Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/24

No FoP for 2D works in China A1Cafel (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-PRC-exempt}} should apply here, since 河长 is set up by the PRC government. Njzjz (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per @Njzjz See: Template:PD-PRC-exempt at #2, (Quote): "mere information about facts ...". This mao is simple (geographic) information. The area is owned or controlled by the PRC Government. -- Ooligan (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this is their own work, appears to be Star Wars Clone Wars screenshot: https://clonewars.fandom.com/wiki/Tipoca_City Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JAXA, a Japanese government-affiliated entity, doesn't implement a CC BY-compatible license. JAXA's site policy unequivocally demands prior consent for commercial use of its images. This suggests that the license display is inappropriate and could constitute unauthorized reproduction. [1] テレストレラッソ (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISAS/JAXA has the distinct data policy [2] which allows the data to be distributed under the en:Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use (Version 2.0), where the "data" includes "Digitized documents, photos, pictures, videos, etc., which are created with the aim of long-term and universal use". Unfortunately the ISAS web site policy in Japanese and English seem to have discripancy, and it may be arguable which is applicable. In either way, the Author credit should have been "ISAS/JAXA", not "JAXA". --Fukumoto (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I have checked the "JAXA/ISAS's" license policy and found that there is no need to delete this file, so I have corrected the license statement accordingly. Thank you for pointing it out. テレストレラッソ (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to upload the cropped file as a separate one, I've just missed the button in Crop Tool Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logotype of SPDS NGO, lack of permission Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: AI-generated "painting" of a nonexistent historical figure. (w:es:Isabel Lucy appears to be an AI-generated hoax.) Omphalographer (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused joke logo. Omphalographer (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work. source Heylenny (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe ist nicht Urheber. Passt die angenommene Gemeinfreiheit bei Abzeichen der Weehrmacht? GerritR (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that Amazon.com released this file under a CC0 license. Quasiboost (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Strong agree. No evidence and also almost certainly not released under a free license. --Sceeegt (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - clear copyvio. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template overlaps with {{NoFoP-category}} in its role, so it is considered less necessary. Ox1997cow (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak delete as it gives the following warning not given in {{NoFoP-category}}:

Framing it to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation. Before reusing the content of this category, ensure that you have the right to do so. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights. See our general disclaimer for more information.

I didn't know the existence of {{NoFoP-category}} when I created {{NoFoP-France (category header)}}. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is low resolution and has video subtitles, looks like a screenshot from an unattributed video.--125.230.84.199 07:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had proposed that this image be added to the Istanbul wikipedia page however it is no longer required. Eticangaaa (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good crop, more focused on the subject. Keep 186.173.166.172 00:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Agreed. Could be a useful crop, and "not in use" is not a deletion reason. However, if the closing admin feels like anyone could crop the original if they like and deletes on that basis, I won't be mad or anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work, since there is no EXIF data, the resolution is low, and the metadata contains the string FBMD, which means it is taken from Facebook. Also, there is no evidence there is any connection to the uploader, so a VRTS verification from the copyright holder is really required to keep this photo.--125.230.84.199 08:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because is not actual Pitinauta (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep You mean it's dated, but that's not a deletion reason, and this image is COM:INUSE all over the place. Please never give that as a deletion reason again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legacy logo of Progresus. As it is easily found via Google image search it makes confusions. In the wikipedia article, there is already a correct logo. Dominik Gavor (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not a reason for deletion, we keep historic logos. If necessary rename the file. --Rosenzweig τ 10:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Wdwd as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No permission for shown artwork, no FoP (change SD to regular DR) Wdwd (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the artist of the artwork and permission holder of the photo. I sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Picaroon7 (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Credit: Anna Niemann": VRT permission from Anna Niemann needed. MKFI (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong spelling, should be חטיבת כפיר — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gveret Tered (talk • contribs) 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by MKFI as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:Screenshot of a copyrighted website.

User talk:Pedroafu has claimed that the website is freely available, but https://diesgital.com/ does not have indication of a free license. MKFI (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Captura de pantalla 2024-10-15 a las 11.58.40.png. MKFI (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working in this project for several years and it is free. It is the result of research porject and it is not commercially-driven. Th escreenshot only shows how the dictionary looks like

All the best Pedroafu (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable DeviantArt source. This image is described on DeviantArt as "My 3D rendering of the Space Shuttle SRB, using Blender". But the user's other uploads there are clear copyvios: https://www.deviantart.com/leorkdreeam/art/Endeavor-1096806903 ("My rendering of Space Shuttle Endeavor, using Blender") is a crop of a stock image by Dimazel, and https://www.deviantart.com/leorkdreeam/art/Discovery-1096806656 ("My 3D render of Space Shuttle Discovery, using Blender") is a simple copy of a 2015 stock image by 3DSculptor. Belbury (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is copyrighted by CH3HD (Thailand) who owns the show (CH3HD Copyright policy stated in paragrah 2 (translated) "..Both of the above scenario, for whatever objective including non-profit usage must acquire permission by writing from the authority of the company who related to the intellectual properties.) Minener's (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violation: A copyright statement is in the lower left of the image, and the uploader doesn't seem to be that person. Till (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says own work but looks like not own work. 200.39.139.25 14:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says own work but looks like not own work. 200.39.139.25 14:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, whether it "looks like" it or not, this was an 'own work' image. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this picture is from the 2024 Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame induction ceremony. BeanieFan11 took other pictures of that event as well. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says own work but looks like taken from social media. 200.39.139.25 14:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says own work but looks like cropped from another work. 200.39.139.25 14:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says own work but looks like not own work. 200.39.139.25 14:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Kevin Poo in scope? 200.39.139.25 14:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in the UK, meaning the mural artist and/or the original photographer retain the rights to the underlying work, even when it’s photographed in a public place. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link you have provided states that “[photos of murals] cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder.” Is the CC-BY-2.0 licence not sufficient in this case because I also need the licence from the artist? I would be thankful for the clarification. --  Gzhegozh _talk 15:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gzhegozh In this case, you need a release not only from the mural artist, but also the photographer Michael Spencer Jones, since the art is a fairly faithful reproduction of his photograph. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you   Gzhegozh _talk 16:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not the uploader's own work: this image seems to have been taken from this site Msb (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © SSV Architekten - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph is not a collective work as stated in the description and thus the use of {{PD-France}} is incorrect. The source clearly states that the author is the French photographer Emile Muller (1912-1996) [3]. Thus is is still protected by copyright in its country of origin (70 years pma). We can undelete it in 2067. Günther Frager (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photos do not seem to be taken in Shanghai Disneyland, as the license suggests, but instead Tokyo DisneySea in Japan. Therefore, this fails COM:FOP Japan as a copyrighted 3D work.

• File:Meeting the Mouse in the Land of the Rising Sun - 2.jpg
• File:Meeting the Mouse in the Land of the Rising Sun.jpg

(Oinkers42) (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal 200.39.139.25 15:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft about someone not notable, no Wiki would accept him 200.39.139.25 15:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM: NUDITY, there are already enough and better images of this topic. 200.39.139.23 15:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I do not see any comparable image in the category. --RAN (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep I haven't looked at all the others, but this is a really huge picture, and it's very good at 30%. To the IP user: What are the better high-res images of female buttocks? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per above. Estrellato (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nudity is a natural state and has its place on Wikimedia as it provides educational and referential value to the platform. There are indeed many pictures on in the category but not enough and better is a subjective matter, remember that this platform is objective and factual. NCroatie (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says own work but looks like not own work. 200.39.139.25 16:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal 200.39.139.25 16:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Diego Rodarte in scope? 200.39.139.25 16:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Diego Carrion in scope? 200.39.139.25 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Diego Carrion in scope? 200.39.139.25 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jahresangabe nicht stimmig, geringe Qualität Anton-kurt (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mancato rilascio del logo. LittleWhites (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete /  Speedy delete as explained here, the logo was not released under CC-BY-SA-4.0 by its copyright holder. Should be deleted (even as speedy per COM:NETCOPYVIO) as missing valid license. --Arrow303 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per Adamant1 comment in Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Estrellato#Files_uploaded_by_Estrellato_(talk_·_contribs). Intimate photo demonstrating costume and not wrestling match as direct center of photograph, Indoor photograph with no definitive evidence of eligibility under FOP Mexico. Masks have copyright. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Neutral Flickr license was right so I just forwarded it to Commons. This is not my work and the subject is likely not notable for an article on Wikipedia anyway. I disagree with the motivation for the deletion as per arguments made on Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Estrellato by me and several others, but this picture in particular doesn't really concern me. Estrellato (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

violates copyright Carlo Dominioni (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It's a crop of another image on Commons that's sourced to this Flickr page, which appears valid. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was licensed under a commons license on Flickr. Do you have any reason to suspect license laundering? SecretName101 (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably not own work... Xocolatl (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This work belonge to me. i created it by myself with my real name(femi Abolusoro) Benzeemax01 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. It's a personal file of a non-contributor (aside from deleted inappropriate self-promotion attempts) that is outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong date, probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep dat fixed "PD-EU-no author disclosure" --RAN (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyright violation. The other image of the same subject from the same uploader (File:LanceWilliamsPicture.jpg) is provably a copyvio. This image has poor compression and appears to have been cropped messily, suggesting it is a screenshot and not the uploader's original creation. Should be deleted per COM:PCP IagoQnsi (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Uploader:

This is not a copyright violation; it is my own work from an original given to me by Lance's widow. I cannot figure out how to navigate to the appropriate Wikimedia or Wikipedia release page/information.

I put in a few hours making the image, and it seems Wikipedia expects me to put in a few more hours to figure out their release mechanism. Sorry, after 20 minutes of searching, I gave up.

IagoQnsi seems anxious to prove the image is inappropriate, but "poor compression" and "cropped messily" in no way detract from my claim of ownership. It is, despite IagoQnsi's suggestion, not a screenshot.

Should not be deleted. Anyone aware of Lance's work on mip-mapping should recognize that LanceMipmapped.png is in the form of his original mip-map, making the uploaded image of some historical value.

But unless someone wishes to point me to the appropriate release instructions, I have no more time for this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssier (talk • contribs) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssier: This tool can help you navigate the release process: Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator. We have your permission as the creator of the derivative work, but we would also need permission from the original photographer, whether that be Lance's widow or someone else. I agree that the image is likely of historical value; however, Wikimedia Commons strictly only allows freely-licensed media. There is a process on Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) to allow non-free content in very limited circumstances; you can read about that here: Wikipedia:Non-free content. If no freely-licensed photo of Lance exists, typically Wikipedia would allow for one non-free photo of him to be uploaded there. But currently the photo is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia; we either need explicit permission from the photographer to keep it here on Commons, or we need to delete it from Commons and reupload on Wikipedia to use it as a non-free photo. Please let me know if you need any more help with this process. Best, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will seek permission from Lance's widow. I simply replaced picture that was originally there and I know nothing about Wikipedia "Commons" - nor do I care to learn about it, nor do I wish to "navigate the release process" or learn how to use the Wikimedia VRT release generator. 97.113.178.4 15:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Lance Williams widow, Amber Denker and I give permission for this picture to be used.

Sincerely,

Amber Amberdenker (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:Empow Studios Lexington storefront.jpg P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise, this is an unused black and white version of the coloured photo.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, uncategorized low-resolution photo of non-notable event with no location or educational information in description. Nv8200p (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is (obviously) educational, it's a witch puppet near a black cat, illustrating that specific superstition - as is written in the description, BTW. However, I'm not sure it's compliant with COM:TOYS. Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused promotional images, non-notable event/people, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. And likely not own works: File:Lionzera17team.jpg is an obvious screengrab..

• File:Lionzera17inau.jpg
• File:Lionzera17team.jpg
• File:Lionzeralogo1.jpg
• File:Lionzeralogo.jpg

P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep File:Lionzera17inau.jpg. A clear and authentic photo of someone lighting a kuthuvilakku is educationally useful! I agree that the obvious screengrab makes the rest look suspicious, but it is enough to assume copyvio?

 Delete the rest per nomination. Sinigh (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover. No indication of own work. Thieu1972 (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book covers / film posters are free to use. It's not possible to indicate this when uploading a book cover of film poster. Sonnettist (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they free to use? Does the publisher say so? Is there a licence that is compatible with the license of Commons? Thieu1972 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the purpose of a book cover. Publishers and writers want their book covers to be seen by as most people as possible. It's like a creative commons license. In my book ( https://kleineuil.nl/boeken/basisboek-historische-letterkunde/ ) I used a lot of book covers. It's a cheap way to illustrate. Sonnettist (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On https://www.goodreads.com/ there are a lot of book covers. If it were illegal to use a book cover, there wouldn't be many covers on a site like that. Sonnettist (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most people on the internet just don't care about copyrights. That does not mean that's it OK to use those images.

See here and here. Thieu1972 (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sonnettist (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I forgot to add an ID of a monument which is crucial for competition MareNs93 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the heritage number by editing the page / file description. Nakonana (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MareNs93 I've added the number СК 2232 to for you, assuming this monument is in Serbia. Nakonana (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, yeah it is in Serbia. MareNs93 (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I forgot to add an ID of a monument which is crucial for competition MareNs93 (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I've added the cultural heritage ID СК 2232 @MareNs93. Nakonana (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is Random photo from internet Jobeyub (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Yisel alitane (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Robert Dobson (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading copyright status, seems to be taken from tumblr MaybeitsMir (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:2014ColumbiaMSEF3.jpg
• File:PraderScott Rochelle.jpg
• File:2015MountHopeTornado.jpg
• File:Weather-related traffic collision on the Kansas Turnpike.JPG
• File:Wall cloud near Abingdon, Illinois June 5, 2010.JPG
• File:Dunklin co4.jpg
• File:Tornado in Kansas May 10, 2010.jpg
• File:EF2CarpenterWyomingTornado2017.jpg
• File:El Reno, OK supercell from above 2013-05-31.jpg

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers.

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

• a process used for a time by the NWS Sioux City regional office that placed photos taken by the public into the public domain as a term of submisison applied to all third party images across all of weather.gov
• the wording of the general site disclaimer on weather.gov that says "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" means "noted with a formal copyright notice" (and ignoring the wording later in the disclaimer that goes on to say "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products.")

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that:

• the NWS has had multiple, conflicting processes for public image submissions over the decades, some running concurrently by different regional offices (examples). Some of these processes made release into the public domain a condition of submission, others did not, and some were ambiguous. In practice, we can almost never link a particular image to any particular submission process.
• in every one of several dozen cases investigated, individual photographers and third-party organizations had not released their work into the public domain when they submitted it for the NWS to use, and still asserted their rights over their images.(examples) This indicates that either the site general disclaimer is not intended to be interpreted the way that uploaders to the Commons have interpreted it over the years, or that this interpretation is correct, but that NWS employees have applied notices to images so very inconsistently over the years as to render the disclaimer completely unreliable.

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 obtain permission of the copyright holder. Nevertheless, to expedite this process (and because throughout this review period, the people arguing most strenuously for retention have been remarkably reticent to actually ask photographers about the copyright status of their images), I have approached every one of the creators I have been able to identify.

We do not have any evidence that any of these images are available under a free license and we cannot host them here. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I uploaded the Rochelle tornado photo. I cannot speak to its copyright status: like many others I had assumed it was public domain. I will reach out to the Chicago NWS office to see if they can provide any input on it. On another note, this image is used in a Good Article on EN. If it is deleted on the Commons, could it be uploaded to EN under Fair Use? TornadoLGS (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure; if there are no free images of this tornado out there (and a quick search suggests this is the case), then yes, I would see this as fair use; especially if there are any noteworthy features of the tornado that can be discerned in the image. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of note, I did get a response from NWS Chicago. They actually aren't sure if they had obtained proper permission to use the photograph themselves. The person I communicated with said that they would delete the photo from their own page if they cannot confirm permission. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete the two images where @Rlandmann did receive a response. Neutral for now on the others pending response. Although I will update it to delete if @Rlandmann doesn’t receive a response in a reasonable time. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks @TornadoLGS -- would you mind forwarding that response to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and noting the ticket number in this thread please? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done TornadoLGS (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks @TornadoLGS -- can you add the ticket number here please? --Rlandmann (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's ticket:2024102610000601. You want it in the comments section on the table? TornadoLGS (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rlandmann, I heard back on the Rochelle tornado. They have not heard back from the author of the photo and have removed it from the NWS site. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Rlandmann (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hurricane Clyde -- just noting that I have listed these because I am no longer expecting a response after 6-8 weeks, and I am no longer pursuing them. Up to you how you define a "reasonable time" though, of course. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m going to give it about another week or two before I update to delete. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just in case someone does respond. That’s why I’m neutral for now. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's really generous. I usually take it as a no if I don't get a response in a week or so. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Ixfd64 -- well, I was also waiting for the outcome of the RfC so that it's absolutely certain that the burden of proof here is on the uploaders and those wanting to keep the files. Previously, some folks had literally asserted that the weather.gov general disclaimer was itself evidence of permission (and then studiously avoiding putting their belief to the test). Otherwise, yeah, if there's no response after a week or two, I think it's highly improbable that one's still on its way! --Rlandmann (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems really hard to find good pictures of specific tornadoes, let alone a freely-licensed one. I assume it's because tornadoes only last a relatively short time, and most people who see one are going to be running for their lives. Taking a photo for Wikipedia is going to be the last thing on their minds. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: It's quite difficult to get a response from people these days. I've contacted a dozen or so copyright holders to request a release of rights for non-free files, and most of them have ghosted me as well. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And plus; some of these people might be ghosting you because you are unfamiliar. Admittedly I would probably have ghosted you myself if someone claimed to be “Rlandmann at Wikimedia Commons” in an instant message. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh yes, 100%. I don't blame them, and there's no judgement here. Nor do I blame the folks who stop responding when they see the complex-looking, legally-worded document that is our copyright release. I'm more surprised by the two people from whom I did get a release! And even then, the VRT challenged one because the photo is hosted on weather.gov but the email wasn't coming from a weather.gov address. But we got it through in the end. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why this flag is an "official item legally exempt from copyright in its country of origin" in Canada. None of the Canadian licenses fit. According to the source, this flag was adopted in 2006. ✗plicit 23:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Uploader comment: this was definitely added earlier when I had a less firm grasp on the copyright rules. With that said, I thought I uploaded this to the English wiki, with appropriate fair use rationale but I may be mistaken. Has it been moved to the commons recently? With that said, I'm not opposed to a deletion and wouldn't be surprised if a speedy criteria might be met. Sorry I can't add more, my home wiki is definitely the English wiki, most of my contribs here are (ironically) speedy tags for misplaced items I come across when patrolling the NPP queue. Cheers, Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]