Wikimore

The simple pictograms are probably below TOO and the posters I presume to be de min; not sure about the text Dronebogus (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Pictograms are below TOO. Texts are a mere listing of facts (requests and notices from the customs authority), and thus not eligible for copyright protection. The posters are of course copyrightable, but could be de minimis. At last, it's not a FOP case because this is taken in the customs inspection area not open for the general public (FYI, taking photos is prohibited in this area; this does not affect deletion decision in Commons). Mzaki (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Kunigas Alfonsas Svarinskas.jpg

Recent photo; no indication of claimed CC license at source url Renata3 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Old photo, not recent - from the 1990s when Svarinskas was in Parliament. It was only recoloured far later. Impossible to find CC license at source url, because it's a cropped-out part of a screenshot.--+JMJ+ (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

PS: ordinariatas link was dead anyways, so the previous source was untraceable, actually +JMJ+ (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete No evidence at the source of release in the public domain, and an image created in the 1990s would not be in the public domain in the U.S. unless explicitly made so by the copyright holder. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Albert Lantonnois van Rode.jpg

Early 20th Century Belgian photograph, would need more information to determine when this was published and by whom. Abzeronow (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep The image appears to have been from his funeral card, and there is no attributed photographer. {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} --RAN (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

So earliest known publication is currently 1934. I can agree that it is public domain in the EU though, US might be a different story if 1934 is when it was first published. Abzeronow (talk) 03:37, 1 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:辽宁职业学院（Liaoning Vocational College）校园内拍摄的校园风景 05.jpg

图片作者希望删除 Laddzhao (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

File:辽宁职业学院（Liaoning Vocational College）校园内拍摄的校园风景 05.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment, uploader's request which uploader claimed they "do not have the rights", but at the same time they indicate it is their "own work" when uploading, and image do have proper EXIF. I would have support deletion based on the quality (bad tilt), but the image is COM:INUSE in zh-wiki. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:喀喇沁左翼蒙古族自治县 07.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:喀喇沁左翼蒙古族自治县 11.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:喀喇沁左翼蒙古族自治县 103.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:喀喇沁左翼蒙古族自治县 106.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:喀喇沁左翼蒙古族自治县 111.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:辽宁职业学院（Liaoning Vocational College）校训1.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:辽宁朝阳站 03.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:24, 28 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.

File:五家子村 02.jpg

Photographed by the original author, requesting the removal of this image, thank you. Laddzhao (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep This is an old upload, so "author request" is not a valid reason for deletion. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep per PaterMcFly. This is a CC0 photo from 2021, and it looks like it's legitimately own work; it's simply been on Commons too long to delete per author request. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 23:21, 14 June 2023 (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:五家子村 02.jpg

That is not your house, right? So how is that your location information? Laddzhao (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What's your point? This photo was taken from a public road, anyway, wasn't it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Kept: per discussion. --Krd 06:15, 26 December 2024 (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:五家子村 02.jpg

Images will not be used Laddzhao (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 00:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

File:五家子村 02.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep in scope +CC licenses is non revokable SomeFancyUsername (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Zhaolinyang, Did you create this image? Kadı Message 21:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:BVB Bus Mercedes Sprinter.jpg

Doubt this is user's own work. Looks like a PNG screenshot cutout on a white background LuvsMG481 (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:外国人雇用管理士公式テキスト.jpg

Uploader requests deletion because the file contains unintended GPS metadata (location information). A corrected version without EXIF data will be uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugar ws (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Simulació artística de Medina Laqant.png

Misleading Ai-generated historical illustration 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 06:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep currently in use at ca:Història d'Alacant. I don't know whether it's misleading and you only claimed so. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep The deletion rationale ("misleading AI-generated historical illustration") is unsubstantiated and does not hold up against Commons policies.

The file is actively in use at ca:Història d'Alacant, which under COM:INUSE automatically qualifies it as educationally useful and within scope, regardless of any other consideration. Policy explicitly states: «it does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value».
The file has clear and documented educational value. It depicts the medieval Islamic city of Madīnat Laqant (present-day Alacant) in the 12th century — an encyclopaedic subject of undeniable historical relevance. Commons defines "educational" in its broad sense as "providing knowledge; instructional or informative", which this illustration plainly satisfies.
The file fully complies with COM:AI. It clearly discloses its AI-generated nature in the description, includes the complete prompt, identifies the software (DALL·E 3 via ChatGPT) and the human author, carries the appropriate categories (AI-generated images including prompts, Images generated by DALL-E 3), and uses both the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence and the {{PD-algorithm}} tag. A file that meets all transparency requirements set by COM:AI cannot be deemed "misleading" solely because it is AI-generated.
The "misleading" claim is unproven. The nominator has provided no specific evidence that the image deceives viewers. The burden of proof lies with those proposing deletion. The file title itself reads "Simulació artística" (artistic simulation), and the description explicitly explains its creation process. Thousands of human-made historical illustrations on Commons depict medieval cities and scenes without direct archaeological evidence — none are considered "misleading" merely for being artistic reconstructions.
The image is grounded in peer-reviewed archaeological scholarship. Both the prompt design and the subsequent GIMP edits are based on the archaeological description of the medina published by Rosser Limiñana (1990, page 28). This makes it an informed artistic visualisation of a documented textual source — no different in nature from a human illustrator working from the same bibliography.
No applicable deletion criterion exists. Reviewing Commons:Deletion policy, the file does not fall under any recognised grounds for deletion: it is not a copyright violation, it has no missing licensing information, it is not illegal content, it is not self-promotion, and it is not an educational-value-free private snapshot. "Misleading" is not a standalone deletion category under Commons policy.

Conclusion: the file meets all applicable policies (COM:INUSE, COM:AI, COM:SCOPE), is transparently labelled, educationally grounded, and actively used in a Wikimedia project.

The deletion request should be closed as kept. Joanot Martorell ✉ 17:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete I simply do not trust AI to produce reliable educational illustrations, period. Dronebogus (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't care what you do trust or don't. We must fit works to Wikimedia Commons policies. Period. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 07:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Applying policy without regard to context and common sense is w:wp:wikilawyering Dronebogus (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Correctly applying policy is not wikilawyering, it is exactly what we are supposed to do. If the policy is flawed, the way forward is to propose its reform, not to disregard it in individual cases. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 08:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep Not misleading: it clearly says it's "concept art". TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Mankaiti7,09 (talk · contribs)

Possible COM:COPYVIO. All files were uploaded in 2020 and labeled as "own work". Images appear to be screenshots or scans of other previously published images from newspapers, internet, etc. The original authors and copyright status of all images are unclear.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 06:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:لقاء اعلامى مع الدكتورة امل سليمان فى مهرجان الايادى الذهبية.png

This file was initially tagged by Dyolf77 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10
Can somebody with Egiyptoin backrgound find out which TV chanel this is. eventually we can keep it because of the tv channel. Sanandros (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Sutha Chansaeng Thai Sang Thai Party meeting 2022-11-27.png

copyright violation KaiserO5 (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Mana Mahasuweerachai debating Supplementary Budget Bill 2567 6 August 2024.png

copyright violation KaiserO5 (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Sasinnan Thammanithinun Senate Committee Law Justice Human Rights Meeting 69 2025-10-22.jpg

copyright violation KaiserO5 (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Nuttapong-Premphunsawad-Thai-House-budget-bill-2569-first-reading-investment-budget-debate-2025-05-28.png

copyright violation, The original authur was not uploaded this video with CC license. KaiserO5 (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Thissana Chunhavan holding vape-like device in Thai Parliament building.png

copyright violation, The original authur was not uploaded this video with CC license. KaiserO5 (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Pongphan Yodmueangcharoen House-Committee-Commerce-Intellectual-Property Meeting 2023-10-30.png

copyright violation, The original authur was not uploaded this video with CC license. KaiserO5 (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Phetcharat Maichompoo Decentralization Committee Parliament 2025-11-18.png

copyright violation, The original authur was not uploaded this video with CC license. KaiserO5 (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Poldet Pinprateep Senate general debate 2024-03-25.png

copyright violation, The original authur was not uploaded this video with CC license. KaiserO5 (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Woraphop Wiriyarot Budget Administration Committee Study Visit Chumphon-Ranong 2025-11-10.png

copyright violation, The original authur was not uploaded this video with CC license. KaiserO5 (talk) 08:02, 28 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.

File:Image 3904 1300 hankyu kyoto line.19r.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Belbury as no source (No source since)

Based on some data entry errors, the presence of metadata and zero hits by reverse image search, this is most likely the uploader’s work (I’ve cleaned up the description and source a bit). Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

消すべきである。まほろば大阪 (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete nevermind, uploader is requesting deletion. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Image 3904 1300 hankyu kyoto line.19r.jpg

大きすぎてじゃままほろば大阪 (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo-Dr-Nermeen.png

اريد حذفة نظرا لاجراء تعديلات علي اللوجو Reda2030 (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

اريد حذفة نظرا لاجراء تعديلات علي اللوجو Reda2030 (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:شعار موقع صدى البلاد.png

اريد حذفة نظرا لاجراء تعديلات علي اللوجو Reda2030 (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of Afghanistan (1826–1840).svg

I, as the creator of the file, nominate this file to be deleted. As its dates are inaccurate, it has been replaced with a newer version: File:Flag of Afghanistan (1823–1839).svg AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I can see no difference in the images. Is there one? If the filename was inaccurate, we could have handled that more easily by renaming it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Sadio Mane Al-Nassr.jpg

لأنها صورة فيا روح XOB30 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Fares Awad.jpg

لأنها صورة فيها روح XOB30 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:صورة ابو فلة.jpg

لأنها صورة فيها روح XOB30 (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:ابو فلة.jpg

لأنها صورة فيها روح XOB30 (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

لأنها صورة فيها روح XOB30 (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ленинградская - panoramio.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. The sculpture is apparently modern. Taivo (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep no sculpture depicted, just an actual decommissioned airplane mounted on something that is the result of engineering and/or architecture — things that are not protected by copyright or are covered by FoP Russia. A "monument to technology". Keep per similar case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Памятник авиагруппе «Русские витязи» в Кубинке.jpg. Nakonana (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Brunswick House.png

Tiny (164x127) excerpt from File:Saint John, NB, skyline at dusk3.jpg. Not in use and no indication of being useful. GeorgR (de) (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Zhenshang, Xinhua, Hunan, China 2016012313.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in China. This is a noticeboard for an enterprise named "New Agriculture Warehouse" (新农仓), including information such as the company profile, address, person in charge, and contact details. Huangdan2060 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Sign of Guangming Butterfly Valley in Bairuopu Town of Changsha.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in China. This is the artistic sign of the tourist attraction Guangming Butterfly Valley (光明蝶谷). See also: Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Noticeboards and signs: "As a rule of thumb, detailed informational and educational noticeboards/signs, such as the ones that are often found at historical or tourist sites, are almost always copyright-protected and photographs of them cannot usually be accepted. Noticeboards may include graphic images or extended textual matter, or both, and copyright is likely to subsist in both. 2D-artwork is included in the FoP copyright-exception in most FoP-countries, but not in: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Brunei, Canada, China." Huangdan2060 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Ahinsa jain (talk · contribs)

Apparently erroneous AI-generated soil maps of India, with no clear source of the data, just a description of "based on my crop soil map". For example, nearly all other maps of soil in India show black soil encroaching on Telangana and reaching the east coast (eg. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Major-soil-map-of-India-Maps-of-India-2021_fig1_356823522), which this AI map does not.

Belbury (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Apparently you're right. Can I upload a new version. Ahinsa jain (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If you can make or find an accurate accurate map, sure, please do.

Commons already has an existing map from 2013 which may serve your purpose: File:Major soil types in India.jpg Belbury (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Can I use the research gate map as a reference? AI will copy colors but create file based on svgs (from commons). Ahinsa jain (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If you credit it (and its author) as being the reference, yes. Belbury (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I've uploaded the corrected version. The best I could get. Ahinsa jain (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If these new versions are based solely on the ResearchGate map, they don't match it particularly well (eg. the AI map shows Gujurat as just black soil and a large amount of desert, while the ResearchGate map shows five different soil types including very little desert).

I don't know what prompts or other data sources you're using for this, but it looks as if this is a task that this particular AI cannot perform accurately. Belbury (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've started a pprocess by which labels are there for each district. Now I will manually provide the soil data for each label.

Also a district map with name hovering on it. Ahinsa jain (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Soil map.svg has now been replaced with a lowish quality automatic SVG conversion of the ResearchGate map I suggested comparing it to above. That map doesn't appear to be freely licenced, though: "Content may be subject to copyright." You can use a map for general reference, but you can't just copy it directly. Belbury (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

My district level mapping of all districts is complete and now I'm in creating a hoverable soil svg.-Ahinsa jain (talk) 09:18, 9 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 Ahinsa jain (talk · contribs)

Apparently AI-generated descriptions of images ("text was given to AI and allegories were decoded"). How an AI interprets something is out of COM:SCOPE, and there are clear errors in which parts of the image are being indicated.

Belbury (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The source images are File:William Blake Enoch Lithograph 1807.jpg and File:Hermes Io Argus.jpg. The added text interprets both pieces of artwork as referencing Hindu and Buddhist religious principles; this seems pretty wildly implausible. Omphalographer (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Φωτογραφία - Π. Π. Λάμπρη-.jpg

Θέλω να διαγραφεί, διότι πίστευα πως θα ανέβει στη σελίδα που θέλω να φτιάξω με το όνομά μου ως συγγραφέας, αλλά δημιουργήθηκε κάτι ανεξάρτητο. Γι' αυτό σας παρακαλώ να γίνει διαγραφή κι ελπίζω να καταφέρω να συνθέσω τη σελίδα που θέλω, Ευχαριστώ πολύ! Παναγιώτα Π. Λάμπρη (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:United States Reports, Volume 244 Page 2.djvu

This is just page 2 of File:United States Reports, Volume 244.djvu. I don't see how this file could possibly to useful to anyone. ToxicPea (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Antonio Isauro Alzate Buenafe.svg

File is a bishop's coat of arms template with a blank shield, containing only the prelate's motto. Potentially out of scope or fictional as it may not actually depict Buenafe's coat of arms (indicated source has no blazon or reference image). Is this only a placeholder? P-JR (talk) 16:20, 28 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 found with Special:Search/Bettmann Archive photographs 1964-1989

Continuing from Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Bettmann_Archive_photos. All photos nominated here are post-1963 US images, ranging from 1964 to the 1980s. These photos claim to be in the public domain due to 'lack of notice' using the {{PD-US-no notice}} template. However, there is little to no proof of that.
My main concern is not that we are violating the copyright of a stock site, but that there is not enough proof these images actually meet the PD no-notice tag criteria. I am not denying they were published, rather the 'no notice' claims are hard to prove and assumptions are being made here.
The first problem is that we cannot see the entire print, sheet or strip to verify the lack of notice claims. The copyright notice would not be on the photo like a watermark; it would be elsewhere. Getty only shows the high-resolution scan of the front. An example of an image that shows no notice, this UPI photo: File:Senator Ross Bass "On the Job!" (1965 UPI press photo).jpg, can be seen on the rear. Most of these photographs from the Bettmann Archive could very well be public domain, but without seeing the whole photo or its backside where a notice might be, its copyright status is uncertain. Assuming it's public domain without further verification is risky.
The second problem is that almost all photos are credited to an 'unknown author.' How are we supposed to know who took the photo? Otto Bettmann was the collector of these photos, not the creator or copyright holder, and neither is Getty. Many photos come from various sources and creators, and I did see some that are credited to UPI, a press agency, so perhaps other copies exist elsewhere. This is also problematic for photos from 1978 and later, as we cannot really search for registrations.
For pre-1964 photos, we can search for renewals, so it is not the same concern as with the 1964-1989 photos.
Essentially, any and all photos could be Public Domain, but there is a serious lack of evidence to back up those claims. I am making this mass DR as I have doubts on the freedom of these files, but also for a consensus. What do we do with all these photos? There are millions more in the archive that could be useful to the Commons. Would love to hear others opinions on this.

PascalHD (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment Leaving the discussion that has been used in a previous deletion request pertaining to the archive and the license: w:Talk:Mike_Mansfield#Picture. reppop^talk 22:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete Undoubtly some of these photographs are probably PD. Its always questionable when a website mass posts, or a user mass uploads, files and expects other people to do the footwork of finding out what the copyright of said images is. That's not our job and it should be done BEFORE they are uploaded and made clear in the images description beyond just the boiler plate liecense. Especially since some of these images clearly looked cropped and there's no images of their back sides. So how are we even suppose to figure out if they have a copyright on them to begin with? We aren't. Therefore we must delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Quite frankly this argument is retarded. Erm, there might be a posible violation even though there is no evidence. There is no evidence it's copyrighted, let's not waste our time on hypotheticals and make this site worse. So let's Keep. KlaudeMan (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
@PascalHD It's been over two weeks and it's 4-2 in favor of keep so I think we should close now. KlaudeMan (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this is something we should consult legal about in absence of a consensus to delete the images. As I don't think a local consensus from 4 people to keep images can or should override the wider policy (if not mandate) that we only host images that won't potentially lead to re-users getting sued. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
My main issue is that the argument is pure hypothetical around the possibility of the copyright being secretly in grandmas coffee can. There is no evidence to suggest copyright, so all this is doing is ruining Wikipedia just so for a hypothetical. KlaudeMan (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
@KlaudeMan I have provided my reasoning for my concerns; it is up to you to read it. I understand and agree that these images are valuable to the site. Given the large number of images from the collection, and valid concerns, I am seeking a community consensus to establish a precedent on how these images should be handled. I believe that would be the best approach before mass uploading the hundreds of thousands of images off Getty. As much as I dislike it, copyright needs to be taken seriously, not shrugged off. PascalHD (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but from what I remember the nominator laid their reason's for the DR pretty well and none of them had to do with someone's grandma or a coffee can. Regardless, 99% of this has never been tested in court. So it's all hypothetical to some degree. That's not a valid excuse to keep any given set of images though. Nor do I think we should keep images simply because people like you can't be bothered to address or acknowledge the actual reasons for the DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The coffee can thing was just a joke, there is no evidence to verify it to be in the copyright so we can assume it to be in public domain. The only evidence of posible copyright would be on paper hidden away in a library, or well grandmas coffee can. KlaudeMan (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think its the opposite though. If someone uploads an image where we don't the date of publication, author, country of origin or if it was even published to begin with then we usually (if not always) delete it. There has to at least the basics and they clearly don't exist in this case. Heck, we don't even know what country a lot of these photographs were taken in. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The simplest solution might be attempt to track down a physical copy of one of these images, as most likely the copyright of that image would be the same as those of all in the betteman archive. KlaudeMan (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I imagine this would work best for the UPI photos part of the collection. Some of the photos on Getty show the text on front, like this one, but not the back. However, the example photo I linked above for Ross Bass shows what a typical UPI photo looked like including the back. Checking ebay and reverse searches could find other copies. Library of Congress also mentions that UPI 'had few photos registered', some might have carried notices. UPI photos would likely be upload-able with some due diligence. With that being said, not all photos in the Bettman collection are from UPI. This logic would not necessarily apply to the other photos. Majority of the photos nominated for deletion make no mention of UPI to begin with. PascalHD (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1 That sounds like a good idea. Wouldn't hurt to get further opinions on this. PascalHD (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep - I will quote an email from Getty that someone sent in relation to a past discussion on this topic

"Thanks for contacting us about an image that may be in the public domain. Public domain works can be used by anyone for any purpose without permission from the creator or copyright holder. This is distinct from the rights of any people or property depicted in the image. Where these rights exist, they will not automatically expire because the copyright for the image is in the public domain. Public domain content can be licensed by any image provider and there are benefits to doing so.

The advantage of licensing public domain content from Getty Images is that you gain legal protection under terms of our license, giving you an indemnity against any third party asserting rights to the copyright in the image. If you can find this image in the public domain and are comfortable with the quality of the image you find, and using it without a license, you can make the judgement call to do so. We can only make the version of this image on our website available by purchasing a license. Whenever using intellectual property of any kind we encourage you to consult with your legal team to ensure you're completely comfortable with doing so."

The copyright holders are unknown and Bettmann does not own the copyright to the images- meaning that I feel it is within reason to take a risk and keep the images. In a worst case scenario, the photographer would identify themselves and the image would then be deleted. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Or conversely the photographer would sue any re-users. Which is exactly why Getty Images is clearly covering their own asses from law suites by re-users in that message. Regardless, there's nothing about it that is compatible with Commons. Especially that last bit, "the copyright holders are unknown and Bettmann does not own the copyright to the images." I don't even get how Getty Images can legally purchase a license from Bettmann for the images that case. Let alone re-release them for public use. And we're like 5 people down the line in that. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Microplastic Consumer The reply does not explicitly state that the Bettmann photos are confirmed public domain. Rather, it is a general acknowledgement that some photos might be in the public domain, leaving it up to self research. It may be a risk Getty is willing to and can afford to take, sure. However, the rules and policies of the Commons don't really allow for ambigious photos to be hosted, per COM:PRP. PascalHD (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep We have always accepted Getty's due diligence when they claim a copyright is active, or something is public domain. Up until 1989 you still had to register for a copyright. I looked at random 6 images and could not find any copyright registration for any image of person named under multiple permutations of their name. I can find copyrighted images of Ronald Reagan and Edward Koch, but the descriptions do not fit the image we host. --RAN (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Majority of the photos in the archive are uncredited and belong to 'Unknown' authors, how can we truly look for registrations? Otto Bettmann was not the creator or copyright holder of these works - he just collected them. Even in cases we do know the author such as UPI in a few instances, Getty does not show us the rest of the photo, so we cannot confirm if a notice is present or not with certainty the same way we can with ebay listings. PascalHD (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You look for the subject named in the image in the registration and renewal database. You have to copyright each image and describe it, that is why the Associated Press and the United Press and other agencies did not bother with the expense. They created thousands of images a day. In the category for each news service you can read what the Library of Congress wrote about the absence of copyrights. Getty has been vigilant in having a bot crawl through Commons, issuing takedown notices with us when they find a copyrighted image. Newspapers like the New York Times use the Getty version even when we host a free version. Sometimes it is just easier to use their services as a package deal. --RAN (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree here. You can take down images post 1989 and maybe even 1978, but taking down images before 1978 makes no logical sense when:

A. Images were not automatically copyrighted, and

B. Images before 1978 from the archive have no actual copyright filings or notice.

So, logically, unless these images on Bettman have a copyright notice, it makes sense to keep them. River10000 (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
The main concern is that there may be a copyright, we cannot easily confirm. Like I mentioned, many photos are uncredited 'Unknown' authors. We cannot find a registration if we do not the creator. Also many photos were distributed as press photos, we cannot confirm if they had notices when distributed to the media or not because Getty only shows us a HD scan from the source. United Press International photos are in this collection and could be copyrighted. Getty has no obligation to disclose what photos are PD because they stand to profit off the works. They however have stated if you can prove it is PD elsewhere, then its fair game. PascalHD (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

United Press International and Associated Press did not register copyrights, they handled thousands of images a day, the cost would have been onerous. --RAN (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the press photos within the collection are probably fine to keep. I'll strike thru the photos which are credited to UPI. However, not all photos in the Bettmann collection are 'press' photos, though. Majority of photos I nominated (portraits of American politicians) make no mention of any author. Are we sure those ones are 'press' photos too? PascalHD (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete As far as I can see, there is no explicit statement anywhere that the images in question are in the public domain. To the contrary, we know that some of them are press photos (such as those from UPI), which were generally intended for publication in news outlets, frequently with copyright statements. I am not even sure whether individual images, handed out to client publishers with an explicit restriction on reuse and potentially with additional contractual terms to affix copyright notice when (re-)publishing them, would suffice to void the copyright. After all, that would be restricted circulation, and individual isolated copies without copyright notice were not enough to lose copyright. In many of the cases under discussion here, we do not even have evidence of those individual copies. Felix QW (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@AlaskaGal: to make him aware of this. I have no strong opinion due to lack of expertise (have only cropped existing uploads by others). We are tied at 2 Keeps and 2 Deletes consensus-wise. SuperWIKI (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep , but I am very divided. When I first made the template that everyone uses to justify Bettmann images nowadays, I used to check the Copyright Office before I downloaded and published it to the Commons. I fully understand deleting them if we don't believe people are doing the same. Sorry for poor responses from now on; my heart problems are getting worse but apparently so is my bipolar so I won't be very active on Wikipedia anymore in general. As I type this I just got out of the hospital for 207/86 blood pressure hypertensive crisis. ~ AlaskaGal (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
How do you check with the Copyright Office? We could use that process. SuperWIKI (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@AlaskaGal I hope you are well. I have always appreciated your good works. Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Hope you are well too. AlaskaGal (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt. I don't even exactly remember. It was shared to me in a reply at some point and I used to just click that and slap in key words from the item I'm looking for. It was a vintage looking website, didn't look new. AlaskaGal (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment I'm not actively pushing for it, but if anyone is active in looking at Wikipedia articles with these disputed images, it would be appropriate to replace them with free Commons images if and when they are reviewed. SuperWIKI (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That could be an issue as for certain articles (See: Matilde Zimmermann and Andrew Pulley) as the Bettmann images are the only ones in the Public Domain. I've done some work on the images I've personally uploaded and haven't found any indications of Copyright or anywhere else the images were posted online. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason the ones that are being used can't just be re-uploaded to Wikipedia as fair use? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The subjects are still alive and therefore cannot have free use images Microplastic Consumer (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

At least a couple of them like Omar Bradley have been dead for a while now. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment A lot of these are only licensed as "PD-US-No-Notice" or whatever when they weren't even taken in the United States to begin with. So we'd still need a valid license for the country of origin to keep them regardless of they had a copyright notice to begin with or not. As that applies in the United States. Unfortunately fixing that is made much harder by the fact that we don't know who the original photographers were in most (if not all) cases. Let alone the dates of publication if any. So there's really no way to know if the normal copyright term for the country of origin has passed or not. In other words, there's absolutely no way these images can legally be hosted on Commons with how they are currently and there doesn't seem to be a fix for that since we are missing the details we need to add proper licenses. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep - I completely agree with @River10000, the image i uploaded was created before 1970, in fact verifiably at July 8, 1969, so trying to forward a deletion of an unregistered image in the copyright office, makes it automatically public domain in the US since no copyright traces are found of. This is really complicated but at the end of the day i don't think any actual 'violations' have occurred here. CtasACT (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep I agree with @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), @CtasACT, and @River10000. -- Ooligan (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination - deleted all except those with strikethroughs. UPI does not, itself publish images, but supplies them to newspapers and others for publication. Copyright notices appear on the masthead of the newspapers, not on individual photos. If anyone wants to prove publication without notice, they must find them one by one. Otherwise PCP applies. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/Bettmann

reason for deletion per above

– Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Buchvorstellung in der Residenz München, Graf Arco Valley und Regine Mainka-Tersteegen.jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Pimpinellus(D) • MUC•K•T 18:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep the license has been provided after AntiCompositeBot's tagging, see diff. Nakonana (talk) 07:09, 21 April 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:Chromium_logo.png

The nominated file was deleted as being a duplicate of File:Chromium Icon.png, so consider that the file in question now. This request wasn't listed (or at least it wasn't when I wrote this). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:GoogleChrome.svg which involves the Chrome, not Chromium logo. I understand the license differences, but it's hard to imagine a simple color change merits it's own copyright. Rocket000 (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete There's a claim here that this image is available under creative commons attribution 2.5 because it comes from Chromium Developer Documentation. However, the claim is invalid. This logo is almost identical to the Google Chrome logo (see File:GoogleChromeLogo.png on Wikipedia). the only thing that's different is the colors. The image is essentially the same otherwise. This is a derivative work of the copyrighted original. Therefore, the claim of Chromium Developer Documentation is invalid, and this image is a copyright violation. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:ChromeIcon.png. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep Check the Chromium Project Site policies (part of Google code web pages) and see the legal notice about the concernings of the using of content. They (Google) are the original copyright owners of the content on those pages (but not linked external content, as specified in the notice), and they choosed to release it to the public domain using CC by 2.5 and in some cases, BSD licenses. There is no sense in claiming the logo being a "derivative work" just because the different colors on it: it was created by the same publisher, it's not a trademark (the browser from the project is just called Chromium) and it was donated to public domain on behalf of Google by the licenses stated before. Kindly, Linfocito B | Greetings from Colombia! 03:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep Same reason as stated above- they chose to release it to the public domain. please see (under the heading "Built by the web community") for an example of how they use it. This proves that it is not a derivative work, but more like a sister logo. Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment, this image from Chromium open source code - --sk (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't want to comment on the legal side of the issue, however, the logo will be used at the where using the Chrome logo wouldn't be appropriate. Chrome and Chromium aren't the same thing and there is thus a need for a Chromium logo. If the legal side turns out that the Chromium logo isn't Free & Open the claim that Chromium (the software) is OSS would be severely damaged. Cheers. I might be wrong^^. Unapiedra (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted by Micheletb: duplicate or a scaled down version of File:Chromium Icon.png

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:Chromium logo.png

Unused bitmap image with vector version available. Leonel Sohns 14:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep Vector version is not identical, I might even argue it is inferior, due to the missing "shadows". XxakixX (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The identical vector version is File:Chromium Material Icon.svg. Leonel Sohns 11:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, versions are not identical. --Ellywa (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Chromium logo.png

Unused, out of scope. Leonel Sohns (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep You don't get to wait 3 years and nominate the same file for deletion again. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 14:12, 1 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:Chromium Logo.png

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a trivial logo. The logo changed on Feb. 5th with M100 of Chromium. See the discussion here with a frequent editor of both the Chrome and Chromium pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahunt#Chromium Alex313031 (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

At a quick glance it looks the same, but again see that discussion with an explanation of everything and links to everything. Alex313031 (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, it was uploaded as a 8192x8192 png, as the svg was only rendering at 128x128 Alex313031 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep - It is a new logo, different from previous ones, as explained above, is correctly licensed and in use on en.wikipedia. No valid reason to delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:06, 15 April 2022 (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:Chromium Logo.png

Unused bitmap image with vector version available. Leonel Sohns 14:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Kept: In use. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Chromium Logo.png

Unused and identical version available. Leonel Sohns (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Google Chrome icon and wordmark (2016).png

Unused, identical version available at File:Google Chrome logo with wordmark (2015).svg. Leonel Sohns (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Charlayne Woodard at Dramatists Guild of America.jpg

This image is not just of low quality -- it's so small and so blurry that it does not provide a useful portrayal of its subject. Now, it does technically pass COM:EDUSE because it's used on Wikimedia projects, but that's only because we don't currently have another photo of the subject. To me, it fails the spirit of EDUSE; it does not provide knowledge, nor is it instructional or informative. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@The ed17: This isn't my image- I'm the one who uploaded a sharpened version, but as I said there "Sharpened, but it's still questionable whether this is of useful quality.".

This is kind of on the edge for me. My gut reaction is that it's still (barely) good enough to pass EDUSE- it gives us a basic impression of what she looks like- but only just.

And looking at it again, I'm starting to have my doubts even there. Ubcule (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep It is "my image" (in the sense that I found and uploaded it), and, yeah, it's not great, and if we had a better one we should use a better one. But We Don't. That's the point, that's why I found and uploaded. I'm reasonably good at finding images, and this was the best one I could find/make/upload at the time. By saying it should be deleted from Commons you are saying its inclusion on any article would be a net negative for the article. That's a pretty strong statement. It's bad ... but it's not that bad. --GRuban (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- I definitely have nothing against your work! In many cases, having an image is better than none. It's just that in a case like this, where very few details of the person can be discerned, I don't think it fits Commons' or Wikipedia's missions. Like, I imagine we'd delete this under COM:BLP#Removal requests if the subject knew how to ask. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The image is also squished from the sides. --RAN (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Looked around, found/made a better free image that wasn't available in 2018 when I was looking for this one. I still think this one should be kept, because she looks noticeably different in this one than that one, but I won't fight to the death over it. --GRuban (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  Just a note @GRuban: someone will have to review the file to confirm the license, and to facilitate their work it would be best to add a direct link to the video in question. I've done that now for this case. I'm not a license reviewer though, so my observation that the video is indeed currently available under a CC 3.0 attribution license can't serve as a confirmation of the license (especially since I didn't check whether that particular frame is really in the video). It can also take years until a license reviewer comes around to check, so it would be best to make a screen capture of the page via the Wayback Machine (in case the link will end up being inaccessible in the future for some reason). Nakonana (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  Thank you, that's very nice of you! I actually am a Commons:License reviewer, and could have sworn I put in that link, but obviously not. --GRuban (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
We host this because it's COM:INUSE and doesn't run contrary COM:PEOPLE. It's up to the local Wikimedia project whether it meets local expectations, and certainly not opposed to removing it if there's a suitable replacement, as it would be too blurry to be in scope for Commons if it weren't in use. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:GS&WR Class L2 Sambo.jpg

Other O'Dea photos deleted after discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with NLI Ref.: ODEA. TwinBoo (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Anna Kukawska (26156326760) (cropped).jpg

it's not a free picture, i don't allow to use it, you don't have rights Kukavsky (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep Freely licensed photo, availaible on Flickr, no copyright issue. ~2026-15600-26 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Al-buraq.png

COM:Redundant png (uploaded 2023) derived from this jpg (uploaded 2008). HyperGaruda (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Варшавский В.Е.jpg

I am the original uploader. This file is from my previous employment and I request its removal for personal reasons. I will work to remove file usage from pages where it appears. Anotherswedding (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This file was initially tagged by Anotherswedding as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: G7: Uploader request. I am the original uploader and this file is no longer in use. I request deletion for personal reasons. Kadı Message 23:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:WTMTL T09 ZAC7645.JPG

Out of scope. Too poor to be of use, with many good quality images in the building's category. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Shawn à Montréal, in use. Kadı Message 21:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, yes. Sorry. How embarrassing for enwiki, imo. As an English Montrealer (who frequents Westmount) it's ridiculous that they're using this image but I've resigned from that project and don't intend to help. I'd like to withdraw this request, if that helps. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Hermann Kesten Statue im Hof des Herrmann Kesten Café der Stadtbibliothek Nürnberg.jpg

Depicted is an inner courtyard of a public library in Nuremberg. That's a borderline case of public exhibition per COM:FOP Germany; the sculptor is not dead for more than 70 years. Per de:Spezial:PermaLink/264829962##2_Bilder_Löschen,_bitte and Special:PermaLink/1173736679#remove_photos also a case of COM:CSD#G7. Grand-Duc (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc I'm not so sure it does qualify as public exhibition, according to COM:FOP Germany:

Whether a place is "public" for purposes of § 59(1) does not depend on whether it is public or private property.

[...]

Against this backdrop, many academic and extra-judicial commentators argue that publicly accessible station halls, subway stations, and departure halls fall short of the "public" requirement because they are not in the same way dedicated to the public as streets, ways, or public open spaces.

[...]

Buildings such as museums, public collections, churches, or administrative buildings are not "public" within the meaning of the statute, and thus photographs of works exhibited in their interior do not qualify under § 59(1).

If this courtyard is "internal" to the library (not accessible/visible directly from the street, but requiring visitors to pass through the library itself in order to reach it, and therefore to see the statue), then it sounds like an interior location that wouldn't qualify for exemption as a "public" space, even if the library itself is open to the public. FeRDNYC (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Ważenie cielaka, z prawej dr hab. Aleksandra Ziołecka (1973).jpg

Unlikely to be own work, source is NAC ~2026-13004-97 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Dr hab Aleksandra Ziołecka z cielakiem w oborze, IFiZZ PAN (1973).jpg

Unlikely to be own work, source is NAC ~2026-13004-97 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Paolo Bonolis 1.jpg

Also: File:Paolo Bonolis (cropped).jpg: The Flickr file description clearly says all rights reserved - All rights reserved. Please don't use photos without my permission. This is an unfree license per COM:L, which says: The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: ... Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses. (permission is also needed in this case). All of the uploader's other files are all rights reserved, so this one being CC BY might be an error. HurricaneZeta^C 23:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

There is also this file (https://www.flickr.com/photos/music/4548240429/in/photostream/) that is always under CC.BY. Furthermore, if you look in the license of Paolo Bonolis' photo in the Flickr page, there is an "History" button of the license. The CC.BY license was applied on April 26, 2010, two days after the uploading. The license history clearly says that the photo was under copyright and then it was modified into CC.BY. @HurricaneZeta StomboyCarGeek (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

That could be the case but it's also original research. What we do have is the very unambiguous description, which is clearly not compatible with Commons as it contradicts the CC BY license and imposes additional restrictions. HurricaneZeta^C 15:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

File:PregnancyinCrossSection.jpg

Appears to be a DW of https://www.alamy.com/this-image-shows-the-fetus-at-the-third-trimester-of-the-pregnancy-image156174402.html with skin color changed JayCubby (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Have reached out to the author. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It is interesting that the same photographer at Alamy "QA International" has a very similar image that says "[https://www.alamy.com/the-baby-is-expelled-when-labor-has-sufficiently-dilated-the-cervix-image156173915.html This image is a public domain image, which means either that copyright has expired in the image or the copyright holder has waived their copyright. Alamy charges you a fee for access to the high resolution copy of the image.". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Another useful link from 2009 from "QA international Collectif" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The image has a VRT/OTRS-confirmed permission. --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay answer was that it was adapted from QA International "Please Note: Users of the Black Fetus Illustration must always quote this copyright notice in their usage of the Black Fetus Illustration: © Chidiebere Ibe. Adapted from the original illustration © QA International, 2010. https://qa-international.com" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Looking into the license of the original. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay we have a document from QA International that states "The Licensee owns the copyright in the Black-Fetus Illustration and therefore reserves the right to licence or sub-license any rights, subject only to the terms of the Acceptable Use." With acceptable uses being "The Licensee is authorised to deal with the Black-Fetus Illustration which is an adaptation of the Original Illustration as follows: 1. Deploy the Black-Fetus Illustration for his personal use, which includes use on his personal social media platforms, profile and portfolio and platforms associated with him, available presently and as may be created in the future, such as brand pages, websites, etc. For instance, his personal website www.chidierebereibe.com. 2. License for free, the use of the Black-Fetus Illustration in medical textbooks and materials which are not to be sold by the sub-licensee but would be used for the promotion of medical knowledge, health awareness and diversity in medical practice generally. 3. Allow and license the use of the Black-Fetus Illustrations on websites, blogging and microblogging sites, free educational software, and other forms of media provided that such use are not for revenue-generating activities, but solely for educational purposes. 4. License the Black-Fetus Illustration for commercial purposes subject to the terms listed in paragraph 7 of this Agreement in relation to where, why and by whom the Black-Fetus Illustration is used for commercial purposes. 5. To exercise all rights ordinarily exercisable by a copyright holder and guaranteed by the extant laws, treaties and regulations, but without prejudice to the rights of the Licensor with respect to the Original Illustration and subject to the provisions of this Agreement. For instance, the Licensee could, within the parameters of the Applicable Uses, add small modifications to the Black Fetus Illustration without the approval of the Licensor. However, should the Licensee whish to add some modifications that may change substantially the Black Fetus Illustration, the Licensor shall approve the modifications prior to any kind of publication of the modified Black Fetus Illustration."

7. "The Licensee shall not be entitled to assign or sub-license or sell any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement to any third party without a prior written consent from QAI, except as permitted under Acceptable Use. Should the parties agree that licenses of the Black-Fetus Illustration should be sold, all gross proceeds from sales shall be divided in the following ratio: 50% Licensor/50% Licensee. In the event of termination of this Agreement, any licenses granted by the Licensee to third parties shall continue to be effective, provided that the licenses were made prior to the termination of the present Agreement. The Licensee shall continue to receive all revenue from the licenses and shall pay the shares to the Licensor upon receipt of such monies."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Doc James, many thanks for the work. I'm sorry to be a pain about this.

From my decipherment of the legalese, I am still inclined to

vote delete.

License for free, the use of the Black-Fetus Illustration in medical textbooks and materials which are not to be sold by the sub-licensee but would be used for the promotion of medical knowledge, health awareness and diversity in medical practice generally.: Non-commercial, for personal/ed use only
The Licensee shall not be entitled to assign or sub-license or sell any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement to any third party without a prior written consent from QAI Makes reuse difficult.
owever, should the Licensee whish to add some modifications that may change substantially the Black Fetus Illustration, the Licensor shall approve the modifications prior to any kind of publication of the modified Black Fetus Illustration. Prohibits derivative works.

I'm not sure that Ibe can re-license under CC BY SA. Maybe CC BY NC ND, but that's not allowed on Commons.

Are any of Ibe's other illustrations retraces from stock? JayCubby (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Let me see if they can get better conditions from QAI. Not sure about other ones. Will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Have asked for a legal opinion form a copyright lawyer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes! Please see here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/indygeneus-health-expands-its-impact-advisory- ~2026-24445-79 (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Der Fall der Johanna Dolder 1764.pdf

Out of scope: plain text. This is certainly not an authentic 1764 document. Omphalographer (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hallo Omphalographer

Der damalige Leutpriester Huober von 1764 hat "der Fall der Johanna Dolder" im Sterbebuch von St. Stephan Beromünster verfasst (Original Dokument).

1940 hat Josef Wallimann das Original von 1764 übersetzt und im Buch "Die Bürgergeschlechter von Beromünster" publiziert.

File:Der Fall der Johanna Dolder 1764.pdf habe ich gestaltet. Der Text ist von 1940.

Viele Grüsse Zangenfabrik1820 Zangenfabrik1820 (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Der Fall der Johanna Dolder 1764.pdf

Kopie vom Original. Zangenfabrik1820 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Варшавский Вадим Евгеньевич.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Anotherswedding as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: G7: Uploader request. I am the original uploader and this file is not in use. I no longer wish it to be hosted on Commons. Kadı Message 23:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2026/02/28

February 28

Files uploaded by Mankaiti7,09 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Ahinsa jain (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Ahinsa jain (talk · contribs)

Files found with Special:Search/Bettmann Archive photographs 1964-1989

Files found with Special:Search/Bettmann