Commons:Deletion requests/2025/06/15

June 15

File:Downtown Portland Stikman robot sticker embedded in asphalt (cropped).jpg

Copyright violation guys YehudaHubert (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Downtown Portland Stikman robot sticker embedded in asphalt.jpg

Copyright violation guys YehudaHubert (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:MajorAbdulHameedJapanConverts.png

The date is unknown, how it can fall in PD 獅眠洞 (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Fédération Malagasy Football.jpg

This is the logo of the Malagasy Football Federation. It was uploaded by a user in 2020 under the cc-by-sa-4.0 licence. The source of the image is a news article and there is no information to support this licence. Image to be deleted from here and uploaded as non-free media in Wikipedia. Ianblair23 (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Kantor Lurah Pulogadung Jakarta Timur (2025).jpg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This building is Indonesia's government building, therefore, I think, at least it comply with public domain of Indonesian government, see Template:PD-IDGov/en. Medelam (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Gedung RNI (2025).jpg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This building is Indonesia's government building, therefore, I think, at least it comply with public domain of Indonesian government, see Template:PD-IDGov/en. Medelam (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:RS Premier dari dalam Halte Jatinegara.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Hotel Indonesia (also Grand Indonesia mall).jpg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Buiding in Ubungo.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Tanzania A1Cafel (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Kambarage at Kivukoni ward, Ilala MC.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Tanzania A1Cafel (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Building in Ilala ward, Ilala MC.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Tanzania A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ubungo Plaza, Ubungo MC.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Tanzania A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ubungo Planza 2, Ubungo MC.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Tanzania A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Buildings in Kawe, Kinondoni MC.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Tanzania A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Building in Makongo ward, Kiondoni MC.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Tanzania A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Skyscrapers in Oysterbay, Kinondoni MC.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Tanzania A1Cafel (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Building in Segerea, Ilala MC.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Tanzania A1Cafel (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Udsm.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Tanzania A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Золотий м'яч 2004 Андрія Шевченка.jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted trophy A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Золотий м'яч 2004 Андрія Шевченка - 2.jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted trophy A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Doris Miller - Pioneering Women.png

I see nothing in the journal which published this image that this is free of copyright. This is not my strong suit, but it doesn't seem right. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  • If from the University of Oregon 1964 yearbook or the Pennsylvania State University 1970 yearbook it would be PD. --RAN (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ubuntu Kylin 22.04 (2).jpg

Do we have permission to upload screenshot of a copyrighted product? Looks like the product in the screenshot is Microsoft Word. Sreejith K (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Zapruder Film.gif

Footage is copyrighted by the Zapruder family: https://web.archive.org/web/20061008133947/http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Zapruder_Press_Conference.htm CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Weathered rock on Red Clouds Golden Summit, Mount Fanjing, 31 March 2020c.jpg

I mistakenly uploaded a photo that took someone else's body and face, and I request to delete it. Huangdan2060 (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Weathered rock on Red Clouds Golden Summit, Mount Fanjing, 31 March 2020b.jpg

I mistakenly uploaded a photo that took someone else's body and face, and I request to delete it. Huangdan2060 (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Weathered rock on Red Clouds Golden Summit, Mount Fanjing, 31 March 2020a.jpg

According to the Part IV Personality Rights, Chapter IV Portraiture Right, Article 1019 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, any organizations or peoples are not permitted to violate portraiture rights of other peoples by smear, stain, counterfeit by using information technology or else ways. No making, using and publishing of portrait owners' images are allowed without their consent, unless permitted by other laws. I mistakenly uploaded a photo that took someone else's body and face, and I request to delete it. Huangdan2060 (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Suasana selepas Odalan Sanggah di Bali.jpg

This file was initially tagged by UCinternational as no source (No source since) Krd 08:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Webinar for World Heritage Day 2025 Nigeria.webm

This file was initially tagged by Jefhex as no license (No license since) Krd 08:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Calum Kerr MP.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 08:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Chinmayi Sripada IMG 4707.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Jeraxmoira as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Zahra Newby.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 08:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Marine Terrace artwork De Minimis.jpg

Per COM:FOP Singapore, 2D artwork is not covered under freedom of panorama. This photograph is explicitly claiming de minimis, but I think this would fall somewhere in the "maybe" to "very unlikely" categories of the table in COM:DM since the photos are being used to show the copyrighted artwork. I'm not entirely sure of this, but I think it is worth a discussion, especially since the pictures are being discussed for inclusion on the en.wp main page. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:A seat at the end of the long, long, long table.jpg. Jay8g (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit iffy as it would be meaningless if the artwork was removed. I'll argue for the other one. Icepinner (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Also you've linked this discussion with to the other photo btw @Jay8g, unless you intend to do that? Anyways, for the other photo, can I shift the focus to the station's horizontal motif? This would not make the file lose meaning and it will retain the artwork's status as de minimis, unless if you don't find it to be that way? If the artwork isn't de minimis then I can always retake the photo by focusing more on the horizontal motif and less on the artwork itself (keep in mind this is needed for Marine Terrace MRT station) Icepinner (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Or perhaps I can take a photo of the artwork and upload it as a non-free file and retake a photo of the station's horizontal motif without the artwork included? Would that be okay? Icepinner (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm hoping that people who are a bit more knowledgeable about these issues will chime in on this discussion. Jay8g (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I believe a photo of the artwork would qualify under non-free whilst a photo of the station's architecture would qualify for freedom-of-panorama. I have asked for comments within the SG Wikipedia community. I've also added @Starship.paint to this discussion as they instructed me to take a photo of the artwork in de minimis for Marine Terrace's GAN review. Icepinner (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
After speaking to User:Robertsky and User:ZKang123, they said that the artwork should not occupy more than 10% of the photo in order to be considered de minimis and recommended that I take a panorama of the station's concourse and then crop it to feature the artwork. Icepinner (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
@Icepinner 10% is a ballpark. 😅 Key is that the art work is not the main focus of the photo. Robertsky (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @Icepinner: - I wouldn't say the first photo File:Marine Terrace artwork De Minimis.jpg would be meaningless without the artwork in it. Here we see an underground corridor, multiple kinds of exit signs, emergency systems, an electronic screen, the lights, the tiling, including tactile flooring, and possibly the ventilation. Even if you removed the artwork, everything else I mentioned is still there. The artwork is even more de minimis in the second photo File:Marine Terrace artwork alt.jpg, I would say. Starship.paint (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Visually yes, this was the argument that I was going for in its initial discussion. The file is named after the artwork, implying that it would be focusing on the artwork itself and thus de minimis would not be applied, which is an oversight in my part. The thing is, I'd like to know if it's possible to shift the focus of the file to the station's architecture such that the artwork would actually be de minimis for intention? Icepinner (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Liu Shaoqi's Former Residence 007.jpg

The oil painting has copyright and has not been authorized by the author. I request to delete it. Huangdan2060 (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Liu Shaoqi's Former Residence 011.jpg

The photos of people in the museum have copyright and have not been authorized. I request to delete it. Huangdan2060 (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Subject died in 1940, so this is in the public domain as tagged. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Liu Shaoqi's Former Residence 020.jpg

The photos of people in the museum have copyright and have not been authorized. I request to delete it. Huangdan2060 (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Liu Shaoqi's Former Residence 029.jpg

The photos of people in the museum have copyright and have not been authorized. I request to delete it. Huangdan2060 (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Liu Shaoqi's Former Residence 030.jpg

The photos of people in the museum have copyright and have not been authorized. I request to delete it. Huangdan2060 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Comment. Looks like a copy of File:Jacob Rosenfeld.jpg. Unquestionably in the public domain, but I am not sure how much value this photo with the museum caption adds. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Knollenteich frischer Jungschwanfamilie 20250515 C1289.webm

The video is bigger and player becomes corruption YehudaHubert (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Speedy keep Hm? The lower resolutions are rendered as usual so I cannot agree with this. Also, the video size does not automatically lead to corruption. A corrupt encoding does. Please evaluate these cases before setting up a deletion request --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Even if there is an error, when the file itself is not corrupt, this is a case for the Phabricator, but not here. A player cannot become corruption. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Neolithodes asperrimus Barnard 1947, male (195mm CL, 189mm CW).jpg

Suspected copyright violation. Nothing to indicate that CC licence would apply here Mitch Ames (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

w- why.... 143.44.169.191 10:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
i just want it a image like his friends Neolithodes brodiei and Lithodes aotearoa.. 143.44.169.191 10:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

More information:

The source of the image is claimed to be "A Guide to, And Checklist of the Decapods of Nan South Africa" by Keppel Harcourt Barnard. I can't find any evidence that such a source exists (I acknowledge that does not prove that it does not exist), but "A Guide to, And Checklist of the Decapods of Nan South Africa" is suspiciously similar to "A Guide to, and Checklist for, the Decapoda of Namibia, South Africa and Mozambique" by W. D. Emmerson, cited until recently by the same IP who inserted the image on the Wikipedia page.

mentions Barnard's 1950 "Descriptive Catalogue of South African Decapod Crustacea" , which has sketches, not colour photographs. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Caravan of the shuhada2.3.png

Not own work 2A00:20:C284:C277:919D:3E26:BEF3:340F 09:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Caravan of the shuhada 2.png

Not own work 2A00:20:C284:C277:919D:3E26:BEF3:340F 09:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:HusseinGakaev 1.png

Not own work 2A00:20:C284:C277:919D:3E26:BEF3:340F 09:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Aslan Biutukàiev.png

Not own work 2A00:20:C284:C277:919D:3E26:BEF3:340F 09:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Movsar Barayev.png

Not own work 2A00:20:C284:C277:919D:3E26:BEF3:340F 09:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Adam Umalatov 2001.png

Not own work 2A00:20:C284:C277:919D:3E26:BEF3:340F 09:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:A counterterrorism operation in Nalchik in May 2009.jpg

Probably fake license 2A00:20:C284:C277:919D:3E26:BEF3:340F 09:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Liu Shaoqi's Former Residence 052.jpg

The oil painting has copyright and has not been authorized by the author. I request to delete it. Huangdan2060 (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz Citaro C2 (IDFM Marne et Seine - Ligne 437) - (Champigny - Saint-Maur RER) - (Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, FR94) - 15-11-2024 1.jpg

The file has extremely poor technical quality (resolution, compression, sharpness), rendering it unusable for Wikimedia projects. Zwiadowca 21 10:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Usable quality, and one of the few images of this bus type in operation (as opposed to the hundreds of nearly identical close-ups). IronGargoyle (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Caucasian Emirate.PNG

Fake map. Real map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caucasus_Emirate.svg 2A00:20:C284:C277:919D:3E26:BEF3:340F 10:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:ShaoShan Mao Zedong Memorial Museum 3.jpg

The oil painting has copyright and has not been authorized by the author. I request to delete it. Huangdan2060 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Boldini - portrait-of-lady-nanne-schrader-1903.jpg

Superseded painting Niketto sr. (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Alberto Hemsi.jpg

most likely not own work Timk70 (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Retagged and seems to be in the public domain. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:RubyStokes.jpg

YouTube video was not uploaded by the copyright holder of this image. Timk70 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:NVavilova.jpg

YouTube video was not uploaded by the copyright holder of this image. Timk70 (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Emile Leray.jpg

YouTube video was not uploaded by the copyright holder of this image. Timk70 (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This video was created by Midwest Dream Car Collection and uploaded by the same company to their YouTube channel, under a Creative Commons license. Why do you think the owner of the video doesn't own the copyright to all the footage in their own video?
 
Is there a law or rule that says the owner of a film doesn't own the individual footage of other people in their video? Шабля (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. Source verification failed. This image isn't visible at the t=243s timestamp in the link, and I can't find it anywhere else in the video either. This photo has been used on a couple of other web sites about Leray (e.g. ), and may have been incorrectly attributed to this video. Omphalographer (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
 Keep This image is available on the video. This is my mistake. I posted the link to the video and didn't notice the wrong timestamp. This image is available at 954 seconds into the video. Шабля (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
That looks like a photo which was inserted into the video with a "Ken Burns" pan-and-scan effect. Given that the same photo shows up on other web sites, I'm not entirely confident that Midwest Dream Car Collection had full rights to license it. Omphalographer (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
This photo was created by Emile Leray himself. Also Emile Leray personally appears in this film. He gave his motorcycle, and his photos to museum, for create film. One of his hystorical photos used to create a large poster. We can saw this poster as a background for an exhibition. It doesn't matter how many third-party sites this photo is on. This film was created with the direct participation of copyright owner to this photo. Шабля (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Aashisheyeish

spam account Aashisheyeish (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Hungarian Parliament Building at night.jpg

Probably not own work 2A00:20:C284:C277:EB:816D:82C4:CCE7 11:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:George romanow.jpg

Probably not own work 2A00:20:C284:C277:EB:816D:82C4:CCE7 11:34, 15 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.

File:Hate ISIS.png

Out of scope: This picture is a self-work by "Panzer VI-II" and used by Chinese Wikipedians, including himself, to make a stand in userboxes for being against ISIS. It wouldn't probably be used in content pages (i.e. articles). Fulfils Commons:Deletion policy. 175.156.214.74 11:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

    • That picture is also out of scope and fulfils deletion policy. Let me share a story: A student made a mistake and was punished by a teacher. The student rebutted, "But so-and-so did the same thing and he did not get punished!" This story tells us that we should do our best to correct our mistakes. (該圖片亦符合刪除守則。有一個很老套的故事，分享給您聽：一名犯了錯，被老師處罰了，但是他卻反駁：“老張也是這樣，為什麼他沒有被罰？”這個故事告訴我們，我們應該竭盡所能，糾正錯誤，而非反問為何某某人可以如此。) 175.156.214.74 12:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Hate ISIS.png

No educational purpose. 2A00:20:C284:C277:EB:816D:82C4:CCE7 12:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep. In use across dozens of user pages. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Gohar-Harutyunyan-with-MJ.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from a website. https://onmjfootsteps.com/2016/06/28/michael-jackson-dans-une-affiche-publicitaire-pour-limousines/ Nv8200pa (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Myrna Herzog (2).JPG

Because it is a photo of myself taken and published without my knowledge and without my consent. I understand that the intention was good, but please, remove it. Myrna Herzog (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Your consent is not required. Lexicon (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
 Keep This picture was taken by me at a public concert, not on a private event. The picture is beautiful and not offensive. There is no reason to delete it. Hanay (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
@Myrna Herzog I wrote the article about you on the Hebrew Wikipedia in 2011. As I recall, you also wrote me a thank you note. I was at your concert in Haifa and took a few pictures of you at the concert. You also send me emails every time you have a concert. The pictures are beautiful. Once you have made yourself a public figure, whoever takes your picture doesn't need your permission to take a picture of you at a public concert. I saw that you wrote the article about yourself on the English Wikipedia. When there is an article, there are pictures.
Hanay (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Locke de Santa Joana 18.jpg

this is my work, its duplicated from File:Locke de Santa Joana 05.jpg DiogoBaptista (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Myrna Herzog.JPG

Because this is a photo of myself taken without my knowledge and without my consent. I understand that the intention was good, but please, remove it. Myrna Herzog (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Your consent is not required. Lexicon (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
 Keep This picture was taken by me at a public concert, not on a private event. The picture is beautiful and not offensive. There is no reason to delete it. Hanay (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
@Myrna Herzog I wrote the article about you on the Hebrew Wikipedia in 2011. As I recall, you also wrote me a thank you note. I was at your concert in Haifa and took a few pictures of you at the concert. You also send me emails every time you have a concert. The pictures are beautiful. Once you have made yourself a public figure, whoever takes your picture doesn't need your permission to take a picture of you at a public concert. I saw that you wrote the article about yourself on the English Wikipedia. When there is an article, there are pictures. Hanay (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:AllEnds2010b.jpg

Per COM:PCP as likely copyvio. The author in the exif metadata cannot be linked to the user. Nv8200pa (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Mary of Galilee (mother of Jesus), ethnic-historical reconstruction. Museographic art - María de Galilea (madre de Jesús), reconstrucción étnica-histórica. Arte museográfico.png

Seems to be the same case as the files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hades7; or did User:The Squirrel Conspiracy have a specific reason not to include this file in the request? It's not in use and, if we follow the reasoning of that request, probably also out of scope. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Palosaaren Urheiluseura.png

Doesn't seem to fit the copyright criteria ViluKissa (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Tutti ry logo.png

Doesn't seem to fit the copyright criteria ViluKissa (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:JPK logo.png

Doesn't seem to fit the copyright criteria ViluKissa (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Likely below the threshold of originality in Finland (consists of only basic colors and shapes). IronGargoyle (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

独修南洋語研究

この本の著書である上原訓蔵は1972年に亡くなっており、それに伴いこの本の著作権は日本国内で有効になるため。--Biáng (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Logo cscd ky binh.jpg

I am the original uploader of this file. I no longer wish to share this image publicly. Please delete it according to the uploader's request. Thank you. Tuantop (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:The asad.jpg

unused own work, unverified desc. claim (see also the other user's image, TheAsadlogo) mykhal (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:TheAsadlogo.jpg

unused own work (see also the other user's upload, The asad.jpg) mykhal (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Samfanta1709 (talk · contribs)

Strong suspicions of copyvios from circumstancial evidence. File:Lena Mædgen (2022).webp uploaded by the same user is a NETCOPYVIO, possible source https://www.premiere-seine.com/artistes/lena-maedgen/ The nominated files are small, the JPEG is EXIF-less, PNG got used for photographic media despite not making sense, the general aspect of the imagery is that of promotional imagery (for and from social networks).

Grand-Duc (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,
After I realized, I changed the photography to one of mine. Please do not affect any of the 3 other photos thank you! Samfanta1709 (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Blanton Museum Atrium Stairs Austin Texas 2023.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States. The tiles on the wall are a large scale installed artwork -Teresita Fernández's "Stacked Waters". Nv8200pa (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Chief of the Australian Army.svg

Likely a copyright violation. crwflags.com suggests this flag was created after 1990 Safes007 (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:15 August, Happy Independence Day.jpg

Facebook metadata; need proof of own work or free license or permission from the photographer. CptViraj (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:日本放送協会(NHK) 2013-12-27 22-12.jpg

File is does not cropped, see COM:TOO Japan YehudaHubert (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:DISC model blauw rood geel groen gedragsstijlen.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Discipline.png

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Nadiredg (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logos.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Vice Chief of Defence Force 4 star (AUS).svg

The ADF emblem was adopted in 1968 and the flag itself in 1972 (https://www.flagsaustralia.com.au/17%20Kelly.pdf). This version will likely have been adopted at the same time and hence will still be protected under copyright. Safes007 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it will fall under PD-AustraliaGov as it was created before 1975. Safes007 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Schweizer Unterwasser-Sport-Verband SUSV.svg

copyvio; protected logo. Känguru1890 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Joint Commander 1 Star (AUS).svg

The ADF emblem was adopted in 1968 and the flag itself in 1972 (https://www.flagsaustralia.com.au/17%20Kelly.pdf). This version will likely have been adopted at the same time and hence will still be protected under copyright. Safes007 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it will fall under PD-AustraliaGov as it was created before 1975. Safes007 (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Joint Commander 2 Star (AUS).svg

The ADF emblem was adopted in 1968 and the flag itself in 1972 (https://www.flagsaustralia.com.au/17%20Kelly.pdf). This version will likely have been adopted at the same time and hence will still be protected under copyright. Safes007 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it will fall under PD-AustraliaGov as it was created before 1975. Safes007 (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Vice Chief of Defence Force (AUS).svg

The ADF emblem was adopted in 1968 and the flag itself in 1972 (https://www.flagsaustralia.com.au/17%20Kelly.pdf). This version will likely have been adopted at the same time and hence will still be protected under copyright. Safes007 (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it will fall under PD-AustraliaGov as it was created before 1975. Safes007 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Txelo (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams. Replaced with newer version.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Chief of ADF flag.gif

The ADF emblem was adopted in 1968 and the flag itself in 1972 (https://www.flagsaustralia.com.au/17%20Kelly.pdf). This version will likely have been adopted at the same time and hence will still be protected under copyright. Safes007 (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it will fall under PD-AustraliaGov as it was created before 1975. Safes007 (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/Letizia Battaglia

Letizia Battaglia's photographs are works of art, as evidenced by the fact that she showed them in exhibitions and, for example, explicitly stated in this article.

This makes them copyrightable under Italian law until 2093, not just 20 years after they are taken.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour. La distinction art / information ne me semble pas si évidente pour Battaglia. Une partie de ses clichés le sont en tant que photojournaliste à l'Ora. Les photos des meurtres de Costa et Terranova sont prises dans l'instant, l'urgence, pour documenter les massacres (elle le dit elle-même), publiée dans le journal local. Elles ont été exposées après. Les 2 autres clichés relèvent probablement moins de ces critères. Un avis italien, probablement plus au fait de la distinction photo d'art / photo simple, serait utile. Cordialement. HaguardDuNord (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Translation of above: "Hello. The distinction between art and information doesn't seem so obvious to me for Battaglia. Some of her photos were taken as a photojournalist at Ora. The photos of the murders of Costa and Terranova were taken in the moment, in an emergency, to document the massacres (she says so herself), and published in the local newspaper. They were exhibited afterward. The other two photos probably fall less within these criteria. An Italian opinion, probably more aware of the distinction between art photography and simple photography, would be useful. Kind regards"
  •  Keep They are just scenes from life, no posing, and no special lighting, and no special costuming. There needs to be some creative elements, not just pressing the shutter button. See: File:Marcel Duchamp, 1917, Fountain, photograph by Alfred Stieglitz.jpg, an ordinary store bough ceramic urinal is a work of art and was in an exhibition, but it is still just a urinal. Compare to File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg with staging, costuming, props and special lighting. --RAN (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep Norton pretty well lays it out. Buffs (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment the Italian standard is not whether it was framed in a specific way. It is whether it embodies the creativity of the artist. Given that these works were literally shown at an art exhibition, I question whether Norton has satisfactorily proven an Italian court would not find these artistic. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Christmas Island.svg

Flag was created in the 1980s and is likely complicated enough to attract copyright. Safes007 (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep The flag was designed through a flag design contest held by the Christmas Island Assembly, the conditions for which almost certainly included release of copyright for use by the assembly if adopted. The flag was chosen the winner and unofficially adopted on April 14, 1986. On January 26, 2002, the flag was adopted by the Administrator of the Australian Indian Ocean Territories as the official flag for the island, making it as ineligible for copyright as any other official government flag. Lexicon (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we can assume that copyright was released. It's possible the council didn't think about the copyright, or only gave a licence to islanders, etc. I also don't know of any rule that makes official flags ineligible for copyright. For example, the Australian Aboriginal Flag was officially proclaimed in 1995, but the copyright wasn't transferred until 2022. Safes007 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
{{vk}} The Australian Aboriginal Flag was created by a single artist (who kept copyright of his design) while the Christmas Island flag was designed by the local government (who almost certainly released to public). Femfem5 (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I would also like to add that the illustrations featured on the current version of the file were drawn by Flagvisioner and myself (based on a map produced by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency). It is not identical to the flag created in the 1980s by the island assembly. We currently do not even have that original design available for reference. Femfem5 (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I presume the version hosted by the Australian Government is the official version. I don't think the Commons version is different enough to not infringe copyright. Safes007 (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
That version of the flag is identical to the first one uploaded to wikimedia. The original version of the wikimedia file was extracted from the XRMap flag collection.
The flags currently used by xrmap come for a large part from the SVG flags of the openclipart collection.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/6/67/20060912134936%21Flag_of_Christmas_Island.svg
This file is in the public domain because all images from the xrmap flag collection are public domain, according to their author, Jean-Pierre Demailly.
This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Jean-Pierre Demailly author of the xrmap project. This applies worldwide.
User:Lokal Profil/xrmap flag collection Femfem5 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Only the original creator of the flag can release it into the public domain. Jean-Pierre Demailly can only release into the public domain any work that they contributed in making an adaptation or otherwise. Safes007 (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
here is a photo of the shire president together with the flag
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/silverstone-ct-migration/9d4759a8-bbc6-47e9-a94a-df25f00d308c.jpg/r0_0_353_471_w353_h471_fmax.jpg Femfem5 (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Except that the Australian government website took their version from this very file. It was first created by vectorifying a low-res bitmap, which resulted in things like the "lumpy" head. It's this early version that's found in the official resources (like this), but has since been corrected in this file. As such, we absolutely cannot say anything about an "official version". Lexicon (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
The flag was designed by Tony Couch, not the local government. The local government only ran the competition to find a flag. It's also not clear whether the flag is official, with the Australian government calling it unofficial. It's possible that the flag was released into the public domain as part of the competition, but I can't find any evidence of that. Safes007 (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we can try emailing Tony Couch if it's PD or not? ErrrrrWhat (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
🇨🇽 This flag is literally part of the country flag emojis on every smartphone in the world, and as such this is a ridiculous deletion request. Lexicon (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg

Unlikely that the original uploader was the original creator of this flag. Likely still protected under copyright. Safes007 (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep. I think this is in the public domain. If none of you found evidence, then transfer it to English Wikipedia. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Why do you think it is in the public domain? I can't find any evidence for that. As it appears to have been created around the 1980s, it will still be protected under copyright. Safes007 (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Depending on source, this flag dates to either 1995, 2003, or 2004. According to some sources, the Administrator formally recognized the flag as official in 2004. 73.75.170.176 21:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Can you prove that it's not? You've mass-spammed DRs on like a dozen files with weasel-wordy reasonings. NorthTension (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I think we need to prove a file is free to use in it's home country and the USA for it to remain on Wikimedia Commons, not prove that it is not free. Under the precautionary principle, we should delete if there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file. The absence of any information that the designer Mohammed Minkom released the flag into the public domain I believe raises significant doubts that it is public domain. Safes007 (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
 Keep. This flag is literally part of the country flag emojis on every smartphone in the world, and as such this is a ridiculous deletion request. Lexicon (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Do you have another rationale by any chance? 73.75.170.176 21:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
🇨🇨 Lexicon (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. Australian copyright laws apply in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Cocos (Keeling) Islands. With this in mind, this design is certainly above Australian threshold of originality, taking the Australian Aboriginal Flag as reference, and if even the earliest date given in the messages above (1980s) is true, this is cannot be in the public domain. ⎯⎯⎯ Rubýñ 🇨🇷 (scold) 22:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Maybe someone can try emailing the original creator of this flag if it's in the public domain or not. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Australian Capital Territory.svg

Appears to be a direct copy of the ACT flag, which was only adopted in 1993. Still under copyright, whether personal or crown. Safes007 (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep if you found as many evidence as possible that this is in the public domain. If not, then transfer this to English Wikipedia. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Did you even email the government of the Australian Capital Territory if it was copyrighted or not? SVG-image-maker (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. Canberra's coat of arms was adopted in 1928 - I'm not sure the other elements of the flag would be eligible for copyright protection as simple geometric shapes. ITBF (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Australia has a very low originality requirement. For example, the Australian Aboriginal flag was just a circle and two bars and it attracted copyright. Safes007 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
    And I thought its copyright was expired, I'm not sure. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Northern Territory.svg

The flag was created in 1978 so is still protected under at least crown copyright. It is complicated enough to attract copyright. Safes007 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep. I think this is in the public domain. If none of you found evidence, then transfer it to English Wikipedia. The shapes within this flag are actually too simple. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The Australian Aboriginal Flag is simpler than this and also attracted copyright. The flag was adopted in 1978 per here (https://nt.gov.au/about-government/the-nt-flag) Safes007 (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
But I thought its copyright expired? ErrrrrWhat (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Why do you think that? If the work was originally created by the government, copyright lasts 50 years (so until 2028) or it will last for 70 years after the death of the creator under normal rules. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Australia Safes007 (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Could you at least prove it's copyrighted instead of spamming a bunch of DR's? SVG-image-maker (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
 Keep Looks like a bunch of copyright paranoia to me. Fry1989 eh? 22:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. I believe this is above Australian TOO. The flag was designed by Robert Ingpen, per the NT government's webpage on the flag. Australian copyright is life + 70 and Ingpen is still alive, so the flag is not out of copyright protection. If Ingpen transferred the rights to the government (which he might have, given the government passed an act protecting it, as per a different page on the same government website), then I assume creation + 50 applies, which means this won't be out of copyright until 2029 Jan 1, assuming a publication year of 1978. ⎯⎯⎯ Rubýñ 🇨🇷 (scold) 23:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
After some searching, I found that Robert Ingpen, the original creator, has his own website. So I will try to email him to see what I can do. SVG-image-maker (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara.svg

Copy of the flag of the Anangu without a licence Safes007 (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I actually don't even know if this is in the public domain or not. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Lord Howe Island.svg

Uploader likely is not the original creator. https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/au-lhi.html this states it was created in 1993. Safes007 (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep. I think this is in the public domain. If none of you found evidence, then transfer it to English Wikipedia. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Why do you think it is in the public domain? I can't find any reason why it would be. Safes007 (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm currently working on communicating with the author of this flag to clarify copyright (something you could have done). In the meantime, please don't delete it. Also, do you hate Australia or something? You've gone through and put all these Australian flags up for deletion, some of which have been on Commons for TWENTY YEARS without anyone ever having expressed concern about their possible copyright status. Seems kind of mean spirited. Lexicon (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
@Lexicon I agree with you, why does he just nominate these public-domain files for deletion as if he's vandalizing? That is just nonsense. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
@ErrrrrWhat and @Lexicon: Please, assume good faith; asking if someone "hates Australia", saying that their actions seem "mean spirited", and even comparing their actions to vandalism is about the perfect opposite of that. Australia has an exceedingly low threshold of originality, going by the Australian Aboriginal Flag's protection. If you ask me, it is completely fair to go off that and nominate other Australian flags of equal or higher complexity to that one, as they can be reasonably assumed to be protected as well. The age of these files is irrelevant; if they're twenty years old, then that's a twenty year-old copyvio to be  deleted, like I believe this one should be (until we hear back from the author). ⎯⎯⎯ Rubýñ 🇨🇷 (scold) 22:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Dangar Island.svg

The flag likely satifies the requirements for originality under Australian law. It's at least more complicated than the Aboriginal Flag. Safes007 (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Disagree Too simple. The description of the flag would make it easy to create a similar flag with a different style that would still represent the island. The design contains no original authorship. Shouldn't be deleted. Feitidede☆ﾟ.* 03:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
This is probably true under US law, but Australian law has very low originality requirements. See the example of the Aboriginal flag (under Logos and Flags), which only consists of a yellow circle between red and black vertical stripes. Safes007 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Like the aboriginal flag, I believe it is owned by the Austrlian government and therefore is in PD. I will try to confirm this, until then I think the flag should be  Keep Feitidede☆ﾟ.* 00:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
This seems unlikely. The Australian Aboriginal flag was only acquired by the government after it was officially proclaimed and following a significant "free the flag" campaign. Safes007 (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the Australian government only acquired copyright to the Aboriginal flag after paying the owner and some of the license holders. It is still not PD - the copyright is owned by the Australian government, and the design is released for general use in most contexts (one particular flag company still has exclusive rights to sell it).
This flag is not in anything like that situation - it was created by the owner of a flag selling business, so that they could sell it to be used by residents of a small island. It doesn't have any official status, and noone has even thought about the Australian government or any other government getting involved in its copyright. JPD (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Australian South Sea Islanders flag.svg

Not a work of simple geometry. This flag was created in 1994 and is likely protected under copyright Safes007 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep. I think this is in the public domain. If none of you found evidence, then transfer it to English Wikipedia. The shapes are actually too simple for this file to be under copyright. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The Australian Aboriginal flag is simpler than this and also attracted copyright. So I think this can also attract copyright. Safes007 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
But I saw that the Australian Aboriginal flag is allowed on Commons, as seen on THIS PAGE. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
That's only because the Australian Government acquired the copyright in 2022. See the undeletion request here. Another example is the Torres Strait Islander flag, which is still protected by copyright, despite being officially proclaimed. Safes007 (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Distribution African Coyote.png

Image illustrates the range of an animal completely invented by the user for a now deleted Indonesian wikipedia article Mariomassone (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this the range of the Serengeti wolf? If so then why not rename it to "Distribution Serengeti wolf.png" or something. The That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Not really. There's a range map in Castellò's Canids of the World, and it shows a much larger range for the Serengeti wolf than this made-up animal's. Mariomassone (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:The distribution of Coyote.jpg

Image illustrates the range of an animal completely invented by the user for a now deleted Indonesian wikipedia article Mariomassone (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Good Morning Britain wordmark.svg

Typeface copyright concerns - a web search leads me to believe the font used in the logo is either Gilroy Extra-Bold, a copyrighted font, or a custom font. Both of which would meet COM:TOO UK, as both would classify as "author’s own intellectual creation". Coleisforeditor (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You are correct about the font - I'm not too familiar with COM:TOO UK (I'm Canadian), but I quite literally typed out the wordmark using Gilroy Extra Bold and matched the spacing to the source. That's why I uploaded it as PD-textlogo. This file is intended to supersede File:Good Morning Britain 2023 Logo.png and File:Good Morning Britain 2023.png as a vectorization. As the uploader, I would lean on keep. Limmidy (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
 Speedy keep The text logo is written in extra bold variant of Gilroy typeface, designed by Bulgarian designer Radomir Tinkov, not the British designer. In other means, "GMB" text logo is actually written in standard font, in which this typeface cannot be eligible for copyright even for the UK themselves. Yayan550 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:The Clockmaker.jpg

There is an identical image with higher resolution https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Vasilievich_Kliun_-_The_Clockmaker_(Der_Uhrmacher-_L%27horloger)_-_2007.85_-_Minneapolis_Institute_of_Arts.jpg Slider one (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Cattedrale Siracusa1111.jpg

Unused. No description therefore ununusable Berthold Werner (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Session de formation Art féminisme 2022 à l'UKAG 117.jpg

A la demande de la personne qui apparait sur la photo (UserːDiallo Boubacar binta). Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Happy Queen et mamoudou au restaurant lors du CRS SWiki 2030 en Guinée.jpg

A la demande de la personne qui apparait sur la photo (UserːDiallo Boubacar binta). Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Moby Aki (ship, 2005)

No COM:FOP Italy, no COM:FOP France, the ship liveries are derivatives of protected cartoon characters. They are likely not De Minimis. As reference: the German Federal High Court ruled that the Kussmund, the typical "kissing lips" livery on Aida cruise ships, is a copyrightable work (and, in Germany, permissible under COM:FOP Germany#Permanent). This at least in my opinion refutes the notion of liveries being De minimis. A deletion is sensible at least per COM:PRP.

Grand-Duc (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep de minimis, or at most "incidental" as per 1, 2, 3 and now also 4 and 5. Subject of the pictures is the ship, not the Looney Tunes characters.--Eustace Bagge (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
You know the, for Commons, infamous illuminated-Eiffel-tower-at-night scenario? That's also only a steel building, and yet, it (the illumination) gets copyright protection, without a defence "the subject is the tower". And a canvas is also only a canvas, unless paint gets meaningfully applied on it. It does IMHO not matter that the pictures intend to depict the ship, as the combination watercraft + livery makes for a protected work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
No, I am not aware of the "Eiffel-tower-at-night" scenario, and if I look at the Tour Eiffel category I see a lot of pictures depicting the Tour with a light show, so I am not sure I understand what point you're trying to make here.
However, the cases I linked are much more fitting to the one we are discussing here, and they are mentioned as examples of when de minimis / incidental can be applied, so I don't get why you keep insisting with less centered examples. If you don't agree with the policies, please propose changes to the policies, otherwise we'll just keep running in a circle. Eustace Bagge (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Session de formation Art féminisme 2022 à l'UKAG 111.jpg

A la demande de la personne qui apparait sur la photo (UserːDiallo Boubacar binta). Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Session de formation Art féminisme 2022 à l'UKAG 116.jpg

A la demande de la personne qui apparait sur la photo (UserːDiallo Boubacar binta). Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Session de formation Art féminisme 2022 à l'UKAG 174.jpg

A la demande de la personne qui apparait sur la photo (UserːDiallo Boubacar binta). Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Session de formation Art féminisme 2022 à l'UKAG 23.jpg

A la demande de la personne qui apparait sur la photo (UserːDiallo Boubacar binta). Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Moby Wonder (ship, 2001)

No COM:FOP Italy, no COM:FOP France, the ship liveries are derivatives of protected cartoon characters. They are likely not De Minimis. As reference: the German Federal High Court ruled that the Kussmund, the typical "kissing lips" livery on Aida cruise ships, is a copyrightable work (and, in Germany, permissible under COM:FOP Germany#Permanent). This at least in my opinion refutes the notion of liveries being De minimis. A deletion is sensible at least per COM:PRP.

Grand-Duc (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep de minimis, or at most "incidental" as per 1, 2, 3 and others. Subject of the pictures is the ship, not the Looney Tunes characters.--Eustace Bagge (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm refuting your arguments.
As a conclusion: none of your named precedents are applicable here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Is it standard on Commons to ping users who hold your same views? This looks a lot like canvassing.
Regarding your arguments, you're perfectly entitled to think that the previous deletions request were wrongfully closed. On the other hand, they all had the same outcome, whether the livery was considered de minimis or not, and they're even mentioned as examples in policies, so maybe it could dawn on you that you're wrong on this one. Eustace Bagge (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Please explain in how naming Jim and Pi as sources for opinions can fulfil the description of being "in a way that unfairly supports one side." It's easily verifiable that both talked in the way I described. I think that my description of "apparent concurrence" is still sufficiently neutral and not unfair, hence it's not canvassing. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
You pinged two users who shared your view, and not others who abundantly argued against it. I can't see how this is not canvassing, as it resulted immediately in one of the users supporting your deletion request. Eustace Bagge (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete While it can be argued that the principal subject is the ship, the test of de minimis is whether the average viewer would not notice if the copyrighted work were removed. That's obviously not the case here. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)


@Jameslwoodward is it standard practice on Commons to ping users holding your same view, as was done here? Eustace Bagge (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I am frequently asked to offer an opinion in cases such as this -- I think that's largely because I am a very experienced editor -- I have close to half a million edits and actions since 2008 -- and because I try to have a balanced point of view. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind reply. However, in this and other similar deletion requests, you and another user were pinged exactly because you supported the opener's views, while other users who opposed their views weren't. IMHO that's exactly what canvassing is - I am not disputing your good faith, but this kind of "selective" mentions are in my opinion skewing the deletion request's results.-- Eustace Bagge (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Per being incidental -- they are photos of the entire ship, not focusing on the characters. Much like photos of the entire Louvre square not being an issue despite the pyramid being a significant part. It's not de minimis but mentioned on the Commons:De minimis page. However, File:Moby Wonder 02.JPG may be focusing on those characters too much for that to apply. The rest seem to be photos of the entire ship. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Moby Dada (ship, 1981)

No COM:FOP Italy, no COM:FOP France, the ship liveries are derivatives of protected cartoon characters. They are likely not De Minimis. As reference: the German Federal High Court ruled that the Kussmund, the typical "kissing lips" livery on Aida cruise ships, is a copyrightable work (and, in Germany, permissible under COM:FOP Germany#Permanent). This at least in my opinion refutes the notion of liveries being De minimis. A deletion is sensible at least per COM:PRP.

Grand-Duc (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep de minimis, or at most "incidental" as per 1, 2, 3 and others. Subject of the pictures is the ship, not the Looney Tunes characters.--Eustace Bagge (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm refuting your arguments.
As a conclusion: none of your named precedents are applicable here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
There seem to be no problem with advertisements on vehicles in Italy (and in many other countries), (Category:Advertisements on trams in Italy) so why should ships be treated differently? Anyway these designs are meant to be seen. The copyrigths would be paid by the shipping compagny.Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
There "seems" to be no problem with advertisements on public transport vehicles like trams because nobody challenged the legitimacy in a copyright-related discussion or deletion request yet. You cannot conclude that because there's some similar imagery in e.g. Category:Airline advertisements on trams in Milan (File:Gulf Air tram Milano.jpg among others could be actually a candidate for deletion), ships are treated differently. And yes, of course Moby Lines is likely to have bought licenses for applying the Looney Tunes art. But this does not allow a random photographer to make copies of it. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete While it can be argued that the principal subject is the ship, the test of de minimis is whether the average viewer would not notice if the copyrighted work were removed. That's obviously not the case here. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Delete De minimis does not apply when half the ship is covered in copyrighted artwork. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Per being incidental -- they are photos of the entire ship, not focusing on the characters. Much like photos of the entire Louvre square not being an issue despite the pyramid being a significant part. It's not de minimis but mentioned on the Commons:De minimis page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep Not the focal point of the image. We have images of people with art works in the background that have passed the Commons:De minimis rulings. --RAN (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Moby Fantasy (ship, 1976)

No COM:FOP Italy, no COM:FOP France, the ship liveries are derivatives of protected cartoon characters. They are likely not De Minimis. As reference: the German Federal High Court ruled that the Kussmund, the typical "kissing lips" livery on Aida cruise ships, is a copyrightable work (and, in Germany, permissible under COM:FOP Germany#Permanent). This at least in my opinion refutes the notion of liveries being De minimis. A deletion is sensible at least per COM:PRP.

Grand-Duc (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep de minimis, or at most "incidental" as per 1, 2, 3 and others. Subject of the pictures is the ship, not the Looney Tunes characters.--Eustace Bagge (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm refuting your arguments.
As a conclusion: none of your named precedents are applicable here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete While it can be argued that the principal subject is the ship, the test of de minimis is whether the average viewer would not notice if the copyrighted work were removed. That's obviously not the case here. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Delete De minimis does not apply when half the ship is covered in copyrighted artwork. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Moby Vincent (ship, 1974)

No COM:FOP Italy, no COM:FOP France, the ship liveries are derivatives of protected cartoon characters. They are likely not De Minimis. As reference: the German Federal High Court ruled that the Kussmund, the typical "kissing lips" livery on Aida cruise ships, is a copyrightable work (and, in Germany, permissible under COM:FOP Germany#Permanent). This at least in my opinion refutes the notion of liveries being De minimis. A deletion is sensible at least per COM:PRP.

Grand-Duc (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep de minimis, or at most "incidental" as per 1, 2, 3 and others. Subject of the pictures is the ship, not the Looney Tunes characters.Eustace Bagge (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm refuting your arguments.
As a conclusion: none of your named precedents are applicable here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete De minimis does not apply when half the ship is covered in copyrighted artwork. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Per being incidental -- they are photos of the entire ship, not focusing on the characters. Much like photos of the entire Louvre square not being an issue despite the pyramid being a significant part. It's not de minimis but mentioned on the Commons:De minimis page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Moby Baby (ship, 1966)

No COM:FOP Italy, the ship liveries are derivatives of protected cartoon characters. They are likely not De Minimis. As reference: the German Federal High Court ruled that the Kussmund, the typical "kissing lips" livery on Aida cruise ships, is a copyrightable work (and, in Germany, permissible under COM:FOP Germany#Permanent). This at least in my opinion refutes the notion of liveries being De minimis. A deletion is sensible at least per COM:PRP.

Grand-Duc (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep de minimis, or at most "incidental" as per 1, 2, 3 and others. Subject of the pictures is the ship, not the cartoon characters.--Eustace Bagge (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm refuting your arguments.
As a conclusion: none of your named precedents are applicable here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete While it can be argued that the principal subject is the ship, the test of de minimis is whether the average viewer would not notice if the copyrighted work were removed. That's obviously not the case here. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Per being incidental -- they are photos of the entire ship, not focusing on the characters. Much like photos of the entire Louvre square not being an issue despite the pyramid being a significant part. It's not de minimis but mentioned on the Commons:De minimis page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Moby Freedom (ship, 2001)

No COM:FOP Italy, no COM:FOP France, the ship liveries are derivatives of protected cartoon characters. They are likely not De Minimis. As reference: the German Federal High Court ruled that the Kussmund, the typical "kissing lips" livery on Aida cruise ships, is a copyrightable work (and, in Germany, permissible under COM:FOP Germany#Permanent). This at least in my opinion refutes the notion of liveries being De minimis. A deletion is sensible at least per COM:PRP.

Grand-Duc (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep de minimis as per 1, 2, 3 and others. Subject of the pictures is the ship, not the Looney Tunes characters.--Eustace Bagge (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm refuting your arguments.
As a conclusion: none of your named precedents are applicable here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete While it can be argued that the principal subject is the ship, the test of de minimis is whether the average viewer would not notice if the copyrighted work were removed. That's obviously not the case here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Per Jim. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)


 Keep Per being incidental -- they are photos of the entire ship, not focusing on the characters. Much like photos of the entire Louvre square not being an issue despite the pyramid being a significant part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Leuchtenburg exhibition: Ritter - Burgen - Drachen

Interior views in Germany are not covered by freedom of panorama.

Lukas Beck (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think I buy a photo permit at the ticket shop. But I don't know it, because it is over 2 years in the past. --sk (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
But I am sure I ask at the ticket shop. I do this in every museum. --sk (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
This is not an FoP case, this appears to be overzealous. I explicitly asked the museum for permission to photograph. Additionally, the Leuchtenburg model is hardly an "interior view". --Enyavar (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Permission to take photographs does not replace permission to publish those photos on Commons. Lukas Beck (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Normaly the people in the ticket shop say "Yes, but only for private use". This image I never upload to Commons. In this case was no restriction. So I upload this image. And in 2 years no request from the museum for deleting this images. --sk (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Museums have a right to govern the access to their property, which includes the granting (or not) of permissions to take photographs. But this permission to use cameras does not relate to publish recordings and any waiving of rights to authors of exhibited pieces of art. Unless some artist grants a museum the right to license usage rights on his works, a photo permit does not cover the right to publish files with a commercial usability in mind.  Delete per nominator. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The museum explicitly allows publishing on commercial platforms. Do we need to contact the museum to re-state that permission to VRT? --Enyavar (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I only found the information that images may be published on platforms like Facebook or Instagram. That is not a commercial use. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I still feel as if this museum was singled out randomly. These objects are displayed to be photographed and shared publicly; I already sent a request to the museum for clarification. Just for random other interior photographs of contemporary objects in museums, you could also argue that File:DSC 2018 (28137453136).jpg and File:Feuerwehrmuseum Wien 9551.JPG also "are not covered by FOP". --Enyavar (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Porzellanwelten Leuchtenburg - Exhibition "The Prologue"

Interior views in Germany are not covered by freedom of panorama.

Lukas Beck (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not an FoP case, this appears to be overzealous. I explicitly asked the museum if photographs are allowed, and the answer was yes. --Enyavar (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Permission to take photographs does not replace permission to publish those photos on Commons. Lukas Beck (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The same discussion in Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Leuchtenburg_exhibition:_Ritter_-_Burgen_-_Drachen. --sk (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)


  •  Comment I don't think it's an FoP issue, however in fact most of the pictures depicting a shown artwork. Not sure if this one is an artwork though. --A.Savin 21:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Porzellanwelten Leuchtenburg - Exhibition "The Mystery"

Interior views in Germany are not covered by freedom of panorama.

Lukas Beck (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not an FoP case, this appears to be overzealous. I explicitly asked the museum if photographs are allowed, and the answer was yes. --Enyavar (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Permission to take photographs does not replace permission to publish those photos on Commons. Lukas Beck (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The same discussion in Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Leuchtenburg_exhibition:_Ritter_-_Burgen_-_Drachen. --sk (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
By the way, these pictures do not even depict artwork, but industrial production accidents that found their way into the museum. --Enyavar (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
It is unclear to what extent one should exclude the other. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:ARURA

Interior views in Germany are not covered by freedom of panorama.

Lukas Beck (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not an FoP case, this appears to be overzealous. I explicitly asked the museum if photographs are allowed, and the answer was yes. --Enyavar (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Permission to take photographs does not replace permission to publish those photos on Commons. Lukas Beck (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The same discussion in Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Leuchtenburg_exhibition:_Ritter_-_Burgen_-_Drachen. --sk (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:B.J. Novak public domain photo.jpg

"So the good news, your mind is alright. Apparently, The Office star has dabbled in stock photo modeling after someone mistakenly deemed his portrait public domain. As a result, B.J.’s face is the cover of miscellaneous household items from across the world, but it seems like the actor is somewhat embracing it." Sounds like the license is invalid Trade (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete if the only evidence we have for the public domain status is the subject summarising the situation as someone mistakenly put an image of me on a public domain site in a short Instagram caption. This could be a casual description of a stock photo site where there were some licencing terms in place, or a situation where a copyrighted headshot was added to some supermegapublicdomainimages.com type collection without any permission, with no involvement of (as with Nickelodeon) an uploader who was officially representing the copyright holder.
The NYT article is rightly cautious about the copyright status, only saying that a website where Mr. Novak believes it became part of the public domain and That could mean the image ... is free to use without permission.
Has anybody been able to identify the site in question yet? Belbury (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:2020-06-26 Leuchtenburg 171.jpg

Interior views in Germany are not covered by freedom of panorama. Lukas Beck (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Simple information board in a public museum. This is not an FoP case, this appears to be overzealous. --Enyavar (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The same discussion in Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Leuchtenburg_exhibition:_Ritter_-_Burgen_-_Drachen. --sk (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:2020-06-26 Leuchtenburg 161.jpg

Interior views in Germany are not covered by freedom of panorama. Lukas Beck (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Simple information board in a public museum. This is not an FoP case, this appears to be overzealous. --Enyavar (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The same discussion in Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Leuchtenburg_exhibition:_Ritter_-_Burgen_-_Drachen. --sk (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ella B. Henderson.jpg

Also nominating File:Henderson-Anthony Marriage Announcement.jpg for the same reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graywalls (talk • contribs) 12:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

COM:PERSONAL Drawing of uploader's extended family member.. I don't see how this is Wikimedia relevant. "Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends," Graywalls (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Out of scope and a vanity picture from the (indeffed) uploader's family. This is not a personal picture site. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep The painting is in use, and every newspaper article is in scope, we have a project to host every newspaper and magazine article that is in the public domain. This appears to be part of a harassment campaign against the uploader. --RAN (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    The upload pattern of uploader has been identified as hosting various items of interest only to his extended family members and an apparent attempt to replicate his family tree on Wikimedia platform. Previously he's even used familysearch, findagrave and his own freaking family tree website on his family. Addressing such a pattern of problematic behavior is not a harassing campaign. Graywalls (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
 Keep, both images is currently COM:INUSE, so they are automatically in-scope. File:Ella B. Henderson.jpg is in-use in Wikidata since 2020 and File:Henderson-Anthony Marriage Announcement.jpg is in-use since 7 hours ago. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Which is just various circular references to various material about family members and marriages. So COM:PERSONAL / COM:WEBHOST still remain relevant here. Graywalls (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Mheekanong (talk · contribs)

Borrowing this comment from Marchjuly at AN

"Mheekanong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a new account (created on June 10, 2025) that has uploaded several photo from the official website en:Japanese Imperial Household Agency. All of these photo's are licensed as {{CC-by-4.0}} which could be OK per kunaicho.go.jp/e-copyright/ but which is something that probably needs to be assessed given the "No infringement of third party rights" section which specifically makes mention of photographs of the Japanese Imperial family. All of the uploads seems to be sourced to kunaicho.go.jp/e-about/activity/activity03.html, but only File:Prince Hisahito in early summer 2024.jpg seems to be directly taken from that page: this file, by the way, has COM:OVERWRITE issues and probably needs to be split if properly licensed. Most likely these photos come from some inner page of the agency's official website, but a direct link to their source page probably needs to be provided, assuming the "CC-by-4.0" licensing is correct. I think this was a good-faith attempt to upload these files, which is why I'm asking about it here instead of COM:AN/U: however, the licensing claim really should be assessed by more people because if it's OK, then there are lots of photos from the agency's site which could be uploaded and used under similar terms. "

Trade (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. In https://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-copyright/, it states “No infringement of third party rights”, and it listed “Pictures and Images of the Imperial Family” as an example of content by a third party. (There is probably a mistranslation here since it says “Pictures and videos of the Imperial Family” in the Japanese version).
Also, there is a section below named “Content where other terms of use apply”, and it includes “Production by The Imperial Family, and Portrait of The Imperial Family”. So both of these statements to me indicates that the Imperial Family images are not licensed under CC-BY-4.0 by the website. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I think we may need to make a licensing tag for Kunaicho specifically to prevent this confusion. Per above,  Delete both this and the derivative works I made with said files. We should include File:Prince Hisahito in early summer 2024.jpg in the DR. TansoShoshen (talk) 22:32, 16 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.

File:Владимир Ильич Ленин и Мария Ильинична Ульянова в Горках. Начало августа 1922 г.jpg

Не используется Alikhan 1987 (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)


  •  Keep 1922 image is PD in Russia and USA. --RAN (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Kept: per RAN. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:13, 1 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.

File:Владимир Ильич Ленин и Мария Ильинична Ульянова в Горках. Начало августа 1922 г.jpg

Не использую Alikhan 1987 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Выполни своей воле хотите удалить? And  Delete no source. Incall talk 17:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)


Kept: no valid reason for deletion, just because "you don't use it" doesn't qualify for deletion. --ChemSim (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Владимир Ильич Ленин и Мария Ильинична Ульянова в Горках. Начало августа 1922 г.jpg

This is not original image. compare to https://www.zelenograd.ru/story/vozvrashchalis-obmorojennye-no-schastlivye-tem-chto-udalos-uvidet-lenina-hotya-i-mertvogo/?from=email (https://www.zelenograd.ru/img/7/b/e/7be1fb58d98706d4380a1a5441439b79.jpg). This one is ugly processed by AI mechanism and looks unnatural. Drakosh (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:John A. Thompson - Caught in the Rip.jpg

Book cover from the UK. Has the British author's signature and has a text effect with the title. UK's ToO has gone up due to a recent court decision, but is this under ToO? Abzeronow (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:FBI Wanted Poster for Vance L. Boelter.pdf/File:Vance Boelter law enforcement assistance poster.png

No evidence that the individual portraits are free images; the second in particular could be a professional portrait. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep FBI posters are public domain regardless of images. Here are some good examples: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Wanted_Poster_-_Roy_McGrath.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Wanted_Poster_January_6_2021_Capitol_bombing.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guan_Tian_Feng_wanted_by_the_FBI_poster_(zh-hant).jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Relisha_Rudd_FBI_poster.gif
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luis_Macedo_(FBI).jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted_Fugitives PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
There is no statute which stated that the copyright law does not apply to the FBI or any other part of the federal government Trade (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
So if all the photos are owned by the FBI then why does the second photo appear here on the website of the subject several months before the shooting?
https://www.pguards.net/leadership-team Trade (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Mugshots (and photos) have appeared on FBI posters with no copyright violation whatsoever. If this really was a copyright violation, the numerous examples I gave above would have been deleted a long time ago. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Mugshots are protected by copyright in the vast majority of US states Trade (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
So what about the examples above, why aren't they copyright violations? PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
No one is stopping you from nominating them. Be my quest Trade (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
The reason I figured these were public domain was because FBI posters have been posted on this site for several occasions with no issues. Why did no one bother to nominate them? I'm not directly asking this to you, but rather everyone. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Nobody wanted to go through the trouble to check the origin of the photos featured in them. It's easier for people to just go "FBI's website? Must be public domain then" Trade (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
"FBI posters are public domain regardless of images" Care to quote the law on that, rather than "other stuff" on Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Weak Keep, as PublicDomainFan08 mentions, while basically every material posted by the FBI is public domain, but content that focuses on unfree content (be cropped images) could be a copyright violation. Personally I'd say the posters themselves would be still kept by the criteria of de-minimis if they contain Copyrighted content. Unfortunately Federal Agencies (FBI, CIA, US Marshals) rarely mention if the photos that were provided by them were waived by the rights owners or are just used to illustrate on the suspects on particular. (The only instances where a cropped photo could be used if its a record of a state that publishes it as Public Domain, for example: Florida, or CCTV footage as it is non human content.) I'd suggest moving this discussion onto a more general chat since there is a LOT of FBI wanted posters hosted in Commons. Hyperba21 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I have a very, very hard time accepting the argument that the photos used by the FBI to illustrate the physical appearance of an suspect on an wanted poster could be considered trivial Trade (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
"basically every material posted by the FBI is public domain" That is not so. Everything original that they produce is PD, but the work of others does not lose its copyright protection if they use it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
 Delete If the FBI is not the copyright owner of the images, then this is not in the public domain. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Would the file be worthless if we removed the copyvio from it? Trade (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
That's an option. I don't know if anyone would use it, but it might be better than nothing. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
 Delete per the COM:Precautionary principle and a relevant quote, "No evidence that the individual portraits are free images" from a similar DR
- Ooligan (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators

There is NO evidence that these photos were taken by employee's of the FBI. Just because it's included in their wanted poster it does not mean that they own the rights to them

I have not included the third photo for the obvious reason that door camera / security camera photos aren't eligible for copyright

Trade (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep FBI posters are public domain regardless of images. Here are some good examples: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Wanted_Poster_-_Roy_McGrath.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Wanted_Poster_January_6_2021_Capitol_bombing.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guan_Tian_Feng_wanted_by_the_FBI_poster_(zh-hant).jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Relisha_Rudd_FBI_poster.gif
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luis_Macedo_(FBI).jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted_Fugitives PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
"This image or file is a work of a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties." If the photos are not taken by the FBI then this obviously does not apply Trade (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Nuclear fission and scissile point.png

Out of scope: AI-generated nonsense. "Scissile point" is not a recognized term in nuclear physics. Omphalographer (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If you take a look at the article Modeling ultrasound-induced molecular weight decrease of polymers with multiple scissile azo-mechanophores, and some other discussions in nuclear fission, including the explicit keyword lists in American Physical Society journals, it comes up. The web search mostly only includes scissile bond as in biochemistry. Only a categorical scheme. Quinhonk (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
That article is using the word "scissile" in the context of polymer chemistry (to describe a polymer chain being "cut"). It has no connection whatsoever to nuclear fission, and I cannot find any evidence that the phrase "scissile point" has ever been used in that context - let alone that, per the description, there is a "commonly accepted understanding" which involves that term. Omphalographer (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal, even though MDPI is making encyclopedia a journal. Quinhonk (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)