Commons:Deletion requests/2025/12/30

December 30

File:Map of Illyria under Bardylis.png

It is not accurate. Please delete. I’m the creator Albanian Studies (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Request of the uploader after 1+1/2 years. m:CentralAuth/Albanian_Studies Superseded by File:Illyrian Empire under Bardylis.png. @User:Albanian Studies: always link to the good file when claiming a file would be bad. The good file has sources, the underlying map comes from free in a special not necessarily CC-compliant manner. The underlying map on the bad file most probably is NOT own work either. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
I made it on ibis paint. Just delete it Albanian Studies (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Lovemrskush - Frejon Recipe.png

The information on the file claims that the YouTube video was published under a CC BY license, but this is not present in the video description. The original page has not been archived, so Commons:License review is not possible. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

What YouTube video? I am on about the map that I MADE? Albanian Studies (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
@Albanian Studies. This discussion is about File:Lovemrskush - Frejon Recipe.png, which you did not upload. Did you mean to post this in another discussion? ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Why am I tagged in this then? Lmao Albanian Studies (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
There's currently a bug in MediaWiki which will sometimes subscribe you to every post on the day's deletion request page when you post a deletion request. Click the "subscribe" link in the header at Commons:Deletion requests/2025/12/30#File:Map of Illyria under Bardylis.png (right above the nomination you made) to unsubscribe yourself. Omphalographer (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
 Keep This wikimedian user has a youtube channel that he made Ternant 728228 (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
I find it unlikely that Wikimedia user LittleT889 is the same as YouTube user Lovemrskush. Even if that were the case, evidence of permission would still be necessary, as the YouTube page does not have a compliant license. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
 Keep Because the other user you said is their alternative account Ternant 728228 (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
 Keep because LittleT889 is an alternative youtube account to the original youtube account he have: Lovemrskush Ternant 728228 (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
 Strong keep Please understand that LittleT889 is the true alternative account of Lovemrskush that he made, Right? Ternant 728228 (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
 Speedy keep Please keep this file because its their own work the author said in the first message sent by Albanian Studies Ternant 728228 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
@Ternant 728228. Please do not bludgeon discussions like this; you only have one vote. Reiterating the same thing several times does not make it more likely to be kept. Albanian Studies is talking about another file they uploaded. They accidentally posted in this discussion, because they got notified of this discussion through a software bug. They had previously opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map of Illyria under Bardylis.png, which is transcluded onto Commons:Deletion requests/2025/12/30, which this discussion is also. Albanian Studies is almost certainly not LittleT889, neither of whom are YouTube user Lovemrskush. Even if either of them were, you'd need evidence to prove that the file has a compatible license to be hosted on commons, which there is not. ArcticSeeress (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Blason ville fr Cudos (Gironde).svg

pirated coat of arms, mentioned in actu.fr: "But it was subsequently hacked and modified online without their consent." Three years ago after created, the coat of arms discovered that was pirated online. "[...] had been hacked twice, once on Wikipedia" - see also: https://actu.fr/nouvelle-aquitaine/cudos_33144/le-blason-dun-village-pirate-sur-internet-ses-createurs-un-pere-et-son-fils-sont-desabuses_60704384.html Therefore, Cudos doesn't have actual coat of arms. TentingZones1 (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Ces armes sont bien celles de Cudos, utilisées officiellement (voir sur le site de la commune)
Les deux créateurs qui se plaignent ne comprennent simplement pas le principe de l'héraldique. Oedipe23 (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
 Plutôt conserver : Le blason de Cudos figure sur le site web de la ville (on suppose qu'il s'agit d'une version officielle, même si elle a été découverte comme étant piratée il y a deux ans). Selon une source, la commune de Cudos souhaitait que le véritable blason soit affiché dans la ville, notamment sur les panneaux de signalisation, voire à la mairie. TentingZones1 (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Karytena.JPG

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 06:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep "Own photo (eigen foto) 1996" is perfectly plausible. Unless you have evidence that it's stolen, don't tag it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:חיים אלגרנטי.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Little Savage as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Little Savage, what's your evidence that this is not User:Guysoroker's own work as claimed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The photographer of this photo is Bar Algranati (in Hebrew בר אלגרנטי. see here and here), and the user’s name is Guy Soroker. According to the metadata, the photo was taken in 2024; however, based on the links I provided, it appears that the photo was actually taken much earlier. Additionally, the uploader has a history of copyright violations. To be on the safe side, it would be best to get an official permission from the photographer like already requested from the user. Omri • Talk 13:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
I see. Understood. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

File:OKCWRIA-logo-removebg-preview.svg

Poor vectorize. Original: File:OKCWRIA-logo-removebg-preview.png. 0x0a (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Памятник на Ваганьковском.jpg

No FoP in Russia BurundiNdayishimiye (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Per file description the sculptor is Category:Lev Matyushin who died in 2023. Undelete in 2094. Nakonana (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:"Debut” Performance Video KATSEYE (see desc).webm

While the caption claims, very strongly, that the cinematographer has the legal right to release the entire performance video under a compatible license, that's very unlikely. This was most likely a work for hire, and as such the copyright most likely belongs to HYBE or Geffen. Assuming that was not the case, however, the cinematographer could not sign away the copyright over the song, or over the parts of the video controlled by the editor, the producer, or the directors. Per COM:PCP, there's no choice but to delete this. (I can't see, but the uploader appears to have uploaded this image before and it's been speedied, so thehre comes a point where a DR is needed.) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Times Square 2026 Numerals (amber lightbulbs).png

Useless file NAVYCJ12894 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Times Square 2026 Numerals (flash of orange lightbulbs).png

Useless file NAVYCJ12894 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dystopia Giver.jpg

Copyvio. Dronebogus (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:GMBP.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Logo - I'm not sure it's complex enough to have copyright, and it's been in the speedy category for a while now, but I also don't think it's in scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  •  Delete It feels very much as though serious work was involved to create it, despite being 'simple' geometric figures and 'normal' characters. The various operations performed to create it render it above ToO in my view. The nom takes a subtly different view on that, whcih is why we are having a sensible discussion over it. w:en:User:Eegnetwork/sandbox where it is used is unlikely to move to be an article, thus rendering it almost not in use, and it may be that G10 applies. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
    It might qualify as a user page image because GMBP was founded by EEG Network, per the sandbox and given that the uploader is EEG Network. But for user page images to be allowed one needs to be a contributor. The question is whether 300 edits across projects is enough to be considered a contributor.
    (Side note: EEGNetwork responded to this DR on their talk page.) Nakonana (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Children are victims of adult vices

No Freedom of panorama in Russia, per COM:FOP Russia, and can't see a De minimis exception to any of these as the sculptures are the main focus of all of them.

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Children are victims of adults vices for previous DRs regarding the sculptural group

Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 08:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This is a sculpture by Mihail Chemiakin who is still alive. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I took this photograph (the wide angle one) when on Holiday in 2018.
This looks like a problem with copyrite.
Is the problem that there is a copyrite on the photograph, or is the issue with the image being of this particular sculpture? JonathanPeel (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Hey JonathanPeel, yes the issue is with the copyright of the sculptures, which as AFBorchert says were created by a still living artist, and so will be copyrighted. Some countries have what's called Freedom of panorama which eliminates the need for a license from the original copyright owner of works when publishing photos of them. in the case of Russia, however, this only applies to buildings and not sculptures (more info at COM:FOP Russia). Unfortunately, that means commons can't host such images, as we require files to be free in their source country. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Understood, thanks a lot, I guess there is nothing I can do to prove I took the picture or anything.
Contacting the artist for every photo on this website would also be a crazy endeavour.
---
Thanks. JonathanPeel (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
As I say, I'm not disputing that you took the photo and own the rights to it, just that in Russia (and France, Ukraine, etc [see map at COM:FOP]) photos of copyrighted 3D creative works need permission from the original copyright holder. Fortunately, there are more (imo) sane countries re-this (e.g. the UK) where that isn't the case. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dandenong Hub November 1974.jpg

Commercial advertising from 1974, no indication as to why it would be public domain. Sam Wilson 08:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Afghanistan (1826–1880).svg

This flag was not used from 1826, nor was it used in 1880; another flag already exists AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Secretary Rubio Meets with Israeli Prime Minister (55011694767).jpg

Photo by Amos Ben Gershom / Government Press Office, not a work from the US Government A1Cafel (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:0 Carrousel - Nimy - Novembre 1979 (2).jpg

Mauvaises indications - Ce fichier concerne un autre endoit - Il sera remplacé par un fichier comportant les informations exactes. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Monument aux morts (Caen)

The monument was completed in 1927 by Henri Bouchard (1875–1960). There is no freedom of panorama in France. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2031

A1Cafel (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Capri Island4.JPG

same as File:Capri_Island.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Termininja (talk • contribs) 10:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep This file is smaller.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Monument Școala Ardeleană in Cluj-Napoca

The monument was completed in 1973 by Romulus Ladea (1901–1970). There is no freedom of panorama in Romania. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2041

A1Cafel (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Fuji-Junko-1.jpg

富司純子本人です　年齢的に昔すぎますため削除をお願いいたします 寺嶋事務所 (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  •  Delete still copyrighted in the US due to URAA, as the photo was published in 1965. Yasu (talk) 14:56, 1 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.

Files uploaded by Gaemreviews (talk · contribs)

out of project scope

Didym (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy delete per CSD F10. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (Wikipedia talk · Global contributions · he/him) 14:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

 Deleted, CSD F10. (non-admin closure) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (Wikipedia talk · Global contributions · he/him) 14:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Wappen Neulingen-Nussbaum.png

Das Wappen von Nußbaum in Neulingen ist in schwarz 2 goldene Rauten. Ich konnte keine Quelle für dieses Wappen hier finden. Alle Artikel über Nußbaum nutzen die schwarze Variante. Insofern hat dieses Bild keinen pädagogischen Nutzen und führt evtl. sogar zu Verwirrung, wenn jemand das Wappen von Nußbaum sucht. Erdnussflip007 (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:NGC 2033 DSS.jpg

DSS is copyrightː https://gsss.stsci.edu/Acknowledgements/DSSCopyrights.htm Lithopsian (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Wappen Neunkirchen (Siegerland).png

Nicht das wirkliche Wappen der Gemeinde SIegerland. Siehe https://www.neunkirchen-siegerland.de/Rathaus-Politik/Dienstleistungen/Wappen-der-Gemeinde-Neunkirchen.php?object=tx,3362.2.1&ModID=10&FID=3362.239.1&NavID=3362.13.1 Erdnussflip007 (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Artur ilkiv (talk · contribs)

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

 Keep:
Nakonana (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Maharaja Virendra Vasudev Mohan Dar of House of Dar.jpg

This is the incorrect image I had uploaded TrikityTikki (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

INCORRECT-image TheYellowNeegayi (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

File:GrackleAcorns.jpg

I don't want the location metadata to be available PAR (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is in use and in scope. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
    It could be a good reason for a new version to be uploaded and the current version to be revision deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Taiwan's National Public Safety Guide.pdf

Printed version in both languages clearly stated at the end: "本手冊僅允許使用者下載教學用，不得為商業目的，亦不得修改本著作；本手冊保留所有權利，欲利用全部或部分內容者，須徵求出版機關同意並以書面授權。版權所有，翻印必究。" (ZH) "This guide may be downloaded and used for instructional purposes only. It may not be used for commercial purposes, nor may any part of this work be modified. All rights are reserved by the publisher. Any use of the content, in whole or in part, requires prior written consent from the publisher. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited." (EN) @assanges (talk | cont | uploads) 15:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah... com:TOO Taiwan (the cover could be fair use in Chinese and English Wikipedia) Sinsyuan✍️ 02:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Adrienne 0398.jpg

metadata clearly shows copyright (and source details are minimal) Jerimee (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

and, for better or worse, this can be said of many of this user's contributions Jerimee (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dr. Konstantinos Gourgoulianis in 2025 (low-analysis image by G-Lignum).jpg

Claimed to be an own work, it is clearly a screenshot of unknown origin. Delete as possible copyvio. C messier (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

 Delete https://www.facebook.com/KeeleUniversityGreece/photos/d41d8cd9/122141619542952357/
maybe somebody should politely remind the user about our policies? (unless I'm mistaken, of course) Jerimee (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
@Jerimee: what reverse image engine did you use? Tineye doesn't work really well, google sabotaged the feature in chrome. C messier (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Also, found the source of the image C messier (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
The user has already been given a last warning about copyright violations (User_talk:G-Lignum#Copyright_violations). --C messier (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Energizer Bunny commercial (1988).webm

File:Energizer Bunny appearance 1988.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Probably still copyrighted, for more information ask User:ZigZagTheTigerSkunk SomeFancyUsername (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Uploader says this wasn't registered properly, how do you prove a negative? -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 16:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
From ZZTTS's last summary:
We don't know if energrizer is PD becuase of the february 1981 code of federatins that plagues Doug and Noid's status, so i removed im for now SomeFancyUsername (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
I mean, we don't need to delete it right now.. But looking back at the doug situation: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:(appsgolem.com)(360p)(00-06-07)(00-06-37)_WHO-TV_NBC_commercials_Septem.webm. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
 Keep - according to all available evidence, this was published without a copyright notice and without subsequent registration. SnowyCinema (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Look it says it here https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-202/section-202.2#p-202.2(c)(8)(ii) In the case of an untitled motion picture or other audiovisual work whose duration is sixty seconds or less, in addition to any of the locations listed in paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section, a notice that is embodied in the copies by a photomechanical or electronic process, in such a position that it ordinarily would appear to the projectionist or broadcaster when preparing the work for performance, is acceptable if it is located on the leader of the film or tape immediately preceding the beginning of the work.  REAL 💬 ⬆   19:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
So I'm assuming that means that there's a chance that post-1929 television commercials could fail simply because of how short they are, and because of the possibility that the master tape could include a notice in this manner (which would be nearly impossible for a layperson to prove or disprove). Shouldn't we include a notice about that in our {{PD-US-no-notice}} and {{PD-US-no-notice-post-1977}} templates? SnowyCinema (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
It is after November 1981 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-202/section-202.2#p-202.2(c)(1)(ii) "The provisions of this paragraph are applicable to copies publicly distributed on or after December 1, 1981"  REAL 💬 ⬆   22:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Hmm.. idk, I kinda agree with SnowyCinema a bit.
Also the problem is, are they "untitled"?
This only applies to post-1981 works 60 seconds or lower, not undoubetly public domain works over that such as the Arnold claymation short or works before that such as Fred the Baker.
But do we even need to find the mastertapes to prove if Energizer, Doug or Noid are copyrighted? Besides, many 1980s "public domain" commercials even after November 1981 are still on Wikimedia and possibly sold on DVD too.
So... Keep? ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
It is untitled or 60 seconds it doesnt have to be both also they put that in the law especially for commercials because companies kept forgetting to put a notice on them so you can't assume there was no notice  REAL 💬 ⬆   23:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Ik ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete Eveready Battery Co. v. Adolph Coors Co. ruled that this commercial is not public domain. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 17:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
@Nard the Bard: If so then this vote needs to set a precedent, and the license templates need to be updated with this information so that people don't add commercials like this in the future. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
Actually about that, no the lawsuit didn't really rule the commercial was "not public domain">
Despite the court stating federal registration there is no registration for any "Energizer" commercial before 1989: https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/search?page_number=1&query=%22eveready%20battery%22&field_type=%22keyword%22&records_per_page=10&sort_field=%22copyright_number_for_display%22&sort_order=%22asc%22&model=%22%22
Also despite that "ruling" it was more of a trademark issue and the parodier ended up winning due to fair use. There is indeed no notice on the work, but it may be under copyright due to December 1981 law for 60 seconds and under works. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
"In addition to its unchallenged (and therefore presumptively valid) statutory copyright registrations for two of its commercials, Eveready also has ownership rights under the Copyright Act in its unregistered commercials. See 17 U.S.C. § 302(a) ("Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation ..."); see also Hays v. Sony Corp. of Am., 847 F.2d 412, 415 (7th Cir.1988) (Copyright Act of 1976 "made federal copyright attach at the moment of creation ..." It doesn't matter if you believe the ruling is incorrect. The ruling is the law. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 02:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Well, do court decisions even change how copyright works despite research saying otherwise? If true, it only means for this commercial though and seems like a Twin Books case at best,
Besides most if not all TV Commercials made before November 1981 and all non-60 second visual media are still public domain in the US due to no notice or registration.
Also notices were still required until February 28th 1989, i don't know how a unregistered no-notice commercial is still under copyright before that unless it aired in 1989 and not 1988 but i'm not a lawyer so... ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Can you found some lawyer and ask him about this situation? SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
Not all lawyers know copyright law, and i can't afford one either.
So should we just keep it or delete it? ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Do you have an opinion to share about this situation? SnowyCinema (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
Hm. The main thing to me is whether it was distributed without a copyright notice. I can accept that they did not register this commercial with the Copyright Office, but that in and of itself does not mean that copyright was lost. Between 1978 and 1989, it does mean that if they failed to put a copyright notice on the work on distributed copies, that they could not recover the copyright, so it may be meaningful. The Eveready Battery Co. v. Adolph Coors Co court case mentioned did not specifically rule on this commercial; they noted that Eveready had obtained registration on a couple of other commercials and a trademark registration by then (1991), and in general ruled that Eveready did own copyrights on those and undoubtedly related items (obviously anything that came after March 1, 1989 was automatically still under copyright). The ruling was against Eveready on fair use grounds -- and it was rejecting a preliminary injunction, meaning it was not a final ruling, but only that Eveready was not likely to succeed in its copyright and trademark infringement arguments. The reasoning being primarily fair use, as it was a parody, recognizing the Eveready did own some copyrights at issue (the parody did not copy this commercial, but general elements from many commercials). The moment of publication is when physical copies of the commercial were sent to distributors, not the actual broadcast itself. If there was no copyright notice present on those copies, copyright was lost. A registration within five years was one required step towards clawing back the copyright, so at the time of the court case (1991) it couldn't have been definitively public domain, but the court did not look into the notice issue at all (there were clearly many other commercials which were protected).
Losing copyright for lack of notice requires that actual copies are distributed without a notice on them, not straight publication -- offering for sale is publication, but unless copies are actually distributed without notice, copyright is not lost (sort of a subtle additional requirement in the law clause which gives the conditions under which copyright is lost). Broadcast is not even publication, and is definitely not distributing copies, so you could not lose copyright through broadcast alone. (The Oscar statuette was deemed unpublished in a court case despite being broadcast for many years.) For motion pictures, the copyright notice did need to be visible on the title screen or a few other places. However, as quoted above: In the case of an untitled motion picture or other audiovisual work whose duration is sixty seconds or less, in addition to any of the locations listed in paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section, a notice that is embodied in the copies by a photomechanical or electronic process, in such a position that it ordinarily would appear to the projectionist or broadcaster when preparing the work for performance, is acceptable if it is located on the leader of the film or tape immediately preceding the beginning of the work. That means for commercials like this, the copyright notice only had to be visible on the physical copy used by the broadcaster, i.e. the physical copy actually distributed, and did not need to be visually present in the broadcast. Someone recording the commercial off of a broadcast would have no idea on that, either way. So what evidence do we have for lack of notice in the first place, given that possibility? Without knowing that, not sure how we can keep this. The PD tag given is more for print advertisements -- I think it would mean that a copyright notice on the surrounding TV program would not cover this, but given the explicit federal regulations from 1981, it means that we have to know if there was a notice visible to the broadcaster on the physical copy, not whether there is a visible one in the broadcast version. So for me  Delete on that score. That law likely makes it extremely difficult for us to presume that commercials like between 1981 and 1989 became PD, as that is near impossible to verify unfortunately. But, it is the law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
To be honest and in my opinion, TV Commercials before 1978 and 1981 are considered "Published" because they are techinally advertisements and have been sold on DVD for decades. They are pre-recorded and were fixed in a tangiable form.
For me, i would delete this because of the 1981 code of federations. All TV Commercials that were published without a notice before December 1981 are undoubetly in the public domain, if there's a notice it is copyrighted, but if before 1964 and not renewewd it's public domain.. Before 1976 is also undoubetly for commercials to be public domain.ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
The moment of publication for motion pictures became rather well defined through court cases -- see here and here. It was when copies left the original producers and were sent to the distributors. Actually showing a movie in a theater, or broadcasting one, were not "publication" by the definition in copyright law (either the statutory one from 1978 or the definitions the courts used prior to that). Thus, a broadcast from a single station, or a test showing or premiere of a movie where the actual reels were still under the producer's control, had not yet been published. But once copies of reels were sent to distributors, they were published right then, usually before broadcast or showings. So it was at that point that those copies needed to have copyright notices. For motion pictures, the placement of the notice was prescribed -- either the title sequence, or credits, or a couple of other places. So, you could judge based on what was shown or broadcast. For commercials though, which were very short and did not have the traditional title screen or credits sequence, and every second cost money, that was eventually deemed too onerous, and from 1981 notices on the physical copies were allowed to be enough even if not in the broadcast. So yes, virtually all such commercials were sent to distributors so they were all published. But to show "published without notice" is extremely difficult given that federal regulation. That is the critical part here, to me. They were undoubtedly published, and I'm satisfied that a registration was never filed, but unless we can identify actual physical copies without a notice, copyright may not have been lost and would be valid until 2084. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Yeah.
Again, the fedeartion notice on master tape is only for commercials made after 1981. So we still have loads of public domain ads.
But a court decision would have to affix the late 1981 for energizer.
So should we delete the commercial or..? I do research on TV Commercials copyright more often. So yeah. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Agreed for TV commercials before November 1981. We may need to tread a little carefully in that the pre-1981 situation was generally considered unfair and a judge may stretch to find a reason that copyright was not lost, but really the motion picture requirements were rather specific and you can't ignore those. There was a reason the regulation was enacted. And yes, pre-1964 commercials still needed a renewal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
@Clindberg
That is why i and 999real uploaded the first Wilkins and Wontkins commercial, since it was not renewed and it's from 1957.
Judges can be kinda confusing, but the lawsuit never told us. But it must be about the 1981 regulations. but we have many undisputed public domain 1950s commercials on Wikimedia preserved.
All i can say, we tread carefully and make sure to stay closer to pre-1981 uploads. A friend on discord told me Commercials are disposible and companies wouldn't care even if there was a vaild copyright on them. But it's safe to say pre-1976 commercials with no renewal and/or notice are 100% likely to be public domain and post 1976 and pre-1981 too if no notice or registration was found.
Also nice to meet you? Sorry i mostly research comic strips and not really commercials, but Wilkins and Wontkins' public domain status was the biggest discovery from last year and i wouldn't have done it without @999real to be exact. He's my best buddy. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
The judge in this court case was not even considering lack of notice arguments -- it was not a point of contention in that case so really was not ruled upon. It's technically possible that it was published without notice but evidence will be near impossible to come by, and I doubt the parties in that case cared. They would have needed to make that argument, along with whatever evidence, for the judge to actually rule on that aspect. In any event they did not copy from this specific commercial but aspects from many other commercials, most of which were 100% still copyrighted as being after March 1989. So really, that ruling has no bearing here, other than we know a couple of other commercials were registered, and a trademark did get registered. The copyright notice rules still applied to them; a judge would actually have to examine that aspect to make a binding ruling. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Changing my vote to  Delete given the 1981 ruling (even though the court case involving Eveready seemed to be irrelevant to this matter), but with the caveat that I really hope that the information in the 1981 ruling is included in the {{PD-US-no-notice-post-1977}} template going forward. And we may want to consider a number of other commercials we host for deletion on these grounds, including a handful of other ones I myself uploaded believing them to be in the public domain due to the lack of nuance in the template and other copyright documentation we have at Commons. I will be making sure to follow up on this matter if it's not done after this discussion. SnowyCinema (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Fred the Baker can stay because his commercials do predate the December 1981 federation. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
I'm stating to question this federation thing a bit.
I'm changing my vote to "Possibly Keep?" Because the law states "untitled Motion pictures" but this is not untitled. I could be wrong though ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Nafarroako Gobernuaren armarria (negatiboa).svg

apparently empty Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Not empty. It is white on a transparent background. Used in a template on eu.wikipedia. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Files by C. Markessini

Claimed to be own works, they have small sizes, lack EXIF, some of them look like they are screenshots. Delete as possible copyvios per the COM:PCP. --C messier (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

PS: there is a good chance that this account is related with G-Lignum (talk · contribs) (they uploaded images about the same persons and apparently from the same sources). C messier (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Yes, indeed Mr. C. Markessini is a close colleague and friend of mine. He is related with me on a professional basis. I do apologise if something is wrong. However, these specific (above-listed) images do belong to C. Markessini and nothing is wrong. G-Lignum (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
But, if there is problem, please delete them all. G-Lignum (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Diosdado Cabello 2025.jpg

Image taken from Twitter, no evidence of CC license ~2025-43574-13 (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

That's true, but given the fact that it's a photo from the official Con El Mazo Dando Twitter account (which is a talk show aired by Venezolana de Televisión, the government-owned television network), it should instead be marked as PD-VenezuelaGov Thinqpad (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Сеченова Мария Александровна (1).jpg

The claim that the portrait's author is unknown is incorrect. The author is listed in the file's stated source and in the 1958 issue of "Здоровье (Health)" magazine, from which it was borrowed, as "рисунки Д. Пивоварова (drawings by D. Pivovarov)". I couldn't find any detailed information about the artist, other than the probable middle initial: "Д. Д. Пивоваров". But I did find his drawing (a portrait of N. M. Amosov) on page 109 of "Наука и жизнь (Science and Life)" magazine, issue 2, 1965. That drawing, like this one, is marked with the stylized initials "Д П" and the date 1965 beneath them, leaving no doubt that the author was still alive in 1965. I also found references to the artist's sketches from the Great Patriotic War time. Consequently, his works will not be in the public domain in Russia until at least 2040 (1966+74). Yellow Horror (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Update: Д. Пивоваров = Дмитрий Дмитриевич Пивоваров (Dmitry Dmitrievich Pivovarov; 1908-1972) , photographer, artist, and printing technologist. During the Great Patriotic War, he was an artist and photojournalist for the front-line newspaper "Вперёд на врага (Forward at the Enemy)" . In the 1960s, an artist and senior engineer technologist at the publishing and printing house "Pravda" . Works under copyright in Russia until 2047 (1973+74).--Yellow Horror (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Haibet Alhalbousi.jpg

صورة لها حقوق  Mohammed Qays  🗣 18:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

could you source a reference where it stated that the image was copyrighted? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
@GuesanLoyalist الصورة ضمن الموقع الرسمي هنا وأعتقد عدل الموقع مع تطورات جديدة حتى هناك لاحظ في أعلى الصفحة موجودة وفي إحدى صفحات التنقل على الصفحة الرئيسة.  Mohammed Qays  🗣 09:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I now see it at the bottom of the page. "2024 All rights reserved", that should now be deleted off commons as the original author clearly still has all rights being reserved towards himself. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Doppelt.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since). If, as I suspect, it is below TOO, then that would not be a reason for deletion, just a need for clarification. Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Definitely looks below threshold of originality in Germany. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Plate, commemorative (AM 1986.124-1).jpg

the main design on the plate is a 2D work of art, was the copyright of the picture transferred to Auckland Musuem from the City of Gisborne? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep, the coat of arms dates from 1967 and is now PD in New Zealand (50 year protection). This plate is also on display at the museum, and caselaw from common law countries has specifically ruled that plates are covered (see COM:FOP UK where Commissioner of Taxation v Murray (1990) 92 ALR 671 (Australia) is cited) -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 01:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2020 Maine Democratic Presidential Primary election by county.svg

There's already a file for this (File:Maine Democratic presidential primary election results by county, 2020 (margins).svg). Thomascampbell123 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Необходимая поправка в отношении памятника Чапаеву (Волжская коммуна от 26.12.1934).jpg

False PD rationale while author's name is directly indicated on the image. No evidence of PD provided. Romano1981 (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Source is from the year 1934. What else could it be rather than PD? Lnogradski (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
Familiarize yourself with COM:Russia#Durations and try to calculate how many years could have passed, say, since the author's supposed death, if he lived at least 30 years after publication. COM:EVID also can help. Romano1981 (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

File:06 01 25 CollidingGalaxies WebbHubble 1877.jpg

Near-duplicate of File:Hubble & Webb- Galaxies IC 2163 and NGC 2207 ESA503090.jpg, in lower resolution with a watermark. We should keep only the other one. vip (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Zhongxxin (talk · contribs)

per COM:PCP – Low-res assorted-sized photos without EXIF metadata; the user was found to have taken images from RedNote, which blocks all crawlers.

0x0a (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  •  Delete per nom. --shb (t • c) 03:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Arabic Letters in Saudi Riyal Symbol.jpg

Copyright violation: this file is clearly a (slightly) modified visual taken from the official symbol guideline manual (see guidelines: https://www.sama.gov.sa/ar-sa/Currency/SRS/Documents/Guidelines.pdf ). The uploader is also known for repeatedly uploading copyrighted material and is currently blocked due to prior violations. JhowieNitnek (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

copying @ARABCREATOR7's reply here:
Good, at least I can respond here:
  • I created it myself, using the same style and colors as the guideline.
  • How can this be a copyright violation when it's a guideline for a national currency, which is in the public domain according to the Copyright law of Saudi Arabia because it's an "official document" by the Saudi Central Bank?
𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Saudi Riyal Symbol Usage Rules.jpg

Copyright violation: this file is clearly a (slightly) modified visual taken from the official symbol guideline manual (see guidelines: https://www.sama.gov.sa/ar-sa/Currency/SRS/Documents/Guidelines.pdf ). The uploader is also known for repeatedly uploading copyrighted material and is currently blocked due to prior violations. JhowieNitnek (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

copying @ARABCREATOR7's reply here:
Good, at least I can respond here:
  • I created it myself, using the same style and colors as the guideline.
  • How can this be a copyright violation when it's a guideline for a national currency, which is in the public domain according to the Copyright law of Saudi Arabia because it's an "official document" by the Saudi Central Bank?
𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

File:경중선 탄현역 구역사.webp

Appears to be from https://namu.wiki/w/%ED%83%84%ED%98%84%EC%97%AD?uuid=f3bec1ff-0d4a-4f87-8dab-a6045286fa54 ~2025-38142-24 (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Cowgirl compilation.webm

Creator request NudistPhotographer (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Museo Corralito de Villa Montes.webp

Image previously published at https://in.trip.com/travel-guide/attraction/gran-chaco/el-corralito-142635522?curr=INR&locale=en-IN and https://www.top-rated.online/cities/Villa+Montes/place/p/2673552/El+Corralito#google_vignette ~2025-38142-24 (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Post-1930 works by Helene Schjerfbeck

These post-1930 works are almost certainly not public domain in the US thanks to the URAA. The artist is listed as a member of Artists Rights Society, which means her heirs could be actively enforcing rights in the US.

Phillipedison1891 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

 Keep, in the absence of more explicit arguments. The author died in 1947, 79 years ago. The URAA clause for Finland is 70 years. Until when do you think the work is protected in the United States, and under what rule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pa2chant.bis (talk • contribs)
The works would have to have been public domain on January 1, 1996. The artist died in 1946, and the copyright law of the time granted protection up to 70 years after death. Therefore, the works were not public domain in Finland, and therefore were eligible for restoration of copyright. They will enter the public domain in the US 95 years after publication. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)