== April 12 ==

File:Nicoll Highway MRT station old design.png

Per COM:GVT Singapore, looks like an artist's impression that is likely government property as probably commissioned by the w:Land Transport Authority during planning/construction of this railway infrastructure project (w:Nicoll Highway MRT station). Uploader's original file description states that this image is from c.2002, however I could not find another copy of this image elsewhere on the internet. Fork99 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the artist impression is done by the Land Transport Authority. Circle Line construction started in 2002, so the image might have had been made at the time. The picture was posted by one user on the MRT Circle Line Skyscrapercity page in May 2010.

The web link, with shortened characters, is: https://wwwskyscrapercitycom/threads/mrt-circle-line-connecting-all-lines374531/page-170 Lau Wei Yiang (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy delete: Per above comment by uploader. Thanks for the additional info. Fork99 (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Lille huitriere facade.JPG

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this is an advertising sign made by the Gentil et Bourdet workshops in 1928. I don't think there are any image rights. Velvet (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep. The authors of this work both died more than 70 years ago. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

File:2017 Tax March 1010603.jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment. The right sign could be cropped out and still leave a meaningful picture of the protest. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Honeyz 2005.jpg

Uploaded by mistake Pop Pause (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:San Francisco Bay Bridge and Rincon Park P1020428.jpg

The sculpture was completed in 2002 by Claes Oldenburg (1929–2022) and Coosje van Bruggen (1942–2009). There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2093 A1Cafel (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not an image depicting the monument but one depicting the bridge and the view, but incidentally also the monument, and since it is not possible to take a “clean” shot from that position it is necessary, unless you partially obscure the shot with a blur (but you could do this with a blur), it is not possible to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”, I reiterate the concept, taking a photo of the monument as the main subject I can understand is a violation of copyrighjt, in this case no, prove me wrong. Threecharlie (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I would add, the photographer's intention to shoot a generic panorama is confirmed by a similar shot, incidentally uploaded together with this one, close to and within seconds of it. Among other things, it is an ethical dispute to decide whether the licence under which the photographer decided to release the image is fraudulent when the case is, if anything, open to interpretation. Threecharlie (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Jacques Breyer - Esotériste.jpg

This image is widely distributed throughout the internet from before this copy was uploaded and the quality here is about the same (see this upload from 2014 ). The only thing that gives me pause and why I did not nominate this for deletion until now is that there is some indication that the uploader may have a conflict of interest when it comes to Breyer, given their behavior on frwiki and their username - Ergonia is the name of the group he founded, who probably own his assets. Therefore the uploader may have copyright rights to this, but we have no proof that they are the actual Ergonia and not just using the name. So it is unlikely this is legitimate PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Lias Jonah Altmann.jpg

identifiable minor person, needs parental consent MBq (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment m:Special:CentralAuth/Mizz_novalee de wikipedia article exists but image removed . Taylor 49 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete. The image has been uploaded by a user who claims to be his mother but has, up to this point, failed to provide any evidence or verification.

In addition to the child protection issue, this does not look like a mom's seaside vacation snapshot to me, it looks like a child made up for a professional photo shoot (that child is wearing lipstick!). Therefore, there is another point to be added to the deletion request: Who is the photographer, and where is their permission? --2003:C0:8F26:C900:8493:ED1C:A797:289D 22:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Immagine di ricerca google.png

screenshot of how it looks on google, not helpful, we already have the image on commons. ZioNicco (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Djedje Apali.jpg

Possible copyvio: Seems like a screenshot, Bad quality image, Only upload of this user, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:ONGC Ashoknagar Oil Field West Bengal, 07-Jan-2021.jpg

Possible copyright violation: claimed as own work from 2021, while it can be found in a 2020 YouTube video as a cover image . 0x0a (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Ziyadar mükafatı.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Отец Иаков Благовидов (1899).jpg

Man died in 1930, can not be own original work of 2025. Original author? Source? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep. Clearly PD-old-assumed. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

File:İstəməzdim şair olum hələ mən.jpg

COM:ADVERT. Not used file Yousiphh (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Günaydın - Ağçiçəyim.jpg

COM:ADVERT. Not used file Yousiphh (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:OTUZ İLDİR ƏLDƏ QƏLƏM.jpg

COM:ADVERT. Not used file Yousiphh (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Otuz ildir əldə qələm (postage stamp).jpg

COM:ADVERT. Not used file. And it's not an oficial postage stamp of Azerbaijan. Yousiphh (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:17958-Swissbit F-800 Series CFast Memory Card - 64GB.jpg

Source says "SparkFun Electronics ® / 6333 Dry Creek Parkway, Niwot, CO 80503" no indication that this file was ever published under a free licence.
The Terms Of Service says "The design of the website and all text, graphics, information, content, and other materials displayed on or that can be downloaded from the website are protected by copyright, trademark and other laws. The contents on the website are Copyright (c) 2023, SparkFun, or their respective affiliates and suppliers." --D-Kuru (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

It was published under CC BY 2.0 in 2021 https://web.archive.org/web/20210420160402/https://www.sparkfun.com/products/17958
In 2025 with the new homepage, the changed the license.--Elmepi (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep Nothing copyrightable in the image, just trademarks. --RAN (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
•  Keep Way under COM:TOO US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Folk culture india association.jpg

exceeds COM:TOO US? 0x0a (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete Yes, I would say it does. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Grüne Fotoaktion „Nein zum Türkis-Rot-Pinken Abrissbagger“ - 54400549748.jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted logo A1Cafel (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment If we are talking about the excavator, I would have thought this does not reach the COM:ToO, but I can see this is debatable. (that said, I don’t think this qualifies as a « logo » − a drawing sure, but I would not know the logo of what this might be). Jean-Fred (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Grüne Fotoaktion „Nein zum Türkis-Rot-Pinken Abrissbagger“ - 54400549748.jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted logo A1Cafel (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment If we are talking about the excavator, I would have thought this does not reach the COM:ToO, but I can see this is debatable. (that said, I don’t think this qualifies as a « logo » − a drawing sure, but I would not know the logo of what this might be). Jean-Fred (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Hermes da Fonseca Colorido (1910).png

AI colourized version of File:Hermes da Fonseca (1910).jpg, but there is no source given as an evidence that the colours (e. g. of the helmet) are historically precise. I am nominating it for deletion because this version has no educational value and so it is out of our scope. Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Photograph of the violent tornado six miles east of town of Worcester.jpg

Picture taken from a copyrighted Science article (https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/36/3/1520-0477-36_3_109.pdf) Pierre cb (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Question – Is it copyrighted? says "no contribution renewals found in CCE or registered works database". I know Monthly Weather Review, one of the other journals published by the American Meteorological Society, did not have a copyright notice until 1976. Can someone check if/when Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society started adding copyright notices? This is the March 1955 edition of BAMS, so there is a chance it is public domain without a copyright notice under {{PD-US-no notice}}. WeatherWriter (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

File:BogdanDzięcioł.jpg

OTRS needed. No proof that Sąd Najwyższy published it under CC0 licence. 93.159.2.50 12:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:LM-015.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:LM-014.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:LM-013.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:LM-012.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:LM-011.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:The Flame Tree and other Folk-Lore Stories from Uganda.djvu

Author Rosetta Baskerville (1880 - 1966) was British, So this file cannot be hosted on Commons, As a 1900 work it's pre 1923 so acceptable for English Wikisource ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:LemanMamedova8.jpg

COM:ADVERT Yousiphh (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I disagree per the policy COM:ADVERT - "For the policy, see COM:PS (Project scope: Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose)." And COM.PS - The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". It is providing knowledge and it is informative. PrinceValiant (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Firefighter-MCP 7500-Wikipedia.jpg

I uploaded the photo instead of linking from Flickr. It should have been from https://flickr.com/photos/michaelcohnphoto/54446676831/in/album-72177720324869381 Michaelcohnphoto (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I uploaded the photo instead of linking from Flickr. It should have been from https://flickr.com/photos/michaelcohnphoto/54446676831/in/album-72177720324869381 Michaelcohnphoto (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Deletion was requested by the uploader shortly after upload but file is COM:INUSE at en:Firefighter's Combat Challenge. --Rosenzweig τ 18:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Shek Wai Kok Bus Terminus.jpg

Author or uploader (myself) request deletion, the same photo already exists at a higher quality. Asatsuyu2022 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Willy Manchot und Theodor Heuss.jpg

Copyvio: Photo by Carl August Stachelscheid, no indication of permission. 2003:C0:8F0D:2400:A16E:D9A5:10A9:D60B 15:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:И днём и ночью, всё летят.jpg

• also file:Кемеровские журавли.jpg
• also file:Это счастье, путь домой.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. This is 1983 statue. Taivo (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Sculptor: Vladimir Fedorovich Nesterov (Нестеров, Владимир Федорович), born 27 February 1948. Nakonana (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Octavio Irineo Paz Lozano.jpg

It is never appropriate to use AI images as depictions of real people, because the images are always inaccurate. Removed from a bio on incubator wiki. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete AS (Artificial Stupidity) lacks edu value. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment File is currently in use. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment By the time I saw this, someone else removed it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• @User:The Squirrel Conspiracy  Comment Currently NOT INUSE, please kick it now. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I can't; I'm the nominator. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Louisa Noack bei einem Shooting im Mai 2024.jpg

no own work Dirk Lenke (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete Correct. User:LouisaNoack, please ask the photographer, RALF FRANZEN VETTWEISS, to contact the COM:VRT with permission to license the photo, if he indeed would like to do so in a way that allows the commercial use of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Кемерово, ул. Весенняя, памятник Алексею Архиповичу Леонову.jpg

• also File:Прижизненный памятник Человеку Мира!.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. Sculptor ru:Кербель, Лев Ефимович died in 2003 and the photo can be restored after copyright expiration in 2078 (74+1 years from death). Taivo (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Martin-Frank-Comedy-Nittenau.jpg

no own work Dirk Lenke (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hallo,

ich habe bereits am 20. Mai 2023 ein neues Bild hochgeladen.

Könnten Sie mir evtl. behilflich sein und mitteilen, warum dieses Foto als Änderung noch nicht übernommen wurde? Urheberrecht sind angegeben.

Vielen Dank und viele Grüße

Gabor Schauermann (Martin Franks angestellter Tourbegleiter) Gabor.schauermann (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Swallow tattoo.jpg

What is the real need to crop intimate body parts from nude images if these crops are not used anywhere? Are they meant to be produced for the sexual gratification of croppers? Commons is not censured but it is not a porn platform either. 200.39.139.14 17:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep per first nom. The same question could be asked: "Are [these nominations] meant to be produced for the sexual gratification of [nominators]? --RAN (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Can you translate it to simple English please? 200.39.139.14 16:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

File:SOPHIE at LadyLand Festival.png

The uploader of the video is not the original creator. Per the description, it was taken from this video uploaded by Dru who did not release it under creative commons.

Also derivative images:

• File:SOPHIE at LadyLand Festival (headshot).png
• File:Sep17 Woman of the Day.png version featuring Sophie's article

Miklogfeather (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Yeah, that account is just reuploading other people's work and tagging it as CC-BY. hinnk (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Granki-1-1.jpg

• also file:Granki-1-4.jpg
  There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. This is after-WWII monument. Taivo (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Композиция слево от памятника.jpg

• also file:Композиция справо от памятника.jpg
• also file:Памятник погибшим в дулаг-184.jpg
• also file:Центр памятника.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. This is after-WWII monument. Taivo (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

This monument was opened in 2014. Sculptor: Salavat Sherbakov (born 1955, see w:ru:Щербаков, Салават Александрович). Nakonana (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

File:A. Szemik. Żołnerz Artylerii Lekkiej w Białej.png

wrong date, wrong source, wrong author Xocolatl (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep Now fixed. --RAN (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• There is still no information from what book or other publication it was scanned. In order to be PD it had to be published with no copyright notice before 1994. If it was not published before this date in Poland and author is unknown so it is orphaned work, no PD. Polimerek (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Antoni Szemik.png

wrong date, wrong source, wrong author Xocolatl (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep All fixed. --RAN (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete No proof where and when this was published to by PD. 93.159.2.50 18:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• It seems to be scaned from some sort of official document - so if it was used in any official document it should be described in which one exactly, and then it can be kept as PD using template {{Pd-Polish-symbol}}. Polimerek (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

File:A. Szemik przed swoim sklepem w Kudowie (na Zakrzu).png

wrong date, wrong source, wrong author Xocolatl (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:ZAZAİSTAN BAYRAĞI.jpg

artık gerek yok ZÜLKİF YILMAZ (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Allabout-logo.png

Out of scope (?) material. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 19:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Tajotep (talk · contribs)

I have looked at about half of these and in every case "Own" was claimed but the named photographer is not the uploader. In several cases, the named source is World Sailing, which is freely license only for editorial use.

• File:Studio portrait of Julio Alonso Ortega.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega walking through Paternoster Square in London’s business district, holding a newspaper.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega walking through London’s financial district.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega walking across a London pavement.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega walking along a commercial district in London, captured in mid-stride wearing a navy suit and open-collar shirt.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega reading the business section of a newspaper in the city center.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega standing on a modern staircase in a business complex.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega standing beside a classic black London taxi in the City of London.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega photographed in central London, wearing a tailored navy suit and standing beside a traditional red London double-decker bus.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega on a phone call in the financial district of London.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega buttoning his suit in a bustling London street.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega crossing a major London intersection with a classic red bus in the background.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega adjusting his suit jacket on a London street, set against the backdrop of a red city bus.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Albert Torres sailing in Flying Phantom.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Albert Torres representing Spain at the Red Bull Foiling Generation.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Albert Torres at the Red Bull Foiling Generation in Miami United States.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso and Albert Torres at the Red Bull Foiling Generation in Miami Florida.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Telis Athanasopoulos Yogo.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega Sailing in 29er During the ISAF worlds.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega Sailing at Texas during the ISAF Worlds.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega Sailing 29er Corpus Christi ISAF Worlds.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega Sailing in 29er Corpus Christi ISAF Worlds.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega world champion sailing in Lake Garda Italy.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing with Albert Torres at the Red Bull Foiling Generation.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing in dinghy 470 sailing.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega at the Red Bull Foiling Generation with Albert Torres.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Yoel Hernandez sailing in 29er.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Maria Bover sailing on the olympic category 470.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Maria Bover sailing dinghy 470 class.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Alberto Torres Movistar Sailing Spanish Impulse.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega Canary Islands sailing.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing in 420 at Cadiz.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing in San Remo Italy.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega Sailing in Helsinki in 29er.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing in 420 at Lake Balaton Hungary.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Maria Bover sailing olympic category 470 mixed.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Maria Bover sailing in 470.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Maria Bover sailing.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega Sailing at Portoroz Slovenia in 470.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing in 470 olympic mixed category.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing world champion 470 mix.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing in slovenia 470 dinghy.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing in dinghy olympic category.jpg

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Files are being checked by VRT. Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Ticket:2025041210005392 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 00:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Since there are many different sources and photographers, it is impossible that one VRT ticket will cover all of these files. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

So let's wait, we are not in a hurry (a rule in Wikimedia projects). Two different emails were sent, one email for sailing photographs, which is pending, and other email for the rest of files, which is solved but it have to be updated. Tajotep (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The ticket so far only covers permission from one photographer: Uros Kekus Kleva

I have found only eight files which bear his name in the author field:

• File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing in slovenia 470 dinghy.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing in dinghy olympic category.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing world champion 470 mix.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Maria Bover sailing olympic category 470 mixed.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega Sailing at Portoroz Slovenia in 470.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Maria Bover sailing.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Maria Bover sailing in 470.jpg
• File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing in 470 olympic mixed category.jpg

I have added the permission tag to those eight. I suggest to keep them, but delete all the other ones unless we get photographers' permissions for them as well. Mussklprozz (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all. I am getting the permission of the other photographers (I had it from the beginning, but not by hand). Tajotep (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Tajotep To be clear: I have hardly ever seen such a mess before, and I have been working in the support team for several years. Meanwhile we received permissions from two more photographers with the ticket – see below. Next time I see such a badly prepared mass upload, I will refuse to handle it and vote for deletion of all images involved. – Creating an ill founded licence template without consulting the support team or an admin before was also a bad move. :-/ Mussklprozz (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• I have just accepted permission for “File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing in San Remo Italy.jpg” under ticket:2025041210005392. --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• I have just accepted permission for “File:Julio Alonso Ortega Canary Islands sailing.jpg” under ticket:2025041210005392. --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• I have just accepted permission for “File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Maria Bover sailing dinghy 470 class.jpg” under ticket:2025041210005392. --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• I have just accepted permission for “File:Julio Alonso Ortega and Maria Bover sailing on the olympic category 470.jpg” under ticket:2025041210005392. --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• I have just accepted permission for “File:Julio Alonso Ortega sailing in dinghy 470 sailing.jpg” under ticket:2025041210005392. --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for that, then. I understand it is a mass amount of images since the creation of the ticket, but it wasn't the purpose. During the uploading of the images I indicated I wasn't the creator, and I also indicated that the creator accepted the cc-by-sa-4.0. I understand that no one can be fully trusted, and that's why it was created a deletion request. In any case, photographer permissions will arrive over the next few days. Tajotep (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• I have just accepted permission for “File:Julio Alonso Ortega Sailing 29er Corpus Christi ISAF Worlds.jpg” under ticket:2025041210005392. --Mussklprozz (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• I have just accepted permission for “File:Julio Alonso Ortega Sailing at Texas during the ISAF Worlds.jpg” under ticket:2025041210005392. --Mussklprozz (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• I have just accepted permission for “File:Julio Alonso Ortega Sailing in 29er Corpus Christi ISAF Worlds.jpg” under ticket:2025041210005392. --Mussklprozz (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  sorry, i missclicked this one. We have no permission from photographer James Tomlinson yet. --Mussklprozz (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• I have just accepted permission for “File:Julio Alonso Ortega Sailing in 29er During the ISAF worlds.jpg” under ticket:2025041210005392. --Mussklprozz (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hi @Tajotep, I have just seen that you removed the delete-request tag from this file. Even though there is a permission tag from the support team, you may not remove that tag. It is up to an admin to finally decide whether the file be kept, and only he or she may remove the delete request. If you have done so to other files discussed here, please undo your changes. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I did it to make things easier for the person who will check it later. My apologies, then. Tajotep (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• I have just accepted permission for “File:Julio Alonso Ortega Sailing in 29er Corpus Christi ISAF Worlds.jpg” under ticket:2025041210005392. --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Cowgirl-emmanuelle.png

With 5 edits in three years you cant have a personal picture here. 186.172.27.65 20:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:I.E. Weldon Secondary School.png

Out of scope (?) material. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 20:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep. Notable school with Wikipedia article (en:I. E. Weldon Secondary School). IronGargoyle (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

File:IAPS logo no back.png

Out of scope (?) material. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 20:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment. Notable organization (en:Independent Association of Prep Schools), but unsure if this falls under the recently adjusted threshold of originality in the UK. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

File:OATIA-logo.png

Out of scope (?) material. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 20:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment. Notable airport (en:Oban Airport). Unsure if this is below the lower threshold of originality in the UK following the recent court case. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Force Publique Soldiers in front of a statue of King Leopold II.jpg

Statue was erected in Leopoldville (Kinshasa) in 1929, i am not sure therefore this picture is in the Public Domain. AidepikiWeerF (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep. The statue is a direct replica of one created by Thomas Vinçotte in Ghent (https://contestedhistories.org/wp-content/uploads/Democratic-Republic-of-Congo_-Leopold-II-Statue-in-Kinshasa.pdf). Vinçotte died in 1925, so this easily satisfies the DRC's 50 year PMA copyright term. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  Keep, IG is right. 186.174.248.241 01:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  In that case, I agree that it should be kept. AidepikiWeerF (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Earl Warren 20th Attorney General of California 3x4.jpg

redundant PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Hong Kong Independence

I think this political restriction template is irrelevant outside of a single autocratic country that blocks Wikimedia anyway: sometimes I think that this template is nothing more than a futile attempt to appease an autocratic country. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Chinese sensitive content, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Extremist symbol in Russia and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Zionist symbol. Minoa (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete all Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Hong_Kong_Independence per nom: useless. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Wikimedia is accessible and widely used in Hong Kong. It is reasonable to remind people from Hong Kong and rest of the world not to violate the law of Hong Kong and China, which is the whole point of this and all other similar templates. Meanwhile, this restriction is not an act of autocracy, but act of law enforcement of the government of Hong Kong SAR.

For example, the goal of Template:Nazi symbol is to remind people from countries which consider this symbol illegal not to break the law, because it is easy for them to save this file from the Internet and break the law. MarkZhou08 (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe that in this case, COM:DISCLAIMER is sufficient. --Minoa (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

File:180 Boyd, Cyanide Tanks Bendigo, Adelaide Art Gallery, July 1976 (51792264360).jpg

Artwork in copyright - artist only died in 1999. Uploaded from Flickr, where the user marked it cc-by-2.0, but the user would not actually have rights to the painting, which is held at a museum. https://www.agsa.sa.gov.au/collection-publications/collection/works/cyanide-tanks-bendigo/24073/ MorrisStuff (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{FoP-Australia}} doesn't work in the case? Юрий Д.К 20:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Stereo Madness by ForeverBound.flac

sadly the video is not CCBY anymore and even before the description has "u can use this track in your vids if u want as long as u give me credits and it isn't used for commercial purposes" which is incompatible Prototyperspective (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Why "not CCBY anymore"? Still it says "u can use this track in your vids if u want as long as u give me credits and it isn't used for commercial purposes" on the archived LooTube page. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

So is there any consensus about files like this with valid license combined with invalid usage conditions? It was the same thing with this file but it was kept Commons:Deletion requests/File:Little-girl-570864 1280.jpg#c-Ikan Kekek-20241210045400-Grand-Duc-20241210013400  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   21:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a totally different subject. Here a condition is in the video description that implies the file is at most CCBY-NC but that's not compatible. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

In this case the video was using the Creative Commons option on YouTube in 2014 which can be verified by viewing source of the source of the archived page and CTRL F/searching for https://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons which is and always been CC BY 3.0.

In that case the photo was uploaded on Pixabay when CC0 was still in effect there but the author's profile on Pixabay state a restriction clearly "Do not use a photo with a face commercially without contacting me"

Now previously I voted to delete this files but now I don't know. This is like I signed a contract without reading it and then claiming it does not apply because I didn't know what it was. Also we can speculate that every user who uploaded their own work did not understand the license  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That file was nominated for deletion for another reason. Nominate it again and point this issue out in the deletion rationale and people will read and hopefully consider it. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

With regard to this file, there's a very specific reason to suspect that the author was unaware of the implications of their license choice - it's not an arbitrary doubt. Omphalographer (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. The impression I get from the description is that the YouTube uploader did not understand the CC-BY license they selected, as their additional terms are made entirely redundant by that license. Releasing a work under a license requires intent; if it's clear that the licensor did not understand the license, they did not legally agree to it. Omphalographer (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

There is reason to believe that ForeverBound knew what he was doing when he uploaded it with the CC license; he uploaded many other tracks with CC on YouTube from 2014-2016 without this notice about commercial use. And Stereo Madness was uploaded on Youtube Nov 28, 2013 but the first archived version is from almost a year later when Geometry Dash was already quite famous, so he probably updated the description because it's his most popular track and he wanted to make money from it.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   18:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete Non-Commercial only is specifically stated, and NC licenses not allowed on Commons -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I feel like there has to be a difference between "Don't use this file for commercial purposes, by the way this is under creativecommons:by/3.0" and straight up "This is under creativecommons:by-nc/3.0". Does putting your own custom restriction on a CC 3.0 license (in this case, CC BY 3.0) override the legal code? SergioFLS (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep As far as I know, once someone tagged a video CC-BY, the license is still technically applied even if you change the license later. Wikimedia says "audio excerpt was originally uploaded on YouTube under a CC license", so it doesn't matter if the license changes in the future: as long as the video had the CC-BY license at some point, the license applies and you can use it on Commons. Also, the YouTube CC-BY text has priority over anything written in the description. ForeverBound probably didn't know how to license videos on YouTube correctly, but that doesn't change anything. The license doesn't care for rookie mistakes. Correct me, if I'm wrong. Dabmasterars (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The license however was never CCBY since the description said from the start "…and it isn't used for commercial purposes" (or not?). Prototyperspective (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

It was labeled on YouTube as CC-BY. Go to the source link, right-click, click "view page source" and search "creative_commons". Again, it doesn't matter if the creator changed his license later or wrote contradictory license information in the description. Dabmasterars (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

it doesn't matter if the creator […] wrote contradictory license information in the description False. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Keep The source code page clearly shows that the video was published under the CC-BY license. VladoKosto (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

That is false if you can read the video description there. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If ForeverBound wrote that the song can not be used for commercial purposes then why would he select the option to mark the video with the creative commons license? The CC-BY license is optional and it is clearly stated on the YouTube Help website what license it is and that others can reuse the video elements or even the whole video under the terms of the license. It doesn't matter if ForeverBound later removed the license. CC licenses are irrevocable as stated in the terms. VladoKosto (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Whether selecting CCBY overrides contradictory info in the video description would need to be discussed on a broader venue with more input.

However, in previous DRs it did not do so and I don't think that would be okay. The user may not have read that or wanted to select CCBY-NC but went for CCBY since that is the only option with a note in the video description. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, CC BY (3.0) is the only Creative Commons option built in YouTube. I don't get how writing a different terms can magically turn CC BY into CC BY NC. Think about how much websites contains a message like "By using the website you agree to the Terms of Service" and start tracking users as soon as they enter the site. They can even probably see that most people never clicked to read the terms of service, but does this then make the TOS not apply to all those users? Even if I go in a contact page and type "I do not agree to the terms of service", it won't magically make them not apply to me while I am using the site or stop them from tracking.

On YouTube you had to deliberately choose the license. Also consider there are cases on Youtube and other platforms where we could argue we know the user did not understand the license, such as videos of non free music performances where the license is not valid for the sound, but we still use many images of musicians from such videos.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   23:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't convert it to CCBY-NC or at least not necessarily: that's not what I meant. It just means it's not CCBY anymore. You could make this point at a broader venue but for now DRs have opted for the safe side of assuming it's probably not CCBY if the uploader adds contradictory info to the description. Let's say you're a person who is looking for videos that are CCBY, CCBYSA, or CCBY-NC on youtube, there's way too many videos to go through for the subject without a filter so you may filter by CCBY and the uploader may have wanted to make it show up there hence selecting that only option in the license options. The user can also license a video under CCBY without selecting a license and just adding that info to the video description. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment Does anyone want to try asking ForeverBound themselves for clarification on the licensing of this track? Wilhelm von Hindenburger (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Weak keep others here have provided proof that it was at one point provided under CC BY 3.0. I should also note that CC themselves say that their licenses are irrevocable, see {{YouTube-change-of-license}}. This sort of reminds me of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freely Tomorrow.ogg20150120, although that file was about the lack of proof of permission.

The questionable part though is whether or not the CC BY license was intentional. SergioFLS (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

If the user clearly writes licensing terms that are not CCBY, then it's not CCBY. It's that simple regardless of how many people think or vote this or that. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

If I sign a contract for 8k but I scratch out 8k and write 10k I will not magically be paid 10k. The description and the license area are separate, you had to select the CC license option manually in YouTube. If I upload my work and select CC BY 3.0 but write in the description "This video is under CC BY SA 4.0" we would accept this as 2 different licenses.

If this license is not valid it brings up other issues like is the license valid on the other videos ForeverBound uploaded with the CC license without any such statements in the description? Or will free CC licenses be effectively revocable if you can just claim somewhere that you thought commercial use was not allowed?  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

First these two are not equivalent. Secondly, if you say you sign the contract for 10 k and strike 8 k and write 10 k then the contract is for 10 k or not at all and that's not magic. Furthermore, there is no real benefit and no need for ignoring what people clearly state they intend regarding licensing. Whatever society does ignoring it, it doesn't have to cross over into Commons just for a small handful of files where it's clear the creator didn't intend to set that license. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Downton Abbey - The Grand Finale Teaser Poster.jpg

Copyright violation. EnDeeDoubleYou (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment. It seems unlikely, but this does have a VRT ticket which should be checked. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

File:カタルーニャの国章.webp

Duplicate of File:Seal of the Generalitat of Catalonia.svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Deva1995 (talk · contribs)

COM:LL, Flickrwashing: From a blacklisted Flickr account. All this files needs discussion. Another problem is that the uploader sometimes forgets to link the source to Flickr, instead of linking directly to the file, an album is selected. Licenses do not always match those on Flickr. Also forgets to add Template:Flickreview, knowing that this will mark the files as inappropriate.

• File:Mihai-Cosmin Pascariu (2024).jpg
• File:Nicolae Mîndrescu (2024).jpg
• File:Laura Gherasim (2024).jpg
• File:Ionelia Priescu (2024).jpg
• File:Ilie-Alin Coleșa (2024).jpg
• File:Gabriel-Florinel Florea (2024).jpg
• File:Elena Doboş (2024).jpg
• File:Morawiecki, Simion, Bruynseels (2).jpg
• File:Morawiecki, Simion, Bruynseels (1).jpg
• File:Fabian-Cristian Radu, 2024.jpg
• File:Robert Alecu (2024).jpg
• File:Nicolae Vlahu (2024).jpg
• File:Matieş Călin-Gheorghe (2024).jpg
• File:Laurențiu Plăeșu (2024).jpg
• File:Corneliu Negru (2024).jpg
• File:Artimon Dan Cătălin (2024).jpg
• File:Costache Chertif (2024).jpg
• File:Poză-profil-fabian-radu.jpg
• File:Simion & Morawiecki (7).jpg
• File:Simion & Milei.jpg
• File:Simion, Ierusalim (6).jpg
• File:Simion, Ierusalim (4).jpg
• File:Fabian-Cristian Radu, 26.3.jpg
• File:Simion, Trump Jr., Maréchal.jpg
• File:Veronica Grosu (2024).jpg
• File:Gianina Șerban (2024).jpg
• File:Simion, Ierusalim (5).jpg
• File:Simion, Ierusalim (2).jpg
• File:Simion, Ierusalim (1).jpg
• File:Simion, Ierusalim (3).jpg
• File:Meloni, bacio sulla guancia.jpg
• File:Meloni&Simion, bacio sulla guancia.jpg
• File:Simion, Nawrocki, Morawiecki.jpg
• File:Anamaria Gavrilă (2025).jpg
• File:Simion, piata alimentara.jpg
• File:Simion & Morawiecki la Cluj.jpg
• File:Produs românesc (2025).jpg
• File:Simion, Digi 24.jpg
• File:Morawiecki, selfie.jpg
• File:Simion, Gavrilă, Morawiecki.jpg
• File:Morawiecki & Simion, selfie (2).jpg
• File:Morawiecki Cluj.jpg
• File:Morawiecki & Simion, selfie.jpg
• File:Simion & Gavrilă.jpg
• File:Morawiecki w Rumunii.jpg
• File:Morawiecki & Gavrilă.jpg
• File:George Simion & Georgiana Teodorescu.jpg
• File:Conservatori 2025.jpg
• File:George Simion & Branko Grims.jpg
• File:George Simion & Kristoffer Hjort Storm.jpg
• File:Marion Maréchal (2025).jpg
• File:George Simion & Antonella Sberna.jpg
• File:George Simion & Judita Laššáková.jpg
• File:George Simion & Hermann Tertsch.jpg
• File:George Simion & Charlie Weimers.jpg
• File:George Simion & Arkadiusz Mularczyk.jpg
• File:George Simion & Fidias Panayiotou.jpg
• File:George Simion & António Tânger Corrêa.jpg
• File:George Simion & Marco Campomenosi.jpg
• File:Marion Maréchal & George Simion.jpg
• File:Simion & Meloni (2).jpg
• File:Simion & Meloni (1).jpg
• File:Ziua lui Georgescu 2025 (5).jpg
• File:Ziua lui Georgescu 2025 (4).jpg
• File:Ziua lui Georgescu 2025 (1).jpg
• File:Ziua lui Georgescu 2025 (2).jpg
• File:Ziua lui Georgescu 2025 (3).jpg
• File:Simion & Morawiecki (2025).jpg
• File:George Simion & Aurelijus Veryga.jpg

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 22:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Info, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 202354425@N02. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 22:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

There was an undeletion request going on at Undeletion requests/Current requests (I don't know how to link to it) titled Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 202354425@N02. From Gikü wrote his reply, I was given less than 24 hours before that discussion was suddently closed by Abzeronow.

Tagging King of Hearts about this new discussion. Deva1995 (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete only evidence that the photographer is agree with this licence and AUR confirms that the account is official.

Panam2014 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I just read Ziv's remarks: "Another problem is that the uploader sometimes forgets to link the source to Flickr, instead of linking directly to the file, an album is selected. Licenses do not always match those on Flickr. Also forgets to add Template:Flickreview, knowing that this will mark the files as inappropriate''. I have not done this Another problem is that the uploader sometimes forgets to link the source to Flickr, instead of linking directly to the file, an album is selected. Licenses do not always match those on Flickr. Also forgets to add Template:Flickreview, knowing that this will mark the files as inappropriate. I have not done this intentionally, however, I will be better at this.

To Panam2014: it is beyound doubt that they own the account. Flickr requires email confirmation. The email (comunicare@partidulaur.ro) on the account is the same as on website. Also, how would they be able to upload all those never before published images with exif? To quote KoH from the last discussion: "While it is true that they need to have secured copyright from the individual photographers, we have typically not demanded evidence of this from large organizations; we generally assume that the licensing on their website or official social media account is accurate unless we have evidence to the contrary". Is there evidence to contrary? Deva1995 (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Deva1995

Thank you for the link. I see the problem, and the admin's closure of the request is understandable. I think the option to verify images with VRT tickets would actually be the best way. With VRT tickets, older, already deleted images could probably also be restored. Regards: זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ziv: we need a VTRS check from the photographer, not the party. Panam2014 (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course, this refers to the photographers, but they can only be reached through the party זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 10:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Why would that be needed? It is not needed when any other politicial party uploads images to Flickr under a free licence. Deva1995 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It is necessary. Panam2014 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Deva1995, how other parties handle this is irrelevant, as they aren't blacklisted either. But just one small example, even if this isn't about a specific party: The Israel Defense Forces even requires a separate ticket for each individual image uploaded to Commons, and these are then approved or rejected by the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 09:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I think @Yann backlisted them because he thought the account was fake. Is that correct, Yann? Deva1995 (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Not fake, but publishing under a free license pictures which they do not own the copyright, i.e. Flickr license washing. As the discussion on UDR has shown, the issue is not resolved. Yann (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll link to that UDR discussion here. What images are alleged to be licence laundering? Deva1995 (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read again the discussion. It is unlikely that the organization managing the Flickr account has the right to release files taken by different photographers under a free license. Yann (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep I have removed the Flickr account from the blacklist. In general, the blacklist requires high confidence that the images are not acceptable: either clear evidence that the account is stealing images from other people (not merely an allegation), or clear consensus from DR with sufficient quorum to be indicative of broad agreement. In this case it was a unilateral decision by one person to add the account to the blacklist (before they even opened a DR!). It seems that people are primarily contesting two points: 1) That the Flickr account does not legitimately belong to the party. I think the email address is sufficient proof that the Flickr account is legitimate, just as if they had emailed VRTS using that email address, since setting your email in Flickr requires confirmation. 2) That the Flickr account, even if a legitimate representative of the party, is not authorized to release the photos taken by various photographers under a free license. We have plenty of examples of organizations releasing photos on Flickr without us requiring any additional proof of authorization, such as the European Parliament, Platforma Obywatelska RP, European People's Party, etc. So those arguing to delete the photos of this party will need to establish what makes it different from all the other examples we have of political organizations releasing photos under a CC license on Flickr. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  @King of Hearts: Hi, I am fine if there is a consensus to accept the files from this account, but the UDR discussion was leaning the other way. Yann (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, let's wait for more people to chime in to get a definitive consensus on this. But I would like to see an explanation of why these photos in particular are problematic and not those uploaded by other political parties (or do people think all of them should be deleted, and this is just a test case for a massive onslaught of DRs)? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hello, as the one who submitted the deletion request, I have no problem keeping the files. However, in this case, Deva's job should be now to review each single file again, set the correct links, double-check the licenses, and also add the Flickreview template so that the files are finally approved. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  Extranote: and if these file are kept, then the files that have already been deleted should also be restored. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Ziv, King of Hearts, and Yann: as today, we have no proof that the photographers have agred to publish the files in public domain. The fact we have not already checked the others parties's photo is not enough to accept these files without evidence. The solution is doing the same for the others parties. Panam2014 (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Panam2014: Again, the de facto policy is that we have not required other political parties to provide such proof, and you can't change policy in a single DR. So your claim is that all photos uploaded by a political party to Flickr without explicit proof of authorization by the individual photographers should be deleted - but where do you draw the line? What about corporations releasing press kits under a free license - should we get individual releases from the designers, writers, and photographers? How about media companies making their content available under a free license - do we need to track down all the cinematographers, set designers, composers, etc. and get them to sign off? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  @King of Hearts: the the facto situation is not an argument, committing a mistake is not a reason to commit another. It should discussed at village pump. Panam2014 (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Panam2014: I agree with KoH here. If the current policy is to allow these pictures, this is not the place to change it. Yann (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Yann: I am not talking about changing the policy but about following it seriously. Panam2014 (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Related discussion, where two separate decisions were made to have such files deleted: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-04#Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 202354425@N02. Gikü (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  Somehow, the uploaders don't seem to care much whether the files are reviewed by Flickreview or other trusted users. So I've taken action myself on some files. Regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 23:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep File:Fabian-Cristian Radu, 26.3.jpg despite bad behaviour of the uploader (@User:Deva1995). Taylor 49 (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: I flickrpassed the image because this flickr account was removed from the blacklist. Before, I thought it was on the blacklist but not anymore. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  It's been more than two weeks. I belive Andrei Stroe didn't notice this discussion and today (30 May 2025) out of good faith created a new deletion request. Deva1995 (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  There is a consistent overlap, but that discussion is about all images from that Flickr account, uploaded by anyone. This is about images uploaded by you from any source.  —Andrei^talk 11:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep Per King of Hearts cogent arguments. We have never demanded individual creators to provide a release from corporations and other organizations, we assume these organizations have the rights and have performed their due diligence. The analogy to a creative commons release of a movie is apt, we do not require "cinematographers, set designers, [the] composer" to individually sign releases. --RAN (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Photos of Chen Yun

• File:1959 Chen Yun.jpg
• File:1959 Chen Yun (cropped).jpg

The earliest known source of these photos, as I know, is the 1995 publication Chen Yun, compiled by the Party Literature Research Center of the CPC Central Committee in collaboration with the Xinhua News Agency. They are not in the public domain in either US or China.--铁桶 (Talk) 07:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Agree，these photo should be deleted. 水里的游鱼是沉默的 (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)