The images in this category are professional concert photos by accomplished Danish music photographer w:Jan Persson (died 2018). As far as I can tell, they contain sufficient "artistic merit or originality" to rule out {{PD-Denmark50}} and therefore actually enter the public domain in 2089.
Keep The photographer pressed the shutter release during a concert, they did not pose the subject or provide special lighting or costuming. --RAN (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
The definition of a photographic work, as opposed to image is not precisely defined. However Peter Schønning, a Danish copyright lawyer, states that for a photograph to be a photographic work it must display "the author's own intellectual creation and reflects his personality". Lacking actual court decisions however, interpretation is still subjective.
Below that paragraph are three deletion requests that might help us determine the "threshold of originality" for photographic works. Two of those DRs show that even if a photographer is taking a photo of someone in their own studio, with full control of the lighting, background, posture of the subject, camera angle, etc., that is still not enough to guarantee that any of their photos would qualify as photographic works.
One user points out, in reference to Schønning's opinion:
"That [the photo] has to reflect the photographer's personality is not just a high threshold but a very high threshold, and it is not met by a skilful lighting or choice of background colour."
and concludes:
"I see none of the photographer's personality in the photograph, only his skill, and vote keep on that basis.
Here, the photographer(s) have significantly less control over the composition of their photos. The most charitable interpretation of the law is that in this case, the timing of the shot, the split-second decision-making of the photographer, photographic techniques used by the photographer, etc. would be considered.
It is not quite clear to me that any of the photos qualify as photographic works, or primarily document the performance (e.g. for a newspaper report). From Jan Persson's Wikipedia article, it says that he "was a Danish freelance photographer who worked for Danish newspapers and magazines in and around Copenhagen." This puts significant doubt on claims of "artistic merit" in his photos.
One could argue that photographic techniques are used in the photos, such as the rule of thirds. However, in my opinion, applications of photographic techniques per se are not sufficient for any of the photos to qualify as photographic works. Instead, I believe that what is relevant is the manner in which the techniques are used. It is unclear to me whether any of the photos show merely straightforward applications of basic photographic techniques that one can learn from a photography 101 class, or demonstrate artistic merit above and beyond such simple applications. For Schønning, even mere "skillful" applications of photographic techniques are not sufficient to consider a photo as being a photographic work.
Even for photos that do apparently show "artistic merit", there is another problem when it comes to photos of live performances. It is unclear to me how one could distinguish "artistic" photos that come as a result of beginner's luck, from "real artistic" photos that come as a result of years of deliberate artistic practice, and "truly" displays "the author's own intellectual creation and reflects his personality".
From the Schønning quote above, one can conclude that if there are five photographers attending the same Tom Lehrer performance, and all of them took photos that qualify as photographic works, their individual personalities must "shine through" their photographic works in some way in order to tell apart that those works are taken by different photographers, and not by the same photographer.
In my opinion, it is also unclear to me whether any of the photos meet this threshold. All the photos are taken by Jan Persson with only one possible exception, File:Tom Lehrer performing in Copenhagen, 1967 (10).jpg, as the photographer is unknown. If we have photos from several photographers, then it might be easier to judge which photos are "works" and which are not. Here, all, or almost all, photos are by the same author, so there is no "standard" by which we can compare the photos to in order to determine whether or not someone's personality is reflected by them.
Overall, I believe that there is no significant doubt that the photos are public domain. But this is coming from someone with no professional knowledge of photography as an art form. Opinions of professional photographers might have more weight in this discussion. FunnyMath (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
@FunnyMath: as others have remarked, there is an unclear line for what counts as copyrightable when it comes to pre-1970 Danish photos. For instance a somewhat unremarkable portrait photo was previously deleted for being too artistic. I personally want to keep the photos as I think they have both significant illustrative and artistic value, but that is also what makes me think they'd be too artistic for the PD-Denmark50 tag. Both of our arguments inevitably boil down to our own perceptions ("As far as I can tell", "I believe", etc.) For what it's worth, it appears (according to his article) that Persson's photography has received enough acclaim for it to be featured in international publications and numerous exhibitions, and even specifically receiving an award for his jazz photography.
Is it possible to contact the Danish copyright office and directly ask for their opinion on the status of these photos? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 22:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
...as long as no guidelines exist (court rulings) as to the interpretation of "artistic merit" under Danish law, Commons should use the widest possible interpretation of it.
An object being featured in exhibitions does not necessarily mean it is copyrightable or has artistic merit. For example, toys are featured in toy museums. But, in Japan, toys are generally considered to be "utilitarian objects and therefore ineligible for copyright." (see COM:TOYS).
Likewise, an object being featured in international publications does not necessarily make it copyrightable or have artistic merit. If we have pictures of the same toy featured in publications in different countries, that does not eliminate the possibility that the toy is a utilitarian object ineligible for copyright in Japan.
A person winning an award for creating a certain object does not necessarily make that object copyrightable or have artistic merit either. Ernő Rubik won numerous awards for creating the Rubik's Cube. But the cube would likely still be considered a utilitarian object that is non-copyrightable in Japan.
One could say that Persson's photos are culturally significant because they have been featured in exhibitions and international publications, and because Persson has won at least one award for his photos. But cultural significance is not to be confused with artistic merit or copyrightability.
I'm not sure whether we can get the opinion of the Danish copyright office. I think it's best if we have someone from Wikimedia Danmark contact the copyright office on our behalf. FunnyMath (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
For the 2009 discussion, Schønning's opinion wasn't even mentioned. His opinion was mentioned in the 2012 discussion, however. Thus, I would go as far as to say that we can revisit the deleted photo and potentially have it undeleted in another discussion on Commons:Undeletion requests. FunnyMath (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Bulgaria.
Вітаю! Цього гнома зробила я. Я не майстриня. Це не витвір мистецтва. Вибачте, може треба якось це позначити? Перший раз з таким стикаюсь...--Ірина Бучнєва (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep Handmade doll, not copyrighted. CutlassCiera 02:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep Per Ірина Бучнєва's comment, the doll was made by the photographer. Cawfeecrow (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
I don't understand. There are 25 other pictures of these dolls on the category page Mounaques de Campan. These dolls do not infringe the intellectual property rights of any person or corporation. They are expressions of a (in my opinion very nice) local tradition. I cannot imagine that the creators of these dolls object to their photo being published on Commons/Wikipedia. I object to my photo being deleted, but if it is, all the photos in this category should be deleted as well. MartinD (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Hi A1 Cafel, I object to this photo being deleted. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mounaques Campan 2025.jpg. MartinD (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep Per previous comment, this is an old local tradition, meaning the design is out of copyright. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 20:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep Considering that this is an old tradition as well as the remarkable similarity between these two dolls' faces and many, many, many others of it's kind, I'm not sure this can be proven to " bear the imprint of the personality of the author" per French law (though I do recognize that French TOO rulings are confusing and almost paradoxical at times). As for US TOO, I don't think this can be proven to be above TOO either due to (again) it's widespreadedness. It feels reasonably similar to Batlin v Snyder, in my opinion. Cawfeecrow (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
The building was completed in 1909 by Eižens Laube (1880–1967). There is no freedom of panorama in Latvia. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2038 A1Cafel (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep Eižens Laube participated as an art student. He was not the lead architect and does not hold copyright, as he worked under the direction of Konstantīns Pēkšēns. This notion that he was co-architect is modern revisionism. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 19:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
The building was completed in 1903 by Konstantīns Pēkšēns (1859–1928) and Eižens Laube (1880–1967). There is no freedom of panorama in Latvia. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2038 A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep Eižens Laube participated as an art student. He was not the lead architect and does not hold copyright, as he worked under the direction of Konstantīns Pēkšēns. This notion that he was co-architect is modern revisionism. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 19:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep The young Eižens Laube had not yet completed his studies in architecture when the building was created, in 1903. He participated while he was studying, under the supervision of Konstantīns Pēkšēns. There should not be any doubt about Konstantīns Pēkšēns being the responsible creator of the building, therefore, the file should be kept.
This file was initially tagged by NDG as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Out of project scope. No need, indeffed user. Out of scope. XReport - Not a valid speedy deletion rationale, kicking to DR The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
the file name has a spelling mistake which is quite prominent Pbwauyo (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
If that's the only problem, request COM:File renaming. COM:INUSE, so Speedy keep if there's no copyright problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the deletion proposal? The photo was taken by me personally. I also do not understand the reference to a private website as a justification (built in their current form during the period between 1973-1994) and why in Greece this photo should be deleted, at least, for now. Spartacos31 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
@Spartacos31: According to Greek law, you can not freely use a photo (even if it is your own work) of a modern building without the architect's consent (see COM:FOP Greece). You have to wait until it is in public domain (70 years after the architect's death). C messier (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Image is unsourced since its creation and probably is original research. The image has already made it to important articles, like Wikipedia's German-Soviet Axis Talks, and since it is unsourced, it can only do damage to the wiki. Oakchris1955 (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
The image was done based in the information provided in the proper article, which quote the investigation in "Nekrich, Aleksandr Moiseevich; Ulam, Adam Bruno; Freeze, Gregory L. (1997), Pariahs, Partners, Predators: German–Soviet Relations, 1922–1941". Sr L (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
The description does not state any sources, and neither does the "proper" it-WP article that uses it, mention Nekrich. Does that literature you mention here, show a similar map? Or does it give a detailed textual description of (for example) Sri Lanka turning Japanese, Xinjiang becoming a Japanese-Russian joint-venture, and all the intricate interest spheres in Africa?
If not, this is undue "own research" or even "personal theory" and I support the DR. Of course, this requires the removal from each project beforehand, and maybe discussion how to replace the map.
If an original map similar to this depiction here exists, then this fact must be stated under sources in the image description on Commons, and it should be linked. The original content from the literature needs to be replicated as closely as possible, as well.
These are the options I see here. --Enyavar (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
Speedy keep per COM:INUSE unless there's a copyright problem. Argue about the content elsewhere, not by requesting deletion on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
A imagem foi devidamente citada como uma obra do Governo do Estado de São Paulo incluindo o link que dava acesso ao documento público na época, mas caso haja alguma violação a direitos autorais mesmo com a devida citação, sou a favor que a imagem seja excluída imediatamente para que nenhuma regra da wikipedia seja violada. portanto caso seja melhor, que a imagem seja imediatamente excluida ( obs: o meu usuário não tem requisito suficiente para exclusão, portanto eu não posso excluir imediatamente, mas deixo claro que sou completamente a favor da exclusão se diretos foram violados, e sou o primeiro a querer que este artigo siga todas as regras da wikipedia. Betinho2025 (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Obs: A imagem estava sendo usada apenas no artigo: Linha 25 do trem metropolitano de São Paulo, embora a imagem tenha sido carregada com a devida citação da fonte, como precaução informo que a imagem já foi excluída do artigo e que após as análises se for constatada qualquer irregularidade que ela seja excluída da wikimemia commons também ( objeto desta solicitação de exclusão) o importante é que todo o artigo siga as regras, pois esta sempre foi a minha intenção. Betinho2025 (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
This is a calligraphy work by Taiwanese politician Chiang Hsiao-yen (1942–). The author is still living. Unauthorized photography and distribution of this work constitutes copyright infringement. It was uploaded by mistake. Huangdan2060 (talk) 14:24, 21 December 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.
Out of scope, possible copyright violation Yousiphh (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
In what manner is a photo of the leader of the titular coup conversing with the dictator he went on to install out of scope? CugeltheClever (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Missing permission and obvious copyright violation. Yousiphh (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep You don't get to just wait 6 months and nominate it again for deletion. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 20:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Because it's the violation of Commons rules. This photo was taken in 1993 by Shahvalad Ayvazov (Shah Aivazov). The photographer is still alive. Yousiphh (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
I took and published this some time ago, and now I need to harden my privacy/opsec. As this references personal information about me, and I am the owner of this picture (which is largely unused), I ask it be deleted. Patsore (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Sorry, licenses on Commons are irrevocable. If you have privacy concerns, contact an admin privately and explain them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wdwd as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10}}=={{int:filedesc We can't keep it becaus the goalkeeper holds it so well? Sanandros (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Weakest possible keep I see no copyrightable elements here; a gothic castle or a boy in uniform or a grumpy hat or floating candles aren’t copyrightable and I’m pretty sure they all appear in the books; however I naturally hate this for being AI slop that uses that ultra-tacky fake Studio Ghibli style. I only vote keep because it’s on a userpage and if this is how someone wants to represent themselves who am I to judge? Dronebogus (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Keep not an easy case; the hat has substantial similarity to the films where the book does not describe it in such a way. However, and this is key here, the video game video that shows the hat like this has been released under CCBY and thus this image should be fine too. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Bodycam footage isn’t the same as CCTV, so these files are not in the public domain. Zaxxon0 (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Does Israeli law differentiate between CCTV and bodycams? Nakonana (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
"Does Israeli law differentiate between CCTV and bodycams?" Does any law anywhere differentiate that? Trade (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Template {{PD-automated}} (which is usually used for CCTV) has quite a few things to say about bodycams: e.g. Bodycam footage recorded by US state agencies of California, Florida or Massachusetts should use {{PD-CAGov}}, {{PD-FLGov}} or {{PD-MAGov}} instead., so I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask about Israel's stance on bodycam footage from Israeli military personnel while on duty. There seem to be cases where such footage can be PD if it was recorded by a government entity. Nakonana (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
The state is the first owner of a work made by, or commissioned for, the State or by an employee of the State in consequence of his service and during the period of his service; In this section, "State employee" – includes soldiers, policemen and any other person who holds a position according to a statute in a State entity or institution.
Copyright in a work in which the State is the first owner of the copyright lasts for 50 years from the date of its making.
Israeli law also requires creativity for a work to be protected and it provides copyright to original works which are literary works, artistic works, dramatic works or musical works, sound recordings. Nakonana (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
You have yet to show that works created by the Israeli government is ineligible for copyright Trade (talk) 20:29, 20 January 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.
Might be copyrighted in Australia. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep. It consists of simple geometry, and is therefore in the public domain. Any child can draw that. OMGShay 92 (talk) 16:34, 11 October 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.
This file was initially tagged by ~2025-36400-89 as Fair use (non-free) and the most recent rationale was: logoYann (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. No new argument since last DR. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Then why were the other two copies of the same flag deleted? Several people argued in the discussions linked in my Village pump post that Australian TOO is very low. So we either undelete the deleted files, or delete this one as well. The file needs proper license tags, the previous ones were invalid. Ponor (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep, en:WP:TROUT nominator, and restore SVG versions. Trying to have an entire country's flag scrubbed from the record over copyright paranoia, counts as wikilawyering at best, and vandalism at worst. Kinopiko (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
foundation:UCoC is a good read on how to address other users, @Kinopiko. DO NOT ASSUME BAD FAITH. This is a legitimate concern: we cannot have three deletion discussions about the same flag with opposing deletion results. I have a wiki category with a number of "missing image" articles, and I need to know what to do with it. Ponor (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Australian COM:TOO is very restrictive, but I don't understand why we've had 3 deletion requests of the same file in less than 4 months. The argument has been the same all 3 times, so I think it's kind of ridiculous and should be given up. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Undelete the other two deleted images of the same flag, add proper license tags, and we're good. Because I don't see how anything ad hominem helps us in this case. As I've said, same image, same rules. As you've said, and as people here have said, Australian COM:TOO is very restrictive, no wishful thinking can change that. Ponor (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
My remark was not ad hominem. Why do you think it was? I'm saying it's ridiculous to have 3 deletion threads for the same file for the same reason in less than 4 months. That's a comment about procedure and has nothing to do with who is responsible for those threads in this case, as it is in no way unique for there to be numerous deletion threads about the same file for the same reason. I totally get that you'd like for there to be consistency between different admins, though, and it annoys me, too, when there isn't, because then it's unclear where the line is really drawn on this site. But if this deletion request ends in a keep, will you give up on it being deleted then? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek I'm not pushing for a delete. We need to know whether any of the three flag images are allowed on Commons, or whether we should move them to individual projects for fair usage (like they did on the English Wikipedia). I can't claim fair usage if there are "free" versions available on Commons. This is all legal stuff, and if nothing says these images are free, we need to assume they're not. People getting annoyed by several "discussions" (hardly any arguments) in 4 months is a weak legal argument, especially when we have two other images already deleted. Ponor (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd's suggestion is to use a modified version of the flag, with the original palm tree replaced with a generic version: File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Island.svg. I see nothing wrong with that. Individual projects can still upload their own copy and claim Fair Use, I believe. Ponor (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
I see something very wrong with misrepresenting what their flag actually looks like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
But it is misrepresenting with a good reason. If we were upload the actual design of the tree, that would violate copyright. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't consider that a good reason. Either we can host the flag or we can't, but hosting a falsified flag is misleading and therefore bad. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
I Am Not A Lawyer (and unless you have clear experience in this area, I'll assume that you aren't either). With that caveat, a number of problems strike me here:-
If I understand correctly, your case rests on the implied argument that, simply by being attached to a 3D stand, the 2D sign- or rather its artwork- becomes a part of a new "3D work" which can then be treated as such for copyright purposes?
As I said, IANAL, and I'm only going by Commons' guidelines rather than any reading of the law itself. Even allowing for that, this strikes me as a highly contrived and unlikely interpretation I wouldn't expect to stand up in court.
The stand is a separate object whose manufacturers likely had no knowledge of the sign art, and I don't think one could claim them collectively as a new "work" simply because they were put together...!
You need to be clear which company is "the" company you're talking about here. We can assume that "Rollover" and the stand manufacturer are separate businesses.
Even assuming we take for granted your assertion that the stand and hanging sign are made by a single manufacturer, the 2D artwork was likely created- and its copyright retained- by or for "Rollover" or someone else, regardless of who manufactured the physical object.
Figuring out what the exact situation is likely to be *would* require a legal expert, but unless you are and know better than I do, it's fair to assume that hanging a 2D sign on a generic 3D sign doesn't magically let us treat it as a 3D work for FoP purposes...!Ubcule (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete It's pretty clear to me that the visual design is separate from the 3D nature of the sign frame. The way that this image is cropped and described also gives me the sense that the sign's visual design is the focus here, rather than the sign's frame or the combined nature of the two together. I'm also sceptical of the idea that a sign having a 3D frame automatically applies FoP - it seems to me from Commons guidance that FoP only applies to buildings or to 'works of artistic craftsmanship' permanently sited in a public place. This sign likely doesn't qualify under either as it's not a building, not permanently fixed in place, and it's creator probably wouldn't be described as an artist and a craftsperson. Gazamp (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
@Gazamp: Exactly. It's clearly a purely functional, off-the-shelf generic stand that has been bought in- I've seen countless ones like that- upon which *someone else's* 2D graphics/artwork has been placed and hung. The pretence that placing the two together forms a new "3D" work is laughable, and even if it did it likely wouldn't be covered by FoP for the reasons you gave. Ubcule (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Obvious copyright violation and missing permission. Yousiphh (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
@Yousiphh, You wrote a very general and irrelevant reason. The source of the picture is indicated. The person also died in 1931. samraltalk 18:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
The target is not the person, but the painting. You do not have a permission for this art work, which was published in a 2013 book. Yousiphh (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Low resolution, tineye has versions since 2008 and 2231 x 3000 px, 503.9 kB, traces of watermark across the image, probably not own work of the uploader.
Re-coloration of the Canadian Coat of Arms is NOT a valid use of the Canadian Coat of Arms. They do not have the right or ability to use this image. Johnj1995 (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Delete; it exactly meets all of the requirements in the Deletion Policy. As per policy, deletion is acceptable when: "any binding copyright law (see, e.g., Commons:Copyright rules by territory and Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter);"
Copyright laws protect heraldic designs as artistic works, but official arms (like Canada's) are also protected by specific laws (e.g., Trademarks Act) and Crown copyright (to the Crown), requiring permission for use, especially commercial, while original drawings from a blazon (description) grant new copyright to the artist, though governmental symbols remain restricted. Key differences: copyright protects the artistic rendering, while heraldic laws guard the symbol itself, often making misuse a criminal offense in some places, unlike copyright's civil nature.
Either way, this is just a re-skin of an existing Coat of Arms, one protected by greater laws than Copyright, and the Official arms of a Country no less, with zero material changes to the arms.
By ALL rules of Wiki-media/pedia/Commons that I can find, it should have never been uploaded and the person should have known never to use this as a logo.
I would invite Kline, to submit where he does not see a violation, given it is an admitted copy of the Canadian Coat of Arms, the Canadian Coat of Arms is under Copyright and other protections and I highly doubt the Prime Minister of Canada, the Governor General of Canada, or King Charles III (the only three people who could give permission to use the image) gave them permission to use the image. I am willing to stand corrected and kindly ask Kline to submit the permission request and answer that he submitted to the Government to be able to use this image.
If he has not submitted one, it is in violation of at least 3 Canadian laws, including copyright. If he did, he should have a record. I understand that the Second Sons just made this up as a logo but it would be like taking the McDonald's logo, painting it black, and claiming it doesn't violate a copyright. Note: That is not how copyright works. The fact that the Second Sons illegally use this logo does not mean we have to illegally allow it's use on Wikipedia.
@Kirkoconnell For one, this is not the full coat of arms that they are using in full, it is just the escutcheon. You can see File:Arms of Canada (shield).svg as to why this is public domain. Regarding McDonald's, their logo falls under the threshold of originality. Kline (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
If their "logo" is a DW of a work here on Commons such as File:Flag of Canada (1921–1957).svg, which it most certainly appears to be, then it depends on how that file is licensed. Currently it is licensed for DWs of any purpose without restriction. This group's political views are.... quite objectionable, but not a valid reason for deletion. Fry1989eh? 00:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
COM:INUSE, so should not be deleted unless there's a copyright problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
The logo doesn't seem trivial for PD. Tbhotch™ 21:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
It seems trivial for PD to me.. Is there a standard on this? Camilasdandelions (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment This sort of thing is almost entirely a matter of case law, not statute law, so it's always a bit of a judgement call.
In this case, it's less a matter of triviality than of lack of significant originality. This may be so close to a conventional image of a generic globe that the differences from that are not enough for copyright, at least in the U.S. Not that I'm sure, just that it is close to the line. - Jmabel! talk 02:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by UnrivaledIr as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Poster or book/albumcover probs below TOO but unsure about scope —Matrix(!)ping onewhen replying{user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 22:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
I believe this personal template, added to pages like File:Justice Hrishikesh Roy.jpg above the proper licence template, can be very misleading, especially for users who are not experienced in free licences. It may confuse them that they need a special permission to use the picture (or should even purchase it), which is not acceptable. For this reason I suggest deleting this subpage used as a sort of licence template. Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
These are probably unfree in the Philippines, which has mixed/low/nonexistent threshold of originality. At least 2 relatively simple logos have been granted registration by the PH copyright office (see examples under COM:TOO Philippines). These may be imported to enWiki under w:en:Template:PD-textlogo-USonly instead, as English Wikipedia only abides by lenient US copyright law and does not need to follow restrictive, copyright-conservative laws like the Philippines' law. (Under US law, any minimalist logo is not copyrightable and designs of such logos are denied copyright registrations).
Delete we don’t know what the Philippines’ standard even is so all not explicitly free graphic works from there should be presumed copyrighted and deleted. Dronebogus (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Did you know that a some Robinsons Malls logo that a threshold? If you that a little bit symbol of the logo but even letter R also in a 3D logo, thease are TOO in Phillippines but low (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/07#Probable low Philippines TOO). Even the logo is being copyrighted on the symbol it's keep. ~2026-12238-41 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep The photographer pressed the shutter release during a concert, they did not pose the subject or provide special lighting or costuming. --RAN (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
_by_Julius_Folkmann.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Julius_Folkmann.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
Question The penguin is not copyrightable? --A1Cafel (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Speedy keep if there's no copyright problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_Island.png){kind=link}
_Islands.svg){kind=link}
_Island.svg){kind=link}
![File:Rollover The Hotdog "IT'S A SIGN" A-Board Advertisement outside Co-op Food, Rochester Riverside, Kent.jpg](./File:Rollover_The_Hotdog_"IT'S_A_SIGN"_A-Board_Advertisement_outside_Co-op_Food,_Rochester_Riverside,_Kent.jpg){kind=link}
Delete It's pretty clear to me that the visual design is separate from the 3D nature of the sign frame. The way that this image is cropped and described also gives me the sense that the sign's visual design is the focus here, rather than the sign's frame or the combined nature of the two together. I'm also sceptical of the idea that a sign having a 3D frame automatically applies FoP - it seems to me from Commons guidance that FoP only applies to buildings or to 'works of artistic craftsmanship' permanently sited in a public place. This sign likely doesn't qualify under either as it's not a building, not permanently fixed in place, and it's creator probably wouldn't be described as an artist and a craftsperson. Gazamp (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
_vor_einem_Kruzifix_kniend,_Dreiviertelporträt_-_GG_2750_-_Kunsthistorisches_Museum.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Comment This sort of thing is almost entirely a matter of case law, not statute law, so it's always a bit of a judgement call.
