Commons:Deletion requests/2026/04/08

April 8

File:2024 Westmoreland tornado dashcam still.jpg

It is my understanding that CCTV and traffic cameras are not protected by copyright, but dashcam footage is (depending on who is responsible for the video being filmed, such as the US government or a state government it may not be). There is no indication that the owner of the dashcam released their rights to the video–and if they did it would need to be licensed appropriately. Raskuly (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

No human input was involved, meaning it would fall under automated.
Also the owner of the vehicle was not in at the time, nor was the vehicle on. The dash-cam itself is likely on due to motion activation, which once again, provides no human input.
Plus a dash-cam still with no human input absolutely qualifies under PD-Automated, dash-cams aren't exactly different from a home security camera or a doorbell camera, yet those are absolutely public domain due to automation Quincy Gordon (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Plus we have other examples of such cases, see File:Dashcam video still of the 2020 Cookeville tornado.png Quincy Gordon (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
An image not being put up for deletion is not evidence of this image being free to use. Find an example of an image that was that was similar to this and was kept. No human input was involved: A human parked the car, and PD-automated does not address dashcam specifically, which appears to be on purpose since dashcam is commonly brought up for deletion discussions. Raskuly (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Once again, the car was off, and unoccupied, the dash-cam turned on by itself. That doesn't sound like human input to me.
People ring doorbells all the time so does that mean doorbell cameras cant be used either? Quincy Gordon (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
I don't know how to make it clearer that that a person positioned the vehicle, and because of that, the dashcam inside is not stationary. And please, don't even with People ring doorbells all the time so does that mean doorbell cameras cant be used either? because that doesn't make any sense. Raskuly (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
No Human input was involved with the camera itself
- It automatically started by itself
- It wasn't moved or manipulated by anyone
That sounds VERY automated to me my guy
Yeah a human may have driven the car, but the camera was not built into the car. Quincy Gordon (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Deletion Per @Quincy Gordon. People construct the buildings and poles that security cams and traffic cameras are on and position the cameras themselves, but that does not mean they own the footage that comes from the cams. Same thing with a dash cam. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Victor Delannoy (talk · contribs)

Copyrighted logos, not own work. Not sure if the Doublet logo on its own is above COM:TOO France.

Consigned (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello,
I am the Communications Manager for Doublet. I represent the company's image on Wikipedia and I have full authorization to use these logos.
Are there any specific steps I need to take to prevent their deletion?
Thank you in advance. Victor Delannoy (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Victor Delannoy, yes, please see COM:VRT/CONSENT for instructions on how to provide evidence of permission, either through a form or through email, to the Volunteer Response Team. -Consigned (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Keep We have permission for all three files per Ticket:2026060310003039. Furthermore, the third one is certainly below COM:TOO France and would not need permission at all. --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Do these tickets from Doublet have permission to freely license the logos of Tour de France, Paris Olympics, and Wasserman? -Consigned (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Neural Blender - self portrait.jpg

Unused AI image Dronebogus (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep as an example of what the products of early AI tools looked like. I made this image specifically for that documentary and educational purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Michael Jackson with accuser James Safechuck (46844862102).jpg

This image appears to be digitally altered. It is likely that Alan Light, the author, used Photoshop to remove himself from the original photograph, thereby creating the impression that only the two depicted individuals are present. Furthermore, the updated file name and timestamp indicate that modifications were made after the original capture, possibly for promotional purposes related to Leaving Neverland. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Nothing wrong in uploading a cropped image. To remedy the issue you claim just link the the full version. --Denniss (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Cropping an image and editing someone out of it using various alterations to imply something like “look at the accuser and the accused together in this photo” is misleading and alarming, especially when read alongside the image description. Since multiple versions of this image, both cropped and full, are already available on Commons, this version needs to be deleted. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Should probably be renamed and better described. It's not a crop; it's editing someone out of the image. When the implication of such a photo is "look at the accuser and the accused together in this photo", I'd argue that making it seem like they were the only ones in the photograph could be kind of misleading, and given it wasn't adequately labeled I'm not sure those using it in Wikipedia articles understood that to be the case. Regardless, it is in use in multiple places. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
 Keep I think it is still in scope, but should be accurately described for what it is. A question, though. Is the original of this photo available (even unlicensed)? If so, we should certainly link to the least altered copy we can find. - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
 Delete WP:DISINFO It's not cropped, an adult person was intentionally removed from the picture to imply guilt when the situation was innocent. Jimcastor (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
 Delete this image was intentionally cropped so the accusers parent wasn't in the photo, which was used by the controversial HBO Piece to paint a deceptive portrayal of Michael Never17 (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Sorry but that is BS, see full res image File:Michael Jackson - High Res version (4518180385).jpg --Denniss (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
It's not the parent but Alan Light, the person who requested the photo with Jackson and invited the boy to join them. It was Light who owned the photo. After the HBO film was released either Light himself or a media organization removed him to imply that Jackson and Safechuck were all alone and Jackson wanted a photo with Safechuck. In other words, the edited version which is up for deletion is a propaganda tool. Jimcastor (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
 Keep Regardless of the allegations made after Michael's death, cropping an image and editing someone out of it is not a problem. UWMKEgypt (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Why wouldn't that be a problem when it was maliciously altered to support the allegations? Episteme Aletheia (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
 Delete This is not merely a cropped image rather one that was digitally altered for deliberate deception. The evidence being that the third person in the picture was clearly photo-shopped out. If it were a cropped picture, the third person's body, would still be visible on the left side. Disinformation on Wikipedia is the practice of intentionally spreading false information for the purpose of deception and to promote discord. If that is not a problem, then we could include photos removing parts about historical events as well. Episteme Aletheia (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per WP:DISINFO as others have explained. The photo is not just cropped but is edited to remove necessary context.
VaguelyVogue (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
This discussion may have been disrupted by off-wiki canvassing. See en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael_Jackson. BilledMammal (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
 Keep Editing an image is not a problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak delete for now – Understandably, the image was digitally altered and would be potentially misused. Thus, it shouldn't be in any other project, though w:WP:DISINFO is an essay. Perhaps it may fail also COM:OOS, or I can stand corrected. Same about COM:NPOV. The discussion perhaps may have been affected by canvassing, but Commons treats COM:Canvassing as an essay, and it shouldn't affect my stance about this image. Indeed, I found out about both this altered image and this discussion recently via the ArbCom case about "Michael Jackson"-related disputes lately. I might lean (strong) delete, but then the "project scope" policy may be vaguer than I think in this case. The WMF might use this image for its own studies and documents, but that's my guess. George Ho (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
    Could you describe how the image may fail COM:OOS or COM:NPOV? TarnishedPathtalk 04:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
    All I can argue is COM:EDUSE. It's not "educational" but rather misleading when the photo collector himself replaced himself with the black background. The photo itself still isn't neutral just by showing Jackson and the boy. ...Or perhaps the edited/altered photo itself seemed harmless if it were shown earlier before the allegations surfaced in 1993 and then resurfaced in 2000s. George Ho (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
    COM:NPOV doesn't require neutrality and I think you're off in arguing it's not educational. It's educational insofar as it shows Jackson and Safechuck together, regardless of what others may argue about what that means. TarnishedPathtalk 05:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete. Given the many related images in Category:James Safechuck, there are plenty of ways to depict whatever was going on using either ostensibly unmodified images or rectangular crops that do not imply empty surroundings. The social contract about impromptu posed photographs is that they depict a literal instant as it was perceptible from the perspective of the photographer, through their photographic apparatus. If an editor wants to depict a hypothetical situation, or to modify the scene for creative reasons, they ought to clearly indicate it as a work of art and users of that image should treat it as such as well. The extent to which it could cause confusion or even defamation diminishes the educational value of the image. (If and only if reliable information is presented in the description to show that this specific image modification was itself a significant act in the history of the Jackson allegations, I would be willing to instead treat this as a conditional weak keep. Closer may evaluate whether that has been satisfied if I don't do so myself.) TheFeds 22:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep as stated by PARAKANYAA, editing an image to crop someone out is not an issue. The image still falls within COM:SCOPE. TarnishedPathtalk 03:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
 Delete intentionally deceptive picture; the child’s parent has been entirely edited out of the image. This would be bad enough if it simply created a false but innocuous situation; in the case of someone like Michael Jackson it’s clearly meant to imply guilt. Unless this is notable disinformation it shouldn’t be kept, and even if it is notable it should only be kept as a collage with the original to show its deceptiveness. Dronebogus (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Кадун Микола Васильович.jpg

False authorship, date and license. The person died in 1944, and the photo could not have been taken in 2018. The user:NSayenko who uploaded the photo, cannot be the author and cannot specify a free license. The photo has been uploaded to the Russian Wikipedia as a non-free (see ru:Файл:Николай Васильевич Кадун.jpg), and there is no reason to believe that the copyright protection has expired under Russian or international law. GAndy (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Flags in the National Games of China

COM:TOO China. Calligraphy works are copyrighted in China, thus not PD-textlogo. (Some are marked self instead of PD-text-logo and I don't think that's really appropriate.)

魔琴 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Muammar Gaddafi in 1972.jpg

Possible copyright violation. Although tagged as public domain under Libyan law, this image appears to be part of a published magazine layout (Cyrene Magazine), suggesting it is not a simple non-artistic photograph eligible for the 5-year term. If treated as a collective or published work, the applicable term would likely exceed 5 years, meaning it may not have been in the public domain in 1996. This raises concerns under the URAA regarding its copyright status in the United States. Additionally, the source (Alamy) does not provide verified copyright information. ~2026-21728-37 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Muammar Gaddafi in 1972 (cropped).jpg

Possible copyright violation. Although tagged as public domain under Libyan law, this image appears to be part of a published magazine layout (Cyrene Magazine), suggesting it is not a simple non-artistic photograph eligible for the 5-year term. If treated as a collective or published work, the applicable term would likely exceed 5 years, meaning it may not have been in the public domain in 1996. This raises concerns under the URAA regarding its copyright status in the United States. Additionally, the source (Alamy) does not provide verified copyright information. ~2026-21728-37 (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Lego Ninjago The Ride (Legoland California)

Derivative works, no freedom of panorama in the United States.

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per IronGargoyle -- Ooligan (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
@Ooligan Even the ones that are cropped to focus on Ninjago characters? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
@Adeletron3030, Specifically, which "ones?" -- Ooligan (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
@Ooligan
The following either focus or on are cropped to show copyrighted art or licensed characters:
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
@Adeletron 3030, my keep was "per IronGargoyle" are those files mentioned by @IronGargoyle within his comments. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Unsuk Chin.jpg

Personal phantasy about the appearance of the famous composer, one can compare this picture to some photos of Unsuk Chin (here for instance) to see there's nothing in common. No educational value, out of scope. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Joy Wilkinson.jpg

Personal phantasy about the appearance of the famous composer, one can compare this picture to some photos of Joy Wilkinson (here for instance) to see there's nothing in common. No educational value, out of scope. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Dagestan ethnic map.png

There is an error in the map, please delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHUWANDI (talk • contribs) 13:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The map is actually File:Dagestan ethnic map.png.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
I moved this page to compensate for that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Europäische Erstaufführung Requiem 2026.jpg

Die Urheberfage ist hier deutlich unklar - den angeblichen User gibt es nicht Lutheraner (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Guten Morgen, warum ist die Urheberfrage unklar. Das Bild von Martin Palmeri wurde vom Fotograf erstellt und das Plakat und das LOGO von mir persönlich.
VG Projekt 007 (talk) 05:36, 9 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:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg

As discussed in the image's own description page, the legal country of origin is probably not the United States, but instead a country where the image is copyrighted. Previously deleted as a copyright violation. Wikiacc (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleted: Per nomination. Artist died in 1999, see en:Toshio Sakai. The image(s) will be in PD 70 years after this year and can be undeleted in 2070. Can be undeleted earlier if permission for publication with a free licence is obtained from the heirs per VRT. --Ellywa (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg

Undeleted: and DR reopened per . Yann (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Mostly repeating my comment at undeletion, but there's not really a way for me to reconcile deleting this file with the outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Works by Ernest Howard Shepard, which similarly has a non-American author. Based5290 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

File:The Mongols executing a Muslim Emir.jpg

This file was initially tagged by पाटलिपुत्र as Speedy (Speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright infringement as it is still copyrighted in the US (because it was not copyright free in the home country as of the U.S. date of restoration (January 1, 1996)) This sounds like URAA, which needs to go through DR. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)