some more people into this discussion; to hopefully get a better consensus. Pinging all or most people who have participated in these deletion requests. @Sir MemeGod @Ks0stm @Hurricanehink @Consigned @Berchanhimez @ChessEric @Jmabel @Yann Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Offering an image for sale is not evidence of unfree status. Alamy and Getty do this all the time, when they think they can get away with it. Also, I know a photographer (contractor, not government employee) who does government projects where he signs papers putting the photos in the public domain, but that doesn't mean he won't gladly making money selling excellent prints of his work, including signed prints.

@Hurricane Clyde: is that selling about physical copies (in which case I really think it isn't evidence at all) or about rights to use the image online (in which case it might be weak evidence, per my remark about Alamy and Getty)? - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s physical copies. But you’d think it would be less than $50. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like @Jmabel said, selling photos is not evidence that it is unfree. For evidence opposite that idea, we have to turn to Commons:Deletion requests/File:A tornado funnel is shown moving through Xenia.jpg, where the AP is falsely claiming copyright over a free-to-use (CC 2.0 or PD) image and they are selling said free-to-use photograph. The big kicker is that the AP also have the wrong creation date for this photograph, which they are selling. Part of the PD (and/or Commons's allowed CC licenses) is that the photos can be used for whatever purposes you desire (if CC, as long as attribution is given). That includes reselling them for a profit. So the selling of photographs is not evidence whatsoever of a photo's copyright status, as clearly seen with the AP's fake claim on the 1974 Xenia tornado's photograph. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the creation date is right; the anomaly is easily demonstatably due to automated timezone conversions. I'll come back to that one in due course.

What the two cases do have in common is that whoever wants to keep either of these images has been unable to furnish any evidence that the copyright owner ever gave up their rights. In the case of the Xenia image, the folks who want to keep it can't even show whether it's PD or CC-BY... But anyway, that's another story. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter; I am well aware of what copy fraud is. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just offering an explanation that when I've noted images for sale in DRs, I'm not saying this is proof against release into the PD, but when it's a pro or semi-pro photographer's image, to my mind it's strongly suggestive that the photographer had/has commercial interest in the image and is prima facie less likely to have agreed to give the image away. I think this is substantially different from a case where a photographer is working under a government contract in the first place.

Anyway, the outreach to photographers continues, but a couple of recent angry replies tends to confirm my hunch. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have asked this person on X about whether the image is copyrighted. I will give my answer once he replies. ChessEric (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The conversation above about whether image distributors such as Getty only sell copyrighted images or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether this image has sufficient proof of it's public domain (or freely licensed) status, which has not been given. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And we all know how heated those discussions can get. @Rlandmann was cussed out in one email over an NWS copyright question. That image got speedily deleted. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astrid Tiits.jpg

Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Correct license is "PD-EU-no author disclosure" --RAN (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1974 Richmond, Kentucky, tornado.png

Until yesterday, this photo was one of three published at https://www.weather.gov/lmk/april31974_in_the_path with the caption "These photos were taken from Commonwealth Hall on the campus of Eastern Kentucky University. The tornado was about nine miles away from the photographer."

As a photo taken in the United States before 1989, its copyright status will depend on when it was first published and whether copyright was ever registered.

I emailed the NWS Louisville office to ask if they had any more information about where it came from.

They do not know who took the photo, or where it was first published. They do know that one of the photos from the set was published in the Richmond Register in 1988, but was attributed "file photo". They have reached out to the Register and to the person who sent them the photos (who might or might not be the original photographer) to see if they can find out more for me.

Because they are unsure whether they are publishing the file with the permission of the copyright holder (if any), they have chosen to take it and the two similar photos down from their website. As of today, they no longer appear on the NWS Louisville site.

This image was uploaded to Commons under rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The photo was published by the Louisville office).

In this specific case, the NWS is not even sure that they were publishing the image with appropriate permissions, and since we got it from them, we certainly can't be sure that this is in the public domain.

Without clearer evidence that this photograph is free of copyright or available under a free license, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uhh Strong Delete – per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss Saubersdorf Kapelle.jpg

double exists 80.64.141.163 08:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Benita1337 (talk · contribs)

Bogus PD license

Gbawden (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Gbawden,

vielen Dank für den Hinweis bezüglich der Lizenz-Angabe.

Ich habe mit der Stadt Kaiserslautern sowie dem Stadtarchiv geklärt, dass die Dokumente unter Nennung des Namens hochgeladen werden dürfen. Mir wurde gesagt, dass die Broschüren und Flyer nicht geschützt sind da es öffentliche Dinge waren die man sich damals mitnehmen durfte.

Was genau müsste ich nun in der Beschreibung der Datei ändern damit diese nicht gelöscht wird?

Beste Grüße

Benita Benita1337 (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benita1337: Gbawden kann vermutlich nicht oder nur wenig Deutsch, ich übernehme das mal. Mir scheint, Stadtarchiv und -verwaltung in Kaiserslautern haben wenig Ahnung vom Urheberrecht. Das ist nicht überraschend, generell besteht da große Ahnungslosigkeit. Auch "öffentliche Dinge, die man sich mitnehmen darf" sind nach den allgemeinen Regeln des Urheberrechts geschützt. Da Wikimedia Commons nur freie Medien will, bräuchten wir hier eine schriftliche (E-Mail) Genehmigung der jeweiligen Urheber der verwendeten Fotos, Zeichnungen und auch der Texte, wenn die ein Mindestmaß an Kreativität überschreiten. Alternativ auch eine Genehmigung von jemandem, der über vollumfängliche Nutzungsrechte verfügt, das war vielleicht im vorliegenden Fall die Stadt. Details zum Genehmigungs-Verfahren siehe COM:VRT/de. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 08:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Rosenzweig,

vielen Dank für deine Unterstützung. Die Verwaltung in Kaiserslautern wird sich etwas überlegen; entweder wird eine schriftliche Genehmigung erteilt oder eine Lizenz angegeben.

Die von mir hochgeladenen Dateien können also erstmal gelöscht werden, sorry für den Mehraufwand.

Beste Grüße

Benita Benita1337 (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Voidz - Like All Before You.png

Cited source only says that the band credited the artist who created the album’s artwork (@dolorsilentium). Many fans were quick to call out the fact that the artist is an AI artist, which by itself is not enough for Commons to declare that this image is unambiguously the work of a computer algorithm or artificial intelligence and does not contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim and therefore public domain.

Even if the fans are right and the artist always uses AI in their work, this particular image may be a combination of AI and human authorship, for all we know. Belbury (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from the same source: After much criticism, Julian Casablancas responds to fans disappointed by The Voidz’s AI-made artwork for their new album, 'Like All Before You.'

From Casablancas:"the [man-made] artist wanted to charge $150,000. What is this 1988? we def didn’t go out of our way to use Ai art … I just objectively – in the wilderness of art out there – liked the image and we were working with several ideas and just all objectively collectively liked it best … also it’s an Ai artist who does cool airbrush anime stuff, we didn’t just type something in… cover art @dolorsilentium. Sorry to The Scared Of News Tools tribe, truly, sorry. But art plops up, best idea/image/noise/ in the end should win … and i’m not endorsing” Ai, i don’t DWELL ON IT, but it’s part of culture now … Relax, it’s iphone”.

There was a human idea for the album cover, the design was input into the tool (like in any AI created image)—which contradicts what Julian said above about not only typing what they wanted—and the AI tool created the final result. Ideas are not copyrightable in the United States, where Casablancas is from. Tbhotch™ 09:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are contradictory views of how the image might have been created, Commons cannot rule that it does not contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. --Belbury (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I can't find anything in that post or elsewhere which makes it clear whether this person is just playing with prompts or manipulating the images, too. They certainly don't look manipulated beyond crops, but that doesn't mean much. There's not much I can find about the artist's process out there. He uses stable diffusion, and I think I'm ok concluding this is just someone who's found a way to produce a certain kind of aesthetics and decided to make it his thing. That's well and good, but I think we need more evidence that there's anything beyond prompt engineering here, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gono Odhikar Parishad (GOP) registration 2024.webm

Error convert and not play. So delete for re upload — Delwar • 08:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20190916 213223 (2) viator a.jpg

out of scope - private file without usage Xgeorg (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Weimar Republic Notgeld of Oldenburg (Oldb)

These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of de:Ernst Rudolf Vogenauer, who died in 1969. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2040.

Rosenzweig τ 08:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ballbingen Reunion III lineups.png

Out of scope - unused file, questionable sports event Xgeorg (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Supercell hail core near Stratford, Texas on May 18, 2023.jpg

Too perfect image with enhanced color and sharp edges between the clouds and the surface view. Seems to me a composition of two images. Pierre cb (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: DR was withdrawn by nominator. --Rosenzweig τ 08:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Supercell hail core near Stratford, Texas on May 18, 2023.jpg

This photograph was taken by Kyle Cutler in the United States in 2023. He published it on his X feed,[7] and in the comments that follow, we can see the license terms that he agreed to with the NWS:

@NWSAmarillo: Awesome photo! Do you mind if we use this in a web story?

@K_CuT_Wx: Thank you! Yes you can share in a web story :)

@NWSAmarillo: Awesome, thank you!

This is a rare case where we can see exactly what the photographer agreed to, and it wasn't putting the image in the public domain.

This image was uploaded to Commons on the basis that it was the work of a US federal government employee performing their duties, but no evidence was provided for this. There is no claim that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

The uploader later revised the rationale to keep the image under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use. And, of course, in this instance we can see that the photographer merely gave the NWS permission to use the image, and he is simply credited "Credit: Spike Davis".
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The photo was published by the Amarillo office).

Without clearer evidence that Cutler intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Creator posted on X that they were happy to see it in the public domain on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, which included a screenshot of it saying it was PD. WeatherWriter (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the part where they said anything about the public domain, so I've messaged them to verify. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second image they posted was a screenshot of the Wikipedia layout, which does say “public domain” at the bottom. That seems like an acknowledgment to me. WeatherWriter (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bunch of assumptions there, which still don't stack up to evidence of permission. Let's see what they say. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madeleinezillhardt-obras1.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Yann as no license (No license since) The works of art are in the public domain, but the picture looks recent. Yann (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:June 15, 1990 Nebraska F4 Tornado by Calvin Brown.jpg

This image has been sourced from a 1990 issue of the NOAA publication Storm Data

Per the source, it is credited to Calvin Brown. There is no claim that he was acting as an employee of the US federal government, so as a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright in this image existed as soon as it was created, belonging to him.

This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and was published by the NOAA in a print publication to which the Sioux City office image submission guidelines do not appear to apply. Rlandmann (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Kodela Siva Prasad Rao.jpg

Claimed as self-work, but there is no EXIF data nor resolution data to back up that claim. Upload from a newly registered user (not that I have anything against) with not much of a history of good uploads and thus an understanding of our policies, probably a re-upload of [8] or [9] -- DaxServer (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a new user, I may not have a long history of uploads yet. But how can you nominate it for deletion with such a reason. 1WikiCont (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No clue that can be used to verify own work. If it really is please send permission at VRT. And upload a new version with metadata. ShaanSengupta^Talk 03:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Madeleine Zillhardt

The works of art are in the public domain, but we need the photographer's permission.

Yann (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like the 3 photos shouldn't be on Commons as per their website. https://www.museeairespace.fr/credits/ Sorry Charc2018 (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Conchi Sánchez.jpg

Picture from around 1980, no evidence that the license is valid. Yann (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source is an online newspaper and it has no CC-BY license [10]. Also, the image is still copyrighted in the US due to URAA (Spain has 25 years protection for simple photographs). Günther Frager (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Supercell with an EF3 tornado on June 23, 2023.jpg

This photograph was taken by Jake Thompson in the United States in 2023. He published it on his X feed,[11] and in the comments that follow, we can see the license terms that he agreed to with the NWS:

@NWSPueblo: Hey Jake, would we have permission to use this photo for write ups, spotter talks, and other educational purposes with credit to you?

@ChaserJake94: Yes, of course!

@NWSPueblo: Thank you so much!

This is a rare case where we can see exactly what the photographer agreed to, and it wasn't putting the image in the public domain. It doesn't even give the NWS permission to use it for all purposes.

This image was uploaded to Commons on the basis that it was the work of a US federal government employee performing their duties, but no evidence was provided for this. There is no claim that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

The uploader later revised the rationale to keep the image under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The photo was published by the Pueblo office).

Without clearer evidence that Thompson intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep — Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the webpage, "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose...The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." On the Commons, the NWS disclaimer may be enough to keep the file. A recently closed deletion request for a file under the PD-NWS template was closed as keep with the main keep rational being the NWS general disclaimer. Public domain images can be used for any purpose and may be used commercially for profit, so arguments about it being sold are not valid in my view. Based on the NWS disclaimer and the recently closed DR I believe it should be kept. WeatherWriter (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least a local copy can be kept on En Wiki under fair use with credit to the author given that the author gave permission for "educational purposes". The permission might even go beyond just fair use, but would still not be compatible with Commons. Nakonana (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that with practically any of the images under consideration here, en:Wikipedia could use the images under "fair use"; however just noting that the photographer agreeing that NWS's Pueblo office (and maybe the NWS more generally) could use the photo this way does not mean that they are licensing anybody else to use it the same way. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr Mario logo.png

Above threshold of originality with some 3D elements in pixels. The way of Changpian (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:B XI B 18.23 001.jpg

perchè il titolo è errato e andrà modificato anche il file, da caricare in formato pdf IlariaCatanzaro (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Condivido la richiesta di cancellazione. Il documento sarà sostituito integralmente Lanfrancotti Ermindo (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Holy-DYVR (talk · contribs)

COM:PACKAGING with prominent artwork.

Belbury (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twin tornadoes in Illinois on July 12, 2023.jpg

This photograph was taken by Bob Waszak in the United States in 2023. He published it on his X feed,[12] and in the comments that follow, we can see the license terms that he agreed to with the NWS:

@NWSChicago: Hi Bob! Thanks for the reports and photos. Would we be able to feature this image on a post-event webpage with appropriate attribution? Thanks!

@nilwxreports: absolutely, everything is free for you to use. Thanks!

This is a rare case where we can see exactly what the photographer agreed to, and it wasn't putting the image in the public domain.

This image was uploaded to Commons on the basis that it was the work of a US federal government employee performing their duties, but no evidence was provided for this. There is no claim that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as it was made.

The uploader later revised the rationale to keep the image under the rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The photo was published by the Chicago office).

Without clearer evidence that Waszak intended to place this photo in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The image is found on this webpage of the National Weather Service.

Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the webpage, "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose...The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public."
On the Commons, the NWS disclaimer may be enough to keep the file. A recently closed deletion request for a file under the PD-NWS template was closed as keep with the main keep rational being the NWS general disclaimer.
In addition to the disclaimer, the bottom of the NWS webpage also states, “ Media use of NWS Web News Stories is encouraged! Please acknowledge the NWS as the source of any news information accessed from this site.”

Based on the NWS disclaimers and the recently closed DR I believe it should be kept. WeatherWriter (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo Capitol by User:Patrickroque01 (talk · contribs)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Iloilo Prov Capitol.JPG, same reason. Local copies of images now restored (see this local undeletion request). These were apparently transferred to Commons by Merd123 (talk · contribs) (this and this) without thorough review of both the authorship and date of the architectural work and of the current status/version of the Philippine copyright law (which does not permit Freedom of Panorama or commercial exploitations of public art and architecture of the Philippines still under their designers' copyrights or posthumous copyrights). These can be undeleted if ever the Philippine legislature introduces FoP provision.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Thomas Cornelus Mister France.jpg

This picture is from a private source Danhay34 (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on Tineye and Google Lens doesn't reveal any usage before our upload here. We need more of an explanation than a single sentence claiming this is from a "private source." From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per From Hill to Shore. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Cornelus Mister France.jpg

The public release of this photo is disputed by the subject (ticket on info-fr file #2024042410010187). The file is used nowhere in Wikimedia project => useless for us JohnNewton8 (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your second sentence is not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Human penis scrotum.jpg

Duplicated file EvinasEvii (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Jodel

Possibly above COM:TOO Germany.

Jonteemil (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galaxy Racer GXR.png

Possibly above COM:TOO United Arab Emirates which doesn't exist. Jonteemil (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Project 540x.webp

user is promoting masks (see other upload) and this is "original research" I think. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isabel-Perello.jpg

The user is not the author of the image nor does the image have free copyright TheRichic (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Järvakas12 (talk · contribs)

File:Sten-võrk.png is not own work. I suspect that the other file is also not own work. Deletion per COM:PCP

Estopedist1 (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Aarepilv (talk · contribs)

Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed.

Estopedist1 (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Aarepilv (talk · contribs)

book covers. VRT-permission from the creator (illustrator) or rights holder is needed.

Estopedist1 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isay-hermann-exlibris.jpg

There is not enough information here to determine the copyright status of this drawing. We're not given a year in which the drawing was created. There is a named artist, Elly (or Emy?) Plehwe (apparently a woman), but we don't know when she died, and I couldn't find anything about her. The only way we could keep the image is if we knew that the image was at least 120 years old (for {{PD-old-assumed}}), but we don't know that either, and since this is an exlibris drawing for a man who lived 1873–1938, there is a very good chance that the drawing is not old enough. The file should therefore be deleted unless the drawing is convincingly shown to be in the public domain (in both Germany and the US) or at least 120 years old. Rosenzweig τ 13:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found an ex libris author for Hermann Isay but the name doesn't match. The author would be Maria Ressel (1877-1945). See https://www.exlibris.or.at/?page_id=435 (where an ex libris for Hermann Isay is listed among her works, but unfortunately there's no image of it). More on Ressel: https://www.exlibris.or.at/?page_id=432. Not sure whether this is enough to link the two, but Isay sounds like a rather unusual name, so how are the chances to have two Hermann Isays in the German speaking area around the same time frame who both have an ex libris? The ex libris is approximately dated to 1928 according to https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&cqlMode=true&query=nid%3D1163040487 and to https://explore.gnd.network/gnd/1163040487 Nakonana (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your research. The 1928 date means it would be in the public domain in the United States. It does not help with German copyright though, where works are protected for 70 years after the death of the artist. The exlibris for Isay you found on the page about Maria Ressel is listed as an Entwurf (draft), which suggests that Isay did not use it. Also, according to the images there, Maria Ressel signed her works as RESSEL, M. Ressel or M. R. The signature we have here does not come even remotely close to those, instead it obviously says Elly Plehwe or perhaps Emy Plehwe. So I don't think Maria Ressel did the exlibris we have here. And Ressel's exlibris for Hermann Isay being just a draft probably means that it is the same Hermann Isay we're talking about who did not Ressel's exlibris draft, but went with this exlibris from someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 07:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do about the fact that https://explore.gnd.network/gnd/1163040487 — which appears to be linked to the archive that catalogued that exlibris in the first place — is listing Hermann Isay himself as the "Urheber" (i.e.author of the exlibris)? Nakonana (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. That other sites have peculiar notions about what and who exactly an author is does not affect us. Isay probably commissioned the drawing, he may have acquired exclusive usage rights, and any heirs of his might even have inherited them. But all that did not make him the author, and the copyright term (the duration) is tied to the person of the author. --Rosenzweig τ 13:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SKIN THE PEELER.jpg

1994 photo, not 2024 own work, needs VRT to keep Gbawden (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to your deletion request. I am in the process of writing an article regarding the musical band Skin the Peeler, which were current in the 80's and 90's. (at present the article is in the Sandbox stage) I am the owner of this image which was taken in 1994. It is part of my collection. Ceri Aber (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you follow the process at COM:VRT Gbawden (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raffaella Carrà 2.jpg

The uploader did not provide any date of production and on itwiki this photo is dated 1980s. Images created after 1976 or published after 1978 are PD in Italy but not in the US as per URAA restoration. Arrow303 (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michiru Yamane at house.jpg

No real proof of free-use given. The image is taken from her YouTube account. Dissident93 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr Mohammad Esfahni (56).jpg

Check Lens (ver su propia página de internet) pf. 200.39.139.7 15:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{self|cc-zero}} Moh14 (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amen break notation.svg

This file was initially tagged by MIDI as fair use and the most recent rationale was: Transcription of a copyrighted composition. Propose re-upload to appropriate projects with (for example) Wikipedia:Template:Non-free sheet music Quick1984 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by ArthurHabirov (talk · contribs)

COM:SPAM, self promotional images; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:منتزه مدينة المحمدية - Mohammedia City Park.jpg

Watermark, You have uploaded a correct copy. Mounir Neddi (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Memorial plaque mentioning return of Swami Vivekananda at Old Budge Budge railway station.jpg

The text could be copyrighted. Sreejith K (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like the text is in Bangla and this is a rough translation as per Google. Pujyapad Swami Vivekananda, the returnee of the Chicago Dharma Conference, set out for Calcutta on February 19, 1897, from Bajabaj railway station. In his memory in the presence of Shri Hrishikesh Banerjee, General Manager of Eastern Railway. Swami Lokeswarananda, Vice-Chancellor, Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture Golpark, Calcutta. laid the foundation stone of this memorial. Established by the Vivekananda Memorial Committee at the initiative of Shri Ganesh Ghosh Vice Chairman, Bajaj Municipality. 19th February 1986 --Sreejith K (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ZU Abu Dhabi Campus.jpeg

No FoP in UAE, structure in the centre of the image built after 1993. Abzeronow (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom presidential portrait.jpg

None of the criteria in the stated licence seem to apply Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TR06 Sektion in Lathen.jpg

Das Foto hätte nicht veröffentlicht werden dürfen, da der TR06 auf einem nicht für die Öffentlichkeit zugänglichen Bereich eingelagert wurde. Das Bild gibt Anreiz dieses Fahrzeug aufzusuchen und die Vergangenheit hat gezeigt, dass dadurch das Fahrzeug nur noch weiter beschädigt wird. Dhanutar (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ist es ein ausreichender Löschgrund, das Fahrzeug vor weiterem Aufsuchen zu schützen? Zumal es im Artikel Transrapid 06 einen Beleg zu dem Fahrzeug gibt, wonach es mit Foto als eingelagerter TR06 im Emsland abgebildet ist. Eine Abbildung von dem Fahrzeug existiert im Internet und es ist daher kein Geheimnis.

Eine andere Frage ist, ob das Foto in einem nicht öffentlichen Bereich (wenn es denn einer ist) hätte aufgenommen werden dürfen und veröffentlicht werden dürfen. Laut Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache hätte der Fotograf beim Betreten eines nichtöffentlich zugänglichen (Privat-)Grundstücks für die Verwertung die Einwilligung des Eigentümers bzw. Rechteinhabers einholen müssen. Da ist die Frage ob dies zu einer Löschung führt oder ob User:Dhanutar berechtigt ist, die Löschung zu verlangen, weil er z.B Besitzer des Fahrzeugs ist oder Grundstückseigentümer. --AxelHH (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Fahrzeug ist auf einem Grundstück eingelagert, was einer externen Firma gehört. Durch die Bekanntgabe des Standortes auf Google Maps (mittlerweile auch entfernt) wurde das Fahrzeug öfter aufgesucht, es wurde Hausfriedensbruch begangen (da das Gelände nur mit der Genehmigung des Eigentümers betreten werden darf) und dadurch kam es auch häufig zu Vandalismus am Fahrzeug.

Das Fahrzeug ist im Besitz des Vereins und dem liegt es sehr am Herzen, dass dieses Fahrzeug so lange nicht zu sehen ist, bis es wieder in einem präsentablem zustand ist.

Die angegebene Quelle für das eingelagerte Fahrzeug in Lathen kommt von der gleichen Person, wie das hier bemängelte Foto und auch da besteht das gleiche Problem. Dhanutar (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Urheber ist übrigens euer eigener Beauftragter für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit (vgl. https://fv-transrapid.de/ueber-uns/). Und auf Google Maps und Apple Maps ist das Fahrzeug nach wie vor aufzufinden (vgl. https://www.google.com/maps/@52.8667416,7.3357125,18z/data=!3m1!1e3). Ankermast (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dann ist das Bild von einem Berechtigten aufgenommen worden, der bestimmen kann, ob es (in wikipedia) veröffentlicht wird. Ein ähnliches Bild als eingelagerter TR06 im Emsland ist ja im Internet veröffentlicht. --AxelHH (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebensowenig befindet sich die Sektion in eurem Besitz; sie gehört der Gemeinde Lathen. --Ankermast (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berit-Saar.jpg

Person in the picture does not want to have this picture related to her name and kindly asks to delete this picture from Wikipedia database. Eesti.meister (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dein Ziel Unterfuehrer im Betrieb Dein Weg Das Deutsche Leistungsertuechtigungsmerk der DAF.jpg

The author of this work is not unknown as claimed; per his signature, it's German artist de:René Ahrlé. Ahrlé died in 1976, so his works are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2047. Rosenzweig τ 20:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad : I must have missed the signature when uploading. Buidhe (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Extraembryonic tissues during amniote development.jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Rasbak (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In front of the article https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232228093_Diversification_and_conservation_of_the_extraembryonic_tissues_in_mediating_nutrient_uptake_during_amniote_development you will find: License CC-BY 2.5.Rasbak (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]