Commons:Deletion requests/2026/02/25

February 25

File:Erich Büttner Szene auf einem Friedhof.jpg

Though the painting is in the public domain, it's a derivative work of a statue that is not PD until 2030 (see DRs for the statue at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Grave of Oscar Wilde and Robert Baldwin Ross).. No COM:FOP France. Consigned (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Teatro Regional del Cibao

There has been no valid Freedom of Panorama in the Dominican Republic since March 1, 2007. Since the compliance with CAFTA-DR, images of structures and landmarks can only be used for personal purposes. This theater building was built in 1995 and authored by architect Teófilo Carbonell.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 Question about File:GTC Santiago.JPG - CAFTA-DR-compliant revision is retroarctive or not? SomeFancyUsername (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Graffiti in Melbourne

No COM:FOP Australia for 2d works such as graffiti.

Consigned (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Are we sure File:Good To See You (6459405165).jpg rises to the level of TOO? - Jmabel ! talk 05:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
I think it does, especially the design around the words; COM:TOO Australia is very low. -Consigned (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Legal graffiti, one of a few areas where graffiti can be legally painted. Illegal graffiti we tend to turn a blind eye on, as the artist of the illegal work has no legal avenues. Bidgee (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Centro Cultural Eduardo León Jimenes

There has been no valid Freedom of Panorama in the Dominican Republic since the enactment of CAFTA-DR-compliant revisions to their copyright law (effective from March 1, 2007). The building was inaugurated in 2003 and authored by Arquitectura del Sol, headed by Pedro José Borrell. The law, which revised their copyright rules in accordance with their free trade agreement with the United States, restricted FoP to personal uses of images of public landmarks.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:090427 Grass Kogel01.jpg

Copyvio: Kogel is not the photographer of the photo that shows him (left) from behind. BS Hochschulstadtteil (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:StaRebeca.jpg

Possible AI image that looks nothing like original depictions of the Saint. Furthermore, the image has been used by news outlets and other sites despite it not being accurate, arguably turning Wikimedia/Wikipedia into an outlet for disinformation as long as the image stays up. Red Phoenician (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Jdk mit Schnecke.jpg

Copyvio: No permission by Günter-Grass-Haus, who is the photographer? The Name ist not mentioned. BS Hochschulstadtteil (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

+1. Günter-Grass-Haus cannot be copyright holder, only a natural person can.
In addition, I doubt that CC0 (waiving all copyright) is even possible under German copyright law. --~2026-25117-56 (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

File:4 Brainrots.jpg

AI slop, only used on one idwiki user page in what seems to have been a test edit. Amberkitten (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:DALL·E painting of a machine with many gears.png

AI slop not in use Amberkitten (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:University of Maribor.png

{{copyvio|1=A school logo couldn't be an individial's work, and its shape is complex, beyond PD-Textlogo.}} JULIANISME (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

please don't stack templates like that. Instead of making a deletion request and putting Template:Copyvio as the reason, please just use Template:Copyvio itself. The two procedures are separate. Amberkitten (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
 Delete COM:TOO Slovenia seems to be very low for logos. Nakonana (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Statue of Saint Pio of Pietrelcina, Calle Las Mercedes, Ciudad Colonial

There has been no valid Freedom of Panorama in the Dominican Republic since March 1, 2007. File:Santo Domingo - Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes 0575.JPG shows a rear description plaque with the year 1998, likely indicating the year it was publicly installed or donated to the church.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Comment This was the page about copyright rules for the Dominican Republic until yesterday, before your intervention on it. You changed everything because of a law approved in 2006, but that page exist since 2018. I'm not sure you should start mass file deletion requests right the moment after you changed the rules of Commons by yourself without any discussion about it. --Phyrexian ɸ 11:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Phyrexian whether it may be "just" or not, Commons should follow the copyright rules of each country. There are too many receipts (evidences) to be ignored on the action of the Dominican Republican government restricting their Freedom of Panorama rules in order to comply with the mandates of the free trade agreement with the United States (the CAFTA-DR). I'm not sure why this was ignored by many editors in the past. This is long overdue; any media showing landmarks in a country that has restricted free uses of post-2006 images of landmarks to "personal use only" must be deleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    Post-2006 images of recent landmarks from Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua have also been deleted due to the more restrictive FoP rules (courtesy of the countries' compliance with the CAFTA-DR treaty). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    @JWilz12345: I'm not saying you are wrong, I don't know, I'm just saying it seems to me a dramatic change in the rules, that should have a little more consensus and review by the community before start right away with mass deletions. The fact this was ignored by the first writers of the copyright page about Dominican Republic, despite the "new" law was already old by then, it makes me have some doubts. --Phyrexian ɸ 12:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Phyrexian perhaps WIPO's copy of the 2006 law amending their copyright act to comply with the free trade treaty with America may speak for itself. Article 38 of the CAFTA-DR-compliant amendment reads: Article 39 of Law No. 65­00 on Copyright is hereby amended to read as follows: "Article 39. ­Works permanently located on public roads, streets or squares may be reproduced for personal use by means of painting, drawing, photography or audiovisual fixations. With regard to works of architecture, this provision shall apply only to their external aspect."' This restriction by the Dominican Republican government mirrors the identical actions of Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua in restricting FoP to comply with their obligations with the free trade agreement with the U.S.. Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua restricted free uses of images to personal use only, while Costa Rica restricted the free use to non-commercial use only. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    @JWilz12345: I'm not asking to prove it to me, I'm asking to note your changes of the copyright rules for Dominican Republic to the community, so they could be revised by other users, not me, and get consensus. Probably you're right. Maybe you're not totally right, let's ask the community before mass deletions, I'm no expert of Dominican copyright, I'm ready to accept your interpretation, but I think this should be less rushed. --Phyrexian ɸ 12:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Japanese Immigration Santo Domingo.jpg

There has been no valid Freedom of Panorama in the Dominican Republic since March 1, 2007. This monument was unveiled in 2012. Under the current copyright law of the Dominican Republic, public landmarks and statues still under their designers' copyrights can only be photographed for personal use. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Lycée Club.jpg

Potential copyright violation. A machine translation of the file description indicates that the file was taken from Facebook, and this appears to be confirmed by the appearance of "FBMD" in the file metada. WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Tarjeta de identidad de Colombia.jpg

It's unclear whether this document is licensed under Creative Commons; it's possible that the person who uploaded the image is unaware of the licensing terms. Taichi (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde 1913 Estes Valley Voice ( 240p, H 264).webm

This file was initially tagged by Admiral Farmer as no license (No license since) Krd 07:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per {{PD-US-expired}} SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Sea Cucumber with Scallions.jpeg

The second version of this file should be deleted. The original uploader shared it under a share alike license which means it can't be altered. The second uploader has altered the image and then put it up under the same licence. ~2026-12441-49 (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep, you're thinking of "No Derivatives" (If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.). "Share Alike" says that If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original., which I have done here when cropping the image. Belbury (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
As uploader of the original image, I am fine with the cropped version of @Belbury. Zheng Zhou (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Highest level and maximum extent of hoisted wind signals during the occurrence of Super Typhoon PEPITO (MAN-YI). The preliminary best track is shown as thick white line.png

Since the files were duplicated, I decided to delete them. Daniel boxs (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Charles Emmanuel III, misidentified with his father Victor Amadeus II - Liechtenstein collection.png

Request by the own uploader, it's a copy of File:Victor Amadeus II armor cropped.jpg Ecummenic (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:RedOpZav2.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Komarof as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 08:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 Info i found uncropped version of this photo there and this page credits to Басукинский А. (died in 1991) and Митёкин Б. (death date unknown).
This file should be restored in 2062. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
This sounds unlikely for a photo that was taken in 1902. There are 89 years between the taking of the photo and the death of Басукинский — but then how old was he when he took the photo? The two listed authors are likely the source of the information presented on that website but not the photographers of the photo in question.
With a 1902 photo I'd place my bet on {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Photographs were so rare in that time (and probably expensive) that I have a hard time imagining that someone took such a photo without the intention of having it published. Nakonana (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
According to the information in the provided link, the depicted Redkinsky Peat Coke Plant was established/opened in 1902, so, the nominated photo might have been taken for a newspaper report on the opening of the plant. Nakonana (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
 Keep Thinking about it further, it's not necessary to use PD-RusEmpire with its exclusive applicability to works that have been published during the time of the Russian Empire, because there's also {{PD-old-assumed}} which doesn't require publication but just assumes public domain status if it has been at least 120 years since creation, which is the case here. Nakonana (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Family Volkov-Manzei.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Komarof as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 08:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep per information in summary. Also, since this painting created in Russian empire should be added template {{PD-RusEmpire}}. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
 Speedy keep @Komarof what source exactly are you asking for? The author information has been there when you nominated the file for deletion. The painter has been dead for roughly 111 years. Taking a photo (faithful reproduction) of a 2D public domain work does not create a new copyright for the photo. Nakonana (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Brajendra Chandra Deb.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Bodhisattwa as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Kontos kallitsis.png

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Krystof Davidek at Youth Basketball Champions League 2025.png

This file was initially tagged by Zaxxon0 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag Map of The World (2020).png

it shows incorrect map of Ukraine with a flag of unrecognized territory on the east ~2026-12461-81 (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Almost surprised that the deletion reason is not that Crimea is depicted as part of Russia. Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic don't seem to be the only disputed territories on the map (I'm at least seeing Taiwan and Kosovo with their own flags). Nakonana (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Marta Nawrocka.png

Photo is probably AI generated and was generated frim a photo that is under copyright Malyzolwikson (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Hauptstr. 1 mit Jungen rechts 1956.jpg

ist doppelt Martinbernhardhartmann (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:マルフク看板 東京都文京区大塚5丁目 - panoramio (2).jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)


 Weak keep per COM:De minimis SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Las Vegas 05.2020 - New York New York in Las Vegas.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)


 Weak keep per COM:De minimis SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:A street in New York with Curtis Sliwa for NYC Mayor advertisement.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)


 Keep per COM:De minimis. The advertisement is damaged and not the main subject of the image. Nvss132 (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Opapapaa.png

Sorry, I'm just trying to practice uploading here on Wikimedia Commons. Daniel boxs (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Highest level and maximum extent of hoisted wind signals during the occurrence of Super Typhoon Pepito (Man-yi). The preliminary best track is shown as thick white line.png

Sorry, I'm just trying to practice uploading here on Wikimedia Commons. Daniel boxs (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:The Miss Eco Teen International Philippines crown went to Aklan's Beatriz McLelland.jpg

Wrong upload NhCb17 (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:5 cent Spanish euro coin first series (obverse).png

Found out that the national side of Spanish Euro coins is not allowed. Sorry. OboeBlanket (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Aris-Basket2.jpg

Unless the original uploader happened to be an accredited photographer on that game, I don't really see how there could be a claim of ownership in this specific case. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 12:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Mickey amigurumi.jpg

Per COM:CHAR, copyright of Mickey Mouse's modern designs expired in 2034 A1Cafel (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)


What's the difference with File:Mickey Mouse (poster version).svg? The color of the face and the shoes? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
According to Inducks, this version of Mickey, with yellow and not browny shoes, was published in 1931, so PD next January.
Still, the amigumuri one has a pinkish face, but what is the appropiate Tresold of originality so the copyright is not violated? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
I edit myself: it's a UK anonymous-corporate work, so PD 70 years after publication: yellow shoes Mickey is clearly PD by now in Europe, the 95-year count is because of URAA.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Violation of COM:FANART. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Where, exactly? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Passodellafuta2.jpg

images with watermarks in the middle are not needed Prototyperspective (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, agree. Do I need to do something? Christianlorenz97 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
No, thanks for the comment though, that's helpful. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
@Christianlorenz97 uploading the image without the watermark would be nice though. Nakonana (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Tiruvarur.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Gbawden as no permission (No permission since) and X can't find the source. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sangeetnatak.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Source: https://x.com/sangeetnatak/status/1524248922461331456 Zuck28 (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
@Zuck28: I can see the post now, but there is still no license presented.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
GODL (Government Open Data License) is applicable here. Zuck28 (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
On what basis? Please cite your source for that. My previous understanding was that the GODL was only applicable for Indian government websites which specifically claimed it. X is not an Indian government website.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
It is an Indian government organisation.
https://www.sangeetnatak.gov.in/ Zuck28 (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
@Zuck28 That page does specifically claim GODL, as required; instead it is "Copyright © 2026 - All Rights Reserved - Official website of Sangeet Natak Akademi, Ministry of Culture, Government of India".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Sangeet Natak Akademi is an autonomous organisation under the Ministry of Culture, Government of India. Government of India content is generally governed by the Government Open Data Licence (GODL) framework.
If the website currently displays a generic "All Rights Reserved" footer, that may reflect a standard template rather than a deliberate exclusion from GODL. However, I understand that Commons requires explicit licensing confirmation.
If there is a specific Commons policy requiring an express GODL declaration on the exact page where the file appears, please point me to it. Otherwise, given the institutional status of the Akademi, I believe the applicability of GODL merits consideration. Zuck28 (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
@Zuck28: I think it was a post by Yann that gave me that impression.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete GODL doesn't apply to works by "an autonomous organisation". Yann (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per Yann (in case starting this DR wasn't enough).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:MV5BOTE5NzE5ZDYtYzAyZi00YzU2LWE4ZWEtYjM5MDdjZTdjYjk0XkEyXkFqc.jpg

possible copyvio - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Gmina Ożarowice mapa.png

i uploaded this, my friend wanted me to cuz he made it but he didnt know that he had to write an email. long story short my friend doesnt want to write an email. TeratingaKevinBaughsNewFriend (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Insigne des volontaires de Finlande.jpg

unsourced reconstruction Rajendra Alben (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Graffiti of The Notorious B.I.G.

No FOP in the US per com:FOP US.

– Howardcorn33 (💬) 14:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Vintage Culture.webp

Image can be easily found across several different websites and there's no indication that the copyright holder, whoever it is, has ever agreed to upload it under a Commons-friendly license. Victor Lopes (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:One time Assistance from Government.jpg

inferior version of File:Onetime Assistance from Government .jpg Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Yaxleywideshot1.png

I think this is a copyright violation. Seems to just be a screenshot from YouTube. JeffUK (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep: the video is CC BY licensed per its description. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 16:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep: Howard is correct, I purposively sought out a creative commons image so it wouldn't violate Wikimedia rules.
PaulCreenis (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Biggie Smalls in Tbilisi.jpg

No FOP in Georgia. see COM:FOP Georgia – Howardcorn33 (💬) 15:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Matthieu Guillemin.jpg

Image correspondant à une fiche Wikipédia qui n'existe plus. ~2026-12425-66 (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Biggie Small.jpg

No FOP in the US; see COM:FOP US – Howardcorn33 (💬) 15:39, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Sir William Muir.jpg

This is not an image of William Muir. See the other authenticated image from Library of Congress further down the page. Citadelscribe (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

That alone isn’t really a solid reason for deletion. That said, I got this image from a random blog so yeah, not a reliable identification source. A better approach would be to rename the image to something more neutral like File:Portrait formerly identified as William Muir.jpg (or similar) and then replace usage globally with the LOC image.--Underlying lk (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2026 (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:Diseño del metro de Cúcuta, coche motor M-A CAF Inneo BS900 (01).png

Archivo : Diseño del metro de Cúcuta, coche motor MA CAF Inneo BS900 (01).png Roncha95 (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --ChemSim (talk) 14:08, 14 July 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:Diseño del metro de Cúcuta, coche motor M-A CAF Inneo BS900 (01).png

File:Diseño del metro de Cúcuta, coche motor M-A CAF Inneo BS900 (01).png Roncha95 (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as before. --Rosenzweig τ 15:52, 23 September 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:Diseño del metro de Cúcuta, coche motor M-A CAF Inneo BS900 (01).png

File:Diseño del metro de Cúcuta, coche motor M-A CAF Inneo BS900 (01).png U.K.229 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as before. --Rosenzweig τ 07:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Diseño del metro de Cúcuta, coche motor M-A CAF Inneo BS900 (01).png

File:Diseño del metro de Cúcuta, coche motor M-A CAF Inneo BS900 (01).png Cclaexpo2008 (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Progress MS-12 launch.jpg

No evidence image has been released under the stated license. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Angara-1.2 second flight.jpg

No evidence image has been released under the stated license. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Please @Huntster Can you stop annoying and listen to our words
This the proof
https://x.com/i/status/1992537991336857814 Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
@Abdullah1099: "not intended for direct or indirect commercial or political gain" is the key phrase there. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Can you tell me what political and commercial gain i got from this launch images and it's more likely under RVSN Abdullah1099 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
It isn't *your* gain, it is the potential for others to reuse such images. Commons does not permit the upload of images that restrict commercial usage. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
@Huntster, First of all this one is especially under RVSN and comes under Template:Mil.ru, putting it in Roscosmos was my fault. So, the Answer is very simple. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Hey @Huntster, I had changed the image to a one from Spaceflight Now where it's clearly told credit to Russian Ministry of defense or RVSN RF. So, I request you to close this deletion request as the problem is fully solved Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Also all these also come under the discussion
Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia - ʻOumuamua.mp3

AI pronunciation does not remotely match the human pronunciation. The quality is so low that this should not be used, and is therefore out of scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I had interest in listening to more than the first 30 seconds. @The Squirrel Conspiracy: : is your problem specifically with the weird pronunciation of "Oumuamua" (agreed: bad) or with the article in general (the rest of what I listened to seemed fine)? - Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I mean, if it's a spoken article, and it's not pronouncing the name of the article correctly, does the rest even matter? There needs to be discretion / curation for AI uploads, just like any other uploads. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I mean, if it's a spoken article, and it's not pronouncing the name of the article correctly, does the rest even matter? Yes. In the real world in pragmatic terms, if you know it's mispronounced it doesn't make it useless. I was listening to it and the mispronunciation of that word which appears often is a minor inconvenience but doesn't make it useless.  Weak delete as uploader because it doesn't matter and apparently people can take some offense with the mispronunciation. Can't readily upload a new version with the pronunciation fixed. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
 Delete comically bad garbling of the name— “oh-moo-uh-moo-uh” (accurate) vs. “OMYU-OMYUAH” (AI) Dronebogus (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

 Delete I listened to first approximately five minutes, and there are more problems with the file, such as using "cents" as a unit of distance and putting emphasis on the wrong syllables in "exoplanet" and "the first object so identified." Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2026 (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:Zhuravlev.jpg

Random date of creation, missing date of first publication, which needed to clarify copyright status as per COM:Russia#Durations. Quick1984 (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Zhuravlev.jpg

None of the paragraphs from the template {{PD-Russia-1996}} are applicable. — Redboston 18:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC) User talk:Yann cannot explain the reason for keeping the file (User talk:Yann/archives 68#File:Zhuravlev.jpg). — Redboston 18:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Behzad Mohammedzadeh.png

Likely not in the public domain. Same way that File:Mencho - 2018 Wanted Poster (cropped) (cropped).PNG is being deleted because of probably not being taken by the F.B.I., rather used, this file should be deleted as well. Could maybe be re-uploaded to Wikipedia under w:WP:F, however I would oppose such a decision. Lekritz (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Jaantuska Abtirsiinta Beelaha Soomaaliyeed.png

لأنه به معلومات خاطئة ولدي نسخة أكثر تنقيحا Cali Farah (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I hereby submit this request regarding the image I previously uploaded. I acknowledge that the content contains inaccurate and misleading information, and that part of it is based on material taken from a copyrighted book. I rephrased and modified that material without sufficient awareness of copyright policies and attributed the work to myself, which was an improper action for which I take full responsibility. Accordingly, I request the permanent deletion of the diagram as it violates copyright policies and to prevent the continued circulation of inaccurate information. I apologize for this mistake and affirm my respect for Wikipedia’s policies regarding copyright and content accuracy. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Cali Farah (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ross Dabizha, Dj Sound Producer.jpg

“I am the author and I want to withdraw my permission” Reggaetonspace (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2026 (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:Business luncheon at 24 Sussex Drive.jpg

Photo was taken by Duncan Cameron and is still under copyright. This is not a Crown work, so Crown copyright does not apply. Library and Archives Canada does not allow free use of its works which are under copyright. See Commons:Deletion requests/Copyright assigned files from Library and Archives Canada for furthur context. PascalHD (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I was not part of the 2023 debate in Commons:Deletion requests/Copyright assigned files from Library and Archives Canada, but I have now reviewed it in its entirety. The debate there has limited applicability for this case due to the large number of photos of different nature and dates.
(Though if the Turner 1968 photo is the photo I am thinking of, it would be in public domain and should not have been deleted. I did not look into the other photos) (In any event, and many of the assertion in support of deletion in that debate were based on incorrect application of the law.)
For this case, the deletion should not proceed simply because this statement is simply an incorrect interpretation of the law.
"This is not a Crown work, so Crown copyright does not apply"
This work is subject to Crown copyright, and therefore s.12 of the Copyright Act applies.
1) Crown owns copyright, therefore s.12 applies - When copyright is "assigned", the legal ownership of the copyright is transferred. Assuming Mr. Cameron previously legally possessed the copyright to the work (a point I do not concede, and will address in the next point), when he assigned it to the Crown, Her Majesty became the owner of the copyright, and crown copyright rules of publication + 50 years supersedes the normal author death + 50 years rules, and Mr. Cameron's passing in 1985 is no longer relevant.
s.12 of the Copyright Act is applicable to any copyrights that "belong to Her Majesty" for 50 years post publication. (The Crown could exercise to exempt things through unlimited royal prerogative of course, but those are pretty specific. For example, it asserts copyright over Canada's coat of arm in perpetuality.) On the modification point, the author always retains moral right forever, which included the requirement for attribution plus not modifying the work in ways that would harm the author's honour or reputation, but otherwise there is no restriction.
2) Crown copyright is not dependent on it being the author - In the seminal (and pretty much the only) Crown copyright case that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc., 2019 SCC 43, Justice Abella for the majority wrote in para 65,
Crown copyright will subsist even though the Crown is not the “author” of the work because the Crown exercises direction or control over the work’s creation. In this way, works produced by independent contractors who complete Crown commissions in which the Crown exercises the direction or control over the creation of the work will be subject to Crown copyright.
In that case, both the majority and the minority ruled that Crown owns the copyright of property surveys that were not done for the Crown but deposited with the crown (but diverged on other points). It ruled that Crown copyright applies against the wishes of the author. Surely in this case where the author assigned the copyright willingly, Crown copyright would apply.
Mr. Cameron was contracted by both the government and by private news organizations during his life. But this photo is taken in a private area of the the residence of the prime minister, not at some public event. It would not have been possible for him to take this one if he was not engaged by the prime ministers staff. Its not like the PM would just say to the press gallery "hey I am having a little lunch with my old buddies, feel free to drop by and take some pics".
3) A supplementary point that does not prove my point, but just throwing in to add weight - This lunch photo was deposit by Mr. Cameron in 1970 in the same deposit as this this famously prophetic and endlessly reproduced 1967 photo of Prime Minister Pearson with three young and promising members of his cabinet that would go on to succeed him one after the other. The acceptance of the Pearson+3 photos should be strong inference for the acceptance of this as well, as it would have been taken at most three years later. MiltonC (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
 Delete Duncan Cameron was primarily a freelance/independent photographer who ran his company Capital Press Ltd.
His freelance photos were privately created, so they are not under Crown copyright. Assigning images to LAC does not make them Crown copyrighted; it only transfers ownership and control to LAC. It is still Life+70. That’s not to say there aren’t any photos of his that hold crown copyright, if they were created under Crown direction or control. For example, File:Lester B. Pearson 1957 (4951614).jpg was taken by his company Capital Press. It was taken under control of the national film board, a government entity hence the crown copyright.
If you look at the description for the file at the LAC, for the source it says the photos in the Duncan Cameron fonds are ‘private’, not ‘government’.
Regardless, LAC does not allow free use of their copyrighted works. Photo is under copyright until 2056. PascalHD (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
 Keep - And just to be safe, a licence from Library and Archives of Canada (LAC) had been obtained specifically for this (LAC 2025/2026-02403) in response to a request which I specifically noted my intended use is for posting on Wikipedia. (I will update the file data accordingly in a bit). Regardless of anyone's position on the proper interpretation and application of Crown copyright law remains, the licence ought to be more than enough meet the burden of proof for this file to be kept, as COM:PRP no longer rationally supporte its deletion. This should be a settled matter.
MiltonC (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
A licence from an archive organisation or business, for a particular person to make a particular use, is not a free licence. It is not sufficient for the policy of Wikimedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
To point 1: Commented below on this page.
To point 2: Although it is somewhat possible that Cameron may have taken this photo for the government, it is at least as much possible that he acted independently or for a news organisation. It is possible that, independently or for a newspaper, he requested and obtained the permission to take photos showing moments in a day of the new prime minister. That permission could have been for him only or also for other press photographers the same day. The description page of the file on Commons mentions the year 1970. If I had to guess, it might be 1968 for the taking of the photo and 1970 would be the year of the transfer of the photo to the archives. It's likely that some years passed between the taking of the photos and their transfer to the archives. Like the Pearson photo taken in 1967 and apparently transferred to the archives in 1970.
To point 3: That Pearson photo was identified on the en.wikipedia as a non-free image. A user changed the non-free tags to a PD tag. The status of that file on en.wikipedia should probably be made consistent with the conclusion that will be reached here to consider the photo free or non-free.
-- Asclepias (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (in addition to obtaining the licence...) I am engaging LAC official for additional clarification about
  1. their current position on the copyright status of works by Mr. Cameron and others produced before 1975, works which copyrights have been assigned by the author to LAC or other government entities
  2. their position on the applicability of Canada's Open Government Licence 2.0 {{OGL-C}} (2022, interoperable with {{Cc-by-4.0}}) for work produced after 1975 for which the government owns the copyright.
(I am mostly only interested in #1)
If a clear answer is not forthcoming, I plan to highlight to them of the following:
  • the legal points mentioned above, including citation from the SCC case
  • the 2014 Open Government Directive, binding on all (among others) government entities listed in Schedule I.1 of the Financial Administration Act, of which LAC is one, that mandate all entities subject to the directive for "maximizing the release of government information" (which specifically included event photos) and "Maximizing the removal of access restrictions"
  • the 2015 Policy on Copyright Management that is developed specifically for LAC, mandating LAC specifically for, among other things, "leveraging fair dealing and other exceptions under copyright law to maximize access to holdings" and "adopting consistent contractual practices to maximize access to documentary holdings acquired via purchase or donation" (it substantially expand the previous Guidelines on Copyright Act NAC (1999), which led to acisions even
  • that the government's many information management policies and directives mandate a risk-based assessment approach on information release,, and that releasing photos that are a) 50+ years old b) taken by a photographer that have passed away c) the photographer had explicitly assigned copyright to the government before they died d) the government has made the photo easily accessible, is as low risk as it gets.
(These bullets also rendered the "Copyright notice" in Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada obsolete and/or inaccurate. The notice states a position based on reading of a 2008 email from LAC. That email insist on the retainment of "authenticity of original material", such a criteria would have long been superseded by LAC's terms on non-commercial or cost-recovery reproduction. Broadly applying that criteria to everything in LAC holding would have been an extremely conservative position to take even in 2008. In any event, the government's position on works which it owns the copyright has been substantially updated since, per the four bullets.)
I am doing all this not to challenge the poor LAC bureaucrat, but because I have some degree of understanding for their instinct to limit the scope of any definitive policy statements as much as possible, and to avoid definitive permissive statement if at all possible. I learned as a former political aide (and just so happened, one of my ex-bosses was the heritage minister, which LAC reports up to, but that's beyond the point) that sometimes they need to be reminded that government have specifically given them power to be permissive. (To understand what I mean, watch this Yes Prime Minister episode with this classic exchange: "Sorry, Prime Minister, but I don't think it's within my power." / "I'm giving you the power, Bernard. I am authorizing you.")
From both a legal and policy stand points, the answer should be pretty straightforward, and I suspect the nice folks at LAC is well aware. I am sharing these points here as kind of notice to folks that if I get the answer I expect (or if they keep dodging the question without stating a formal position to restrict the reproduction), I would like to request reopening of all previous deletions of all photos from LAC which were produced 1974 or earlier, for which LAC or a government department owns their copyright regardless of who the authors/photographers were.
(Am not a IP lawyer. thus claim no expertise on this. Drawing attention to the few participants of recent discussions on LAC holding to see if they have any additional insights: @Asclepias: @Moxy: @Ssilvers: @FunnyMath: @Oaktree b: @SimonP: @Caddyshack01: @Fry1989: )
And in response to @PascalHD, I really urge you to give the material I cited above some meaningful consideration. Nothing I said is my personal opinion, but application of the caselaw, legislation and expressed government policies/directives that are in front of me. Your response to that is repeating assertions like "not a Crown work, so Crown copyright does not apply" (expressly rejected by SCC in Keatley) or "assigning images to LAC does not make them Crown copyrighted" (I would love to be educated as to the legal basis for this interpretation, or for your understanding of what of assignment of copyright means) or equating his freelance status to his work being not Crown work (very clearly inconsistent with Keatley), with increased assertiveness without actually addressing the material cited or the factual matter of how Mr. Cameron even got into the prime minister residence in the first place. Taken together with assertions made over a number of deletion discussions, I am afraid there is a bit of proof by assertion. Given your stated support of reforming/abolishing Crown copyright, which I take as your support for increased public access to material in the federal government's holding, I am perplexed by the inclination to prevent public circulation through such fallacy. MiltonC (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
To generate a Crown copyright under section 12 of the Copyright Act, a work must be "prepared or published by or under the direction or control of" the government. A transfer of copyright of a pre-existing work is not the preparation or the publication of a work. My understanding is that if a work was not prepared under the direction or control of the government and if its copyright is later transferred to the government, that transfer of copyright does not in itself generate a Crown copyright on the work. The ordinary copyright is transferred and the government then holds the ordinary copyright on the work. Then, if the work is not published, the work remains under that ordinary copyright held by the government. But if and when the work is published, the majority opinion of the SCC in the Keatley case seems to suggest that the fact that the copyright had been transferred to the government is one fact, among other facts and circumstances to take into consideration, that can tilt the balance for concluding that the work is then being published under the control of the government and that that publication generates a Crown copyright. More caution would be required if the copyright was not transferred. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
In regards to the comments directed to me; You’ve certainly made your case and raised some interesting points here. COM:Licensing is very clear about what this site accepts, and I simply did not believe this work met those terms. By opening this deletion request, we can all have a meaningful discussion about the copyright status of this work, and set a precedent. There are many works from Duncan Cameron at the LAC that would be incredibly valuable for Wikipedia. Also, yes I absolutely support the abolition of Crown copyright. Those are however are my personal opinions which have no relevance to this discussion, we still have to follow and respect the existing copyright laws in place no matter how awful one may believe they are. PascalHD (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • This probably is under copyright. "Free access" (or in this case, "restrictions on use:nil") in archives usually means the public can get physical access to the actual photo they hold, making an appointment and showing up at the archive office/building, where they would let you look at the actual paper photo in question. Some are too old/fragile/degraded to handle, so they don't let the public interact with the actual photograph. They're usually safely stored away and digitized in that case. That's just my two cents, having worked with the City of Toronto Archives a few years ago. Meaning, you set up an appointment, telling the clerk I want to see photo XYZ-123 from Fonds ZYX, and they'll go to the storage box and physically pull out the photograph/negative for you and bring it over, for the person to look at/do whatever they wanted with it, but it usually doesn't leave the building. I suppose there's nothing stopping you from taking out your smartphone and making a picture of it, but the intent is to have the photograph stay in the archives, made available for researchers upon request. You still don't own the copyright of the photo, you can ask them to print a copy for you though, to bring home and use in your research. You generally have to pay to use archival photos (the fee pays for the person's time to get the photo and the cost of running the archive building, heating etc). I'm not an IP expert, that's just my observations, for what they're worth. Oaktree b (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete LAC owns the copyright, yes, but not Crown Copyright (legal bickering aside, they were not the first publisher, so even if Keatley applied, they didn't publish it first and thus didn't acquire copyright that way). LAC has the power to license this freely, if they choose to do so, they can send it to COM:VRT. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 22:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Hm. Given the Canadian definition of Crown Copyright, I don't think these are. Given the definition and the recent court case, those seem to be limited to works that serve a particular public purpose -- the land records which were the subject of that court case were (even if they may not have been the first publication). I don't think donating works to the National Archives counts. I think then that for Canada (and the United Kingdom), the government then simply owns the regular-term copyright. (Australia may be different on this detail -- their definition for Crown Copyright now seems to include works they own, meaning it could also apply to works transferred to them.)
  • That said, in the "Terms of use" section, they note that copyright was transferred, and do ask for a specific credit, but do say there are no restrictions on use at all. There is an entirely separate section on "Conditions of access", which is about getting access to the physical copy, so the "terms of use" has nothing to do with that at all. The terms of use on the entire collection say the same thing -- there are restrictions on accessing the physical copies, but then explicitly says: Photographs: All photographs except the 5 Time Canada cover lay-outs (accession number 1976-079) are open; no restrictions on use or reproduction. Copyright for photographs by Duncan Cameron belongs to the National Archives of Canada. That to me seems to say that is a license of {{Attribution}} or {{Copyrighted free use}}.  Keep for me, on that basis (but not Crown Copyright, and not quite public domain exactly). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  • According to the Copyright Act, a work acquires a Crown copyright when it "is, or has been, [...] published [...] under the direction or control of" the government. The Supreme Court restricted that notion, by specifying that, in order to cause a Crown copyright, the control of the government must be of a sufficient degree on the work and on the publication process. The sufficient degree of control is to be evaluated from the facts. When the Public Archives of Canada (predecessor of Library and Archives Canada) made copies of this photo available to the public (i.e. published the photo, according to the definition in the Copyright Act), the Public Archives had control of the photo, control of the intellectual property, control of the publication process. They had full control over the photo and over its publication. A full control is certainly more than a sufficient degree of control. Therefore, when this photo was published by the Public Archives, it acquired a Crown copyright. In what year did that publication occur? Considering that there were no donor restrictions, it can be assumed that the public could request copies in 1970 (the year in the number attributed to the lot). The Crown copyright, which came into existence by that 1970 publication, expired in 2021. This photo would now be in the public domain in Canada (assuming that the Crown copyright had extinguished the ordinary copyright, not merely coexisted with it for a time). A difficulty is the copyright of this photo in the United States, due to the URAA. The U.S. copyright would likely expire circa 2066 (or 2064 if the photo had already been published by Cameron in 1968, when it was possibly taken). However, the URAA is sometimes not taken into account, for different reasons (good or bad). So, I guess that can be keep. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
    I sent an email to the LAC seeking clarification and got a reply, this is what they had to say;
    *::Duncan Cameron Fonds Copyright Inquiry
    From Droit d'auteur / Copyright <REDACTED@bac-lac.gc.ca>
    To PascalHD <REDACTED@gmail.com>
    Date 12/04/2025 3:11 pm
    Good afternoon,
    The key distinction here is there a difference between “assigned” and “ownership”. Copyright can be assigned to LAC so that we can manage it, we do not become owners of the material or its copyright. Material created by a third party is deposited in LAC’s collection, said third party still owns copyright. On occasion, copyright owners or their estate may assign the copyright of their material to LAC. In these cases, LAC becomes more of a custodian on behalf of the original copyright owner, making sure that their copyright is respected. Also worth mentioning that LAC is only responsible for a creators copyright when the material is in our collection, so if Duncan Cameron left original photographs at another archive or museum, we have no control over that material.
    Copyright assigned to LAC by third parties is not, nor will it ever be, considered CROWN material.
    As previously stated, when using copyrighted material on public websites, it is the responsibility of the requestor to clearly identify the copyright status, the source of the material and to credit the creator.
    Regards,
Seems that the LAC themselves disagree with the notion of Crown copyright being applicable to private donations. PascalHD (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
The wording of the law might stretch there if they are publishing something for the first time, but I would tend to guess that such works would not be Crown Copyright in Canada, as there was no normal governmental attachment at all for their creation or use before donation. I would think that Crown Copyright would be more for works done by other government departments, not those where the Archives are the only governmental connection. Distinguishing between assignment and ownership is interesting -- in the U.S., a copyright assignment is a transfer of ownership. They are more describing is that they can act as an agent, but even if it is true ownership they will still respect the wishes of the original owners. The wording on the Duncan Cameron status though seems explicit that ownership of the copyright was indeed transferred, though limited to the actual materials they have, not which may exist elsewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Kept: per Carl Lindberg and Asclepias, we can keep this photo on Commons. --Abzeronow (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Business luncheon at 24 Sussex Drive.jpg

The original deletion discussion was in regards to whether Crown copyright may have applied to this photograph. That discussion ultimately led to the conclusion it was very unlikely. As the topic has now shifted, this deletion discussion is in regards to the 'keep' rationale of whether {{Copyrighted free use}} may apply to this photograph. At first, it does seem quite plausible, due to the terms of use at the Duncan Cameron fonds, as follows;

"Photographs: All photographs except the 5 Time Canada cover lay-outs (accession number 1976-079) are open; no restrictions on use or reproduction. Copyright for photographs by Duncan Cameron belongs to the National Archives of Canada. Various copyrights on photographs by other photographers."

That wording alone could be interpreted as permitting an Attribution license use case.

However, after communication with staff at Library and Archives Canada it would appear that is not the case and this file is not suitable to host on the Commons, and remains under copyright.

I have shared the entire email thread, which can be read here at; User:PascalHD/Library and Archives Canada, Emails in Regards to the Duncan Cameron fonds. The original emails were sent in regards to the Crown copyright discussion. Upon the file being 'kept' I sent one more clarification email, but then found the original emails anyway.

To summarize the key points:
1 - "...when a fonds/record/item in our collection states Restriction: NIL or No restrictions on use or reproduction, this is in reference to other departments who may control access to documents (such as ATIP for security clearance reasons, Preservation saying the material is too old and fragile or conditions set in place by the Donor of the material). This statement has no relation to copyright, hence why it is kept separate from the Copyright statement. Saying that the material in the Duncan Cameron fonds is free of use because of this statement is false."
2 - "The LAC template is accurate in stating that only public domain images should be posted on the site. That being said, I cannot give you a blanket statement saying ‘no’ to everything ‘non-public-domain” in our collection without a copyright review, as certain items may have an exception."
3 - In cases where copyright rests with LAC, we can issue a licence for our clients intended use. However, this would imply these are for specific intended uses rather than an explicit open license.

Per COM:L, "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed or in the Public Domain...". Based on the evidence, this photo lacks both.

To conclude, the only works that are acceptable to upload from LAC are Public Domain works or those they have applied a free license to, such as those at their Flickr account. Given this clarification, this photo remains under copyright. As Duncan Cameron died in 1985, his work will enter the Public Domain on January 1, 2056. PascalHD (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Delete LAC has not provided a clear free license for this, despite their ability to do so. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 20:39, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
  • They seem to claim the notation is more about access, but they have a separate conditions of access section, which also seems like it has instructions for staff. Normally a "terms of use" is addressed at an external re-using audience, and it's even possible they may have inadvertently licensed it with wording like that. That said, they have probably thrown enough significant doubt on them to not keep. They could easily word things so much better if the don't intend a licensing statement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Buick logo since June 2022.png

Because I realized that it's a non-free logo and shouldn't be up here. 2000chevymontecarlo (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag map of Bougainville.png

stolen copy of the svg version Azores191 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

also its too small Azores191 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep This file was uploaded earlier than the SVG version. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

File:1906 circa Heinrich Breling Ölgemälde Der Wittwer, Niedersächsisches Landesmuseum Hannover (16503).jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)


Done. Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep License now added. --RAN (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Irlande - Pièce de 50c d'euro - 2006.jpg

No Freedom of numismatic knowledge in ireland, post-1926 currencies and Irish euro designs in this country are protected perpetually, the copyright holder is the central bank of Ireland, please transfer to Russian and English wikipedia ~2026-53238-1 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Irlande - Pièce de 50c d'euro - 2003.jpg

No Freedom of numismatic knowledge in ireland, post-1926 currencies and Irish euro designs in this country are protected perpetually, the copyright holder is the central bank of Ireland, ~2026-53238-1 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2026 (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:Luke Aiden Jockpussy.jpg

inappropriate Idro10 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep. Commons is not censored (COM:CENSOR) and hosts a wide variety of sexually explicit images. The image is high quality and COM:OTRS has confirmed that there is no issue with permissions. The image depicts something that isn't well-represented on Commons (sexual intercourse between a trans man and cis man), and per COM:NUDITY a file that is sufficiently different from existing files should generally be kept. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. Satyricon2 (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    • *Pushes up glasses* Ahem, technically speaking this isn't Wikipedia, but Wikimedia Commons isn't censored either. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Luke Aiden Jockpussy.jpg

obscene/offensive/pornography accessible to public of all ages. max rspct (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep see above SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Jay Bell (15123013032) (cropped).jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Denniscabrams (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ernst Boss - Die Schweiz.jpg

possible copyvio - © Ernst Boss / Orell Füssli - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATkb&diff=1171920080&oldid=1171915612 M2k~dewiki (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:EasvByDesignermadsen-df96da3.jpg

old logo - old name Susetfrasea (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep not a valid reason for deletion. Are we planning to abolish history? - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep No valid reason for deletion. We collect documentation of history here! Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

File:GOA Street Circuit - Track Map.jpg

Claim of 'own work' is highly unlikely as the user has a history of uploading images with copyright violations. ~2026-12486-50 (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Winter In Sokcho Cover.jpg

Book cover form 2016, ok for fair use on WP:EN, but not Ok for Commons Culex (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Infant Mystics Logo.png

Out of scope: AI-generated image that is unlikely to be useful and claims to be the logo of an organization. If this is based off of a logo that is freely licensed or is public domain, that should be uploaded instead. HurricaneZetaC 22:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Mazda-Logo.png

Because it's a non-free logo and it doesn't belong here 2000chevymontecarlo (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)