File:Government worker terms connotations quadrant US.svg

Keep. This image is my own work. Coordinate data associated with graphs is inelligible for copyright. Uhoj (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ixocactus says that this is a copyright violation in this edit.

First, it's obvious visually that my image is different from the one in the source. So, it's not a literal copy. I redrew the entire thing and changed it to make it easier to read than the source's version.

Second, the data that I used from the source isn't subject to copyright.

Charts, graphs, and tables are not subject to copyright protection because they do not meet the first requirement for copyright protection, that is, they are not “original works of authorship,” under the definitions in the Act.^[1]

Uhoj (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Compare to the original found here. It's the same graph, just with a slight change in font and line thickness. And despite Uhoj's claim above, that applies to scientific graphs. What it's saying is that the data cannot be copyrighted. This is not a graph of data; it is an illustrative figure, and a creative work by its author, not merely recording measurements. Commons:Threshold of originality describes how most graphs and charts are not copyrightable because they are just organizations of data, which in turn are discovered, not created. Three is zero indication that this chart is the result of measuring word frequencies or the like. It is purely an idea, that did not exist in the world until the author conceited it, and therefore is copyrighted. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

that applies to scientific graphs.

"Scientific" is a generic term that applies to all fields and domains of knowledge.

Three is zero indication that this chart is the result of measuring word frequencies or the like.

Data are data, regardless of whether they are correct or not. Therefore, this rule encompasses this graph as well.

it is an illustrative figure, and a creative work by its author

The illustrative work was not copied. Only the arrangement of the words was. The placement of these words conveys information, regardless of its accuracy. And no one owns the data or information that these words' arrangement represents.

The placement of these words on the graph was not intended to be beautiful. The photo was included in the book not for aesthetic purposes, but for educational ones--to illustrate the data compiled by the author in an easy-to-represent format. The intent was to represent data, not art, and it has an informational value -- it represents information whether we or the author likes it or not. Super ninja2 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

These are good points. Do you have any thoughts on a graphic summary of the source that would clearly avoid copyright concerns?

By the way, I'm kind of confused that in one place you're arguing that it's not verifiable, but here you're arguing that it's a copy of a source. These seem to be mutually exclusive positions. Uhoj (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I was saying in your edit it was not sourced. As in, lacking an inline citation. Without a citation, a reader will look at it and won't be able to look it up themselves, hence unverifiable for the reader, even if you and I know where it comes from. I've explained this to you multiple times.

As for avoiding copyright concerns, perhaps using a table form, a 2x3 table with rows being "Term for bad government" and "term for good government", and columns being "left" "center" and "right". And, of course, citing the source work. I don't think that will make it belong in the article you referenced, but if it's relevant somewhere else, I think that would be sufficiently removed from the original work to not be at risk of copyright. EducatedRedneck (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to suggest an alternative format. Unfortunately, a table fails to capture the liberal-conservative ordinate.

These arguments about copyright are plausible, but incorrect. The law applicable in this case is that of the United States. You say that my argument only "applies to scientific graphs". The word "scientific" appears nowhere in 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) which says:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

That this extends to non-scientific and non-statistical information should be apparent from Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.

What we have here is an idea / facts represented by placement of terms on a quadrant chart. The idea / facts are not protected. The phrases are commonplace, and thus ineligible. A quadrant chart is entirely conventional, and so is likewise ineligible. That leaves exactly none of the content of the source chart protected by copyright.

The arguably creative features of the source are things like font choice, text alignment, specific (rather than relative) text placement, and style of arrows. All of these have been replaced with my own work.

If you want to be ironclad about this, I could remove some of the terms from the chart so that the choice of terms is also my own. Uhoj (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

First, trying to interpret law is fraught with peril. For instance, tomatoes, a fruit, are legally a vegetable. Plain reading doesn't guarantee accuracy. Second, my contention is that scientific graphs aren't copyrightable because they're representations of data, and the data cannot be copyrighted. That does not apply for this figure. You cited Feist v Rural, but even in that ruling, it was noted that the "spark of creativity" which is copyrightable is in the choice of what data to include or exclude, which is the entirety of this figure.

This figure is not a graph, it is an illustration. A graph represents data on axes, typically in the form of data points (x, f(x)). What is this chart's data? What measurements does it report? None. It's an illustration. Why were those terms included and others not? Because some judgement, some "creative spark" made this so, and that spark is what is copyrightable. And furthermore, per the precautionary principle, the image should be deleted because there is significant doubt about its free state. Removing parts of it, or replacing the phrase, similarly don't change its copyright status per Commons: Derivative works.

I think you should use the table like I described, because it does capture the liberal-conservative ordinality. That's what the columns are: liberal, centrist, and conservative. If you want to parse it more finely, consider far left, left, moderate left, center, etc. Perhaps it loses some granularity, but then again, it's not exactly precise to begin with, is it? That's my whole argument about copyright; it's not just a representation of data, it's an original idea expressed in an original illustration. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning in detail. I see where you're coming from, but lack the expertise to evaluate further. Hopefully someone will come along who's encountered this situation before and give us a definitive answer about both the current version and the idea of presenting it as a table. Uhoj (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep. ineligible for copyright because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship Super ninja2 (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig This discussion appears to have been removed from the deletion log. What is the process for bringing it to a close? Uhoj (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Uhoj: This discussion is still part of Commons:Deletion requests/2026/01/04, so it was not completely removed from the deletion log. --Rosenzweig τ 19:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Statue of Nikolai Vatutin in Kyiv

The statue was completed in 1948 by sculptor Yevgeny Vuchetich (1908–1974) and architect Yakov Belopolsky (1916–1993). There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2064

• File:80-382-0091 Памятник Ватутину.jpg
• File:Ватутін. 2010.jpg
• File:Генерал Ватутин - panoramio.jpg
• File:Оскверненный пямятник генералу ватутину в киеве.jpg
• File:Пам'ятник Генералові Ватутіну - panoramio.jpg
• File:Пам'ятник генералу армії М. Ф. Ватутіну 01.jpg
• File:Пам'ятник генералу армії М. Ф. Ватутіну 2.jpg
• File:Пам'ятник генералу армії М. Ф. Ватутіну IMG 5437.jpg
• File:Пам'ятник генералу армії М. Ф. Ватутіну IMG 5440.jpg
• File:Пам'ятник генералу армії М. Ф. Ватутіну Київ Грушевського Михайла вул., Маріїнський парк.JPG
• File:Пам'ятник генералу армії.jpg
• File:Пам'ятник генералу Ватутіну IMG 2836.jpg
• File:Пам'ятник генералу Ватутіну.jpg
• File:Памятник генералу Ватунину (246930501).jpeg

A1Cafel (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

"On 11 November 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine removed the status of monument from the grave of Vatutin that was still existing at the feet of the then already removed monument in order to comply with 2023 derussification-laws."

So the monument do not even exist anymore, this images preserve history, should not be deleted. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 23:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton the monument being removed or destroyed does not magically erase the sculptor's copyright on it. You may want to test it yourself: create a small-scale model (3D) of the same monument (in exact design), then sell it in Kyiv. Should the heirs of the sculptors complain vs. you, then it means the copyright still exists, even on destroyed artworks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

That is what you are affirm, not seeing any Ukraine law saying that. Moreover, we are an education community, not a capitalist one. We do not work for copyright companies. We should advocate for education, not for property. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 02:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton that's for Wikipedia only. Wikimedia Commons does not only serve Wikipedia; it serves every commercial reusers. Not only the so-called capitalist companies, but also small-scale professionals and commercial reusers like website developers, professional photographers, postcard makers, YouTube and TikTok vloggers, and for-profit travel and tourism portals. Read again COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. Images "for use on Wikipedia only" are not acceptable as limiting commercial reuses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Nein, advocate for education and be an education community is the rule for all the Wikimedia Movement, not only Wikipedia, if you do not know the basic, how can you contribute? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 22:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

 Delete, commercial FoP is not allowed in Ukraine. Wikimedia Commons cannot accept images that have no independent economic value that is being dictated by the Ukrainian law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

No proof of this allegation has been delivered.

No data about deleted, demolished, held,... art copyright of Ukrainian law. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 22:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Monument to the 1991 Barricades (Riga)

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Latvia.

• File:Barikaades1991.JPG
• File:Barikazhu piemineklis Vecriga.JPG
• File:Riga 2008 25.jpg
• File:Rīga, barikāžu piemiņas zīme pie Saeimas 2007-01-22 - panoramio.jpg
• File:Saeimas namā pulcējas 1991.gada janvāra barikāžu žurnālisti 2024.gada 20.janvāris - 34.jpg

A1Cafel (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:FOP_Latvia&redirect=no

• Another of the many, many examples of knowledge lost on the Commons Project.
• Permission can be obtained from the owner(s)/ creator(s) of monuments, sculptures and artworks should be requested in counries with Freedom of Panorama (FOP) that prohibit use on here on Commons.
• I suggest that their be a proctive effort to obtain permission from monument "owners" by Commons volunteer editors. This could be similar to the Commons:Volunteer Response Team, but with a coordinated proactive effort to identify and contact owners of monuments, sculptures and artworks for permission to use on Commons.

-- Ooligan (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Media without a license: needs history check

Author died in 1975, Undelete in 2046.

• File:Szabó János Udvard (Maczkó 1928) 01.jpg
• File:Szabó János Udvard (Maczkó 1928) 02.jpg
• File:Udvard visszatérte 1938 (Maczkó Sándor Budapesti Hírlap).jpg

Abzeronow (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

What is the source for the year of death of Sándor Maczkó? Taz (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but where is the claim about death year 1975? Or any biographical data about Sándor Maczkó? Taz (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

For the first two images: is Sándor Maczkó even the author of those poems? The way I'd interpret the Google translation of the text it seems that the author of the poems is Szabó János (1872–1928) (because the headline says "from the headteacher" and the line about Sándor Maczkó says that Maczkó "collected" the poems and wrote them down "from memory"), so it seems that János authored them and Maczkó merely wrote them down as remembered after János died? Nakonana (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, you should use better translator. The author is Sándor Maczkó, he wrote it to the memory of János Szabó deceased teacher. For Sándor Maczkó again: what is the proof that it's the same person? Vet Sándor Maczkó born in 1930 in Kisvárda. The amateur poet lived in Köbölkút (Gbelce, Czechoslovakia/Hungary now Slovakia). It's very unlikely that it's the same person, because the poet was a farmer, not a teacher. The teacher's family had to flee from Munkács (Mukačevo) in 1944 and they return to Jászapáti. So if Raáb Klára was mother of the veterinarian, then this date of death is not connected to the author of the poem. The person in newspaper from 1947 is maybe an another SM... I would be happy to know another biographical data about the author, but yet I can't find any which is verifiable related to him... Taz (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

As for Sándor Maczkó, what I'm able to find is a document/file on a person of that name who appears to be the son of Sándor Maczkó —father and son had the same name. The son was born in 1930, so he definitely can't be the author, and as for the father, he worked in schools and education which would fit the "headmaster" statement. In this document it is also mentioned that the family had left their home due to the Soviets, and only returned in the 1940s, which matches this 1947 newspaper about a Sándor Maczkó returning home. Furthermore, the document on the son also mentions the mother's name (wife of Sándor Maczkó senior): Raab Klára. The couple Sándor Maczkó and Raab Klára are mentioned in another document/file where biographical data on both of them is given: 1.1. RAÁB KLÁRA, Klárika (Pallagpuszta 1900 már. 6 Szolnok 1979 jan. 15) f. Maczkó Sándor (Nagykálló 1896 dec. 29 Szolnok 1975. jan. 15). So that's where the year 1975 likely came from. Nakonana (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Synagogue in Xanthi in 1993 - Elias Messinas Archive.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no permission (No permission since). Are there any actual evidense that this isn't an own work? C messier (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@C messier: Archive can mean pretty much anything. From a collection of different found from different sources photos about a topic/interest to a collection of photos that were taken by the author/original uploader themselves. In any case, that was the reason why I asked for clarifications regarding the copyrights status. Unfortunately, through the present deletion request, my query was ignored or diminished at best, and turned into a discussion starting on the wrong ground... 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 09:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

A discussion can give the uploader much more time to respond about the source of the photo. The tag you added means it would be deleted in 7 days because there was no permission from the source to be uploaded with a compatible license, not to clarify the nature of the source. C messier (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Apparently the Elias Messinas archive is from the page here, so now it is really doubious to be an own work. C messier (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

File:北京城市轨道交通线网图.png

This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Visas of Turkey

Per COM:TURKEY and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Front face of a Turkish work permit.jpg, the work of Turkey Government is copyrighted. So the visas are copyrighted. As for PD-text, I think the texts on the visas are over TOO and not applicable for public domain.

• File:Turkish eVisa.jpg
• File:Turkish Visa cropped.jpg
• File:Turkish visa.jpg
• File:TurkishVisa20Eur.png
• File:Török vízum 2008.jpg
• File:Türk vizesi 2014.jpg
• File:Visa for Turkey with entry and exit stamps.jpg
• File:Visa-turkey-1989-israel.jpg

Hehua (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

IMHO:

• File:Visa-turkey-1989-israel.jpg is clearly {{PD-text}}, so  Keep
• File:Visa for Turkey with entry and exit stamps.jpg - text, simple graphic elements, contrary to the reporter I don't think it passes TOO, so  Keep
• File:Türk vizesi 2014.jpg, File:TurkishVisa20Eur.png - I agree,  Delete
• File:Török vízum 2008.jpg, File:Turkish visa.jpg, File:Turkish Visa cropped.jpg basically only contain text the Turkish emblem, which we consider PD (see: File:Emblem_of_Turkey.svg), possibly some simple graphic elements. Again, I don't think it passes TOO, so  Keep
• File:Turkish eVisa.jpg - the text itself might be copyrighted, so it's a  Weak delete from me. --Botev (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your points. I just found the Too in Turkey is relatively ok per COM:TOO Turkey. Hehua (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep for: File:Turkish visa.jpg, File:Turkish Visa cropped.jpg, File:Visa for Turkey with entry and exit stamps.jpg, File:Visa-turkey-1989-israel.jpg - they only contain machine printing typefaces and stamps with simple facts such as personal name or entry dates, that are hardly be called "the characteristics of its creator".

 Weak keep for File:Turkish eVisa.jpg: basically computer typefaces with texts that are too simple to show "the characteristics of its creator". "Disclaimer" and "PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!" might be a problem, but we can maybe blur them out, or maybe keep them for other reasons, like nothing artistic there and cannot see "the characteristics of its creator"?

I agree. If you blur "Disclaimer" and "PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!", it will definitely be {{PD-text}}. --Botev (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

 Weak keep for File:Türk vizesi 2014.jpg: anything except the stamp at top left are just too simple to be copyrightable (aka, "show the characteristics of its creator"), but I am not sure how to deal with the stamp at top left.

The overall design - isn't it copyrightable? --Botev (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably not? But the stamps on the upper part might be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

 Weak delete for File:TurkishVisa20Eur.png and File:Török vízum 2008.jpg: While the text won't be a problem of copyvio, their background images may would. I don't know where the background from, but if unknown, it may be in danger of delelation because of COM:PCP.

BTW 還真的要互煮喔 XD --Saimmx (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

This comment is from @Wcam on w:zh:Wikipedia:檔案存廢討論/記錄/2026/01/03 he thought that the anti-counterfeiting pattern and layout design on visa stickers could be considered as artistic graphic works and should be  Delete. Thi is related to File:Visa for Turkey with entry and exit stamps.jpg and may be File:TurkishVisa20Eur.png, File:Török vízum 2008.jpg. Hehua (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Then why not File:Türk vizesi 2014.jpg? But IMHO this should be evaluated on case by case basis - if the pattern or layout is too simple, it's not copyrightable per {{PD-simple}}. My points made above stand. --Botev (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe so. Unfortunately, it looks like he won't be joining us for the discussion. Hehua (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Козлов Георгий Савельевич.jpg

Man born in 1883, died in 1937 can not be original own work of 2022. Original author? Date? Source? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, he's wearing an early 20th-century (pre-1914) uniform of the Russian Empire, so that it's likely that the photo was taken over 110 years ago. It would be soon PD-old-assumed, or, if it was published around the time it was taken, it might be PD-RusEmpire. Nakonana (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Noise a health risk (Deutsches Museum München) 01.jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted content (drawing). ~2026-69220 (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. OP is a single-purpose account focused on deleting images by an established editor. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (Wikipedia talk · Global contributions · he/him) 01:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Einverständnis der Leitung Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit des Deutschen Museums zur Veröffentlichung (Email) liegt vor.

Deutsches Museum confirmed agreement with publishing of the picture via Email. Wikitarisch (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Do they own the copyright? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Noise a health risk (Deutsches Museum München) 05.jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted content (drawings and icons on the left). ~2026-69220 (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. OP is a single-purpose account focused on deleting images by an established editor. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (Wikipedia talk · Global contributions · he/him) 01:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Einverständnis der Leitung Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit des Deutschen Museums zur Veröffentlichung (Email) liegt vor.

Deutsches Museum confirmed agreement with publishing of the picture via Email. Wikitarisch (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noise a health risk (Deutsches Museum München) 04.jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted content (drawing/map, icons). ~2026-69220 (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. OP is a single-purpose account focused on deleting images by an established editor. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (Wikipedia talk · Global contributions · he/him) 01:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Einverständnis der Leitung Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit des Deutschen Museums zur Veröffentlichung (Email) liegt vor.

Deutsches Museum confirmed agreement with publishing of the picture via Email. Wikitarisch (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noise a health risk (Deutsches Museum München) 06.jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted content (drawing/map. Icons). ~2026-69220 (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. OP is a single-purpose account focused on deleting images by an established editor. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (Wikipedia talk · Global contributions · he/him) 01:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Einverständnis der Leitung Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit des Deutschen Museums zur Veröffentlichung (Email) liegt vor.

Deutsches Museum confirmed agreement with publishing of the picture via Email. Wikitarisch (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noise a health risk (Deutsches Museum München) 02.jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted content (drawing, map, icons). ~2026-69220 (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep. OP is a single-purpose account focused on deleting images by an established editor. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (Wikipedia talk · Global contributions · he/him) 01:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Einverständnis der Leitung Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit des Deutschen Museums zur Veröffentlichung (Email) liegt vor. Wikitarisch (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder, please email our permissions verification team (VRT).

→

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

File:桃園客運 063-FX (1).jpg

桃園客運 063-FX (1) Wei Ting Hsu (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:桃園客運 KKB-3109.jpg

File:桃園客運 KKB-3109.jpg Wei Ting Hsu (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:桃園客運 KKB-3108 (車前).jpg

File:桃園客運 KKB-3108 (車前).jpg Wei Ting Hsu (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:桃園客運 KKB-3108 (車尾).jpg

File:桃園客運 KKB-3108 (車尾).jpg Wei Ting Hsu (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:桃園客運 FAD-692.jpg

File:桃園客運 FAD-692.jpg Wei Ting Hsu (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:桃園客運 KKA-3989 (原車牌 510-U7).jpg

File:桃園客運 KKA-3989 (原車牌 510-U7).jpg Wei Ting Hsu (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:中壢客運 621-U7.jpg

File:中壢客運 621-U7.jpg Wei Ting Hsu (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:中壢客運 987-FP.jpg

File:中壢客運 987-FP.jpg Wei Ting Hsu (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:中壢客運 619-U7.jpg

File:中壢客運 619-U7.jpg Wei Ting Hsu (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:中壢客運中壢總站 697-U7 20230823.jpg

File:中壢客運中壢總站 697-U7 20230823.jpg Wei Ting Hsu (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Sky Cinema Drama HD - Logo 2021.svg

No image Papertop (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Unclear reason for deletion. File seems fine. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

  And PD-textlogo.  Keep if notable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Grant of Carron coat of arms.svg

It says to open a regular deletion request to dispute Speedy Deletion. The source actually says that it is free to use and share by anyone. See here: https://wappenwiki.org/index.php/MyWiki:General_disclaimer, here: https://wappenwiki.org/index.php/How_to and here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ . Can someone please clarify how this can be incompatible with Commons ?QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Mglisty jesienny poranek nad Mostem Groszowym.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Plozessor as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copy of a stock photo from 2020, cropped, rotated by fractures of a degree and darkened (probably to hide its source); it cannot be taken with exactly same leaves in 2022|2=https://depositphotos.com/ru/editorial/opole-poland-oct-2020-old-bridge-city-early-morning-fog-423721278.html DR for better documentation. ~Cybularny ^Speak? 16:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

 Delete as copyvio: previously published photos cannot be licensed as Own work. Ankry (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

In its current state, it should be removed; however, the matter of the 1,000 PLN prize should also be clarified. Igor123121 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Our task as Wikimedia Commons community is to remove copyvio files. What to do with a WLM prize winner whose work seems to be a copyvio will be an independent decision of Wikimedia Poland, not Commons community. ~Cybularny ^Speak? 18:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I confirm that I am the author of the photo 'Misty autumn morning over the Penny Bridge.jpg'. You can find the original RAW file at the link below as proof. The date in the description was a mistake; I uploaded the photos for the Wiki Loves Monuments contest from another computer where I only had edited versions without EXIF metadata. Link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j9Yf4Ouu2EDphVblUnGUyRQ93pHi5e_5/view?usp=sharing Henryk Niestrój (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The RAW file that @Henryk Niestrój provided seems to prove that he is the photographer of this image (and the image on Depositphotos). Plozessor (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Wappen Gemeinde Oldershausen (Marschacht) neuer Landkreis Harburg 1932.jpg

Kein eigenes Werk, aber wohl ohne Schöpfungshöhe. Es ist gleichwohl zu klären, ob das Wappen jemals offiziellen Status hatte. Falls nichtː out of scope GerritR (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Die Grafik habe ich selbst erstellt um eine bessre Qualität zu haben, nach Vorlage des "Kreiskalender Landkreis Harburg 1954" der Autor damals war Werner Ahrens. Manuela Reinbold (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Das ist ein Hinweis auf (ehemals) offiziellen Status, aber m. E. noch nicht ausreichend. Ich kann mir gut vorstellen, dass auch inoffizielle Wappen Eingang in einen Kalender finden können. Im Zweifel wird man sich dafür gar nicht interessieren, wenn es um die Gestaltung eines solchen Kalenders geht. M. E. ist anderweitig zu belegen, dass es ein offizielles Wappen war. GerritR (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 01.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 02.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 04.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 05.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 07.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 08.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 10.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 11.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 12.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 14.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 16.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 17.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 19.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 18.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Noche de pasarela callejera en La Paz, Bolivia 21.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Andrefloresok (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:HAVO 20230607 ZOOM LAVA LAKE VIDEO J Wei (52958609814).webm

just an image (bug?) Prototyperspective (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo del Equipo.jpg

Redundant to File:Logo del Rayo Zuliano.png. Jonteemil (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Платон Васильевич Черняев.jpg

The author is unknown, so it cannot be said that 70 years have passed since the author's death. The date is incorrect. GAndy (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Manuel Massotti Escuder (1890-1981) portrait.jpg

The source flickr account has only 3 images. Can we trust its statement that it is Public Domain with this record. Leoboudv (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hola Leoboudv, esta imagen en concreto cuenta con los permisos correspondientes para ser utilizada sin ningún problema en Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 2.0). No entiendo el motivo por el que un número de imágenes puede hacer que una imagen que tiene permisos para ser utilizada. La imagen tiene los permisos correspondientes y debe de ser dejada. Además la propia imagen cuenta con licencia de dominio público: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Manuel_Massotti_Escuder_(1890-1981)_portrait.jpg. Saludos, Hard (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Delete I checked at Template_talk:PD-Spain-photo#Photos_before_1962 to be sure I understood the copyright terms correctly. If a simple photo it would be PD because the copyright expire after 25 years. But studio portraits are usually considered "works" so the photo is still copyrighted in Spain and therefore also in the US. --MGA73 (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
•  Keep I am not seeing anything special to make this beyond a "simple photo". There is no costuming or special posing. If the law was to protect all commercial photography, it would have been worded that way. See: File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg where a work has special lighting and special posing, and is beyond a simple photograph. --RAN (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)