File:Paul Quine.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Marc Bloch.jpg

possibly still under copyright in the US per discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#US_tag_for_images_published_in_France_after_1930 Phlsph7 (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Originally uploaded in 2011, can be kept since it's a pre-2012 upload with Not-PD-US-URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Daniel Torok X profile picture.jpg

This doesn't seem to be a work of federal employee in the public domain but rather a profile picture of federal employee on Twitter. Onikaburgers (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep It's an official portrait of a White House employee taken inside the White House (it has the exact same background and lighting as File:J.D Vance Official portrait.jpg and File:President Trump’s Second Term Presidential Portrait.jpg), I think it's very fair to say this is an official government work. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any source to back your assumptions that this is a work in public domain? If not this is a violation of copyright policy and should be deleted. Onikaburgers (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It is an official portrait photograph taken in the White House, I don't think they typically let non-government employees do that. It would be very, very bizarre if they got a private photographer to come in and take this one photo but had government employees take the rest. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The photographs were taken before the current administration even started. Just because a photo was taken in the White House doesn’t automatically place it in the public domain. Federal government works are only public domain if they were created by a federal employee as part of their official duties. Unless there is a reliable source confirming this specific photograph was produced by the U.S. government and is in the public domain, it should not be assumed as such. Once again, I ask for a source to verify its copyright status. Onikaburgers (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that it would be absurd to consider it to be taken by anyone but a White House employee. This is a case where we can use Occam's razor. Either the official photo taken in the White House is the work of the White House, or the Trump administration had an official photographer for all portraits except this one. Which is more likely? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Torok wasn't a WH photographer when the portraits were taken, and the Presidential and Vicepresidential portrait was released to public domain only after the inauguration. This photograph doesn't seem to be released anywhere to the public domain, and only used by the Torok as profile picture on his personal twitter. Onikaburgers (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons:PRP Onikaburgers (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Esperantomuseum 2.jpg

Das ist niemals ein Bild von 2012 und von diesem Urheber. Established 1620 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Ultimately NOT own work of the uploader. Very likely the photo is from year 1906, and it is Public Domain now. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

File:うさぎもち.gif

Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Per COM:TOO Japan: "Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts are also not copyrightable in general." That's all we have here, but is the issue that the second group of characters is calligraphic? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No, the issue is that the left part of the logo (white on red) does not consist of geometric shapes. Taivo (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It's a geometric figure to me, but is there a definition of "geometric figure" in Japanese law? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Geometric figure must have a name. Which geometric lines to use for drawing the white shape? Taivo (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Does Japanese law define geometric figures as having names, or is that just your assumption? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This is pure logic. Every geometric figure has a name. If the figure does not have a name, it is not a geometric figure. By Japanese laws, logo must composed of geometric shapes and text to be simple. Taivo (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Logic and law don't always have much to do with each other. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

By the way, if I had to name this figure, "double pacifier" is what comes to mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Давид Цвета - Лидер Движения Цвета «фото сделанное для исполнителя альбома.jpg

per ticket:2025012210000687

I create this discussion to help the user, but I didn't get the situation (he says it is 'his photo' and 'my photo' in the request and as an asnwer to the question about rights); hope he will comment more by himself. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 17:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Clarification: it is a picture from a photoshoot that was used without the permission of the person depicted (who is the customer of the photoshoot). Анастасия Львова^ru/en 18:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

File:StuttgartVorfeldStadtpalais 1 ge.jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag)
 Keep It has a licence now -- Bigbossfarin (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

 Comment That license tag was NOT added by the uploader though. --Rosenzweig τ 10:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in contact with the author on its talk page. Bigbossfarin (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Lederer Ragnarsdóttir Oei does not show that. --Rosenzweig τ 07:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Shyamala Gopalan Harris died 2009.jpg

the same image appears at en:File:Shyamala_Gopalan_Harris_died_2009.jpg as non-free / fair use; so the license here should be checked Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Movimiento Revolución Ciudadana.png

There is no clarity in the "simplicity" of the logo, it may be above the COM:TOO Andean Community. Also includes File:Movimiento RC5.svg. Taichi (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

It is a very simple logo, it's the letter R, the letter C, and the number 5. It clearly falls within the guidelines. Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep per COM:TOO Andean Community and Castroonthemoon. User:Taichi, have you looked at the logo for Lost Enterprises that was ruled below COM:TOO Andean Community? If you have, why do you nominate obviously less complex logos from constituent countries that don't have their own more restrictive rules for deletion? If you haven't, please do a web search for it, as it can't be hosted at Commons because it exceeds the rather permissive COM:TOO US, and think about the implications of finding that logo uncopyrightable. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep, per arguments from @Ikan Kekek Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

File:SaGa text logo.png

Caligraphic lettering may have artistic value per COM:TOO Japan. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection if you think the current logo falls outside the usual usage. Provided some logo can be provided with appropriate licensing either here or on Wikipedia, because at the moment this is the only one. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't find any other suitable logos that are below TOO regarding this franchise, which has never been a popular one anyway. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

ProtoDrake, feel free to look up the fair use policies of whichever Wikipedia(s) you are interested in. We don't deal with Wikipedia policy on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. My main point is, since this image contradicts Commons policy, I won't contest deletion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not so certain that this fails COM:TOO Japan, which appears to be fairly generous. I write this as someone who thinks that there's some shady logos kept on Commons, so I'm not a let-it-all-in extremist, but this does not appear to be calligraphy to me. There are plenty of fonts that can have an "ink"y style and typing in them. Doesn't mean they should all be deleted. (If nothing else, this kind of image could at least possibly be created mechanically easily enough, regardless of how much fine-tuning was done.) SnowFire (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep seeing no further comment on this. I'm not sold this is actually calligraphy rather than a cool font, and in fact suspect it's actually highly likely to be simple computer generation. "Drop a bunch of dots in a pointillist pattern" is quite trivial to do. SnowFire (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

File:FC Game Console.jpg

Low quality image is out of scope. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep I disagree. Famicom clones are in scope, and I don't think we have another photograph of this particular Famicom clone. Abzeronow (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Famicom clones are a dime a dozen, there is no reason why this specific famiclone is anything special. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it could be of use to a video game historian who'd want to thoroughly document all of the famicom clones they possibly could. Abzeronow (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

But we are a general purpose media repository, not a specialist one. This is just nitpicking. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep per Abzeronow TzarN64 (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

File:FrontiersLogo.webp

The O and the glitched bottom part of the logo may have artistic value per COM:TOO Japan. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete The bottom in particular seems above COM:TOO Japan, but I'd really like to get User:MB-one's views on this, and I'd also invite the participation of User:TheJoebro64 and User:King of Hearts, who participated in the last deletion request thread on this file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek Thanks for the ping. The last DR was based on a different version of the logo which was far more simple. The current version could be clearing TOO and thus be eligigle for deletion, but IANAL. MB-one (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

So therefore, the solution is to delete the current version of the file and  Keep the original upload from 03:09, 10 December 2021. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

File:3th Bridge of Ahvaz.jpg

duplicated PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Atisha-Ahvaz.png

duplicated PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I already have added another version of that. PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Sumer Sunset in Ahvaz - Juli 2014.jpg

duplicated PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I already have added another version of that. PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)