Commons:Deletion requests/2025/06/04

June 4

File:Budynek główny Akademii Policji w Szczytnie zimową porą.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Ankry as no permission (No permission since) Krd 03:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It is watermarked by the Police Academy and has author information in EXIF: AUTOR_JACEK_KONIECZNY. It is not clear whather tha uploader (who claims to be the author and copyright holder) is Jacek Konieczny nor who has copyright to it (Jacek Konieczny of the Police Academy). VRT permission is necessary to resolve these, IMO. Ankry (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment. Do we have information tying Jacek Konieczny to the police academy? The user name User:Wspol definitely sounds like an abbreviation of "Wyższa Szkoła Policji" which translates to "College of Police" in Polish. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Grupo Cultural Sanfonar.png

Stylized writing - doesn't pass copyright test for logos. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Vagrant Logo.png

Unused lower quality version of File:Vagrant Logo.svg. I don't think we need both files. Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Kodiak.png

Out of scope: Personal fiction. I do think that example files for map generators could be allowed to educate about that generators capabilities, but:

  • Details should be visible at first glance (choose a larger scale?) ✓ Done
  • Features should be recognizable (choose a higher resolution?) ✓ Done
  • Use more functions of the map generator (title, map key, compass roses) and make clear that the map is supposed to be an example through the labels.
  • For a good example, as many features as possible should be shown: this example map seems to show a vegetation/climate map and three groups of hills on some island. More variation should show all kinds of natural features, including desert, steppes, hill lands, plateaus and rivers. ✓ Done Also, cities and roads would be great to display.

Also, maybe don't overlay heraldry and other ornaments/marginalia in the center of the map when there is space at the sides? Regards, Enyavar (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

wind rose doesn't work for some reason Genuesslichzuverlaessigerpanda (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Given the improvements, I would  I withdraw my nomination and want to  Keep the example map. --Enyavar (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:S.S. Italis.jpg

"A source of free ship images" and "unknown author" are not sufficient to upload this file here with a CC license tag. Rosenzweig τ 07:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a comment, this photo was surely taken between 1978 and 1980 Moxmarco (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Serbian stamp of Frida Kahlo, 2007.jpg

This file showing a 2007 Serbian stamp was uploaded in 2024 with a {{PD-SerbiaGov}} license tag, claiming that it shows a "law, decree, other regulation or official material" of Serbia. First, it is rather doubtful if that actually applies to Serbian stamps, see my deletion rationale in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Famous personalities 1999 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg. Second, the stamp shows a 1945 painting by Frida Kahlo, which for the purposes of Wikimedia Commons is a Mexican work and still protected there until the end of 2054. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2055. Rosenzweig τ 07:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:A Phonetical Study of the Eskimo Language by William Thalbitzer.pdf

Danish originated work, Author (Danish) died in 1958 so whilst PD-US, the Dnaish original is not PD in it's origin country. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep. As shown on /9, the country of origin for this file is the United States, where it is in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    On page 9, it just said it is reprinted in the US in 1976, the original version was published in Denmark in 1904. Tvpuppy (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Why does that matter? This book was published in the United States, which makes it the country of origin for that publication. Thus, Commons does not need to consider the laws of other countries. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
      As mentioned above, the source country of this book is Denmark. Commons require works to be in the public domain both in the United States and in the source country of the work. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
      • No, the source country is the United States, where it was published. Commons requires books to be in the public domain in the United States and in the country of origin. This book was printed in the United States, so its country of origin is also the United States. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
        As mentioned above, in the book it states it was reprinted in the US, meaning it was already printed before, and not being the first published version. So this version is just a copy of an existing copyrighted work originated from Denmark. Tvpuppy (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete The country of origin for all files from HathiTrust is the US, by that logic. This file wasn't printed in 1976, it was printed in 2025. The Commons rule is for copyright purposes, which mean we'd have to worry about the original publication of any and all copyrightable work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Bus.gif

This file was deleted in 2014 due to the duplicate File:Bus - 2.png. However, an automatic redirect to the duplicate remained. The duplicate is not a general representation of a bus, but rather a specific image of a bus that you wouldn't expect to find when searching for “bus.gif”. Chris2ma (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Sewerslvt - IRLY - Dysphoria.flac

This file was initially tagged by Skyshifter as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyrighted song Replacing speedy deletion request. The file is licensed under the acceptable license, see source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuirse (talk • contribs) 02:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Sewerslvt - IRLY - Kawaii Razor Blades (feat. yandere).flac

This file was initially tagged by Skyshifter as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyrighted song Replacing speedy deletion request. The file is licensed under the acceptable license, see source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuirse (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Sewerslvt - IRLY - I Really Like You pt1.flac

This file was initially tagged by Skyshifter as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyrighted song Replacing speedy deletion request. The file is licensed under the acceptable license, see source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuirse (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Sewerslvt - IRLY - Euphoric Filth (Cheru's Theme).flac

This file was initially tagged by Skyshifter as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyrighted song The file is licensed under the acceptable license, see source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuirse (talk • contribs) 02:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Victory in Battle of Dien Bien Phu.webp

Copyright isn't expired in neither Russia nor Vietnam (Dien Bien Phu battle ended in 1954/05/07) Stvk Công Cuối (VN) (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Milli Majlis of Azerbaijan in 1995.jpg

Copyright violation Yousiphh (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Fikrat Sadigov.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Sevda S..jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Sevda Suleymanova.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Александра Беда в спектакле.jpg

fake licence. Pessimist (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Bakı Dövlət Universiteti.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:ABDAG005084 - Andrew Affleck - Stirling Castle.jpeg

Duplicate of File:Stirling Castle - Andrew Affleck - ABDAG005084 FBulfin (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:ABDAG004225 - Alec Fraser - Homeward.jpeg

Exact duplicate of File:Homeward - Alec Fraser - ABDAG004225.jpeg FBulfin (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Texas seal reverse.gif

Superseded by File:Seal of Texas (reverse).svg Nv8200pa (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by ChronoFact (talk · contribs)

Most credited to © Dzianis Burmakin - and then i think the artwork may not be in scope nor free as it looks like modern work

Gbawden (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

What needs to be done to preserve the photos? Indicate authorship? The photographer provided the photos specifically for the article. ChronoFact (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
There are two issues - Burmakin would need to provide permission via COM:VRT as would the artist who painted the paintings Gbawden (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Am I correct in understanding that it is always necessary to obtain permission from the photographer who photographed the painting, as well as permission from the artist who painted it? ChronoFact (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Elshan Abbasov.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Vurguneliyev.jpg

Not used COM:ADVERT file Yousiphh (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Energetik FK oyunçuları.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Göyçay FK.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Göyçay FK.png

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Energetik keçmiş komandası.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Qarabağ-reqbi-1.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:2S5A0844-e1478424729819-300x300.jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Enhanced Logo.png

Copyright guys YehudaHubert (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}}, copyright does not seem an issue. But  Delete for being out of scope - Jcb (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:The rock eating pancakes.png

Copyright? From internet. See here. Wouter (talk) 13:46, 4 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:Sony Music Publishing.jpg

The author is not the copyright holder of this file, which is the logo of an organization. The logo may be copyrightable in some jurisdictions and may be subject to non-free jurisdictions. If the logo is not copyrightable in its source country or the United States, it may be public domain, but a trademark notice must be provided. Aviation News and Information (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Kept: PD-textlogo, in use. --Yann (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Sony Music Publishing.jpg

JPG cover to SVG here YehudaHubert (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Logo Venezuela Es Lo Maximo..jpg

Not a free image. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Sir George Reid - George Paul Chalmers RSA - ABDAG004007.jpg

Duplicate of [George Paul Chalmers RSA - Sir George Reid - ABDAG004007.jpg ] FBulfin (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Strongly disagree with the nomination, which is to delete the high-resolution version which contains a large amount of structured data. This request should be withdrawn, and a new deletion request created for the lower resolution version of this file.
(Also, the link to the other version should be a link too. I will fix this in this nomination for ease of other commenters.
Watty62 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:The Romaunt of the Rose (IA romauntofroseren00guil).djvu

This is a US reprint of an earlier work published in the United Kingdom. The issue is that one of the Illustrators died in 19832. Thus the illustrations are not out of copyright in the UK where the illustrator was based. This file is IN USE at Wikisource, so should be localised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep Once a new edition is printed in the USA, that edition falls under US copyright law. We could not host the UK edition, which would fall under UK copyright law. --RAN (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
How does this work if it's the same work just with a new imprint? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: There are minor editorial changes (e.g., the illustration facing page 14 was swapped with the frontispiece illustration, etc.) and thus this should be considered a new US edition and not just a new imprint of the original 1908 UK editions. FYI, if this was a copyright violation in the US, it would certainly be so for Internet Archive and HathiTrust as both are hosted in the US but this scanned book is publicly available at both. —Uzume (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
As the uploader of this file, I am not sure if I should vote or not but I assume this is in reference to copyrights of Henderson's estate (he died in 1982 and not 1983) and would thus also explicitly apply to: Category:Illustrations by Keith Henderson for the Romaunt of the Rose (each of those were uploaded by @Cbaile19 and tagged with {{PD-US-expired}}). I agree with @RAN. The original 1908 edition was published only in the UK and thus would have to qualify for public domain status in the UK and then also in the US (e.g., under URAA or 95-year expiration, etc.), however, this edition was published in the US in 1911 (and there are albeit minor editorial changes) so it qualifies itself under the 95-year expiration without needing public domain status in any other countries. As such this is not a copyright violation for WMF which is hosted in the US and thus must comply with US copyright rules. That said, it may still be copyright elsewhere and usage outside the US should be evaluated based on the copyright status in whatever country is applicable for such usage. I retagged the license on the file to be more specific and applicable (with {{PD-old-auto-expired}}). As to UK copyright status, I believe, neither the original 1908 nor this 1911 US edition would qualify for public domain status, thus parts (such as Henderson's illustrations) may be considered under copyright there. —Uzume (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
My understanding was that Commons generally tried to be respectul of both the US and non US positions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: That is exactly why I tagged it with {{PD-old-auto-expired}} and Henderson's death year. That way, it shows its US copyright status as well as automatically showing the "old" copyright status information for other countries once applicable (i.e., once enough time has past, etc.). The current license states: "Public domain works must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons. If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country." However, this is a US published work so it is public domain in both the US and its country of origin (the same US; the 1908 UK editions would not so qualify). In 2033, the text will automatically change to: "The author died in 1982, so this work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 50 years or fewer." And in future years the "50" increments up by decades I believe. That is about as respectful as it can be. The individual images of Henderson's illustrations extracted from the same work could also be so tagged but for now only show their US public domain status; I might go through and fix their licensing at some point but they are not actually tagged wrong. I appreciate you bringing this topic up though. IA-Upload, defaults to a bare {{PD-scan}} which in turn defaults to {{PD-old}} which does not apply here (at least not for a long time anyway) and technically never actually applies for US public domain status by itself. It might make sense to lobby to get {{PD-scan}} changed to default to something that specifies US public domain status like {{PD-US-expired}} or {{PD-old-70-expired}}. —Uzume (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Here is another interesting example: File:Peter and Wendy (1911).djvu. I am sure you are aware J. M. Barrie was Scottish and thus most of his work was published in the UK. I believe for most works, the UK goes by the "life plus 70" rule for public domain status. Barrie died in 1937, so most of that work (Barrie's contribution) should have been public domain in the UK since 2008, however, by a special law, Peter and Wendy has a perpetual copyright in the UK. As such, all UK publications of Peter and Wendy can never be public domain (until the law changes anyway). However, this 1911 edition was published in the US and so is in the public domain there (due to the 95-year copyright expiration) and thus can be hosted here at Commons despite the UK copyright. Commons respects the copyrights of other countries but does not completely adhere to them. Both the file reported here and the above mentioned Peter and Wendy are in a different situation than UK publications like the original 1908 editions or something like s:File:The Worm Ouroboros - 1922.djvu (another UK publication with Henderson illustrations published more than 95 years ago) which are allowed at WMF (e.g., Wikisource, Wikipedia, etc.) but not at Commons. —Uzume (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
w:Peter and Wendy#Copyright status is not under copyright in the UK; the Hospital merely has rights to royalties, and not any other rights. One could argue that Commons should not host it as it is not effectively free in its country of origin, but its situation is sui generis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
File:Peter and Wendy (1911).djvu was uploaded to Commons in 2021 when copyrights to Francis Donkin Bedford's illustrations were still in force in the UK and yet it remained. Of course that is now a moot point since those copyrights have since expired. Whether Peter and Wendy is sui generis based upon Barrie's work is not the point. The point is that it is not public domain and free of encumbrances in its country of origin unless you count that it was published in the US giving it another country of origin for those publications. —Uzume (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Other things exist has never been a good argument; nobody may have checked it and nominated it. As for now, we frequently ignore non-copyright restrictions. Peter and Wendy's restriction seems similar to the Italian one for a lot of old buildings, {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}, which is not something that's blocked us from uploading images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: If you wanted to transcribe the 1908 edition (e.g., HT: uiug.30112066869923), you could upload that to Wikisource but it would not be allowed at Commons because it is a UK publication still under a UK copyright status. Does that help? —Uzume (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I am UK based, so can't work on it, but more editions are always good. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete A later US publication of a work does not make it a US work. The point of the Commons rules is that if it's PD in the US and its country of origin, it will be PD in most of the world through the rule of the shorter term. For that to work, its country of origin has to have the same meaning as it does in copyright law, which makes this a British work, possibly with copyrightable US additions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    This is a unique edition with a different frontispiece, image captions and a new glossary. I do not think this qualifies as a "reprint". —Uzume (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter whether it counts as a "reprint". It is a derivative work of a copyrighted work, probably unauthorized, so copyright law is going to cover it where ever it covers the original. That's the point of this Commons rule, so countries with the "rule of the shorter term" will generally not have a problem with works on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

File:حسين نهابة.jpg

حسب طلب الشخص الظاهر في الصورة، ولكم الشكر.  Mohammed Qays  🗣 15:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Хьюи Лонг (1934).jpg

Invalid copyright tag CzarJobKhaya (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Entrada do Ministério Público do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.jpg

File:方東美先生.jpg

Probably not own work, multiple instances found on the web.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Banknotes of Iran, Jomhuri-e Eslami era

Post-1994 banknotes are protected by Iranian law

HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Iranian law does not apply outside of Iran and these are simply photos of the banknotes. I got them from a banknote collection website where they were free to use. I don't think they should be deleted ThreeStars32 (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
It does apply on this website. Please see COM:CUR Iran for more information. HeminKurdistan (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:SDCC 2014 - Mr. Peabody & Sherman (14628766587).jpg

Clearly copyrighted per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Costumes_and_cosplay. Adamant1 (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Maja i gucio przedszkole rokosowska.jpg

I don't see why this statue wouldn't be copyrighted since it's based on a 2021 film. Although there's FOP in Poland but images involving otherwise copyrighted works still can't be uploaded to Commons regardless. Adamant1 (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A work from 2018 can't be a copy of 2021 film. Panek (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Maya the Bee

I don't see why these images wouldn't be copyrighted even there's FOP in whatever countries they were taken in since the artwork/statues in them are based on an otherwise copyrighted character, per Commons:Derivative works and similar policies.

Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep There is freedom of panorama in Belgium. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
About half of these images aren't taken in Belgium. So I don't know how that's relevant. But durative works of copyrighted characters created by people who aren't the original artist and/or copyright holder aren't allowed on here even if they were though. There's also the issue that permanency is needed for FOP. Unfortunately it doesn't usually work for things like posters at children's birthday parties, party balloons, stuffed animals put on dumpsters, or statues temporarily placed on ski lifts. So there's multiple copyright issues here that make the fact that there's FOP in Belgium totally meaningless. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
These statues are permanently installed on this ski lift. Exactly. Just like those statues placed in amusement parks are there permanently, I know this from occasionally returning to those places. In fact, I even think that instead of trying to delete these files, you should contact the Plopsa group and ask for permission to republish them. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Pattern Drafting And Grading (1961).djvu

Given more information came to light, including other and later editions (some noted at https://openlibrary.org/books/OL14242686M/Pattern_drafting_and_grading), I no longer have confidence in the non-renewal, given that the claimed license at IA may be flawed, and the Metadata on that site seemingly misatrributes who the author acutally is. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete Per https://forum.seamly.io/t/a-1961-pattern-system-from-archive-org/7896/16 It seems there IS an active rights holder. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Copyvio And now tagged as such. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC) See below. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep. The only copyright notice on the work is from 1961, and that copyright was not renewed. This work appears to be from 1961, as well, and there is no evidence of this being a later publication. Even if it was, without a later copyright notice any new material was not copyrighted (and, again, the 1961 material was not renewed). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:George Wolfe - 5124e309e6.jpg

Potentially copyrighted American cartoon. Abzeronow (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

We need to know when it was first published. --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

File:A group of Republican Congress members destroy a Toshiba boombox with sledgehammers on the lawns of the US Capitol to protest the company.jpg

Obvious AI-generated hoax image therefore out of scope CutlassCiera 22:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Nouman Ali Khan live in Trinidad.png

The primary issue with this file is the nature of its source. Zulfiqaar Media does not appear to be an independent content creator; rather, it predominantly shares edited clips derived from copyrighted materials produced by others. For instance, one of its recent uploads titled Imam Was Late for Fajr is directly taken from Mufti Menk’s official channel. A broader review of the channel’s content reveals a consistent pattern of reusing and republishing material from third-party sources without evident original contribution. Another example, a clip featuring Nouman Ali Khan is actually extracted from a talk hosted by RIS. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, where did the video come from? Here is ROU Facebook page, they did not even post anything in 2014  REAL 💬 ⬆   23:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@999real: The intro and logo of the video clearly indicate its source, making further identification unnecessary. The video's originality is evident from its intro, which attributes it to RevivalUmmah—a platform that has existed in 2014. See the tweet as evidence, although the platform is now inactive. A tweet confirms that the referenced conference took place in August 2014, while the version you cited was uploaded in October. The video intro states that it originates from the RevivalUmmah channel, but why was it uploaded via Zulfiqaar Media two months later? The nature of other content published by Zulfiqaar Media, along with these indicators, suggests that Zulfiqaar Media is a copyright-compliant content distributor, and this video falls under that category as well. It's common sense!–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 23:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Фото Аркадия Николаевича Бочарникова.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Valmin as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: false declaration as own work, made in 2024 for person who died in 1944 |source= . Old Russian photo, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:LogoGlobalTV.png

This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: complex logo King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Sabir Məmmədov Rəis.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ak Orda Presidential Palace by night 01.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Menakei as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: focusing on the non free building (no freedon of panorama in Kazakhstan). Ineligible for speedy deletion per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete NOFOP in Kazakhstan. Incall talk 17:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ak Orda Presidential Palace by night 02.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Menakei as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: focusing on the non free building (no freedon of panorama in Kazakhstan). Ineligible for speedy deletion per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ak Orda Presidential Palace by night 03.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Menakei as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: focusing on the non free building (no freedon of panorama in Kazakhstan). Ineligible for speedy deletion per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ak Orda Presidential Palace by night 04.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Menakei as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: focusing on the non free building (no freedon of panorama in Kazakhstan). Ineligible for speedy deletion per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Rustam Minnikhanov in Kazakhstan (2023-09-25) 68.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Menakei as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: focusing on the non free building (no freedon of panorama in Kazakhstan). Ineligible for speedy deletion per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Pavel Kohout, Vit Kohout.jpg

Own work? 186.173.79.250 23:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Earl Cunningham USCG.webp

This file is not linked to and duplicates another item in the Commons Arclaser (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Turban tossing.jpg

Unclear copyright status, the file was first published on social media the source given does not own the rights (license laundering). HeminKurdistan (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you show an example of more early publishing than this YouTube? Анастасия Львоваru/en 08:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
@Lvova This YouTube channel has uploaded dozens of amateur films from different locations and different dates, as well as footage from Iranian state television. It certainly does not own the rights. Moreover, your request contradicts with onus of proof principle, this is the uploader who should prove that the source is authentic, not vice versa. HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Nope, I should not prove something when I see unsubstantiated allegations. Now you said at least something. @Darafsh: what will you say about the channel? I'm ready to find another video, but would like to see the situation better. Анастасия Львоваru/en 13:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, Darafsh agreed that the channel is not trustful. I would be fully agree with the nomination with at least one link to a social media, but still somehow agree, the decision is up to sysops. Анастасия Львоваru/en 10:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Chioggia by Gheorghe Petrașcu

It is possible that I'm mistaken, but https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/landscape-of-chioggia-venice-gheorghe-petra%C8%99cu/4wGvB99Zr-3pPw seems to imply that Petrașcu's paintings of Chioggia would date from 1934, and therefore would be copyrighted in the U.S. through 2029, becoming public domain in 2030. (This assumes we consider them to have been immediately "published.")

Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment the fact that two of these are clearly earlier than 1934 (and are old enough to be out of copyright in the U.S.) means that any of the others might also be that old, so this is on much shakier footing than I first thought. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)