The original collector and creator of this file Dr. Brian Fisher has requested it be deleted, as it is a misidentification (it is actually M. termitobium), its image has been deleted from the main repository AntWeb and its code moved, and its true species M. termitobium already has numerous images from AntWeb so this additional one is of no value, as per his rationale (pers. comm.). 2003LN6 02:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment, image is currently COM:INUSE in ceb-wiki, sv-wiki and war-wiki. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
@Tvpuppy: I will go review those images. Since the specimen is misidentified anyway, I do not think it will pose much of a problem. 2003LN6 14:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. My previous comment was just commenting that the image was being used in those wikis, and perhaps someone may want to replace its usage with the correct image before deleting this. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep Wrong file names and errors in description can be changed easily! -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
The original collector and creator of this file Dr. Brian Fisher has requested it be deleted, as it is a misidentification (it is actually M. termitobium), its image has been deleted from the main repository AntWeb and its code moved, and its true species M. termitobium already has numerous images from AntWeb so this additional one is of no value, as per his rationale (pers. comm.). 2003LN6 02:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment, image is currently COM:INUSE in ceb-wiki, sv-wiki and war-wiki. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
The original collector and creator of this file Dr. Brian Fisher has requested it be deleted, as it is a misidentification (it is actually M. termitobium), its image has been deleted from the main repository AntWeb and its code moved, and its true species M. termitobium already has numerous images from AntWeb so this additional one is of no value, as per his rationale (pers. comm.). 2003LN6 02:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment, image is currently COM:INUSE in ceb-wiki, sv-wiki and war-wiki. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
The original collector and creator of this file Dr. Brian Fisher has requested it be deleted, as it is a misidentification (it is actually M. termitobium), its image has been deleted from the main repository AntWeb and its code moved, and its true species M. termitobium already has numerous images from AntWeb so this additional one is of no value, as per his rationale (pers. comm.). 2003LN6 02:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment, image is currently COM:INUSE in ceb-wiki, sv-wiki and war-wiki. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
No evince that this is in fact the official flag of Washington, New York. Drdpw (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep Still in use on multiple Wikimedia projects. JaydenChao (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment If this is actually the Commander-in-Chief flag of George Washington rather than an official flag of Washington, NY, the file may be misnamed rather than out of scope. JaydenChao (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Komarof as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 05:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
All online sources seem to be Wikimedia derived, making this a tough one. It's obviously public domain by age but the sourcing is also wrong. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep Uploader messed up but it's PD. No indication this isn't the person who it says it is (image is used widely) -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 14:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
waternarked from getty images Stib (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Getty slaps watermarks on tons of public domain images.StarTrekker (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep 1886 engraving, PD. (Scan without watermark would be preferred, but Getty copyfraud stamp is not by itself reason to delete.)-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
This mostly shows the artwork by Henry, so much so that if we blurred that out, there seems to be nothing worth keeping. Jmabel! talk 06:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Work is by living artist Ryan "Henry" Ward, and dates to sometime in the early 2010's. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I am a Seattle-based Wikipedian. The community here encourages submissions of photos that chronicle our changing neighborhoods, including and especially places like University Avenue (the Ave) that are dynamic in nature, and often lost to time. I guess I don't understand the reason why this was flagged? Is it because of the artist mural, thoughts about the artist, copyright that might extend to the subject matter of the photo? Guywelch2000 (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@Guywelch2000: The mural by Henry is copyrighted so to keep the image we'd need to have a license from him. (That might be achievable, which would be great.) Without that, we'd need to blur out the artwork. If you think it's worth keeping the image with the artwork blurred, fine with me, but I think the "derivative work" is probably the main interest of this photo. Basically, it's a photo of a copyrighted painting, and there is no Freedom of panorama for artworks in the U.S. - Jmabel! talk 18:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
This is titled "Large painting of ...", which means the painting is not de minimis. It does not look like the painting is old enough to be in the public domain, and we have no information about the painting. Prosfilaes (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: web screenshot. I think the screenshot shows nothing what is copyrightable. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted material JaydenChao (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep according to translator depicted text might be a news report and it's likely PD as this is a "simple factual information" what is uncopyrightable in China. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Determined to be a possible copyvio at Wikisource, so the file should probably be deleted here too. Rationale there (by Beardo): "Although originally published 1930, this is the "first revised edition" published 1939, which I assume would have a separate copyright. Seligman was British and died 1940, so I assume that this was URAA'd." SnowyCinema (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
The statement "no author indicated" does not exempt a photograph from copyright protection. In Russia, creative works lawfully published without a name or under a pseudonym that does not allow to identify the author are protected for 70 years from the date of publication. The uploader does not indicate the date of lawful publication of the photograph. Attaching a photograph to an organization's HR Record Sheet does not constitute publication, as it is a document for internal use and archival storage. Most likely, this photograph was not made public before being posted to Wikimedia Commons, which is why it is still copyrighted in Russia. Yellow Horror (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Let me know if that file would still be useful with the maps blurred out. If so, I can take care of that. - Jmabel! talk 19:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
@Jmabel, Please, blur the two maps, as it is still useful part of the urban "WalkNYC" infrastructure. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
No different than this sign. It's just another way of saying "If You See Something, Say Something." ----DanTD (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I have nominated that one for DR. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
So that means now we can't take pictures of bulletin board signs at train stations unless they're totally empty? ----DanTD (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The photograph was not the 2D work. The 2D work was de minimis. And regardless, it's been edited out now. - The Bushranger (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
I may just revert the edited version. If not, I just edit the infobox. ----DanTD (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Billboards are de minimis. Clearly a skyline image where billboards are not main focus. They are poorly lit, blurry and taken from an odd angle which suggests they were not the intent of the photographer. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I disagree, the billboard is clearly the subject of this photo. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
There is absolutely no mention of the billboards in the original archived Panoramio page or the file's title. Others have added categories later, but the billboards were clearly not the intent of the photograph. It is silly to claim that they were without any evidence. Buildings are clearly in focus. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep per IronGargoyle. Also, the sign angles further distorted any images. -- Ooligan (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Image is heavily in use. This could probably be blurred if necessary, but I think it is likely de minimis even if not. The advertisement is clearly incidental and not the main focus. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
You do realize this image is for the entrance, not the ad attached to it, right? ----DanTD (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
* Comment Let me know if that file would still be useful with the Moneygram ad blurred out. If so, I can take care of that. - Jmabel! talk 19:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Keep without blur as the poster image is clearly blurry already, not the main focus and de minimis. A further blur would be preferable to the red block though. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I chose the red block, because it matched the tone of the ad that A1Cafael claims is the FoP violation. ----DanTD (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep original as it is de minimis. - The Bushranger (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
This is a cropeed frame from a video (it can be found using image research). Definetly not own work SomeFancyUsername (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Photo expired in copyright in Italy in 2007, but was still copyrighted in 1996, and therefore had its copyright restored per COM:URAA. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
COM:AIIPDronebogus (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I am the uploader of this file. I generated this image using Gemini AI. I had mistakenly added contradictory licenses by including both self|cc-by-4.0 and PD-algorithm. I have now removed the CC-BY license and kept only the PD-algorithm tag, as AI-generated images fall into the public domain. Please consider declining this incomplete deletion request. Thank you. विक्रम प्रताप(बातचीत)-- 19:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the reason I nominated this. Dronebogus (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Copyvio: Screenshot of an image that is certainly copyrighted. ~2026-15481-26 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
That a photo was "certainly copyrighted" without further proof or any explanation cannot be seen as a valid reason for a deletion request.
To reinstall the request after the following additional metadata was added seems arbitrary:
The 18th of October 2024 this own photo was taken at Königstraße 16A, 22767 Hamburg, Germany (Pauli Hostel), text and black and white effect edited for "Und dann kam Punk" with Picsart.
Please further clarify your reasoning behind this action or remove the deletion request. Dimensionofknowledge (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@Dimensionofknowledge: please contact the Volunteer Response Team to prove that a disputed file is either in the public domain or under a free licence (in your case, the latter). According to Commons:Project scope/Evidence, it is the responsiblity of the uploader and anyone voting to keep a file facing deletion to prove that a file should be kept, and not the responsibility of the nominator and other delete voters to prove that a file should be deleted. You have also inappropriately deleted the {{Delete}} template twice (diff 1, diff 2) from the file subject to this ongoing deletion request. Jmabel, could you, say, partially block the user from all the files they have uploaded as a preventative measure? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 08:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused According to the linked Policies I closed the incomplete deletion request as keep. No details where provided. If only casting vague accusations, deletion request themselves can be considered as "incomplete".
"Nomination guidelines: 3. When nominating an image suspected of copyright violation, say why[!] (a deletion request that only casts a vague accusation can be considered as "incomplete")." | "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they provided the closure is not controversial." Dimensionofknowledge (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Together with the closure of the incomplete deletion request there was even provided the following additional copyright information:
"Own, photo taken at Königstraße 16A, 22767 Hamburg, Germany (Pauli Hostel), text and black and white effect edited for "Und dann kam Punk" with Picsart." Dimensionofknowledge (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
This request is controversial because someone objects to it based on a legal reason, in this case, copyright. Before you insist that this image be kept, are you very sure that you want to permanently release it under a licence that allows other people to use it at any time, any place, for any purpose? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 08:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Sadly not, this just shows that you have a copy of that original photo. It doesn't prove that you are the person depicted in it, or that you hold the copyright to it, the photo may have been shared publicly online.
You just need to email COM:VRT, or update a social media post to include a statement releasing the image under a free licence. Belbury (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
(Ignore that; I was about to send it before dinner, but dinner came, and I didn't see when sending that you had already replied) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 09:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@Dimensionofknowledge: We need to verify that you are genuinely the copyright holder releasing the image under a free licence, since the image has previously been published online.
If you're the subject and the image has been posted on social media, you can edit that post's description or add a comment below it, to say that you are releasing it under a suitably free licence. See en:Wikipedia:Images from social media, or elsewhere#Instagram. Belbury (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Instagram user @coatzintli has now posted a comment of I agree to publish this image of me under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence. on @unddannkampunk's podcast thumbnail at https://www.instagram.com/p/DCQwY3LMCD_ - which is a step forward, but since the podcast thumbnail was edited by @unddannkampunk (adding a background and some tape effects) from @coatzintli's original image, they would hold the copyright on their podcast thumbnail, so would need to give permission. (If the ShareAlike licence was only added today, it wouldn't be retroactive.) Belbury (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
(Noting that User:Dimensionofknowledge has now uploaded a screenshot of the contested image at File:Screenshot of own comment.jpg, to show their comment on it, but this would have the same copyright issues as the original if permission cannot be resolved.) Belbury (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete both this and File:Screenshot of own comment.jpg, in absence of any statement of permission from the Und Dann Kam Punk podcast for releasing their edit of the original photo under a free licence. Belbury (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I see that Dimensionofknowledge has been blocked for a week for edit warring. I have a strong suspicion that, while they seem to be terrible in terms of dealing with Commons' policies, they are probably telling the truth about these images, and I ask that this DR not be closed until they have a chance to return and respond. - Jmabel! talk 17:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello again and thank you very much @Jmabel! talk 🙏🏻
Yes, I'm relatively new as an author at this platform and some procedures here might not be quite easy to understand. Additionally it might help to mention, that I'm autistic so that I tend to interpret rules very literally, what led me to the conclusion, that after having provided the requested information it would not be unlawful to close the incomplete deletion request as keep.
To give you additional context:
During the same day another picture I had uploaded was also put up for deletion, because the metadata showed Picsart (a normal photo editing software) as the app that had saved it, what seemed to be enough "evidence" that it for sure had to be AI-generated. Even after providing them all the details (address, day of the photo shoot etc.) it never was enough "proof" for the random non admin users that also there seemed to be obsessed with deleting everything it uploaded, despite every piece possible information I could provide them with. So in the end while being blocked here, one English speaking user even put up the German Wikipedia article the photo was linked to for deletion, mentioning the photos here as the reason for their quick intervention by using a translator tool, while being blocked I couldn't do anything and felt overwhelmed and helpless.
Could you pleaase close at least this deletion request please? I want to contribute content here on this platform, but currently I'm just afraid of people tagging everything I rightfully post with one speedy delete after the other because of vague suspicions, that a relatively new user for sure might only post media that for sure might violate copyright laws or if something is manually editing with a color filter, this can only be AI... 😭
I'm not a bot, not an AI and nobody who steals photos from other to upload them here as my own. If it would be possible on here to send videocalls to show and prove everything in front of you or send an explanation video, I would even do this.
I have not read the whole discussion so I apologize if I have overlooked something. I am responding only to the sentence "That a photo was "certainly copyrighted" without further proof or any explanation" in the second comment:
We are talking German copyright here, not American where you may have to register your work in order to get it copyrighted. By German copyright law, yes, a photo is "certainly copyrighted without further proof or any explanation". Waiving one's copyright, as a CC 1.0 license implies, is not even possible under German law, to the best of my understanding.
So, without question, we need the copyright holder's consent. The copyright holder being the photographer, none other (not the image subject or the current owner of the physical picture!). In the case of a creative process which may have taken place here like on a book or CD cover, possibly in addition the graphic designer. --~2026-18260-40 (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
One small correction, this photo was first published in the 10 September 1936 edition of Regards and it's subsequent publication in a New York book did not give it a valid US copyright due to having been published 2 years earlier without a US copyright notice. It was public domain in the US for many decades until it was URAA restored in 1996. It will enter PD in the US in 2032. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:07, 11 March 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.
Almost certainly AI-generated; if not, then it must be heavily retouched. Probably a violation of personality rights, plus if it is kept then the description should be clear what we have here, since it is not a photograph in the usual sense of the word. Jmabel! talk 21:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Actually, if it's AI-generated, and from the subject's own social media, that may just be OK, as long as it is accurately attributed and licensed. (Give or take the usual caveats about what sources the AI used...) - Jmabel! talk 22:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Why are we saying it's AI generated, is there some context for this not being a real person? (I have no idea who they are.) It looks like a slightly filtered selfie. Belbury (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that the background cannot look like that in the real world, and that the eyes have been at least significantly altered. Again, doesn't have to be AI, but must be at least retouched, which is supposed to be indicated with {{Retouched}}, and preferably the original should also be indicated. - Jmabel! talk 03:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete: not used anywhere on the Wikimedia movement other than a piece of German-language puffery that cites zero reliable sources (If you see :de:Coatzintli Alcocer Wagner §Einzelnachweise, every citation leads either to a voice coaching site, Instagram, YouTube, a short intro of an LGBTQ photographer, Spotify, or a documentary site) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 08:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
1. AI or heavy retouching, whatever it may be: yes. It certainly goes so far as to make the person look unreal. (I don't care about the background, probably half the landscape images on Commons have had the sky replaced by a brighter/ cloudier/ prettier one.)
2. Personality rights infringement: Probably not, since they use the image on their own social media.
3. Copyvio: For all we know, yes. Who is the photographer/copyright holder in the first place? What license was it published by on Instagram? If there is no free license on Instagram, we would definitely need the explicit consent by the photographer. This looks very much like a professional promo photo to me, and professional photographers don't usually give away their images on a free license.
--~2026-15752-15 (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Not usually, but certainly plenty of precedent. We've very often been able to get a promo photo or two for a band free-licensed, because they would like the publicity. Usually the main way a professional photographer makes money from doing a band shoot is, precisely, getting paid to do the shoot. Unless the act is very major, it is rare that they plan to make money re-selling the photos.
And, yes, this needs explicit consent, probably through VRT at this point. - Jmabel! talk 17:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I see that Dimensionofknowledge has been blocked for a week for edit warring. I have a strong suspicion that, while they seem to be terrible in terms of dealing with Commons' policies, they are probably telling the truth about these images, and I ask that this DR not be closed until they have a chance to return and respond. - Jmabel! talk 17:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment, image is currently COM:INUSE in ceb-wiki, sv-wiki and war-wiki. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep Wrong file names and errors in description can be changed easily! -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
_Logo.png){kind=link}
_100_-_Yankees–East_153rd_Street,_WalkNYC.jpg){kind=link}
Speedy delete as an exact match of the file was found right on Spotify Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete both this and File:Screenshot of own comment.jpg, in absence of any statement of permission from the Und Dann Kam Punk podcast for releasing their edit of the original photo under a free licence. Belbury (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
_title_page.jpg){kind=link}
