Commons:Deletion requests/2025/06/06

June 6

File:Azerbaijan Map Chart.png

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Bust of Betsey Dunn (W.L. Clark).jpg

No information has been provided regarding when this sculpture was created or where, and whether it was ever published. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep, since the only information available about this sculpture is this photograph and the fact that it is created by Walter Leighton Clark, it’s most certain the sculpture is unpublished (and possibly never will as it probably doesn’t exist anymore), so the sculpture should be in PD per {{PD-US-unpublished}} (Clark passed away in 1935). Also, uploader claims the photo is a “family photo”, which probably means they inherited the photograph from a family member, so it is likely they were allowed to release the photograph to PD. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:RPC0026.jpg

The uploader hasn't been around for 20 years, but there's no indication that he had the authority to license an image of what may be a copyrighted sculpture through the artist's estate. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:ArthurCovey.jpg

Unknown author + unknown date of creation/publication = unknown copyright status. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, the description appears to imply the subject’s sister was the photographer/copyright holder and the copyright was passed on to the uploader as an heir of the sister. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep {{PD-US-not renewed}} is the correct license, the subject’s sister archived the image and the image came from a professional photographer. In the US if you wanted an image copyrighted you had to register for a copyright then renew that copyright for an image created prior to 1964 and no image of Arthur Covey appears in either the registration or renewal database. --RAN (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    We have no indication that the photograph was published between 1930 and 1963. However, I missed the part that it was inherited by the uploader, so I think this should actually be restored to a CC license. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
    To make my position clear: if 2011 is the first publication, the estate still maintains copyright, and it won't be in PD until 70 years from the death of the author, which is 2034. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
    Once an estate has been distributed, the estate is wound up and its assets (including any copyrights) become the assets of the appropriate heirs. If the uploader was the sole heir or if they unherited the copyright, then it is up to them what they do with it. Martinvl (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Fairlington Historical Marker.JPG

Historical markers are generally subject to copyright. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep. The text on the marker is neither original and creative; it is just a simple statement of facts, and is therefore not protected by copyright. AjaxSmack (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    This is not just a simple statement of facts. It's a written text that combines several facts to reach a conclusion and contains the author's original analysis, such as: "Fairlington is an early example of successful community planning ...." (opinion statements emphasized). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Кисловодск нарзан значок.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama for artworks in Russia (COM:FOP Russia). — Redboston 01:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC) I cannot find any source that this coat of arms was the official coat of arms of Kislovodsk (w:ru:Герб Кисловодска, ). It's just a souvenir badge (: "Эмблема с сувенирных значков"). — Redboston 12:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Henry O. Glidden at work around 1920.jpg

First published in 2017. Author and date of creation unknown. The earliest it can be considered PD is 2112. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, if the photo was taken in 1920 by an unknown author and was indeed unpublished until 2017, then it will enter PD in 2041 per {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep We allow family members to release images taken by family members under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} if they are the legal heir. The uploader has already stated that they are the legal heir. The image cannot be found in any commercial archive, so we have no reason to doubt them. --RAN (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    We have no indication that the uploader is the legal heir. They could have merely had access to the family scrapbook, which may have been owned by another family member. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
    AS per the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct we should assume good faith and if they said that they were the heir and it is reasonable to believe them, then they are the heir. Martinvl (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
     Question is Hmn2 (talk · contribs) really one of the heirs of the original copyright holder? Their enwiki talk page (w:en:User talk:Hmn2) shows they had some problematic uploads on enwiki in the past. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
    I also doubt this deletion request is against the WMF UCoC. Vandalism is when there is "repeated arbitrary or unmotivated removal of any content without appropriate discussion or providing explanation." However, as we are now doing, we engage in discussion to determine the status of the file, so not against UCoC. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:TF-ISI (cropped).png

CC-zero license is bogus, no free license stated at source. However, this 1947 Icelandic photograph is probably public domain as a non-artistic photograph. URAA would be an issue since this entered PD in Iceland in 1998 which is after 1996. Abzeronow (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Zhiga Ivan Fyodorovich.jpeg

Unknown author couldn't die >70 years ago. No evidence of first publication 70 or more years ago to meet COM:Russia requirements. Quick1984 (talk) 04:33, 6 June 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 uploaded by SerSem (talk · contribs)

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Russia for statues and Belarus.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2018 (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 uploaded by SerSem (talk · contribs)

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Russia (for sculptures) and Belarus.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 19 March 2018 (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 uploaded by SerSem (talk · contribs)

Unfortunately, there is no FoP in Russia for monuments and no FoP in Belarus. These are various photos from cemeteries and I marked those of them that are (in my view):

  • creative enough (no just small piece of something that could be ignored due to de minimise)
  • various busts and bas-reliefs (3D objects)

All others I skipped.

rubin16 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Files uploaded by SerSem (talk · contribs)

Derivatives of 3D/2D-artworks, no FoP in Russia for these.

Quick1984 (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

В моём списке наблюдения - статья о Н. Богословском, поэтому я узнал о грядущем удалении. Совершенно непонятны причины номинирования на удаление. Что, по-русски вразумительно нельзя написать? Если судить по английской фразе: "Derivatives of 3D/2D-artworks, no FoP in Russia for these", - что я должен думать, что все работы этого автора - изменённые чужие снимки? Да посмотрите на них подряд! Это же чисто любительские фотографии, не очень умелые даже! Если бы я брал чужое фото и как-то его изменял, чтобы выдать за своё, то я бы для начала обрезал лишнее, выровнял бы перспективу, исправил контраст, а кое-где и цвет... Я не верю, что всё это плагиат методом изменения оригиналов. Или я неправильно понял? Тогда повторю: объясните по-человечески! - Александр Васильев (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Iloilo International Airport.jpg

Infringement of architectural copyright, because there is no Freedom of Panorama for any copyrighted public landmark in the Philippines. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Iloilo International Airport. Importer/uploader has been told about the no-FoP status of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:The Oblation Statue in front of Quezon Hall.jpg

Copyright infringement, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Oblation (University of the Philippines Diliman). Sculptor isn't yet dead for more than 50 years, and the statue is likely copyrighted in the US too (since it is protected by sculptural copyright). There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

And likewise from Category:Oblation (University of the Philippines Diliman):
none of which are de minimis/incidental for the sculpture. DMacks (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Philippines copyright law is fairly convoluted, having changed several times with different retroactive aspects. en:File:UPOblationOr-01.jpg is marked non-free "Because it is unclear whether the copyright of this sculpture was registered and/or renewed, this work will enter public domain on January 1, 2027, 50 years after Guillermo Tolentino died in 1976.". However, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines uses as a specific example another work by Tolentino (from 1933; the Oblation is from late 1930s) as being PD because it is covered by the rules from that era rather than the current "50 years p.m.a." rule, and therefore hostable on commons. Assuming the COM:Copyright rules page is our governing standard, I think the Oblation sculpture is PD. DMacks (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
    @DMacks unfortunately, the Oblation statue is a tricky case:
    • We don't have sufficient info if Tolentino did fail to register this work, though we may assume that he may have did so, considering that IPOPHL-BCRR's response in a 2020 FB post that assumes Tolentino's another public art, the 1933 Bonifacio Monument, as a registered work of art, and may had fell in public domain due to shorter term before 1972. Like in pre-1978 US copyright regime, renewal was required, and the IPOPHL-BCRR response on FB assumed that he failed to renew copyright on his 1933 monument, so the Bonifacio Monument may had fell PD before 1972.
    • The Oblation statue is not as very old as it seems. The statue was inaugurated in 1939, as per w:en:Oblation (statue). However, per enwiki (citing this now-dead link), the current statue standing in front of the university's admin building (Quezón Hall) is a 1950 replica that was recast in Italy and supervised by Tolentino himself, and the original (made of concrete) is now housed inside Gonzalez Hall, one of their main buildings. It is unclear if replicas are copyrightable by themselves, let alone the more recent date of the replica which is 1950 (which is less than 30 years from 1972, and may had got caught up with the Berne-compliant Presidential Decree 49 of 1972, giving 50 year-p.m.a. to authorial works like Oblation).
    • There is an unreferenced passage in enwiki, claiming "The sculpture was registered at the Intellectual Property Office in the year 2004." No other info was provided, like the nature of the registration (copyright, or non-copyright like trademark which is not relevant for us any way). Applying COM:PCP, we may need to presume it was a copyright-protected artwork as of 2004 (which may had granted it trademark protection even if long overdue, since the creation of the replica in 1950). Even then, the passage on the enwiki entry has no citations.
    Perhaps taking these things into account, we may assume (applying COM:PCP) that Tolentino's posthumous copyright still prevails over this statue, until the end of this year; yet, if this is true, then this was protected on the US URAA date of 1996, and it attained its US copyright, valid for 95 years after 1950 (or, 1939), which means it remains unfree even after the PH term expires at the end of this year. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is even more complicated than I had realized. I think we're best as PCP-delete. DMacks (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Manila, National Museum of Fine Arts, Statue of Gomburza, Philippines.jpg

There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. The depicted public art dates to 1972 and was authored by Solomon Saprid. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Latam-logo -v.svg

This file was initially tagged by Daniel.9 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Logo is nearly invisible due to white elements on white background. Unusable for display or identification. There is another properly visible version.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ariane Daguin Headshot.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Habertix as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The links mentionned as Source indicate "Usage Rights" = "Free for Use" but only CC-BY-SA compatible licences are allowed on Commons
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. The meaning of the unclear wording of the permission might be healed by a request to the website-owner. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Same problem with: File:Ariane Daguin with Foie Gras Duck.jpg

File:Escudo de Mendigorria.svg

No es el escudo oficial de Mendigorria y está causando confusión entre los usuarios Amurortiz (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Pernorgard.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Storye book (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I am not challenging the original deletion request by Sahaib; I am trying to understand it. What worries me is that I myself have uploaded nearly 30,000 images, and a good proportion of those are "own work" images under the {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL}} licence. The original deletion tag on the image filepage said that the reason for deletion is that the author/uploader had not sent a permissions email. So does that mean that I, too, have to send tens of thousands of permission emails for my tens of thousands of "own work" images? That does not make sense.
Looking at the uploader's Commons talkpage, I am wondering whether a reason for the deletion tag could be that the uploader is perceived to have a bad reputation, because there are already some "deleted image" templates on their talkpage. But over my 20+ years of working on WP and Commons, I have suffered a few deletions too - but that was mostly when I accidentally made copyright errors, and the deletion tags told me that. So I still don't get it. I have read the Commons essay "But it's my own work", and the above image filepage does not appear to fit into the examples-list given there. So I am not saying that the deletion request was wrong; I just want to understand why, so that I can make sure that I don't make the same error (whatever error that is). Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I think the actual issue is that the image doesn't look like an "own work" sort of image - it looks very professionally taken (along with the rest of the uploader's images, honestly). Given this, it's fair to request evidence that the uploader did, in fact, take the picture themselves, as opposed to 'I found this image and uploaded it', which alas far too many think "finding" = "own work". Not saying that's the case here, of course, but I'd suspect that's the reasoning here. - The Bushranger (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Ah, thank you, The Bushranger. You're right, I should have checked out their other uploads. In that case, I think this discussion can be closed now, unless someone else has something to add. Storye book (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Storye book: Not to show off or anything but I have over 200,000 edits on commons and over 175,000 edits on wikipedia, if I had a "bad reputation", I would have definitely been blocked by now. Sahaib (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No worries, Sahaib, I was not questioning your reputation (and I would not do so); I was questioning that of the image-uploader. Apologies if I was not clear about that. Storye book (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
@Storye book: my mistake, I can't read. Sahaib (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: There is no metadata, it is also in black and white so was presumably edited. If you check the user's talk page quite a few of their images have been deleted, thanks. Sahaib (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
How is it being in black and white a sign it was "presumably edited"? Black and white film exists. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Lean toward keep. Laivakoira2015's uploads look reasonably consistent with one another. I would think that if there is serious doubt of these being their own work, then they would stand or fall together. However: they all do look plausibly like the work of one photographer. Is there any evidence that any of these were published elsewhere prior to being on Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 19:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I understand the concerns caused by a user uploading a handful of good photos of notable people taken some decades ago (I see one of the subjects died in 1992), because that is what often do users who just grab photos from the Internet. However, the test for a photo grabbed from the Internet is simple: just find the original in any page older than the date when the photo was uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia. Therefore, I'd say keep unless the original for some of Laivakoira2015's image have been found.
I see in the Laivakoira2015's talk page that some of his uploads have been deleted, but I can't see there the evidence that they were actually copyvios.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
 Comment I am sceptical if "no metadata" is a valid reason for deletion. It is a negative for things like promotion to Quality image etc. Afaik IrfanView usually removes metadata while conversion. So it could also be an issue during image processing. The "black and white" argument is also not consistent to me. Even today, when technically not necessary, some people shoot in BW for aesthetic reasons, so... --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
@PantheraLeo1359531: . I agree with the point about metadata. I have uploaded hundreds if not thousands of images without metadata, because I do not use a tripod, correct image-rotation in Gimp, then when I upload such an image, no metadata shows up on the Commons filepage. Metadata is useful, and I wish it did not disappear that way, but that's what happens when I edit an image in an editing app. So lack of metadata does not imply copyvio. Also I am frequently converting colour photographs to black and white or sepia. That is a particularly useful ploy when a portrait includes a particularly bright, distracting colour in the wrong place, or when photographing old carvings which are made of distractingly-discoloured stone. Black and white allows one to observe shape without distraction of colour. Again, you don't need to be a thief to convert your images to black and white. The author of the above image could have converted a colour image to black and white because the sitter had an overly-reddened face at party time, because he had dyed his hair embarrassingly orange, because the background was distractingly bright - who knows. Some photographers just like using black and white, it is a technique which can prove flattering in photos of elderly people. Storye book (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I am missing the connection between missing metadata, color space convertions and indications of copyright violations or other violations. An extreme example would be a self-taken image sent via WhatsApp, and uploading the then compressed version (of course not to prefer, but some lose the original file). There is also metadata missing, but no violation of rights --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Пионервожатая.jpg

The license is wrong. The author is not anonymous, as claimed. The author is Ivan Shagin. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Sony LIV Logo.gif

The file is freeze YehudaHubert (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep. @YehudaHubert: "Note: Due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated. The limit on Wikimedia Commons is width × height × number of frames ≤ 100 million."   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ilham Aliyev attended the opening of the Heydar Aliyev Center in Goygol 10.jpg

No Freedom of Panorama in Azerbaijan. The building/artwork is complex enough to be copyrighted, the author has not been dead for 70 years, and it is prominent enough to be considered as copyvio. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:BoldarAndriiDoll.jpg

Ймовірно, самореклама. Файл ніде не використовується, не існує статей на тему. SimondR (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ilham Aliyev reviewed Hotel VEGO in Ganja.jpg

No Freedom of Panorama in Azerbaijan. The building/artwork is complex enough to be copyrighted, the author has not been dead for 70 years, and it is prominent enough to be considered as copyvio. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ilham Aliyev visited Goygol District 4.jpg

No Freedom of Panorama in Azerbaijan. The building/artwork is complex enough to be copyrighted, the author has not been dead for 70 years, and it is prominent enough to be considered as copyvio. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ilham Aliyev reviewed Hotel VEGO in Ganja 2.jpg

No Freedom of Panorama in Azerbaijan. The building/artwork is complex enough to be copyrighted, the author has not been dead for 70 years, and it is prominent enough to be considered as copyvio. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ilham Aliyev opened “ASAN Həyat” complex in Tovuz 78.jpg

No Freedom of Panorama in Azerbaijan. The building/artwork is complex enough to be copyrighted, the author has not been dead for 70 years, and it is prominent enough to be considered as copyvio. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ilham Aliyev arrived in Goranboy district for visit 03.jpg

No Freedom of Panorama in Azerbaijan. The building/artwork is complex enough to be copyrighted, the author has not been dead for 70 years, and it is prominent enough to be considered as copyvio. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ilham Aliyev opened “ASAN Həyat” complex in Tovuz 82.jpg

No Freedom of Panorama in Azerbaijan. The building/artwork is complex enough to be copyrighted, the author has not been dead for 70 years, and it is prominent enough to be considered as copyvio. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Goa-pre-liberation-stamps.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Ww2censor as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Portugal these stamps probably follow the general copyright term 70 years pma. They were issues around 1960/61
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, especially about whether Portoguese or Indian law is applicable here. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think Indian copyright law should apply, because the place of publication (Goa) is in India. If so, according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India#Stamps {{PD-India}} should apply. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Goa happens to now be in India but at the time these stamps were issued, it was an overseas colony of Portugal so Portuguese copyright would apply. Ww2censor (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Kate bush 1978 1.png

This image comes from a questionable Youtube account that has 850+ images which are mostly likely derivative work such as this 1975 freely licensed video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KL0oCchy5A Leoboudv (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Big Jim Sullivan 1975.png

This image comes from a questionable Youtube account that has 850+ images which are mostly likely deriavtive work such as this 1975 freely licensed video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KL0oCchy5A Leoboudv (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Graham Lear.png

This image comes from a questionable Youtube account that has 850+ images which are mostly likely derivative work such as this 1975 freely licensed video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KL0oCchy5A Leoboudv (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Kate bush 1978 2 (cropped).png

This image comes from a questionable Youtube account that has 850+ images which are mostly likely derivative work such as this 1975 freely licensed video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KL0oCchy5A Leoboudv (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Graham Lear.jpg

This image comes from a questionable Youtube account that has 850+ images which are mostly likely derivative work such as this 1975 freely licensed video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KL0oCchy5A Leoboudv (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Kate Bush New Zealand 1978.png

This image comes from a questionable Youtube account that has 850+ images which are mostly likely derivative work such as this 1975 freely licensed video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KL0oCchy5A Leoboudv (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Firdhiye of Khatumo chess ciyaaro.png

Bad quality image (too dark) Pierre cb (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Tetreaultville.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Canada. See COM:FOP Canada Webfil (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Tetreaultville - Copy2.jpg

Derivative work from File:Tetreaultville.jpg. No FoP for 2D works in Canada. See COM:FOP Canada. Webfil (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Mini Ooty Glass Bridge.jpg

Low resolution photo. The metadata says android gallery. This is clear that the uploader is not the photographer. Clear copyright violation. Ranjithsiji (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep - Not a valid reason for deletion. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Dov Hikind.jpg

License stated does not apply; subject is a former state assembly member and not an "officer or employee of the United States government". As stated in license, this does not apply to US states or other subdivisions. Ser! (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/"ZeeKay British Cartoons"

Questionable whether the ZeeKay British Cartoons YouTube channel (At ZeeKay British Cartoons, we're dedicated to showcasing the best of British animation, offering content that is both entertaining and relatable. Our shows are carefully selected to provide a delightful viewing experience, celebrating the distinct charm of British culture and animation.) really does have permission to CC-licence all of the videos it's hosting, as it is doing. It includes episodes from Numberjacks and Horrid Henry, which were put out by different production companies on different channels.

Belbury (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The ZeeKay brand is owned by w:Banijay Entertainment, a giant French international content producer. While their CC licensing isn't suspicious due to their size, as you said, Numberjacks (funny enough, I watched this as a child despite not being British) and Horrid Henry aren't programs produced by Banijay, so definitely try to contact Banijay or the ZeeKay channel.
In the worst case scenario, the CC license tag might've been a mistake, such as in the case of Vogue Taiwan YouTube videos where Condé Nast confirmed that the CC license on the Vogue Taiwan channel was an error. VTSGsRock (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Did a second look in, and yeah I jumped the gun I think. Feel free to do more research, but I'm not finding any true evidence beyond the contact email on the other Numberjacks YouTube channel that Banijay outright owns the IP. I probably put too much stock in that lead and not enough in that being the only lead. I'll stay out of this and just see how it goes. RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I logged in to YouTube and was able to confirm that the Numberjacks channel and ZeeKay British Cartoons share the same email address. However, we may have to contact Banijay Cartoons or have them send a VRT ticket to Wikimedia about whether they are authorized to license the Numberjacks videos under a CC license on YouTube. VTSGsRock (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
 Delete As the uploader noticed on this DR, Banijay does not own the the rights to Numberjacks. It is instead owned by Open Mind Productions. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Disney Channel Canada", Banijay would not have the authority to license Numberjacks content under CC-BY since it is unrelated to Open Mind Productions
It doesn't matter if the channel's owner is a large media company or not, as it's similar to the Disney Channel Canada case (where it was found out that Disney Channel Canada was owned by Corus Entertainment and not the Walt Disney Company, causing the CC licenses to be nullified). Only Open Mind Productions would have the authority to license Numberjacks and OMP is completely unrelated to Banijay, so there's a case of license and thus these files should be deleted.
  • For the You Simply Have Less Value "meme", it should be deleted as a derivative work of a license laundered content, since I can't find the meme text in the source video.
ZeeKay British Cartoons should be added to Commons:Questionable YouTube videos as Banijay, the owner of the channel, is not to Open Mind Productions (the copyright holder of Numberjacks) or Novel Entertainment (copyright holder for the Horrid Henry TV series) in any way, so they have no authority to control the licensing of the content they upload. VTSGsRock (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Герб Сухума.png

Ai generated image Kreuzecharmeur (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Wappen Abtei St. Lambrecht.png

Ai generated image Kreuzecharmeur (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

So what? I have cited AI as source. Launus (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
@Launus: if it is AI-generated, on what basis do you claim it as "own work" (you are presumably human) and copyrighted with a license, rather than {{PD-algorithm}}? - Jmabel ! talk`
@Kreuzecharmeur: how is that a basis for deletion? - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Speedy keep Not a deletion reason and COM:INUSE on a Wikipedia project page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
    It is declared as an 'own work' because this is the only way to indicate that it was created by the AI. And I have provided the necessary information for this. Additionally, the image is based on my original template, which the AI merely enhanced. Launus (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
    • @Launus: No, it is not "the only way to indicate that it was created by the AI"; in fact, it is directly against a guideline. - Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:KOEI-Dlogo.png

This file was initially tagged by 114.145.195.207 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.koei-densetsu.co.jp. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Comment I suspect that someone copied this image. and . --219.112.34.63 05:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Manifeste OPUS fr.pdf

This file was initially tagged by Yann as no license (No license since) Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour, Il faut une confirmation de la licence par email via COM:VRT, avec la source et la licence de tous les documents inclus. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
ok je fais suivre. Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si}} {{Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/si"}}

File:Kalani-hilliker-at-a-cowgirl-s-story-premiere-in-la 1.jpg

This picture has all the appearance of being from the same photoshoot as https://www.justjaredjr.com/photo-gallery/1081125/chloe-lukasiak-dance-moms-pals-cowgirls-story-premiere-08/ and is simply a different pose.

This site says that the similar but not identical picture was used in an article on "FRI, 14 APRIL 2017 AT 11:13 AM" which is before the upload date of the Commons file under discussion, and shows the latest the shoot date could have been.

The example photo has a note that says "Credit: FameFlynet; Photos: AKM-GSI, SplashNewsOnline". This was too complex in my view to frame simply as requiring permission, and suggesting it to be a copyvio Sao felt a step too far, despite my concerns.

I believe this cannot remain here without permission being furnished to COM:VRT and that COM:PCP applies 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Delete, per nomination. I came here from en: expecting to do the same thing. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Module:Protected edit request

Unused (and probably unusable) module copied from enwiki, I don’t know how to tag it with speedy so I nominated it with regular DR instead. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:The Singularity is Near.jpg

IMO this is license laundering. This image is a derivative of cover design. Masur (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Plancolombia poster.jpg

The lower right corner says "anti-copyright ©🛇" which isn't necessarily a problem for Commons, but also "non-profit use only", which is. For more information, see COM:licensing § Forbidden licenses. ― Arlo James Barnes 19:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

This is an anti-copyright graphic produced by a collective and collaboration with communities impacted by violent stemming from the US so-called war on drugs. Why is there a deletion request for an explicitly anti-copyright piece of original work? I am a member of the collective that produced this. The tag is perhaps a semantic problem inasmuch as non-profit use could have been written as use permitted except for profit. Deleting this would be somewhat tragic. If you might demystify the arcane nature of the licensing protocols that would lead this to be a high priority for deletion, it would be much appreciated. This is a beneficial teaching tool, and semantics shouldn't get in the way of its accessibility. /d 172.101.62.215 12:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
First I would like to state that I don't consider this high-priority, just regular priority. 'High' priority would be something like COM:criteria for speedy deletion which doesn't apply to the file nominated. The discussion on this page can affect whether or not Commons continues hosting the file, but this system (COM:DR) is designed to invite fact-finding from multiple parties, and so generally these things aren't decided immediately; there is both time and space to deliberate. Okay, so to establish some language to talk about these issues, because indeed it can seem quite arcane:
  • Licensure is a concept within the framework of copyright. Even the concept of copyleft, which (as the name suggests) critiques the overall copyright regime, itself depends on the copyright system to function for the legal language of the licenses to work.
  • When something isn't copyrighted -- either because it never was such as ancient works, or the copyright claim lapsed or expired over time, or the copyright holder relinquished all claims -- one may say it is in the public domain, because there is no particular party that can exert legally-backed restrictions upon its reuse, republication and/or modification. That isn't the case here.
  • By default as creators of the work in question based in a United States jurisdiction, Beehive Design Collective holds the copyright, regardless of whether the works themselves incorporate w:criticism of copyright...as you are a member, I expect this will probably not be news to you.
  • Commons can host copyrighted media, but they have to be released by the copyright holder(s) under a free license that allows the general public certain rights relative to the work, as discussed at COM:L (another explanation is offsite at freedomdefined:definition). 'Free' is a term of art here, not simply the commonly-understood meaning of 'widely available'. Note that this means that some licenses in the Creative Commons suite are not compatible with Wikimedia Commons, namely those which restrict derivatives and/or resales. The fact that both names have 'Commons' in them can be confusing.
  • If a license narrows who it applies to, for example limiting reuse to noncommercial projects only, then it is not a public license but a multiparty license. That's fine to host on the collective's website, but isn't the COM:project scope § Aim of Wikimedia Commons. We are here to be a repository for the public at large; not just Wikimedia, not just other such not-for-profit reusers.
  • If you all simply wish to continue the current arrangement as stated in the license tag (dual-licensed GFDL 1.2+ and CC By-SA 3.0) or as it would be with a comparable license, then understand that any additional desired restrictions would be as requests to the reusers that they might disregard, not legal demands. The facts of this arrangement could be clarified in the file description. Perhaps of use to that end is the information at COM:non-copyright restrictions, or options such as using the {{Not public domain}} label. See also COM:collective work § Other types of multi-author work.
On this page, maybe you could speak more as to what the overall intention is regarding who should be able to do what with this file? ― Arlo James Barnes 06:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Reserve Marines, British Army Commandos conduct weapon familiarization during exercise Red Dagger (5471886).jpg

Copyright infringement - the named individual did not give consent and the original copyright photo has been removed by the owner e.g. the link to the original photo does not work for this reason. This site is now in violation of this correction. 147.161.224.173 20:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

How do you know? vip (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The original image which was the source for wiki commons has been deleted by the US Marines for this reason. Click on the source link under the image to see for yourself with the ID 190602-M-AQ282-2862 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrombley (talk • contribs) 07:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I've seen the picture has been deleted, but how can we check why? As far as I know, DVIDS never states why pictures are being deleted. It can occurs for multiple reasons. vip (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Photo of an identifiable person - please remove this photo - the subject of the photo (who was a young cadet at that time) is even named and therefore very identifiable. He did not give consent for his name/face to be published. This can create security risks if this image remains on wiki commons. The US marines have already removed the imagelisted in the original source Mbrombley (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:1924-Angela-Castañon-Veira.jpg

1924 own work? Please don't lie. Is this PD? 186.175.161.8 22:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Comment Copied from uploader's talk page: Yes is the photograph depicts my maternal grandmother Angela Castañon y Veira and is part of my private archive. Regards Albertomos (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Oswald Mosley nel 1968.jpg

Not Creative Commons. Star Manatee (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Jefhex (talk · contribs)

Possible COM:NETCOPYVIO: It would be interesting to know where the images of the people depicted in the photos come from. Source? Were the photos taken by the uploader? Do they come from any websites, and are the images freely licensable? Furthermore, were the people asked whether they consented to the use of the images? Questions that the image description doesn't answer.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 22:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment - similar questions regarding background images and textures in these images, e.g.
... etc. In short: all of the source images used in content on Commons need to be properly licensed and attributed. As I noted earlier on this user's talk page, images from stock photo sites generally cannot be used on Commons, as they are typically licensed under terms which do not permit relicensing. Omphalographer (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Well recognized @Omphalographer. Clear source for this material is missing also. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
For the triangular pattern, I did those myself using Pixellab. the company logos—I was supposed to edit that part out during upload, but because I did many uploads at the same time, it skipped my mind. i did not know i was supposed to capture all this in the description—an honest mistake. the stadium background is from Wikimedia Commons sorry, i can get the attribution it was contributed as part of wiki loves monument years back, i think. do I get the chance to re edit the descriptions and add all necessary attributions or will it be deleted seeing that its already nominated for deletion Jefhex (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
The speakers for the webinar gave consent to using their pictures as well as their materials, like their presentation slides and even recordings. They were told expressly that it was for Wikimedia, which is an open-source platform. Do i need to get a letter of Declaration of Consent to prove this.. Jefhex (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Please, what do I need to do to get the nomination out of the files and how do I go about showing the attribution for the speakers and giving proof that they gave their consent Jefhex (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Jefhex
Thank you for your detailed reply. Don't worry, a deletion discussion isn't usually decided so quickly, especially if the uploader is making an effort to correct everything in the files under discussion. Regarding the second part: I tried to find the people's pictures online myself, but couldn't find them. If I had found any and there were copyright notices, the images would probably have been subjected to quick deletion requests, as has happened with other images of yours. I recommend to read COM:VRT first; explain your speakers the actuall situation. It is best for your speakers to send their consents with a valid email address to the volunteer team, then everything will be correct in the end. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for this; it is relieving. I'll try to get them to send the email. These webinars are held by my local GLAM wiki community every month. Is there a way we can get consent from our speakers without them sending an email to the volunteer team?
Like maybe we draft a document and have them sign electronically. I am just thinking of an easier way to get their consent without so much stress. Or is there a way the volunteer team can send an email to the speakers for a yes or no response? Just thinking aloud. I understand that word-of-mouth consent does not really meet a declaration of consent in case of future concerns. what do you suggest we do for future events? Jefhex (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:A Handful of Darkness (1955).jpg

This would have been PD if it was published in the United States, but the first edition of this book, which this cover is from, was published in the UK. Not PD in its home country so delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Welcome millennium arch-signs of Dagupan (Lucao) in Binmaley (Gayaman), Pangasinan

There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. According to the marker, the arch was constructed during the term of former Dagupan mayor Alipio Fernandez Jr. (who first led the city in 1992 and served for two more consecutive terms). The arch contains some sculptural pieces.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:FORTRAN IV enhanced character graphics (IA fortranivenhance5003wolc).pdf

Per concerns in Commons:Deletion requests/File:A contribution to computer typesetting techniques - tables of coordinates for Hershey's repertory of occidental type fonts and graphic symbols (IA contributiontoco424wolc).pdf that might also apply here in respect of the dataset encoded in the program listings. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep This is PD-US-no notice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep Wolcott was an employee of NBS and this work was published as part of his employment, so in the public domain in the United States under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. Scruss (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)