File:Inna Palacios 2022.png

{{copyvio|1=Video is not under creative commons licenses}} Medforlife (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Keep The video was previously published under the Creative Commons Attribution (3.0 Unported) license on YouTube at https://web.archive.org/web/20220716045540/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkze76tGRrg. Although YouTube allows users to change the license on videos, Creative Commons licenses are legally not revocable  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Alisha Del Ocampo.png

{{copyvio|1=Video is not under creative commons licenses}} Medforlife (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Keep The video was previously published under the Creative Commons Attribution (3.0 Unported) license on YouTube at https://web.archive.org/web/20220716045540/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkze76tGRrg. Although YouTube allows users to change the license on videos, Creative Commons licenses are legally not revocable  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Luizinho Faleiro in 2016.jpg

Nominated for being a copyright violation for being a screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yDLo3q8aF4, but is actually from the Flickr of the same user who uploaded the YouTube video SerChevalerie (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

They're going to have to change the license on the YouTube video, then. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 20:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Keep No, the copyright owner can release their work under however many different licenses they want.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   21:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Still, the same username doesn't necessarily mean it's the same person. For example, I couldn't get the username I wanted on Steam because it was already taken. The person with that UN is not me. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 04:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

If you click on the blog post in the video description, that blog links to the flickr account.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   04:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

They should probably give a release anyway. Or just change the license on the video. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It would be good if they free licensed the video, but I think there are many reasons someone might want to only release a photo or frame instead of the entire video. Also, I think this is a separate photo and not a screenshot or frame from the video. The photo on flickr is much higher resolution than the entire video.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Заикин Николай Иванович.jpg

Published on 03.12.2024 at . No evidence the uploader is the proper copyright holder. Komarof (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Keep - photo by link is very less that uploaded in Commons. --Kaganer (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This does not mean that the uploader, who has also uploaded a lot of obviously third-party works under the guise of her own, is the author of the photo. Komarof (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Optreden groot verlof.jpg

no author given no metadata no permission used for promo article on nl-wiki Hoyanova (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Laura Hofmann.jpg

possible copyvio - probably not a selfie - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:20250316 135305 Chacma.jpg

redondant avec le 20250316 135309 Chacma.jpg. Quitte à choisir, autant garder la meilleure ;) Chacma-CLD (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Monet - the-cabin-at-saint-adresse.jpg

very bad quality, very low resolution, no reliable source with incorrect colours better File:Claude monet, la cabene de saint-adresse, 1867.JPG , File:La Cabane de Sainte-Adresse (1867) Claude Monet - Musée d'Art et d'Histoire de Genève (W 94).jpg Oursana (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Atlético de Madrid v Real Madrid, 12 March 2025 - 1.jpg

Based on other photos sourced to soccer.ru from the same match, File:Atlético de Madrid v Real Madrid, 12 March 2025 - 2.jpg and File:Atlético de Madrid v Real Madrid, 12 March 2025 - 3.jpg, and this Twitter post, this is likely not the work of soccer.ru, but a repost of a third party work. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:MC 澳門 Macau 十月初五街 Rua de Cinco de Outubro (Macao) 1237pm March 2025 R12S 63.jpg

Billboards are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP 茅野ふたば (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Macanese law doesnt contain wording that specifies temporary or permanent. RoyZuo (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

the billboard is a modern, see: COM:POSTERs. 茅野ふたば (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

also {{FoP-Macau}} doesn't use for this billboards. is a derivative works. 茅野ふたば (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Flower of Falls - Dundas Hamilton Ontario (75308960).jpg

prominent logo watermark obscures subject Mindmatrix 15:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Benedizione della chiesa.jpg

attribuzione come opera propria quantomeno dubbia Threecharlie (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep now fixed. --RAN (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Flight Information Region (FIR) and Control Area in South Korea.png

Copyrighted content. They prohibited modification and commercial use of Aeronautical Information Publication (E-AIP).

Korean: 항공정보간행물(AIP)에서 제공하는 모든 콘텐츠는 저작권법에 의하여 보호를 받는 저작물로써, 별도의 저작권 표시 또는 다른 출처를 명시한 경우를 제외하고는 원칙적으로 국토교통부에 저작권이 있습니다. 따라서 국토교통부에서 제공하는 콘텐츠를 무단 복제 · 배포하는 경우 「저작권법 제136조(권리의침해죄)」,「137조(부 정발행 등의 죄)」,「138조(출처명시위반의 죄 등)」에 해당될 수 있습니다.

English: All the contents provided in the AIP are copyrighted by the MOLIT and protected under the Copyright Act unless there is a clear indication of other sources or separate copyright. Therefore, any unauthorized reproduction and distribution of the information provided in the AIP without permission may be subject to "Article 136 of Copyright Act(infringement of rights)", "Article 137(unlawful publication)", and "Article 138(such as the source explicit violation)".

--Namoroka (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This information can (and should) be displayed in an open-source map. --Enyavar (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Logo madutv.png

False license claim; seems over Commons:TOO Indonesia. (Currently in use.) Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Badge of the Korean National Police Agency.png

Cropped image from Flickr released in CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. Original design of badge is released in {{PD-KoreaGov}}, which is okay. But this file is the photographic reproduction of three-dimensional object, so I think that we cannot use {{PD-Art}}. So, photograph should be released in free license. Namoroka (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:MariaTheresia Maske obra.jpg

later copy in lower quality of File:MariaTheresia Maske.jpg Ecummenic (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Newman Toronto Original Lady Chapel Altar.jpg

Copyright: it is a photo of a print of a watercolour. You would need to be watercolour artist, but taking a photo of a print, indicates copyvio (as per Commons:Licensing, it needs to be 150yrs old+). Cardofk (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Tom McGuire.jpg

It's uncertain when this image was created - Tom McGuire lived until 1954, so this would likely pose a copyright issue even if the photograph was dated prior to 1930. I'm uncertain, so nominating for deletion. This is one of several problematic images uploaded by the user, so if anyone wants to take them under their wing, please do - I've left them a note on the main Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Please correct if a photo of him from the 1920s would be in the public domain regardless of death date. Still, the issue of attribution still remains. ReaderofthePack (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, my concern here is that since the user has uploaded other images as their own work, I'm worried that they didn't do due diligence in ensuring that this was from the 1920s - it's possible that this could be from a later date. ReaderofthePack (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep PD-UK. --RAN (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the idea the photo should be deleted. It is unclear when the photo is taken, and might not be in the public domain. I have replaced the image on Tom McGuires page with one from a 1928 film, so this file is no longer being used on the page. ShamrockFrog64 (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Howard Truesdale.jpg

It's unclear when this photo was taken - the actor died in 1941, so it's possible that this was taken post 1930. The only places I can find these are places like IMDb and Amazon, so it's not clear when this was taken. ReaderofthePack (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep If he was 60 years old it would have been circa 1920. Images up until 1989 had to register for a copyright and comply with other copyright formalities. No image of Howard Truesdale appears in any of the copyright registration databases. --RAN (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  My concern, however, is that we don't know exactly when this was taken or the person's age. The user that uploaded this has uploaded some copyrighted photos claiming it as their own work, so I don't know that we can trust them saying that this is circa 1920s. It's possible that it is, but we can't guarantee it. ReaderofthePack (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm the user who uploaded the photo, and I agree with the idea the photo should be deleted. It is unclear when the photo is taken, and might not be in the public domain. I have replaced the image on Howard Truesdale page with one from a 1919 film, so this file is no longer being used on the page. ShamrockFrog64 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Liliane Elze Falcão Lins Kusterer.jpg

Image without free rights, not belonging to the user who uploaded it. This violates Wikimedia Commons policies. Versaldi (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Foto Leila Amorim - Wikipedia.jpg

Image without free rights, not belonging to the user who uploaded it. This violates Wikimedia Commons policies. Versaldi (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Zelinda Leão.jpg

Image without free rights, not belonging to the user who uploaded it. This violates Wikimedia Commons policies. Versaldi (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Frank-Nimsgern.jpg

Copyvio: Photo by "VA": Who is "VA", and where is their permission? Clearly neither the uploader nor the image subject are copyright holder, so "I got this via Mail vom Büro von Frank Nimsgern" cannot replace the photographer's permission. 2003:C0:8F24:DB00:3588:5E80:3BC:A23E 19:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Ahmed al-Sharaa Feb 2025.png

Kanal13 does not take original videos of politicians. This image is most likely sourced from an external press agency. Howardcorn33 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The reason for requesting the file's deletion is simply hearsay, with no evidence to verify or discuss it.

With that said, the author of the video is a verified YouTube channel with over 1.7 million subscribers. This means that the channel has completed the YouTube verification process and is credible. Therefore, if there is any violation—if there is one—YouTube will most likely take action against the channel.

• The video also exclusively features the "Kanal13" channel logo, and therefore the channel acknowledges its responsibility as the author of the video and copyright owner by uploading the video to its YouTube channel.
• The Creative Commons license is clearly indicated in the video description box on YouTube and is archived with the video archive link on the file's Commons page.

--Masry1973 | مصري1973 (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

No. This video was made by Anadolu Agency; here is the exact video: https://x.com/anadoluagency/status/1886789765208363076. Kanal13 is a churnalist website which repeatedly reposts videos from other press agencies without credit; their creative commons license declarations are (for the most part) worthless. Howardcorn33 (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Both videos were published on the exact same date. Furthermore, the video on X has Anadolu Agency's logo as a watermark, which is NOT present on the Kanal13 YouTube channel video. This indicates that the YouTube video is original and from its source. Furthermore, the YouTube video is over 6 minutes long, while the video on X is only about 48 seconds long. Even if we assume that they are the same video, there is most likely an agreement between Anadolu Agency and Kanal13 YouTube channel that allows them to reuse the agency's reports. These reports are available on YouTube for everyone to watch, not just a select audience. Finally, there is a verified and credible YouTube channel that posted the source video with a valid Creative Commons license on YouTube, and there is no conclusive evidence of a copyright violation --Masry1973 | مصري1973 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Correction: Upon further inspection, the video was taken neither by AA or Kanal13, but by AP News. This is confirmed by the Toronto Star, who also credit the video to AP News. In addition, the Kanal13 video shares the exact same title and description as the AP News piece. Finally, the AP News video (Feb. 4, 16:51 GMT) was published three minutes before the Kanal13 video (Feb. 4, 16:54 GMT). Howardcorn33 (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Since I have found the original video with credit, I will be sending a speedy deletion request. Howardcorn33 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

At first, the file was nominated for deletion, claiming that there is probably a press entity that owns the rights to the video that is the source of the file. Then, another claim was made that the Anadolu Agency is the source of the video, which I have previously refuted. Now, a new claim is made with a video that is clearly different in its content and length, and it has a watermark that is not present in the YouTube video that is the source of the file on Commons, which exclusively carries the Kanal13 channel logo, not to mention the three-minute duration, which I believe is meaningless and useless in this discussion, and a minor comparison was also made between the title and description of two different videos from two different sources. It is well known that titles and descriptions for videos are generally created using tools that take into account the availability of keywords that visitors are searching for. It is common for video titles and descriptions to be duplicated between publishers to attract the largest number of searchers on search engines for video content.. This is done with the aim of placing a new request to expedite the deletion of the file, despite the existence of a previous request to delete it and starting a discussion that proved that this is a waste of time and effort to no avail. I believe that there is a verified and credible YouTube channel that posted the source video with a valid Creative Commons license on YouTube, and there is no conclusive evidence of a copyright violation --Masry1973 | مصري1973 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Since there is a free license at the source, I restored the file. A proper DR is needed here. Yann (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Patrick Huber TUHH.png

This photo does not show the correct person of this page, Patrick Huber. Please refer to his personal page https://www.phys.vt.edu/About/people/Faculty/patrick-huber.html. Yulunl (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep: There seem to be two P Huber: https://www.mxp.tuhh.de/index.php/de/mitarbeiter/2-patrick --Achim55 (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Ulrich Leo und Helene Vageler 1940.jpg

not in PD, its rather unlikely that User:Abubiju is the photographer Goesseln (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Das stimmt. Ich bin nicht der Fotograf. Das Bild stammt aus dem Familienarchiv, genauer gesagt von meiner Großtante, einer Schwägerin von Ulrich Leo. Abubiju (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Portrait von Nina E. Schönefeld.jpg

Copyvio, unless the uploader IS Oliver Jackel: Copyright holder admittedly is photographer Oliver Jackel. 2003:C0:8F24:DB00:3588:5E80:3BC:A23E 22:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Nina E.Schönefeld in ihrem Studio.jpg

Copyvio, unless the uploader IS Ms. Schönefeld: Copyright holder according to description is Nina Schönefeld herself (the image subject); it's a self-portrait. 2003:C0:8F24:DB00:3588:5E80:3BC:A23E 22:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Nina E.Schönefeld. RIDE OR DIE, 2024, Ausstellungsansicht, M1 VideoSpace, KINDL, © Nina E. Schönefeld, Foto- Jens Ziehe.jpg

Copyvio: Copyright holder is the photographer Jens Ziehe. Not, as the copyright sign says, Nina Schönefeld. Unless there is no threshold of originality in the photo. 2003:C0:8F24:DB00:3588:5E80:3BC:A23E 22:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Nina E. Schönefeld. CLASSIFIED HACKER (FREE JULIAN ASSANGE) 2020, Ausstellungsansicht, DISKURS Berlin, © Nina E. Schönefeld, Foto - Oliver Jackel.jpg

Copyvio: Copyright holder is photographer OliverJackel. Not, as the copyright sign says, Nina Schönefeld. Unless there is no threshold of originality in the photo. 2003:C0:8F24:DB00:3588:5E80:3BC:A23E 23:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Nina E. Schönefeld. SNOW FOX & DARK WATERS, 2019, Ausstellungsansicht, 12×12 IBB-VIDEORAUM, Berlinische Galerie, © Nina E. Schönefeld, Foto - Oliver Jackel.jpg

Copyvio: Copyright holder is photographer OliverJackel. Not, as the copyright sign says, Nina Schönefeld. Unless there is no threshold of originality in the photo. 2003:C0:8F24:DB00:3588:5E80:3BC:A23E 23:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Nina E. Schönefeld. TRILOGY OF TOMORROW, 2022, Ausstellungsansicht in ÜBERLEBEN - Fragen an die Zukunft, Haus am Lützowplatz, Berlin, © Nina E. Schönefeld, Foto - Oliver Jackel.jpg

Copyvio: Copyright holder is photographer OliverJackel. Not, as the copyright sign says, Nina Schönefeld. Unless there is no threshold of originality in the photo. 2003:C0:8F24:DB00:3588:5E80:3BC:A23E 23:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:SNU Museum of Art.jpg

There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in South Korea. This building dates to 2005 and was authored by the following architecture firms or architects (likely a collective work): w:en:Rem Koolhaas, w:en:Office for Metropolitan Architecture, and w:en:Samoo Architects & Engineers. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:SNUMoA2007.jpg

Same copyrighted architecture as that of Commons:Deletion requests/File:SNU Museum of Art.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Roman Abramovich 2 (cropped).png

incorrect source. License is most likely incorrect Vysotsky (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment See also this deletion request of a similar image (turned into a speedy deletion request). Vysotsky (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)