Commons:Deletion requests/2025/04/10

April 10

Files uploaded by Triin Anni (talk · contribs)

I nominated the article on et.wiki for deletion as spam. Once that's deleted, these should be deleted as well.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Article was not deleted, so COM:INUSE applies. However, there might be copyright permission issues here with some files (such as the album cover). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
@Josve05a: Thanks for pointing that out. The author removed the deletion tag and all of the notices, which I've restored. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Der Campanile von Oranienburg, Klein Venedig.jpg

Drawing from 2023 (seen on the image) - artist can not be 70 years dead. No indication of permission from the artist. GodeNehler (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@GodeNehler: The signature reads "Grafe" which resembles the uploader's surname and IMHO corroborates the information given for "source". Do you have reasons to assume that uploader and artist are different individuals? Fl.schmitt (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Gottfried Grafe Zeichner, Maler, Fotograf, Restaurator
Es ist mein eigenes Werk.
Der Kornspeicher ist das höchste Bauwerk von Oraninburg und durch seinen Standtort und der Bauweise ein besonderes Baudenkmal. 2003:CA:5F06:97D8:EC5D:B9DA:92F8:4440 07:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
@Fl.schmitt, no I have no I have no reasons to assume that uploader and artist are different individuals.

File:Richard Kass.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  • What's confusing is that the uploader seems to be using 2 usernames, with Craig Macfadyen in the "Author" slot redirecting to User:Wecklrocz, but that said, this seems plausibly that user's own work. EXIF is provided. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Sean McCormack Photo.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Yeah, I don't believe this one, either. If you're going to put a portrait of a known individual into the public domain, you really need to prove you are the photographer. User:Marmharper needs to email the COM:VRT, and otherwise, I support deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:WDW-11610 The Fairest of them all, Dopey, Snow White, Disney World (NBY 9101).jpg

Walt Disney World opened in 1971, dating the image during or after that year. Therefore, the image is not public domain in the United States. Parksfan1955 (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment It could be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Though Disney character copyrights might have to be considered. --Rosenzweig τ 07:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
 Comment The original source article and the rights section states "No known copyright for Curt Teich postcards printed before 1964", which could possibly refer to a copyright notice. Falling back to ole COM:COSTUME and the character copyright, these older requests related to other Walt Disney World characters are related and the Disney version of Snow White (character in the photo) was released in 1937.
Parksfan1955 (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:LL-Q29401 (asm)-Nayan j Nath-ৱেই টিংটিং.wav

Inappropriate pronunciation Nayan j Nath (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:20181225 152023 December 2018 in Riga.jpg

The monument was completed in 1935 by Kārlis Zāle (1888–1942) and Ernests Štālbergs (1883–1958). There is no freedom of panorama in Latvia. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2029 A1Cafel (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)


Freedom Monument A quote from the Wikipedia article states, "After minor corrections made by the author and supervising architect Ernests Štālbergs, construction began on 18 November 1931." This monument's "author" is listed as Kārlis Zāle in wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2451446, not the architect Štālbergs, who made only "minor corrections." A "Minor correction" is does not create a copyright. -- Ooligan (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Freedom monument (Riga)--A1Cafel (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
As someone who participated in the earlier deletion discussion, I have my doubts as to the validity of the grounds being put forward for the proposed deletion. The monument was built in the 1930s Depression as a national war memorial, and was funded not by the Latvian government directly, but by a public appeal to the global Latvian diaspora, administered through Latvian embassies abroad. While Štālbergs and Zāle won the design competition and deserve moral rights of recognition for their designs, I suspect that the actual copyrights would have been vested in the Latvian government by the terms of the competition. As a necessary part of the fundraising, memorabilia (including postcards, postage stamps, etc. featuring the monument) would have been created and sold, and given the national significance of the monument, I doubt that Štālbergs and Zāle would have been given a cut of the moneys raised as a copyright fee, in addition to the actual prizemoney awarded to them by the competition.
I am currently drafting an email to the Latvian Government's Ministry of Culture, seeking clarification on the copyright status. Bahudhara (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
@Bahudhara Have you received an email response back from the Latvian Government's Ministry of Culture? -- Ooligan (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
I haven't sent it yet - writing an email or hard-copy letter to a government body needs to be done properly to be taken seriously, and to get a response. (It's also likely to take time, especially around the Easter holidays!) I haven't had any response from the Latvian wikipedians I reached out to. However this morning I visited the local Latvian community cultural centre here in Adelaide, South Australia, and outlined the problem - the person I spoke with was very interested in the issue. I bookmarked the relevant Commons discussion pages for them, and their chairperson will get back to me, with a further in-person meeting on Saturday. I assume that they will be able to get a speedier response through their government contacts in Latvia. Bahudhara (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Re my point above, I found that aspects of the sculptures on the Freedom Monument were indeed depicted in a series of postage stamps issued by the Latvian government in 1937 - see c:Category:Freedom Monument (Riga) on stamps. On Saturday I spoke with the chairperson of the Latvian Association of South Australia Inc., who agreed with my view that Štālbergs and Zāle would have been extremely unlikely to have been given a cut of the moneys raised through the sale of the stamps, as a copyright fee, in addition to the actual prizemoney awarded to them by the competition, and in turn indicating that the copyright may indeed have been held by the Latvian government of the day. She gave me some additional contacts, suggesting that besides the Latvian Ministry of Culture, I should also CC my email to the Latvian National Inspectorate for Cultural Monuments, the National Library of Latvia, and the Latvian Embassy in Canberra. I still haven't heard back from the Latvian wikipedians I contacted, but I did get a response from Alan Ang, from Wikimedia Deutschland, who late last year attended a Wikidata workshop at the National Library of Latvia. This suggests that the beginnings of a GLAM collaboration with Latvian cultural institutions may already be underway.
Sending my email to a number of institutions may make it more likely to get a speedier response from at least one of them.
Besides this current deletion proposal, there are currently 230 other photos in c:Category:Freedom monument (Riga), some of which are used in various Wikipedia articles, and could potentially be affected by this decision, causing a lot of disruption.
In the meantime, I suggest that this deletion discussion not be closed until I get at least one definitive response from one of these institutions. Bahudhara (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
@Bahudhara, Did you get any response(s)? -- Ooligan (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
@Bahudhara- Any response? -- Ooligan (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ladder snake - Trapslang - Rhinechis scalaris.jpg

Accidental double upload: can be merged with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ladder_Snake_-_Trapslang_-_Rhinechis_scalaris.tif BouketenCate (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, the image is COM:INUSE in fr-wiki. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Gənc Alimlərin Qurultay 2017.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Istanbul 2013.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Kazan 14 may 2013.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Teqdimat kitab.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Universitet Birincisi olmaq münasibəti ilə.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Фотография в студии.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Megitsune-chan as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1 Uploader not informed. Yann (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

What does the rationale mean, User:Megitsune-chan? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
What? I didn't specify any rationale. I just doubts that the rights to the photo belonged to the member who uploaded it. -- Megitsune-chan talk. 10:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Makedoniya 2015.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Фотография 5678.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Megitsune-chan as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1 Uploader not informed. Yann (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

What does the rationale mean, User:Megitsune-chan? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
What? I didn't specify any rationale. I just doubts that the rights to the photo belonged to the member who uploaded it. -- Megitsune-chan talk. 10:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
"the most recent rationale was: F1 Uploader not informed", which I don't understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Makedoniya.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Mehmet Akif simpoziumu.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Nİzami Gəncəvi adına Ədəbiyyat İnstitutunun 80 illik yubileyi.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Samsun konfrans 11-14 iyun 2019.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:146A1503 копия 2.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Megitsune-chan as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1 Uploader not informed. Yann (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

What does the rationale mean, User:Megitsune-chan? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
What? I didn't specify any rationale. I just doubts that the rights to the photo belonged to the member who uploaded it. -- Megitsune-chan talk. 10:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
@User:Megitsune-chan: Well, for speedy deletions, you must specify a rationale. Otherwise, please create a regular deletion request. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind in the future. -- Megitsune-chan talk. 10:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Фотография в студии 2.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Megitsune-chan as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1 Uploader not informed. Yann (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

What does the rationale mean, User:Megitsune-chan? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
What? I didn't specify any rationale. I just doubts that the rights to the photo belonged to the member who uploaded it. -- Megitsune-chan talk. 10:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Ok, but the post I replied to said "the most recent rationale was: F1 Uploader not informed," which would mean the uploader is ignorant about something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
No permission has been granted to use the photos. If its not obtained, they must be  deleted (File:146A1503 копия 2.jpg, File:Фотография 5678.jpg, File:Фотография в студии.jpg). Skazi 10:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
@Skazi: These files are of high resolution with EXIF data. I could not find any copy on the Internet, so how do you know that the uploader is not the photographer? Yann (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
These are promo photos that are used in one form or another, for example, on the singer's social media. I assume the photos were uploaded by members of the person's PR team. However, I don't rule out and I'm more than certain that no permission was obtained from the photographer for their use. I tried to inform the user in the comments about the questionable origin of these photos, but he ignored me. Skazi 12:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
@Skazi: Do you have a link for the "singer's social media"? Otherwise it is just your word against the uploader. Yann (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
We seem to be discussing not copyright violation per se, but whether the user has permission to use the photos. But nevertheless I (for some reason) found one promo photo here and another here (and this). The third photo as a collage was used here. At the same time I'm still interested in the availability of permission from the photographer. I didn't nominate these photos, but at the same time I received silence from the user who uploaded them. I'm certain that the photos were not uploaded by the photographer. Skazi 17:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, that's better. I can't see Yandex, it is blocked from my place. These are indeed copies of Commons pictures, but not the source of them. However I agree a formal permission from the copyright holder is needed. Yann (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
After more research, I see that there are similar pictures as File:146A1503 копия 2.jpg on her Instagram account, but not this one. Also it is not possible to get a high resolution image with EXIF data from Instagram, so the question remains. I have asked the uploader on their talk page. Yann (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Azərbaycan ədəbi nəzəri fikrində. M.Akif. 12 mart 2021.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:YAZARLAR MAY Q. BAYRAMOV 75.png

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Əməkdar mühəndis 2017.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Tərəqqi 2014.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Fəridə Talıb qızı Vəliyeva.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Mirza Hassan Khan.jpg

This file was initially tagged by UCinternational as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2580558482167460&id=1511411085748877&set=a.1513492702207382 Yann (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:SAIR-MECIDZADE ANAR.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:En yeni foto.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Foto Anar 2024.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Oktyabr 2023.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:RESMI-FOTO-ANAR.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:16559754332975665397 1200x630.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Amil Cavadov (2019).jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Amil Cavadov.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Domaine Cataraqui, 2141 chemin Saint-Louis, Québec vue intérieure de l'atelier du peintre Ernest Percyval Tudor-Hart 11-d.na.civile-81-750.jpg

attributing of object and photograph makes no sense Goesseln (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the comment above, but an edit was made to the source and is also reported here in the description. I am waiting for additional precisions. Cephas (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
That sounds like a cause for edits, not deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Dalrymple Evan 2019 Photo.pdf

Not own work 186.174.103.91 11:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:1679142670 artboard-1.png

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Queen Elizabeth Rolling Work of Art in front of Palace of Monaco 2019.jpg

Copyvio: no CC licensing. "copyright Heiko Saxo, ausschließlich zur redaktionellen Nutzung [...] Die Verwendung dieses Bildes ist für redaktionelle Zwecke unter Beachtung ggf. genannter Nutzungsbedingungen honorarfrei." 2003:C0:8F21:B800:5527:1537:85A2:896C 13:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Info, according to the article, Heiko Saxo is the artist who painted the car depicted in the image. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Md Nahid Islam Sumon (talk · contribs)

Please see COM:FOP Qatar; buildings in Qatar are considered copyrighted.

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:270923e47579fd4de5e3771851387f98 original.jpg

These two photos are obviously not own work; Nehru died in 1964 and Cheulkar in 1982. I was unable to find the original source or licensing information for either photo. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:David-Abraham-Cheulkar-in-his-younger-days.jpg

Obviously not own work, since the subject has been dead since 1982. This appears to be a promotional still for a film. With some proper source and licensing info we might be able to keep it, but without such info, we cannot. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Eli Nacht.jpg

Not own work, should include VRT permission from Mr. Nacht. מקף־עברי (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Unofficial version of the coat of arms of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992 - 1998.).png

I’ve uploaded an improved version in SVG format: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unofficial_version_of_the_coat_of_arms_of_the_Republic_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_(1992_-_1998).svg Filius Bosnensis (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom, uploader’s request, not in use and duplicate. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:华文隶书“维基百科”字样.jpg

Copyright Infringement 木子子羊翔 (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, see article at the National Copyright Administration of China. Computer fonts in China are copyrighted generally in terms of the whole typeset. However, for the use of individual characters of the font, there are varying opinions in different court cases on whether individual characters are copyrighted.
There is also the argument on whether the computer font in the image is above COM:TOO China as its style is based on the w:en:Clerical script, which is very old and definitely in public domain. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Due to the considerable uncertainty regarding how courts might rule on cases involving the use of individual characters from fonts, we should err on the side of caution and  Delete this image, in accordance with COM:PRP. Wcam (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Unofficial version of the flag of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992 - 1998.).png

It’s not used anywhere, and I’ve uploaded a better version in SVG format: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unofficial_version_of_the_flag_of_the_Republic_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_(1992_-_1998).svg Filius Bosnensis (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:TravinGL.jpg

Dubious PD rationale - you cannot ground this on the term of author's life when you don't know who the author is. Missing date of first publication to comply with COM:Russia#Durations. No evidence of public domain. Romano1981 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The photo discussed here is published at 1931.

This work is in the public domain in Russia according to article 1281 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, articles 5 and 6 of Law No. 231-FZ of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2006 (the Implementation Act for Book IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
This usually means that one of the following conditions is fulfilled.
...
This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym:
(a) before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication, counted from January 1 of the year following the year of publication

1931 + 50 = 1981. At 1981, 31 Dec, and now, at 2025, the author of the photo still inknown.
Your nomination are inconsistent.
212.220.212.44 11:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • There are several incorrect theses in what you wrote. First, you indicate the supposed date of the photo's creation, but the law speaks of the date of first publication. If you think you know when the work was first published, you are obliged to prove it, and not waste time on assumptions. Second, if you do not know who the author is, this does not mean that it is an anonymous one; an anonymous author is someone who has deliberately chosen not to disclose their real name in connection with a work. And please log in so that it is clear who this conversation is with. --Romano1981 (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:KStassun (cropped).jpg

It seems that the given photo license is wrong. MacFound licenses their material under an Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license. This license cannot be used on Commons. Msb (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

My impression would be that this falls under their policy regarding images and videos of MacArthur Fellows (listed underneath their general policy), which are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License and therefore would be allowed. Abersnail (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I know, but there, they only give you the "Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0" CC license. Msb (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
The one below that, with the heading "MacArthur Fellow Images and Video", says images of MacArthur Fellows are under a CC-BY 4.0. Abersnail (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I know, the legal situation is somewhat contradictory, in one place noncommercial is stated in another place it is not. I hope we can keep these images, so, we assume Photos are for commercial use as well. Msb (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
My assumption was that this photo would be included under the "MacArthur Fellow Images and Video" CC-BY 4.0 license, since the photo is from the Fellows section of the website, and Dr. Stassun is one of those Fellows.
The "Overview" section of their Creative Commons page, which establishes the general CC-BY-NC 4.0 license you referred to, also states that this license applies "except as otherwise noted". The page continues on to specify a separate license for images of their Fellows. This photo of Dr. Stassun falls under the umbrella of "photographs and videos on this website pertaining to the MacArthur Fellows", as described in the "MacArthur Fellow Images and Video" section. I don't necessarily see a contradiction there. Abersnail (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Then, we must  Keep it. Msb (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:KStassun.jpg

It seems that the given photo license is wrong. MacFound licenses their material under an Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license. This license cannot be used on Commons. Msb (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Aachen - Peanuts-Mural 6.jpg

These designs are not PD in the US yet. Delete. SDudley (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Not PD in the US until 2046 I think. Nosferattus (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
even longer on these specific designs. more like 2050s/2060s SDudley (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
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 in Category:Peanuts (comic strip)

Not own works.

SDudley (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This you can delete:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Presidents_of_peanut.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Presidents_of_peanuts_000000.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Presidents_of_peanuts.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Russell_anderson_000000.png

the origin of these images is completely unclear and certainly constitute a copyright infringement. Qwertzu111111 (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Peanuts (comic strip)

Not own works and still copyrighted designs in the US

SDudley (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Should be considered a "work of art in public space" - like sculptures - , and therefore keep ArthurMcGill (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
The issue at hand is not its permissibility in Germany. The issue is in the US these designs are copyrighted still. And until the US copyright ends we can't host them on Commons. SDudley (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
AFAIK, the mural itself was painted with the permission of the rightsholder. (A local Wikipedian will try to find evidence for that.) --Túrelio (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
The underlying mural might be all well and good with the permission from the Schulz Estate, but the reproduction of it of as a digital item that can be hosted on Commons is what we need to have permission for. I do not dispute that it is permissible under German law, but I do not think they have given the right to host images of this mural on Commons. SDudley (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
IANAL, but AFAIK, when a work of art is legitimately and permanently installed in public space in Germany (for more specifics see the actual law), the freedom-of-panorama exception (Commons:Freedom of panorama/Europe#Germany) is applicable and does not require any additional permission from the rightsholder in the original work. --Túrelio (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)


as you can read on the information board:

"PEANUTS WALL

Vicki Scott, chief illustrator of the Peanuts, has designed this motif exclusively for the COMICIADE 2016.

With the kind support of AkzoNobel, Charles M. Schulz Creative Associates, IG Aachener Portal e.V. and the house owners."

Qwertzu111111 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Once more, I am not disputing the permission give to create this mural. What I am saying is that a photographic reproduction of the material hosted here is not allowed. Commons itself was not given permission to host this. SDudley (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Do we really still need them? Permission to create this mural has been officially granted by Schulz Studio and freedom of panorama applies in Germany. Qwertzu111111 (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
@SDudley, as the re-use of images of this mural in Aachen, Germany is doubtless legal per FoP-exception of the copyright-law of Germany (see also: Commons:Freedom of panorama/Europe/de#Germany, en:Freedom of panorama#Germany and de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland), it seems to me, what you are actually challenging is the more general question whether Commons can host images which are legal in the country where they were shot, but would not be legal if shot in the U.S., as FoP-exception in the U.S. does cover only buildings. IMO, a single DR is not the appropriate venue for such a fundamental question/discussion.--Túrelio (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete - The permission for the mural is irrelevant. The characters depicted are still copyrighted in the U.S. until 2045 or so. We can't host this file. See COM:CHAR. Nosferattus (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama allows 2D derivatives broadly, it doesn't have a carve-out for "except characters". Note too that the case law cited at COM:CHAR involved additional elements of the characters being added (e.g., catchphrases), the simple visual representation would have been allowable, which is the case here. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
German FoP has no effect on U.S. copyright law. Under U.S. copyright law the characters (including their visual representations) are protected by character copyrights. There is no requirement that the representations be especially complex. The test for whether a character can be separately copyrighted in the U.S. is:
  1. The character must generally have physical as well as conceptual qualities.
  2. The character must be sufficiently delineated to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appears. It must display consistent, identifiable character traits and attributes, although the character need not have a consistent appearance.
  3. The character must be especially distinctive and contain some unique elements of expression. It cannot be a stock character like a magician in standard magician garb.
All 5 of the characters here clearly pass that test (the Towle test). And if they are copyrighted, that means that any reproductions of them within the U.S. are protected by U.S. copyright law. (And while the mural itself may not be within the U.S., these files and their derivatives definitely are.) Schulz's permission to use them on a mural in Germany doesn't invalidate his character copyrights within the U.S. FWIW, this case is pretty much a perfect collision of two different copyright regimes, so I think it would be good to get opinions from some experts like Clindberg. Nosferattus (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Weak delete In a way, this is similar to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parcours BD (Tintin) (where I argued for keeping, and which were kept) and in another way, it is of course dissimilar. The Tintin murals in Brussels, part of the official Brussels' Comic Book Route, were presumably also painted with the rights owner's permission, and fall under Belgian freedom of panorama - but they're also works of a Belgian artist with the Hergé Foundation as the rights owner also being Belgian. The difference here is that the rights owner is from a country that doesn't have freedom of panorama for such 2D works, that country happens to be the US, and Commons requires that images are freely usable in the US as well as in the country of origin. Though the Tintin murals are, in theory, probably also non-free in the US, I think we can say that with the combination of a FoP-country location and FoP-country rights owner, it's quite safe to rely on FoP in the murals' location here, as to our knowledge (I think) there isn't any US case law dealing with this specific issue, and they would simply be taken down if there ever were a DMCA takedown notice. Now, this particular case seems less safe due to the right owners' location in the US. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand the difference a little. But does it matter that Peanuts studio is based in the USA? The studio has officially given permission. The picture was designed by chief artist Vicki Scott - especially for the mural.

I don't think the argument with the Towle test is comparable. The Batmobile was a completely different case. There was never any authorisation from the rights holder.


If the mural is there by permission from the rights holder, I think File:Aachen - Peanuts-Mural 0.jpg and File:Peanuts mural2016.jpg are fine, as they are showing the mural in its public context, which is more what freedom of panorama is about. I don't think that gives you rights to reproduce the underlying mural itself though, and the rest of those images seem to remove more and more of the public context and are straight reproductions of the original work, so  Delete for me on those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

That could be a good compromise IMHO. I also tend to be skeptical if FoP reproductions of 2D works are taken completely out of context of their surroundings... Gestumblindi (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, in the exceptions to copyright which the Berne Convention allows, which the freedom panorama is one, they do reiterate that it can't be to the point which prejudices the copyright of the original. Allowing an effective copy directly competes with the original, which absolutely would prejudice those rights. Being able to photograph a statue freely does not mean you can make a 3-D copy of that statue -- and freedom of panorama should not give you a right to basically make a copy of it. But showing in its public context should be OK (at least in that country). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Rajamani2021.png

out of scope? Trade (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:First Peanuts comic.png

See Commons_talk:Character_copyrights#Peanuts_Dispute for my rationale as to why this is NOT actually in the public domain. SDudley (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Pneumacosmic-labiennale61-2026-Koronczi-02.jpg

Photo of an art installation; doesn't appear to be "outdoors in a public space" so COM:FOP Hungary doesn't apply. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:London 2015 (24435531015).jpg

Extremely narrow and blurred among tens of images of Waterloo Bridge. Adam37 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)


 Delete per @Adam37 and not in scope per COM:OOS Ooligan (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
 Delete per above. --Nenea hartia (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Unofficial version of the vertical flag of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992 - 1998.).png

It’s not used anywhere, and I’ve uploaded a better version in SVG format: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unofficial_version_of_the_vertical_flag_of_the_Republic_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_(1992_-_1998).svg Filius Bosnensis (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Colonia D 1954 monte maggio.jpg

copyright mention in watermak Ske (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Nathan Ott.jpg

1. Author/copyright holder according to exif data: Evgenia Chet. Consent by the copyright holder?
2. Photo from artist's website, with an imprint excluding the rights granted by a CC license ("Downloads und Kopien dieser Seite sind nur für den privaten, nicht kommerziellen Gebrauch gestattet."). 2003:C0:8F21:B800:BCE1:7D7:DA89:5DBE 20:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Wahlkampffoto Schröder CL 2005.jpg

Possible copyvio. According to the EXIF data, this photo was taken by photographer Frank O. It is apparently a professional election campaign photo taken at the (not publicly accessible) Federal Chancellery. There is no evidence that uploader Aiden McGeady 123 (talk · contribs) is the photographer. Entbert (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Romania (2023–present).svg

This file falsely claims to show a new Romanian flag from 2023, but Romania hasn't changed its flag design or colors since 1994. There's no evidence of any official update, so the title and description are misleading. The licensing is also questionable if it's based on a non-existent flag copyright than Template:PD-RO-exempt Vellutis (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Keep until the main (File:Flag of Romania.svg) is updated with this version and delete it only then. As for evidence, the source is here, which clearly states that on 19 June 2023 the flag was modified. This SVG uses the RGB values stipulated in that 2023 law. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Are these not the same exact file? NorthTension (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

File:FC Rumänien Wien logo.jpg

Out of scope (?) material. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 22:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:A portrait of Paolino Tomaino at his funeral in Kyamuhunga Parish 01.jpg

Picture of a picture, does not appear to be "permanently located" as required by COM:FOP Uganda. Jay8g (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jay8gThank you for always making Wikimedia Commons better. But my inquiries are are,
  1. doesn't conveyance apply to this image since it was taken as his burial basing on the FoP-Uganda
  2. Say this image is deleted, does the FoP-Uganda permit me, say to go inside the church building (since it has stationary) to capture the image of the late Paolino Tomaino and upload it here on Wikimedia Commons and it wont be deleted
B722N (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Logo MINISTERIO DE EDUCACION PUBLICA.png

Not own work and not CC0. Likely taken from the Ministry's website, which states that "the reproduction, transmission or distribution of the information contained herein is prohibited without the authorization of the MEP." Unsure if leftmost graphic, in particular, is above or below TOO, as it is just a simplified map of the country. — Rubýñ (Scold) 23:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)