File:S.C.H.A.L.E (Logomark version).png

The logomark seems to be above COM:TOO Korea. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

COM:TOO Korea? it's COM:TOO South Korea, not North Korea. 茅野ふたば (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

From my point,  Keep it since the logomark itself contain combination of geometric shapes and lines. But, i also already asked other Wikipedians on Discord, although many are  Unsure Hayase Desta 205146M62 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Non-notable fictional organization, so  Delete. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Objection: If you propose deleting this file solely because it is the logo of a fictional organization, then by the same reasoning, other similar files such as File:Aperture Laboratories Logo.svg, File:Umbrella Corporation logo.svg, and those in Category:Logos of fictional companies should have already been deleted. Since these files remain on Wikimedia Commons, this one should also be  Keep. Hayase Desta 205146M62 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

But these fictional organizations have more coverage in reputable secondary sources, while there is little coverage on S.C.H.A.L.E. themselves. I think this logo is more complex than the others you have brought up. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

If you talking about coverage about SCHALE on secondary secondary sources, here:

And if you need more comparison for South Korean Logo that are still under TOO, the closest thing i can brought are File:Yuhan Logo (ENG).svg Hayase Desta 205146M62 (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

and also the logo of the game itself, which is featured the same halo-like shape

File:Blue Archive EN logo.svg Hayase Desta 205146M62 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The Blue Archive Logo is much simpler than the SCHALE logo. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Copyvio tagged the Yuhan Logos. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

While it is simpler than S.C.H.A.L.E logo, it still featured the same shape.

Since now you tagged Yuhan Logo as Copyvio, i'm gonna asked other Wikipedians about this. And if Yuhan Logo ended up being kept, atleast S.C.H.A.L.E logo should being kept. Hayase Desta 205146M62 (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, so it's already deleted before i discuss it. Hayase Desta 205146M62 (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so decided read more about South Korean Supreme court rule, The Supreme Court of South Korea has clarified that a work is considered original if it is not merely an imitation, possesses its own characteristics as a product of mental effort, and can be distinguished from existing works.

the South Korean Supreme Court likely ruled the Fox Racing logo as above the Threshold of Originality probably because its silhouette of a fox head goes beyond a simple combination of geometric shapes. Even if it consists of simple elements, the way those elements are arranged to depict an identifiable animal form makes it unique and creative enough for copyright protection.

So i decided to Made a comparison between Fox Racing logo, Pinkfong logo (which is also under fair use) and S.C.H.A.L.E logo:

• Fox Racing Logo: The Fox Racing logo features a stylized or silhouette fox head, which is a unique and identifiable animal form. The design is creative and distinct, making it eligible for copyright protection.

• Pinkfong Logo: The Pinkfong logo also depicts a recognizable character, which is associated with "Baby Shark" brand. The design is creative and unique, meeting the South Korean threshold of originality.

• S.C.H.A.L.E Logomark: In contrast, the SCHALE logomark consists of basic geometric shapes and lines. It lacks the distinctiveness and creativity found in the Fox Racing and Pinkfong logos. Hayase Desta 205146M62 (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete I agree with Hayase Desta's objection to an out-of-scope deletion, as this doesn't seem much different than the logos they mentioned like Aperture Science or Umbrella Co., but this seems above South Korean TOO to me, which seems to be quite low. — Rubýñ ^(Scold) 23:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Keep So i decided to digging more, According to the Korean Copyright Act, a "work" is defined as a creation that expresses human thoughts or feelings. The Supreme Court of South Korea has clarified that a work is considered original if it is not merely an imitation, possesses its own characteristics as a product of mental effort, and can be distinguished from existing works.

The logomark of S.C.H.A.L.E from features a combination of geometric shapes and lines, including a circle, oval, Reticle/crosshair.

Given the basic and common geometric elements used in this logomark, it might not meet the TOO. Hayase Desta 205146M62 (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete I believe that this logo is complex enough to be copyrighted in South Korea.--Namoroka (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Energiens Torv 02.jpg

The sculpture was completed in 2003 by Joachim Bang (1946–2005). There is no freedom of panorama in Denmark for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2076 A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep De minimis should apply. The sculpture is just a minor part of the whole picture. The photograph is of a named public square and the buildings on one side of it.Ramblersen2 (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree, the sculpture is quite prominent here. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Frederiksberg Rådhusplads 07.jpg

The sculpture was completed in 1960 by Anker Hoffmann (1904–1985). There is no freedom of panorama in Denmark for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2056 A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep De minimis should apply. The sculpture is just a minor part of the whole picture. The photograph is an overview of the Town Hall Square of Frederiksberg Municipality, Denmark.Ramblersen2 (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I disagree, the sculpture is quite prominent here. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Møstings Hus 01.jpg

The sculpture was completed in 1941 by Anker Hoffmann (1904–1985). There is no freedom of panorama in Denmark for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2056 A1Cafel (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep De minimis should apply. The sculpture is just a minor part of the whole picture. The photograph is of a heritage-listede building.Ramblersen2 (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep This is NOT a sculpture by Anker Hoffmann. The closest sculpture by Hoffmann is several hundered meters away from Møstings Hus. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Julius Thomsens Plads - entrance.jpg

The statue was completed in 1939 by Povl Søndergaard (1905–1986). There is no freedom of panorama in Denmark for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2057 A1Cafel (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep De minimis should apply. The relief is just a minor part of the whole picture. The photograph depicts the main entrance of a prominent educational institution and am architectural detail while the relief is partly hidden behind one of the two fluted columns.Ramblersen2 (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Wappen Bergerhausen.png

As already said at the village pump, this image is probably a Copyvio. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Wappen_Bergerhausen.png. Above TOO, source unclear and non-official. GerritR (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This was also discussed on my talk page. The conclusion reached by User:Rosenzweig was similar to yours since it says it is a CoA of a municipality that used to be separate but was incorporated into a larger one in 1934. So it may not be covered under PD-Coa-Germany since it may not have been an actual CoA since most towns got CoAs in late 1930s or post-WW2. So we have a copyrightable emblem of unknown age that is likely too young to be public domain. (This information would have been useful if you had elaborated on it in the previous request as the wording made it appear to be a scope-issue only which is why I had closed it as such.) Abzeronow (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

File:India-post-logo.jpg

This Logo is owned by the Government of India and It was submitted without permission as a self work AJed34 (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep. Probably below the threshold of originality in India and possibly {{GODL-India}} if not. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Ilham Aliyev viewed conditions created at newly-reconstructed Military Lyceum named after Jamshid Nahchivanshi 04.jpg

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a reconstruction has its own copyright. How old was the original building, and if its architect is dead, when did they die? All that said, the statue on the right would probably have to be cropped out of this view to avoid problems with its copyright, even if the building is OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Ilham Aliyev viewed conditions created at newly-reconstructed Military Lyceum named after Jamshid Nahchivanshi 29.jpg

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• The statue is de minimis in this one, so the question is whether the lyceum was originally built to the plans of an architect who's been dead over 70 years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Who was the architect? Is there a death notice for him? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  You're the deletion requester. Did you try to find out? I wouldn't request deletion in cases I thought weren't obvious (which doesn't mean I haven't made any mistakes). Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Wiki says that it was established in 1998. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  Ergo, copyrighted. Thanks.  Delete. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Ilham Aliyev viewed conditions created at newly-reconstructed Military Lyceum named after Jamshid Nahchivanshi 30.jpg

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This side looks more modernist to me. I'll be surprised if the architect, even if dead, has been dead for 70 years or longer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

But the title says "newly-reconstructed". Maybe it suffered horribly during the war. Missile attack maybe. Then it was faithfully rebuilt in the former style. Who knows? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the style is probably not 70 years old or more. If it is, there's a possibility it could be a public domain building on the basis you lay out as a hypothetical. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

But  Delete per discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ilham Aliyev viewed conditions created at newly-reconstructed Military Lyceum named after Jamshid Nahchivanshi 29.jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

File:John Austin Clark 2008.jpg

• Also File:Nicolas Fortin 2008.jpg

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bourbon Baroque Release.jpg .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep 2A02:3037:204:6667:6C80:6B91:1B3A:A971 21:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

File:20250105 Shahrokh Razmjou.jpg

با سلام. آقای رزمجو رضایت ندارند که این تصویر ایشان در ویکی انبار وجود داشته باشد. Hamed hajilooei (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shahrokh Razmjou 20250105 (cropped).jpg. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Shahrokh Razmjou 20250105 (cropped).jpg

با سلام آقای رزمجو رضایت ندارند که این تصویر ایشان در ویکی انبار باشد. Hamed hajilooei (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:20250105 Shahrokh Razmjou.jpg (same image, but not cropped). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Stéphane Simon.jpg

Doubts regarding licence/author. Picture was part of a film poster, which can be found here https://filmfreeway-production-storage-01-connector.filmfreeway.com/press_kits/posters/001/950/199/original/3a508841b9-poster.jpg?1637116263 TheGoodEndedHappily (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This coin is not {{PD-RU-exempt}}. The Soviet/Russia currency is ruble, not dollar. This coin is issued by en:Cook Islands. Alex Spade (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Монета Медвежьи игрища Ханты-Мансийский автономный округ - Югра 5 долларов back.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Alex Spade as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This coin is not {{PD-RU-exempt}}. The Soviet/Russia currency is ruble, not dollar. This coin is issued by en:Cook Islands. Alex Spade (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC). Previously kept at DR; converting. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This coin is not {{PD-RU-exempt}}. The Soviet/Russia currency is ruble, not dollar. This coin is issued by en:Cook Islands. Alex Spade (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Монета Югра 5 долларов oil back.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Alex Spade as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This coin is not {{PD-RU-exempt}}. The Soviet/Russia currency is ruble, not dollar. This coin is issued by en:Cook Islands. Alex Spade (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC). Previously kept at DR, converting. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: Want to comment on this since you closed the previous DR? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

File:ГуртАнтитіла.jpg

Professional shot, no EXIF. If the uploader is indeed the author we need verification. Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The uploader also uploaded another file of the vocalist of the depicted band (Taras Topolya) together with Bono. That photo has EXIF data: File:Тарас Тополя і Bono.jpg. Nakonana (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

File:ARCHES Mancasale, Reggio Emilia, Italy - March 27, 2010 - panoramio.jpg

Bridges by living architect Santiago Calatrava. No FOP in Italy as explained on page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Reggio_Emilia-ponte_sospeso GiorgioGaleotti (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. While the bridge is relatively small in the image, it's nonetheless the focus of the image - there is nothing else of significance visible. Omphalographer (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy keep, bridge is just a tiny/trivial part of the overall image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep. No evidence here based on statute or case law that bridges are copyrightable objects in Italy. No mention of bridges at COM:FOP Italy. This is primarily a work of engineering, not architecture. Also a trivial part of the image. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

   DeleteThese bridges have usage rights as explained here: https://www.comune.reggioemilia.it/servizi/altri-servizi/diritti-dimmagine-delle-opere-progettate-dallarchitetto-santiago-calatrava-per-reggio-emilia GiorgioGaleotti (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with Italy's weird non-copyright restrictions on cultural heritage. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Additional restrictions for cultural heritage assets. We are not bound by those. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not a cultural heritage monument or building. It's a modern bridge designed by a living architect. You can take all the photos you want of the bridge, but you need permission and pay fees to use the photos for commercial purposes as explained at the link I shared above (https://www.comune.reggioemilia.it/servizi/altri-servizi/diritti-dimmagine-delle-opere-progettate-dallarchitetto-santiago-calatrava-per-reggio-emilia). More about it here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Italy FOP again and artwork copyrights supposedly held by city councils of Italy GiorgioGaleotti (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

...and here: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#General rules GiorgioGaleotti (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The context you provide about both those links is misleading in my opinion. In the first one the tenor of the discussion seems to be that it is a strange non-copyright restriction (perhaps not cultural heritage, but the fact that it is the municipality demanding renumeration and not the person who designed the bridge is suspicious). In the second link there is no mention of bridges at all. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete The image depicts a modern bridge in Reggio Emilia designed by living architect Santiago Calatrava. Under Italian copyright law (Law No. 633/1941), architectural works are protected if they possess sufficient creative or artistic character. Calatrava’s bridges are widely recognized for their sculptural and distinctive design, and his past legal actions in such as his lawsuit over the Zubi Zuri bridge in Bilbao, Spain, demonstrate that his works are actively enforced as copyrightable as artistic. This protection likely extends to the bridges in Italy as well. Since Italy does not offer a general freedom of panorama exception for modern architecture, and given that the bridge appears to be the central subject of the image based on both the title and framing, the de minimis exception does not apply. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Fazenda - panoramio - LeoCascao.jpg

A foto não mostra o distrito de Serra Azul, tem que postar uma foto que mostra o distrito SERRAAZULMG (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Google Translation: "The photo does not show the Serra Azul district, you have to post a photo that shows the district.

 Keep then, request renaming of the file and change categories if appropriate. No reason to delete this Panoramio import that seems decent, with no artwork shown and good EXIF metadata. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The link is COM:File renaming. Anyone can edit categories, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

File:1866 Map of Jizzakh.png

duplicate File:Dizag (sic). Osada i shturm krieposti Dzhizak s 12 po 18 Oktiabria 1866 g. - Chertil Topograph U.O. zbaniia Rudnev. LCCN2007678477.jpg Rtfroot (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. Juwan (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Marshal de impero de italia.jpg

google is not a "source" Xocolatl (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep Source added. --RAN (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
•  Delete Is that really a photo? Looks like a drawing to me. If it is a photo, I'd have my doubts that it is a "simple" photo of the {{PD-Italy}} type, it does look rather posed. Anyway, we should have a proper source (and not Alamy or some blog) to make sure this is actually a contemporary photo of Mussolini and not some later recreation. Reverse image search finds that this was apparently sold as a folded card in the 1990s. --Rosenzweig τ 19:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:1. FC Köln logos (inofficial)

Above COM:TOO Germany for me.

• File:Logo Köln 1948-1967.gif
• File:Logo Köln 1967-1973.gif
• File:Logo Köln 1967-1973.svg

Jonteemil (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Derivatives of File:Wappen 1 FC Koeln.png, which has been released by their copyright holder. The permission ticket can be found on the image. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, keep and relicense to {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} then. Jonteemil (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done ReneeWrites (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Ottomar Anton

German artist Ottomar Anton died in 1976, so these works are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2047, unless they are still protected in the USA then (because of the URAA).

• File:Cap Arcona - Glasplakatefabrik Offenburg - Ottomar Anton - Hamburg-Südamerika.jpg
• File:Museum of World War II Boston Natick Massachusetts 2015. Third Reich propaganda poster. Deutsche Jugend meldet sich freiwillig zur Waffen-SS.jpg
• File:Museum of World War II Natick Massachusetts 2015. Third Reich Nazi propganda recruitment posters 1. Auch Du (Anton) 2. Melde dich freiwillig (Axster-Heudtlass).jpg

Rosenzweig τ 22:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Oksana Markarova reacted.jpg

Komadovsky is a VOA employee, yes, but this appears to be from his personal TikTok account and thus would not be covered under the PD-VOA license. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is he was there as a media member in his official capacity. Hence why, for example, Fox News showed the same TikTok video that I grabbed the image from, and credited it to VOA. Micler (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)