Commons:Deletion requests/2025/12/15

December 15

File:DBP 1994 1750 Gabriele Münter, A. von Jawlensky und M. von Werefkin auf einer Wiese bei Murnau.jpg

This 1994 German stamp shows a 1909 painting by painter de:Gabriele Münter (1877–1962). So it is still protected by copyright in Germany, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2033 (no URAA problem). Rosenzweig τ 10:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Meeting between Saddam Hussein and Hafez al-Assad in Damascus, Syria, 1979.jpg

The public domain claim relies solely on the photo being "created in Syria", but no evidence is provided that the work was first published in Syria or by a Syrian entity. The source is a modern online magazine whose place of publication is unclear and not demonstrably Syrian. As copyright is determined by country of first publication, the current PD rationale is unsupported. ~2025-35026-57 (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Photo was made in Syria and that is all what important in this case according to Copyright law; "This work was CREATED in Syria "
The PD rationale is supported because is the long-standing publication date for the Syrian copyright and place of creation itself (Syria). In this case, that's all that's needed. Algirr (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
While place of creation is relevant, Commons policy consistently relies on country of first publication, not merely where the photograph was taken. In this case, no evidence has been provided that the photograph was first published in Syria or by a Syrian governmental entity. The current source is a modern online magazine with unclear place of publication, which cannot retroactively establish first publication jurisdiction. ~2026-43964 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Commons policy consistently relies on country of first publication not necessarily, if I'm not mistaken, that depends on the country and some other things sometimes. Some countries protect works from the time of creation, while others protect works from time of first publication, and some rely on the life span of the author. Nakonana (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Also PD in Iraq. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 00:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
    There is no evidence that this photograph was authored or first published by an Iraqi governmental body. Simply depicting Iraqi officials does not establish Iraqi copyright status. ~2026-43964 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Orang Asli Museum 1.jpg

This image is a photograph of an official Malaysian government publication displayed in a museum.

The photographed material includes layout design, official text, and a signed message by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

The uploader is not the copyright holder of the underlying work and therefore cannot validly release it under CC0.

This constitutes a derivative work of copyrighted material, and no evidence of a compatible free license or public domain status has been provided. ~2025-35026-57 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Augustiner-Bräu

Per COM:Packaging. The bottles themselves might be utilitarian objects, the drawings on the labels are not. And while some of them might look "old", that does not mean they are actually old enough to be free of copyrighs. So the files should be deleted, unless it can be shown for specific drawings that their copyrights have already expired.

Rosenzweig τ 11:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)


Sad but probably you are right. Pansebert (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
The design with the crozier and the initials “J. W.” has been registered as trademark in 1887, see here and click forward to 1887. Hence, following two files can be kept: File:Weißbier.JPG, File:Augustiner edelstoff.JPG. BTW, from the same historical overview: the “Maximator” design is from 1950. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:06, 1 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.

File:Dr. Cavad Heyet (cropped).jpg

Copyright violation. Taken from the internet Yousiphh (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Dr. Cavad Heyet (cropped).jpg

No license since 29 June 2024. This image has been extracted from File:Dr. Cavad Heyet.jpg which was deleted 7 July 2024. Yousiphh (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:宮島口の地下道にある厳島神社に祀られている宗像三女神のイラスト（夏）.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Greenricegoddess (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

 Delete as the file has been uploaded in 2023, it does not qualify for courtesy deletion, but does seem to fail COM:FOP Japan. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per Yasu. It seems very new and is highly probably under copyright protection. Mzaki (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:宮島口の地下道にある厳島神社に祀られている宗像三女神のイラスト（秋）.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Greenricegoddess (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

 Delete as the file has been uploaded in 2023, it does not qualify for courtesy deletion, but does seem to fail COM:FOP Japan. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per Yasu. It seems very new and is highly probably under copyright protection. Mzaki (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:宮島口の地下道にある厳島神社に祀られている宗像三女神のイラスト.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Greenricegoddess (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

 Delete as the file has been uploaded in 2023, it does not qualify for courtesy deletion, but does seem to fail COM:FOP Japan. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per Yasu. It seems very new and is highly probably under copyright protection. Mzaki (talk) 17:05, 26 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.

File:GR and CY Merchant Navy 4th Engineer Officer Rank Insignia(Summer).png

It is a concept and it is not official. It was uploaded to test how it would appear on wikipedia. HEROW300 (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

 Keep: File is in use on el:Προσωπικό μηχανής and so should be kept under COM:INUSE. @HEROW300: remove the file from that article if you want it deleted here. --bjh21 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Kept: In use. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

File:GR and CY Merchant Navy 4th Engineer Officer Rank Insignia(Summer).png

It is not an official insignia, and it is not used. I uploaded to test how it would show and now I am requesting its deletion HEROW300 (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Stadtplan München von Gustav Steinlein auf Grundlage des Sandtnerschen Stadtmodells - Kreuzviertel.jpg

Urheberrechte verletzt, Kolorierung durch Gerhard Willhalm, Urheberrechte liegen bei mir. Bilder sofort entfernen GWillhalm (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Stadtplan München von Gustav Steinlein auf Grundlage des Sandtnerschen Stadtmodells - Hackenviertel.jpg

Urheberrechte verletzt, Kolorierung durch Gerhard Willhalm, Urheberrechte liegen bei mir. Bilder sofort entfernen GWillhalm (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Stadtplan München von Gustav Steinlein auf Grundlage des Sandtnerschen Stadtmodells - GraggenauerViertel.jpg

Urheberrechte verletzt, Kolorierung durch Gerhard Willhalm, Urheberrechte liegen bei mir. Bilder sofort entfernen GWillhalm (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Porcaro album plein vent.jpg

COPYVIO : photo of the cover of a recent book. Olivier LPB (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment As much as I support deletion, the file is COM:INUSE at several articles at French Wikipedia. Either they should be edited by removing this image, or if the DR is decided as a copyvio, they will be removed by CommonsBot. Btrs (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Stadtplan München von Gustav Steinlein auf Grundlage des Sandtnerschen Stadtmodells - Angerviertel.jpg

Urheberrechte verletzt, Kolorierung durch Gerhard Willhalm, Urheberrechte liegen bei mir. Bilder sofort entfernen GWillhalm (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, siehe . Ist halt die Frage ob die Kolorierung eine Schöpfungshöhe erreicht, so dass tatsächlich eine URV gegeben ist. -- Bwag (talk) 14:40, 15 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.

Files uploaded by Dmdldmdoke (talk · contribs)

Fake "own work" claims for pictures with unclear copyright status. Some are evidently copyvios, including those created by French photographer Michel Setboun , German photographer Horst Faas and some that were deleted before:

Please see also:

Files affected:

HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Dmdldmdoke (talk · contribs)

Very different images, from old to actual but they seem to all from professionals. So I really doubt the uploader ist the author.

Avron (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Flickr account "simpleinsomnia" and Siloepic (talk · contribs)

This is the "simpleinsomnia" Flickr account that just uploads old-looking photos without any additional information. At least it did before it shut down. We've dealt with it many, many times before. I've spot checked quite a few with Google Lens and TinEye and the only matches I can find are those that cite back to that Flickr account. Also, for what it's worth, the uploader of all these is a sockpuppet who was blocked on their other account for uploaded non-free media after being warned.

I know it is impossible to prove a negative, but I think we need a rationale for public domain that is a bit more solid that "it looks really old." Also, even for a public domain photo, a complete lack of source information means it has very limited educational value.

List of files

Phillipedison1891 (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep/delete discussion

 Delete most, if not all. Beyond copyright concerns, we simply have no context for any of these photos, which makes them very difficult to categorize and use. We can make some educated guesses - for instance, File:"On limits to occupation personnel" (12818640145).jpg is most likely from the post-WW2 occupation of Japan - but that's just a guess, and we have no way of validating those guesses. Omphalographer (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Too many to digest this quickly. The images became public when they left the custody of the creator and none would have been registered for copyrights or contained a copyright symbol, all required prior to 1989. They all appear to have come from Illinois based on the few I have researched so far. We have previously recognized creations as an {{Orphan work}}. --RAN (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@RAN: What are the sources for the "circa" dates that you're adding to some of these? Phillipedison1891 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
The same way every image gets an estimated date. We use visual cues and the known history of cabinet cards. An interesting historical fact is that photographs did not come with exif data. Digital date stamping didn't begin until 1990. If your worry that these images are from sooner than 1989? --RAN (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
I'm worried that it detracts from our collections' educational value when photos are dated based off of a hunch or from what ChatGPT thinks. There's nothing about this photo that is inconsistent with a 1930s or 1940s date. We only know that it's not 1900s or 1910s because of the radio. I have reverted that edit since there appears to be absolutely no basis for the particular 1925 dating. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
You do know what the "circa" means in "circa 1925", circa 1925 is not a synonym for "1925 dating". ChatGPT does not just assign a date, it rationalizes it by examining the clothing and home décor. It has access to billions of dated images. Every archive dates images in a similar manner, by décor and clothing and even the paper the image is printed on. --RAN (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
For copyright purposes, this is not at all sufficient. ChatGPT is not a crystal ball, and cannot reliably rule out scenarios like historical reenactments. Omphalographer (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I have withdrawn several files that meet both of the following criteria: 1. known publisher or photography studio 2. conclusively dated to before 1930. Thanks, DS. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

As a reminder, for images to be copyrighted in the US prior to 1964, they needed to register for a copyright, then renew that copyright. For up to 1989 you still had to display a copyright symbol, the year, and the name of the copyright holder. If you look through the copyright registrations you see a few images copyrighted each year, mostly identifiable iconic images. An amateur photographer and even a commercial photographer would not have paid a lawyer to file for a registration. Even the Associated Press did not bother--RAN (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC).
If the photos were not published, as is likely with amateur or family photos, they would not have to comply with any of those formalities, and the term of copyright would be counted under the 1978 Act. (Under the earlier regime, unpublished works were protected by "common law copyright", a ridiculous concept that the 1978 Act was meant to replace.) This means 70 years after the death of the photographer, or 120 years after creation if the identity of the photographer is unknown. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
USA case law have images "made public" (published), when they leave the custody of the creator, these images were found in the wild, not stored unseen in an archive since creation. --RAN (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing efforts

At the very least, this one is the work of John G. Brittingham, who was active in the 1880s and 1890s. DS (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
And this one is by Martin Shoemaker, who died in 1939. DS (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
And this one is the work of R. H. Mann, who was active in the 1880s. DS (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
1920 census says that R.H. Mann was running a hotel in Virginia, IL, so his photography career was almost certainly ended by that date. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure simpleinsomnia was trying to do archiving, and as such they added metadata to their images when it was easily available. Thus, for instance, I'm willing to accept that this is the front of a postcard whose back has a 1908 postmark. DS (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
And this one is by John Coleman Elrod (died July 21, 1891).
DS (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
And the metadata argument shows us that this one is from no later than June 26 1914. DS (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
This one is the 10251, which went out of service in 1962, and the background pretty much indicates that this is a train still in service (especially when compared to the photos taken in the National Museum of Transportation). "Taken before 1963" might not be enough to resolve the copyright issues, but it's useful metadata just the same. DS (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
@Phillipedison1891(don't forget the Serious Young Man one) DS (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Shoemaker was active at least through 1930, per your source. I'm not quite comfortable about that one. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
re: his date of death, you mean? FindAGrave entry for his daughter, citing a published source for him being a photographer of that name; FindAGrave entry for him, again citing a published source. DS (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Also, all those "flood damage in Lock Haven, PA" photos can be dated to the 1936 flood (the next big one was in 1972, which doesn't match the quality of the photos). As with the train pic, "from 1936" is useful metadata even if it doesn't resolve the copyright issues, and gives us a date for when the images can be restored. DS (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by SpeedyBlaster (talk · contribs)

Low quality images with no meaningful EXIF, apparently sized up from smaller images to have impressive sounding pixel sizes. Uploader is already blocked as a sock of User:Rang HD; another earlier sock account has a page full of copyvio notices at User talk:Assam Uploader, apparently having taken images from other people's Google Maps galleries, so this is likely to be more of the same. File:Rangia night view of the sky.jpg is visibly if blurrily watermarked in the image to "_the_mechanical_eye".

Belbury (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Adding two similar uploads by another already-blocked sock account, User:AssamKJB:
And from User:From AS-RNY (checkuser blocked on enwiki):
(Later socks of this LTA have been uploading copyvios of that same clock tower as recently as yesterday.)
Belbury (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

File:WhitneyHoustonNYC86.jpg

Photo from ebay, there is no provided evidence this was published without a copyright notice prior to 1989. Just because it was taken in the 80s does not automatically make it Public Domain. Unknown author, unclear publication date. Delete per COM:PRP PascalHD (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Whitney Houston 1985.jpg

Photo from ebay, there is no provided evidence this was published without a copyright notice prior to 1989. Seller description states the item is a 'reprint'. PascalHD (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Whitney Houston Grammy 1987.jpg

Photo from ebay, there is no provided evidence this was published without a copyright notice prior to 1989. Just because it was taken in the 80s does not automatically make it Public Domain. Unknown author, unclear publication date (likely from 1987). Looks to be a paparazzi/media type photo which almost certainly would have carried a notice on the slide, unlike publicity photos. Hard to verify without seeing the entire slide, front or back. Delete per COM:PRP PascalHD (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:BandeiraImperialDigitalizada.png

O material foi feito por IA e não quero ter conteúdo de IA postado aqui, visto que eu posso fazer manualmente. G05ST (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:TBP6223 72.jpg

Unlikely to be own work: metadata lists THOMAS BUCHWALDER as photographer. Uploader username could not be connected with this person, so VRT-permission is needed for the picture to remain. Btrs (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Автопортрет, 1963.jpg

Подложная рецензия. Автопортрет Виктора Георгиевича Ратникова 1923−1996 Трифонов Андрей (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Wotsits.JPG

A cheese puffs bag noncompliant with COM:PACKAGING. Bag contains graphic imagery of the puffs themselves. George Ho (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the original photographer, but I did upload a brightened version.
Normally I would agree with this, but it's highly questionable whether the textual content that dominates is above the (copyrightable) threshold of originality (as per {{PD-text}}).
And the image of the Wotsits themselves is arguably so small as to be de minimis here, particularly given the low quality of the photo itself. Ubcule (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Respecfully, I disagree with your assessment about de minimis here. The whole photo still centers on the bag itself, and even the "low quality" of the photo still doesn't Wotsits puffs irrelevant as the puffs themselves are part of the product, especially on the bag (and, well... outside the bag). Trivialising the puffs as "de minimis" is a lot to ask, IMO. George Ho (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  17:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Not only does the image arguably violate the rules, but the packaging is also not up to date; it has undergone many updates over the past decade. A good solution would be to focus on the puffs in the centre of the frame and have the packaging out of focus in the background. HardyNathan (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Mmm...forbidden crisps - Flickr - dan taylor.jpg

Gallery of product bags (in a vending machine) noncompliant with COM:PACKAGING, and COM:de minimis may be inapplicable. George Ho (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete. Clearly non-compliant.
 ⚙️ WidgetKid 🙈🙉🙊  17:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2025 Nobel Peace Prize Ceremony and Aftermath (Collage).jpg

Solicitud de eliminación del Collage por el propio autor al no ser del todo constribuyente como se tenía pensado desde un principio. SunsetRetro (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment: Translation: Request for removal of the collage by the author himself, as it is not entirely contributory as originally thought.
While the file is currently not used in projects, I'd argue that it still has COM:EDUSE. However, since the uploader is the one that is asking for its deletion, it can be considered a candidate for speedy deletion under COM:GCSD criteria G7. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Brasão de Feira de Santana.svg

O material é apresentado como obra de "J.Kassio", sem referenciar exatamente quem é o autor original do Brasão de Armas de Feira de Santana. Além do mais, o material não é livre de direitos autorais e é uma modificação fora do padrão oficial do símbolo heráldico, tendo em vista que adiciona elementos que não estão no Brasão original — vale lembrar que alterar um símbolo oficial pode ir contra a legislação vigente em diferentes regiões.

The material is presented as the work of "J.Kassio," without specifying the original author of the Coat of Arms of Feira de Santana. Furthermore, the material is not copyright-free and is a modification outside the official standard of the heraldic symbol, given that it adds elements not present in the original Coat of Arms — it is worth remembering that altering an official symbol may violate current legislation in different regions.

-GMota931 (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Bandeira de Feira de Santana - J. Kássio.svg

O material é apresentado como obra de "J.Kassio", sem referenciar o autor original do Bandeira de Feira de Santana. Para além disso, o material não é livre de direitos autorais e é uma modificação fora do padrão oficial dos símbolos vexilologico e heraldico, tendo em vista que adiciona elementos que não estão no Brasão original sem a devida autorização — vale lembrar que alterar um símbolo oficial pode ir contra a legislação vigente em diferentes regiões. Para além, tais alterações tem gerado o uso deste símbolo — incorreto — em detrimento do símbolo oficial (e que está na Commons, Bandeira de Feira de Santana.jpg).

The material is presented as the work of "J.Kassio," without referencing the original author of the Feira de Santana Flag. Furthermore, the material is not copyright-free and is a modification outside the official standard of vexillological and heraldic symbols, given that it adds elements not present in the original Coat of Arms without proper authorization — it is worth remembering that altering an official symbol may violate current legislation in different regions. Moreover, such alterations have led to the use of this incorrect symbol instead of the official symbol (which is on Commons, Bandeira de Feira de Santana.jpg).

-GMota931 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Gilles Aymard-autoportrait.jpg

Scope. Probably promotional. Self-portrait of a probably non-notorious person. Mussklprozz (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

 Keep French visual artist with Q-item d:Q99479591 available since 5 years. Image of person is suitable to serve in Q-item. VRTS permission has been confirmed. --Archie02 (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Gilles Aymard must be as a notorious person because he has done a very significant and remarkable work about architecture photography.
The self portrait load on commons has been launch from the web site of the artist. Laurent Simard (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Tara's Theme.ogg

Even being from the trailer, the sound recording may still be copyrighted. Also, the trailer itself is still not yet eligible for the project as the trailer may have been promoting a film re-release... Unsure about the trailer itself, actually. Still, should be undeleted in probably 2040... as a sound recording perhaps. George Ho (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The music comes from the original movie trailer. It was probably used in trailers promoting re-releases but the "Tara" theme definitely plays over the original trailer. It can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esI61sVrYYQ. I have no views on whether the theme is in the public domain or not, but if it is not then technically the Commons should probably not be hosting any film trailer if it cannot be reasonably established whether they are protected by derivative copyrights. If the decision is taken to delete I would appreciate it if it were transferred over to the English Wikipedia so I can attach a FUR and continue to use it. Would save me the hassle of re-uploading. Betty Logan (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Gone With The Wind 1967 re-release.jpg

This poster promoting 1967 re-release may have copyright notice. Well, hard to see, but I can see probably "Copyright 1967 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer" in the current revision. Also, the copy seen in IMP Awards also has a copyright notice on the lower-left corner. As copyright renewal registration isn't required for this poster per current US law, the poster is still copyrighted and should be undeleted in 2068. George Ho (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

 Keep "probably". No copyright mention = no copyroght as the licence says. --Cody escouade delta (d) 07:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
@Cody escouade delta: Seriously? The license tag doesn't mean squat, does it? I know the bottom portion is illegible, but I'm sure the poster contains copyright notice, despite otherwise. Also, the previous revision/image contains the copyright notice, despite the image's so-so resolution on smaller text. Pinging The helper5667 about the revision this user uploaded and what website/source the copy came from. George Ho (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Hopefully, this eBay listing has clearer photos of the poster itself, so you can see copyright notice on the lower-left corner (link). Much clearer than the IMP Award's copy. Still seeking clearer photos of the other (current) copy of the poster... George Ho (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
The one seen on eBay says "Copyright © 1968 – Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. All rights reserved." (well, in all caps, actually). I think I found better photos of this 1970 poster on Etsy (link). George Ho (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Says (in all caps) "Copyright 1970 by: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. All rights reserved." at the lower-right corner of that poster seen on Etsy. George Ho (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Very certain that the 1970 poster is the same as the current revision of this file. George Ho (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Request I have no view on the copyright status, but I note it was originally hosted on the English Wikipedia. It is used in several articles over there so can we transfer it back if the decision is made to delete and I will add a FUR. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
 Keep The person submitting the image doesn't have enough evidence to confirm that it's copyrighted. In case of doubt, we'll keep it.--Clodion (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
What do you mean not "enough evidence"? What about a copyright notice (unless you think it's not a notice), and why is it insufficient? What about, per COM:US, Coypright Act of 1992? I don't need to search for copyright registration of this poster, do I? George Ho (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
I mean, the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. Wait... in when do you think was the romantic painting (of Scarlett and Brett) used for the poster first published? (Still finding copyright registration....) George Ho (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)