Commons:Deletion requests/2026/03/12

March 12

File:Joe Sims CPUSA.png

Footer of the source website reads "Licensed under Creative Commons" but does not specify the conditions or version of the license, thus making it an inadequate release. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 02:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment the website have contact section, you can write letter to them to clarificate CC license. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:StatueSaloméUreña 2021-12.jpg

The VRTS permission only applies to the photo; there is no evidence that Alex Beckenkamp was the sculptor.

There has been no valid Freedom of Panorama in the Dominican Republic since March 2007, when the 2006 CAFTA-DR amendments came into effect, restricting FoP to personal uses of architecture and artworks. The plaque/marker indicates it was installed as a tribute from the Ministry of Culture in 2011, with no named sculptor. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Santo Domingo - Ciudad Colonial 3010.jpg

This is the same statue as that of Commons:Deletion requests/File:StatueSaloméUreña 2021-12.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Antonio Flores.jpg

Probably not own work, added elsewhere without license clear CoryGlee (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

What's the reason for your suspicion? As the photo is COM:INUSE, it probably shouldn't be deleted unless you can find a source that predates the upload. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Monumento a los Héroes del 30 de Mayo

There has been no valid Freedom of Panorama in the Dominican Republic since March 2007, when the CAFTA-DR-US-compliant revision to the copyright law took effect. The revision restricted FoP to personal uses of images of anything permanently seen outdoors. As per the category description, the monument dates to 1993. The sculptor died in 2003.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Fam Haisma.jpg

Source is mistaken about the author, Andrys was apparently born in 1953 and was webredactor of the source website. From what I can find, he seems to be a collector of old pictures rather than the photographer. For now we have no information on the real photographer, 1938 is way too recent for {{PD-old-assumed}} and given the nature of the picture anonymous work as soon will be assumed by uploader, is highly unlikely. Jcb (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Tresoar (Centre for Frisian History and Literature) should have made two things more clear. (1) Andrys Stienstra is indeed the person who made this photo digitally available, but not the original photographer. E-mail from Tresoar to me earlier this week, 9 March 2026 (3 days before this DR): "in het verleden [werd] bij 'maker' dan niet de maker van het oorspronkelijke werk ingevuld maar de maker van de reproductie" - Tresoar was already correcting these mistakes in their databases and will also correct this one. (2) The source license is not correct. Tresoar noted CC-BY-4.0, which evidently should be PD-anon-70, in line with Article 38: 1 of the Dutch Copyright Act - as the name of the photographer is unknown. Tresoar e-mailed me today this will also be corrected at the source. I will change both in the description of the image in Commons. Vysotsky (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I knew that you would play this card again, but there is no evidence at all that this would be 'anonymous' work. Jcb (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh, and this one is recent enough for the URAA monster as well... Jcb (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
 Comment License at source corrected to PD. Vysotsky (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Still made up, based on a mistaken interpretation of Dutch copyright. Jcb (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

File:UlbevanHouten.jpg

Unknown copyright situation. Source website states that the copyright situation has not been evaluated. The stated 1900 is obviously incorrect, given that the depicted person was born in 1904. This picture must be from the late 1920s or 1930s, way too recent for {{PD-old-assumed}}. No indication at all that this would e.g. be anonymous work. Jcb (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The stated 1900 is indeed incorrect. As the source had no year, I intended to put 1920s, as I did in the caption of the photo in Ulbe van Houten. As Van Houten was born in 1904, his time as a soldier in the Dutch Army must have been somewhere in the 1920s. This photo was either made by an army photographer or a friend or family member, but is in any case unknown. Therefore Article 38.1 of the Dutch Copyright Act applies. This photograph is in the Public Domain. I will correct the year in the description. Vysotsky (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Please stop misusing this law article. The article is about 'anonymous' work, not about situations where we don't know who the photographer was. There is no indication at all that this would be anonymous work. Jcb (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
 Comment License at source corrected to PD. Vysotsky (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Still made up, based on a mistaken interpretation of Dutch copyright. Jcb (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/204247713@N06

Flickrwashing. New flickr account with only these photos

Gbawden (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

These files were made available under CC-BY-SA by their respective photographers, who are different individuals from the subjects pictured. The Flickr accounts used to upload these images were created specifically for this purpose, which may explain why they appear as new accounts with limited activity. This is a common practice when authors wish to release their work under a free license for the first time.
I would like to understand the correct process to verify and substantiate the CC-BY-SA licensing claim for each of these files. Specifically:
  1. What documentation or evidence is required to demonstrate that the photographers have authorized their respective images under CC-BY-SA?
  2. Is a written statement from each photographer submitted via the OTRS/VRT ticket system sufficient?
  3. Are there alternative verification methods accepted by Commons in cases where the uploader and the copyright holder are different individuals?
I am willing to coordinate directly with the photographers to obtain the necessary permissions documentation. Please advise on the appropriate steps to proceed.
Hrishikesh.kb (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Al Akhawayn Campus.jpg

Morocco doesn't seem to have FoP: Rockfang (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Reformationsmonumentet

The monument was completed in 1943 by Max Andersen (1892–1972). There is no freedom of panorama in Denmark for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2043

A1Cafel (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Editoratlargemd (talk · contribs)

Wildly different exif data, resolutions, style. Very unlikely all own work.

Gikü (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:1961-10-23-Auguri-Buon-Compleanno-01.jpg

Not freely licensed. Derivative work of a Disney 1959-1961 copyrighted work. The illustration has a copyright notice at bottom right: © W.D.P. ~2026-15712-91 (talk) 11:22, 12 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.

Files uploaded by Henrimpetiet (talk · contribs)

Very unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Obviously not OK, deleted. Yann (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Henrimpetiet (talk · contribs)

2 have sources like Caserne des Pompiers, Avignon (France) / Program for the Avignon Theatre Festival 2012 - I don't think the own work claim of the other 2 is valid

Gbawden (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:GovertKlaske1943.jpg

No author information, unknown copyright situation. 1943 is way too recent for {{PD-old-assumed}}. No indication at all that this would be anonymous work, as uploader will soon assume below. Therefore Article 38.1 of the Dutch Copyright Act does not apply.. Jcb (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This one is also so recent that the URAA monster applies. Jcb (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep You seem to take delight in this. I'd like to stick to the facts. I maintain my position that Article 38.1 of the Dutch Copyright Act applies, as established by a Dutch Court Case (appeal) in 2020. First line: "Foto’s die meer dan 70 jaar geleden anoniem zijn gepubliceerd, zijn niet meer auteursrechtelijk beschermd." ("Photographs published anonymously more than 70 years ago, are no longer protected by copyright".) The same position is stated in the last (5th) edition of the Dutch handbook Auteursrecht (2025). I would gladly lend you my copy. Regarding URAA: I fail to see how an unknown photographer could go to a US Court to claim his or her copyright, but that's another matter. I dare say the license {{PD-anon-70-EU}} is perfectly fit for these photographs that are not under Dutch copyright any more. Vysotsky (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Again, anonymous is NOT the same as unknown. You seem to keep ignoring that on purpose. Jcb (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
No, I did not ignore that. You apparently didn't read the court case I mentioned above. The case was about postcards without a notice of the photographer visible on the card, so the photographer was unknown to the archive. The archive published the postcards online in good faith. In Dutch juridical terms, "unknown to the archive" is called "anoniem". (Van Dale: Anoniem: naamloos, wiens naam of waarvan de naam niet bekend gemaakt wordt; [...] zonder ondertekening.) I will draw attention to this discussion in the Dutch section in Commons ("De Kroeg") to get some feedback on this topic. Vysotsky (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
That court case is not applicable to this file. This does not seem to be a postcard and even if it would be a postcard, the backside is missing. Jcb (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
We should cite the entire Article 38:
Het auteursrecht op een werk, ten aanzien waarvan de maker niet is aangeduid of niet op zodanige wijze dat zijn identiteit buiten twijfel staat, vervalt door verloop van 70 jaren, te rekenen van de 1e januari van het jaar, volgende op dat, waarin de eerste openbaarmaking van het werk rechtmatig heeft plaatsgehad.
Translated:
"The copyright on a work, of which the creator has not been mentioned, or not in a way that clearly reveals their identity, expires after 70 years, calculated from January 1st after the year of publication."
So the Dutch copyright has expired. Wikiwerner (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
This would only be true if you can show that the creator did not reveal their identity at publication. In this case we have no indication that the creator was anonymous at the time and also we do not know of any publication before 1956, so we cannot use this article for two reasons. Jcb (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I traced the photo back to the original source at Tresoar. This organisation (preserving Frisian cultural heritage) states in the metadata of the photo: "Auteursrechtbepaling: geen auteursrecht (publiek domein); Vervaldatum auteursrecht: 2014 ca. PD conform art. 39 van de Nederlandse auteurswet" - {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. Vysotsky (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Meaning that they had the same misunderstanding about this article as you. You tried to find support in the NL village pump for your misinterpretation of Dutch copyright, which you didn't get. Jcb (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Ans
It would take a long time to address all misinterpretations ("crucial point photo being not published") and sideways (Karel Appel was a known painter; FoP is no issue here) in that discussion. Main point: I can't see how a copyright statement about PD on the website of an institution of cultural heritage can be labelled as a "misunderstanding". And that's an old discussion where Jcb has been proved wrong in the past. Vysotsky (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Nobody has 'proved' me wrong so far when I respond to your mistaken view on Dutch copyright. So far you have be unable to show any evidence that this would be anonymous work. Jcb (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)'=
I am not mistaken re Dutch copyright. I referred to the Dutch Copyright Act, the verdict in the Court Case (applicable to both postcards and photographs) and the handbook Auteursrecht (2025), all mentioned above. In Dutch juridical terms "unknown to the archive" is called "anoniem". I rest my case. Vysotsky (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
No, that's simply not true. 'anoniem' means that the author did not make their identity known. In the case of this picture there is no indication of that. If the information gets somehow lost, that doesn't make it 'anoniem'. And no, your court case does not apply to this file. Jcb (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
 Comment License at source (Tresoar Archive): Public Domain. Vysotsky (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Still made up, based on a mistaken interpretation of Dutch copyright. Jcb (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

File:John Wolcot (Peter Pindar). Stipple Wellcome V0006343.jpg

This poor quality scan is superfluous to its two constituent parts, File:John Wolcot (Peter Pindar). Stipple engraving by Roberts aft Wellcome V0006343ER.jpg and File:John Wolcot (Peter Pindar). Stipple engraving by W. Ridley, Wellcome V0006343EL.jpg. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:FrançoisVatel.png

The source, creator, dating of this engraving is unknown. It may not even depict Vatel and it is certainly not an authentic depiction. Its educational value and copyright status are unclear. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 14:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Comment. File is in use across multiple projects. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Kollegah (2025).jpg

This deletion request also applies to:

I do not think that the image was taken by the real uploader or was ever published under a free licence. When we take a look at matching images on the web I doubt that the uploader is the author. The image was posted to facebook on 2025-10-12. It was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on 2025-12-03. The list of uploaded files all have the same style and are mostly limited to that artist. It looks like your classic copyvio account that uploads a few copyvios only for the user never to be seen again. Another example would be Felix Blume "WEEK OF LEGENDS".jpg that was painted by the person in the images (Felix Blume) and can also be found on facebook with no indication about it being published under a free licence. Yet the uploader claims the source to be their "Own work" and claiming themselves as the author ("Wikinavigator.00") --D-Kuru (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

May also need to be deleted:
These images have the same problem(s) and the are also more than likely copyvios.

Either the uploader has a huge plethora of high quality cameras from different manufacturers (Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, SONY ILCE-7M4 and ILCE-1, FUJIFILM X-T5, NIKON Z 9) that they seem to use like single use cameras and also uses different software to develop the images or (in my opinion much more likely) the images are just stolen from somewhere. --D-Kuru (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

(C): Felix Blume (Kollegah)
(C): Mert Bayer (Zymba)
Wikinavigator.00 (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
1) To which files you are referring to?
2) The main question is what the person's intend was and what rights they have. Usually people do not share their works for them to be published under a free licence - it also must not be assumed as such. If the images were taken by somebody else (eg. a photographer) they usually only sell the customer the right to use and not to relicence the image. We have to be very specific here.
--D-Kuru (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Gaia20ehk-sky-dss-best.jpg

DSS is copyrightː https://gsss.stsci.edu/Acknowledgements/DSSCopyrights.htm Lithopsian (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:On This Day… 1776 Ben Franklin.jpg

Per COM:AIIP. Also, quite low quality: there are misgen issues in the clothing, and the face has weird folds and shadows that don't make sense. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep this represents a notable work by Darren Aronofsky, On This Day… 1776. Numerous news outlets have highlighted/complained about how ugly/creepy the renditions of historical figures look (ex. Gizmodo uses this image as the first illustration), so this is “the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources” and therefore not a violation. Dronebogus (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete As the own uploader (author) has said in the past "If it’s AI it’s slop" ;-) (citation here). Additionally this is a low quality creepy image, never used and we have lots of Benjamin Franklin art pictures to ilustrate any article. --Willtron (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
1) I am not the author; you clearly didn’t read the file description; 2) ignore anything this person says or nominates about AI files I have uploaded, I nominated their AI images for deletion and now they’re on a revenge nominating spree. Dronebogus (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak  Delete, for the same reasons as the Washington one, only not so strongly here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep This isn't "some Wikipedian tried to generate an image of Ben Franklin", it's a still from a famous AI-generated movie by Darren Aronofsky. Satisfies AIIP by being a notable work depicting real people. The movie is very bad (I made it through all of two episodes), and famous more for its negative reception than anything, but notable nonetheless. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Once again, if it's here on the basis of being a screenshot, are we absolutely sure that we have the rights to do that? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
AI has no copyright in the united states Dronebogus (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per Dronebogus and Rhododendrites; also, the nominator's quality concerns are irrelevant here (they might be pertinent for using this image as an illustration for an article about Benjamin Franklin, but not for e.g. illustrating an article about the film itself). Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Setzer Robelet.jpg

Liegt eine Einverständniserklärung des Urhebers Bundeswehr/Sebastien Robelet vor? Berlinschneid (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Chris Campbell photo.jpg

Suspected Copyright Violation. File is present on https://www.composerchriscampbell.com/about, and is also present on this page in the wayback machine from prior to the date of upload to Commons: upload date to commons was in Mar2026, and this picture is present on the Dec2025 snapshot of the page. Only a suspected copyvio, as I do not see copyright marks on the source webpage. Uploader of this image to commons added "photo credit" in en.wiki on a caption of this image that the picture may be from an individual named Aaron Rice, see diff here. Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:057 AStyle Novo Lagovo OSM.png

Street naming is old. AStyle (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is in use. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment File needs updated licensing templates for OSM. I don't have time at the moment to fix. But  Keep due to COM:INUSE. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Speedy keep We keep historical maps. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Official portrait,2025.jpg

no permission for depicted portraits and copyright violated MinRv (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m LiLi Tokyo Dreamgirl,herself. I took the picture by myself.That’s my selfie. I have rights for my pictures. ~2026-15811-43 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
 Comment the above comment appears to be regarding File:LiLi Tokyo Dreamgirl.jpg and not the portrait of Manjinder Singh Sirsa marked for deletion applecuckoo (he/him) 04:45, 13 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.

Files uploaded by EYo237 (talk · contribs)

User with bad history, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 00:49, 7 August 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 EYo237 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: personal certificates of (Wikimedia) course completion.

Omphalographer (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by EYo237 (talk · contribs)

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:BUCHANAN-Nat 2.JPG

Per the COM:PCP and the URAA - there's a few decades during which time this plaque could have been erected which would make it public domain in the USA. Without knowing when, exactly, it was published, we can't be confident that it didn't have its copyright restored. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)