Commons:Deletion requests/2026/03/05

March 5

File:Helvy Tiana Rosa.jpg

This has been modified, but it seems to be a clear copyvio. Image has been published as early as 2017 (Facebook), and Tineye claims it was first indexed in 2012. So, for a 2023 upload, there is insufficient support for an Own Work claim.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Possible coat of arms of Salajka.png

Hoax image, I see 0 evidence this Serbian neighbourhood has a coat of arms. The fact its labelled as 'possible' doesn't matter when the uploader is adding them to multiple Wikipedia articles as if it were legitimate. No point in keeping with it being clearly labelled as fictitious as there is no educational value in an image of a madeup coat of arms. Also nominating File:Possible coat of arms of Adice.png for the same reason. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Castello di Amorosa Caves.jpg

Uploaded by accident Laura Alier (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Nominate it for speedy deletion as self-request upload LuvsMG481 (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Dan and Phil.jpg

Nominating for deletion as there is no evidence the photo is in the public domain as the file suggests. The user who uploaded claims it is their own work, however this is a selfie from social media posted by the subjects: https://www.instagram.com/danielhowell/p/DPzQgTBjcTp/. The subjects have made no indication that the copyright has been released. Yeahirlydk (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:LR Rosenkranz 2023.jpg

possible copyvio - https://www.meineabgeordneten.at/Abgeordnete/susanne.rosenkranz- would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Mark J. Feist Photo.png

Out of scope: this is an AI-generated image. AI images of identifiable people are generally not permitted on Commons. If this image was generated based on a freely licensed photograph of a notable individual, please upload the original. Omphalographer (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, this is Eric Henry (user:Erock072). I can promise you that this is a real photo, and not AI. This is part of a larger photoshoot that Mark did in 2025. I have the entire photoshoot with all of the raw files. Is there any way I can confirm this for you?
Appreciate the time. Thanks! Erock072 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I have more info that can confirm this is a real photograph, not AI-generated. The original source file contains full EXIF metadata from a professional photoshoot conducted in July 2025. The technical specifications from the file are as follows:
Dimensions: 5152x7728
Device make: FUJIFILM
Device model: X-T5
Color space: RGB
Color profile: sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Focal length: 55 mm
Alpha channel: No
Red eye: No
Metering mode: Pattern
F number: f/4.5
Exposure program: Manual
Exposure time: 1/60
I have the original raw files and am happy to provide a screenshot of the metadata panel or work with the VRT (Volunteer Response Team) if further verification is needed. This image is an authentic photograph of Mark J. Feist. Erock072 (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
To clarify for the record: this is a physical photograph captured on a Fujifilm X-T5 (as evidenced by the EXIF metadata provided). While the subject and core capture are 100% authentic, the image underwent professional post-production in 2025, which included the use of AI-assisted tools for background lighting and texture refinement. This is a standard professional edit of a real-world capture, not a 'synthetic' or AI-generated person. I have the original unedited RAW file to prove the existence of the subject in the physical environment if needed. Erock072 (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
The metadata in the file you uploaded states unequivocally that it was generated and/or processed by ChatGPT. Please upload the original photo. Omphalographer (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I swapped it out for the original from the photoshoot without any lighting edits in post Erock072 (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete slop Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Hon. Liezl van der Merwe MP.png

Out of scope: this is an AI-generated image. AI images of identifiable people are generally not permitted on Commons. If this image was generated based on a freely licensed photograph of a notable individual, please upload the original. Omphalographer (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The image is not AI-generated and comes directly from the source Rueko Studio (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete slop Dronebogus (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:PD-Rim Kkok Jong

TL;DR? See #conclusion.

Under the Article 7 of Copyright Law of North Korea, a "work whose publication, issuance, performance, broadcasting, show and exhibition is prohibited" is not protected by copyright.[2141/2001 Article 6][144/2019 Article 7]

North Korea recognizes copyright only within the bounds of protecting and practicing the socialist order, strictly prohibiting the publication and broadcasting of works that could negatively affect the state's Juche ideology and denying them copyright protection.[1]:28 This prohibition is primarily intended to screen out content that conflicts with state propaganda, like South Korean media.

Rim Kkok Jong

Aaccording to The JoongAng Ilbo, this film was first banned in 1996 (probably not in 1997) together with unnamed main theme.[2]. And "Rise, My Sworn Brothers"(나서라 의형제여), one of the main theme, was banned in 2011.[3] In 2015, another main theme, "We Will Wreak Our Deep-seated Grudge"(사무친 원한을 풀리라) was also banned.[4]

However, an article from August 1997 states that the movie aired starting at 10:30 PM, right after the regular TV broadcast ended.[5]

In 1998, Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) imported the rights of the film and aired it.[6] It became embroiled in a copyright lawsuit,[7][8] and in 2000, the Seoul Central District Court ordered 200 million won in damages. (meaning South Korean court recognized the copyright for the film.)[9]

In 2004, a compliation album featuring two of its theme songs was released by Kwangmyong Music Company, which was North Korea's sole record label at the time. The film's title is clearly printed on the album cover.[10][11]

According to a 2019 article, the film is being screened at newly built movie theaters in Pyongyang, including the Dongdaewon and Songyo Cinemas.[12]

Rim Kkok-jong is featured in the 2018 catalog from Korea Film Export & Import Corporation's website.[13] Furthermore, a post uploaded in 2020 includes a short trailer featuring the song "We Will Wreak Our Deep-seated Grudge."[14]

Pulgasari

Shin Sang-ok and Choi Eun-hee were kidnapped in 1978 by order of Kim Jong Il. The couple remained in captivity for 8 years and Shin directed seven films for Kim, including Pulgasari (1985), before they escaped in 1986 and sought asylum in the United States. He and Choi eventually returned to South Korea for his final years.

The film was co-directed by Shin Sang-ok & Chong Gon-jo, but Shin was uncredited. Shin was the de facto director and Chong was his assistant.[15] The film was banned when Shin and Choi escaped their North Korean supervisors in Vienna in March 1986, and subsequently fled to the US.[16]

In November 1998, Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) announced it would broadcast Pulgasari on its television channel in 1999. Shin later accused MBC of copyright infringement, filed a lawsuit against it, and petitioned for a ban on broadcasting Pulgasari and Love, Love, My Love in South Korea. The following year, Judge Shin Jeong-chi of the Seoul High Court dismissed Shin's request to ban the film in two trails, and concluded that although Shin held the moral rights to the films, the North Korean production company owned the broadcasting rights. Park Jie-won of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism said in May 2000 that Pulgasari had been reviewed to confirm it does not contain any Juche and approved for release in South Korea as part of a cultural exchange agreement for the June 15th North–South Joint Declaration. On July 22 that same year, Pulgasari became the first North Korean film to be distributed in South Korean theaters.[17]

The film was also distributed in Japan (pirated in 1995, officially in 1998), and in the US (2001), etc.[18]

In conclusion,

  1. Rim Kkok Jong was previously banned in North Korea, but it has since undergone multiple cycles of being banned and unbanned. Rim Kkok Jong isn't banned right now.
  2. For Pulgasari, the film's copyright and overseas distribution rights remain intact, meaning the ban applies exclusively to North Korean residents. Only the existence of director Shin Sang-ok was banned.
  3. The films are currently protected by copyright in North Korea. South Korea also recognizes the films' copyrights.
  4. The North Korean government can ban or unban works (or people, relationship with South Korea, whatever they want) at any time. It is also impossible to know which works have been 'officially' banned. North Korea's copyright law is retroactive. In light of this fact, Article 7 of the Copyright Law of North Korea is meaningless. COM:PCP should be applied.
한국어 번역 / Korean translation

북한 저작권법 제7조(2019년 이전에 제6조)에 따르면 "출판, 발행, 공연, 방송, 상영, 전시 같은 것이 금지된 저작물에 대한 저작권"은 보호되지 않습니다.

북한의 저작권은 사회주의 질서를 보장하고 실천할 수 있는 범위에서 인정하고, 주체사상 등에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있는 저작물에 대해서는 출판, 방송 등을 전면 금지하여 해당 저작물의 저작권을 보호하지 않고 있습니다. 이러한 금지 조항은 당국의 선전에 방해가 되는 남한 매체와 같은 요소를 금지하려는 성격에 가깝습니다.

《림꺽정》

《중앙일보》에 따르면 해당 영화는 이름이 알려지지 않은 주제곡과 함께 (1997년이 아닌) 1996년에 처음 금지되었습니다. 주제곡 중 하나인 〈나서라 의형제여〉는 2011년에 금지되었습니다. 또 다른 주제곡인 〈사무친 원한을 풀리라〉는 2015년에 금지되었습니다.

그러나 1997년 8월 기사에 따르면 정규 텔레비전 방송이 끝난 뒤인 오후 10시 30분에 해당 영화가 방영되었습니다.

1998년 한국방송공사(KBS)는 해당 영화의 판권을 수입하여 방영하였는데, 이는 곧 저작권 소송의 대상이 되었고, 2000년 서울중앙지방법원은 2억 원의 손해배상 판결을 내렸습니다(대한민국 법원은 해당 영화에 저작권이 존재하는 것으로 인지한 것입니다).

2004년에는 두 주제곡이 담긴 컴필레이션 음반이 당시 북한의 유일한 음반사인 광명음악사를 통해 발매되었습니다. 음반 표지에는 해당 영화의 이름이 명확히 기재되어 있습니다.

2019년 기사에 따르면 해당 영화는 동대원영화관과 선교영화관을 비롯한 평양에 새로 지어진 영화관에서 상영되었습니다.

조선영화수출입사 홈페이지에 업로드된 2018년 카탈로그에도 해당 영화가 소개되어 있습니다. 2020년에 게재된 게시글에는 〈사무친 원한을 풀리라〉이 담긴 짧은 예고편이 업로드되기도 하였습니다.

《불가사리》

1978년 신상옥과 최은희는 김정일의 지시로 북한으로 납치되었습니다. 부부는 북한에 8년간 머물렀으며, 신상옥은 김정일을 위해 《불가사리》(1985)를 포함하여 총 7편의 영화를 감독하였습니다. 1986년 둘은 미국 대사관으로 탈출하여 미국에서 머물렀으며, 말년에 남한에 돌아왔습니다.

1998년 11월 문화방송(MBC)은 이듬해인 1999년 《불가사리》의 방영 계획을 알렸습니다. 신상옥은 이후 MBC를 상대로 저작권 침해 가처분 소송을 제기하면서 《불가사리》와 《사랑 사랑 내사랑》이 방영되어서는 안 된다고 주장하였습니다. 이듬해 서울고등법원은 이 요청을 기각하여 신상옥의 저작인격권은 인정되지만 영상물의 방영권을 포함한 저작재산권은 북한 영화 제작회사에 있다고 판결하였습니다. 이후 남북 공동선언의 영향으로 《불가사리》는 남한 극장에서 처음으로 상영된 북한 영화가 되었습니다.

해당 영화는 일본(1995년 해적판, 1998년 정식 수입), 미국(2001년) 등에 배급되었습니다.

  1. 《림꺽정》은 북한에서 금지된 적이 있기는 하지만, 이후 금지와 해금이 수차례 반복되었습니다. 현재는 금지되어 있지 않습니다.
  2. 《불가사리》의 경우 영화의 저작권과 해외 배급권은 여전히 유효하며, 이러한 (상영)금지는 북한 주민들에만 적용되는 것으로 보아야 합니다. 신상옥이라는 인물의 존재 자체만이 부정되는 것입니다.
  3. 두 영화는 현재 북한에서 저작권의 보호를 받고 있으며, 남한 역시 이를 인정하고 있습니다.
  4. 북한은 작품(또는 인물, 남한과의 관계 등 무엇이든지)을 언제든지 금지했다가 금지를 취소할 수 있습니다. 또한 어떠한 작품이 '공식적으로' 북한에서 금지되었는지 알 길은 전혀 없습니다. 또한 북한의 저작권법은 소급 적용되기도 합니다. 이러한 점을 고려할 때, 현행 저작권법 제7조의 규정은 무의미합니다.

--Namoroka (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep and cancel the deletion, because:
1. North Korea banned the film after shin (the director and filmmaker forced to produce it) successfully escaped the country.
2. The film was made 16 YEARS before North Korea officially established copyright law in 2003 (WAY after the Jan 1st 1996 URAA date.), and it was not universally restored of its copyright by URRA due to being neglected and abandoned by the NK Governcy, and i doubt it would count as NK never had any relations with the US until that date for works after or before 2003.
3. Pulgarusi is still considered public domain by many experts here. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Template:Delete: "Do not remove this tag until the deletion nomination is closed." Special:Diff/1177040429 Special:Diff/1177011507--Namoroka (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
1. Shin is certainly banned in NK, but the film probably is not? North Korea officially sold the film's rights to Japan, the US, SK, etc. How is that possible if it is banned? It is clearly protected by copyright in NK.
2. Not everything released before 2003 is automatically in the public domain in the US. For Rim Kkok Jong, it was aired in NK on August 1997 and the album was released in 2004. It was probably under copyright-protection between 1997 and 2004.
3. Same with #1.--Namoroka (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Sorry for deletion of tag, but I don't get it, NK was not part of the berne convention until 2001 (i doubt joining late would recover pre-2001 copyrighted NK works) and i don't think the US ever got the rights to Pulgarsi.
Also the US is currently enemies with North Korean and i heard that has no copyright relations with the country due to conflict, but could be wrong. But Pulgarsai is considered public domain by most experts here, so i don't agree. with the deletion and this makes no sense. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
@999real and @Prosfilaes Can you guys please help me with this? it's okay if not i'm just confused rn ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
I have no idea about the North Korean law issues or the work specific issues. But "January 1, 1996, was the effective date of restoration of copyright for works from countries that were members of the WTO or the Berne Convention on that date. Subsequently, the effective date of restoration is the date a newly eligible country accedes to the WTO or the Berne Convention or the date of a presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of that country." and for North Korea (Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of), that day was Apr. 28, 2003. So North Korean works would be restored under the URAA with 2003 replacing 1996.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Idk, because most North Korean works are goverment-made which aren't copyrighted as far as i thougjt?
And some friends of mine claim the US does not enforce North Korean copyright anymore, or are in grey area. I could be wrong though. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
The URAA says "Any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof, is not a restored work." If this is a North Korean issue, I don't know about it, but I'd be surprised if they didn't think about using copyright to protect a movie they might want to show in foreign nations. The line between government and corporation in totalitarian governments can be thin, and I'm sure NK knows how to store copyrights in corporations that aren't technically part of the government.
The Copyright Office documents I linked explicitly say that we have copyright relations with North Korea. The US and North Korea both signed the Berne Convention, so North Korea at least has the technicality of copyright protection in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
NK works are protected in the US, for sure. These works are produced by corporations, not the government. Most of these corporations are under government influence, but technically, they are not part of the government.--Namoroka (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
But i still don't agree with deletion at all, since a lot of copyright experts still agree Pulgarsi is public domain in both NK and US. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes Sorry for ping, i wasn't on Wikimedia that often because i was suffering from depression a little. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I've provided multiple sources for my claim. It would be much better if you provide more specific sources rather than vaguely saying 'some friends of mine' and 'a lot of copyright experts.'--Namoroka (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Okay i get that.. but @999real might have something to say and he might give more proof. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
But in my opinion, the other source that DOES seem to confirm one of the films, Pulgarsi is still public domain is that according to the templates the 2001 document states this.
"It is a "work whose publication, issuance, performance, broadcasting, show and exhibition is prohibited" in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea"
Also there is no proof the ban only applies to the director, because this reliable article also confirms the film was indeed banned: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/04/pulgasari-north-korea-cult-hit#:~:text=Despite%20its%20many%20visible%20flaws,bootleg%20DVD%20or%20illegal%20download.)
The director's works were banned after his escape, which denied them copyright back in the 90s. Even Wikimedia explains how "prohibited" NK content is not copyrighted. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/North_Korea#Prohibited_works.

I don't want to be rude or anything Namroka, but it's still very likely Pulgarsi is still public domain and was still banned. A South Korean and Japanese re-release in 2000 would not have changed or recopyrighted anything as far as i know. North Korea didn't join until 2001, and the film was still banned/not copyrighted in it's home country. So in my opinion i would cancel this deletion for at least Pulgarsi.ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It was actually me who added the 'Prohibited works' section to COM:DPRK, FYI. diff I'll revise the conten based on the results of this DR. / However, some sources still make conflicting claims. "Steven Chung explains in his 2014 book Split Screen Korea: Shin Sang-ok and Postwar Cinema that "it is not clear whether the film was released publicly in North Korea ... though there is some indication that it was screened for Kim Jong Il and other cultural and news officials.""[16] And as i say before, it was also officialy released in the US. COM:PCP should be applied.--Namoroka (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep The film was still banned, and a us release or private screening wouldn't change copyright. it lost copyright after its ban and is still public domain. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Not strongly related to the discussion but I share this link here: North Korea Bans Formerly Approved Films Now Deemed Sensitive
The now-forbidden films include “Unknown Heroes,” “Nunsokyi of the Spring,” “Taehongan, High-Ranking Secretary,” and “The Schoolgirl’s Diary,” among other titles, and all had been produced and previously promoted by North Korea’s government at great expense.
Most if not all of the films were made post- 2003, so those neither had its copyright restored by URAA. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
 Question does in copyright law of NK has mention what copyright of banned media restores after unban? SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@SomeFancyUsername: The Copyright Law of North Korea makes no mention of lifting such prohibitions. As I said earlier, it is also impossible to know which works have been 'officially' banned. Most prohibited works (along with the individuals involved) 'vanish' from the North Korean media.--Namoroka (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Well these films were banned before 2003 and most sources confirm it. Can we please cancel the deletion? ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I request any admin reading this discussion to give me at least one week before closing the discussion, so that I can respond. FunnyMath (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

i still think we should close and keep template, the film was banned before 2002 therefore were not restored back into copyright, it IS in the public domain. ~2026-20405-26 (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
I actually have a lot to say about this deletion request, so I think it is better to express my opinion before we close it.
I might need a few more days, but I am trying to finish writing ASAP. FunnyMath (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
ok ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
I am about halfway done writing my response. Sorry for the delay. FunnyMath (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
its fine ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ 서울동부지방법원 2021가합106706
  2. ↑ 김성진 (1996-11-25). 북한,영화 "림꺽정" 상영 不可 조치 (Korean). The Joongang Ilbo.
  3. ↑ “악한무리 쓸어내자”…北 ‘림꺽정’ 주제가 금지 (Korean). DailyNK (2011-05-18). (English)
  4. ↑ 北, 저항의식 발생 우려?…“‘임꺽정 주제가’ 강제수거 나서” (Korean). DailyNK (2015-07-13).
  5. ↑ 경수로 근로자들의 신포생활 (Korean). Yonhap News Agency (1997-08-20).
  6. ↑ 김희경 (1998-10-10). ＫＢＳ ２ＴＶ， 北영화 「림꺽정」１０부작 방영 (Korean). The Dong-A Ilbo.
  7. ↑ 강진욱 (1999-06-29). 북한영화 '림꺽정' 탈법 방영 논란 가열 (Korean). Yonhap News Agency.
  8. ↑ 강진욱 (1999-06-29). 북한영화 `림꺽정' 소송이 갖는 의미 (Korean). Yonhap News Agency.
  9. ↑ 김석 (2000-08-25). 북한영화‘림꺽정’무단방영 KBS에 2억 손배판결 (Korean). Kyunghyang Shinmun.
  10. ↑ Ri Kyong Hun's solos 조선 영화 음악; 제 49집. Stanford University Libraries.
  11. ↑ Korean Film Music Vol. 49 || 조선영화음악 제49집 - YouTube
  12. ↑ 강진 (2019-05-16). 북한, 평양시 모든 극장에 디지털영화보급망 구축 (Korean). NKEconomy.
  13. ↑ See below:
  14. ↑ 도서. 조선영화수출입사 (2020-09-22).
  15. ↑ w:Pulgasari#Production
  16. 1 2 w:Pulgasari#Distribution
  17. ↑ w:Pulgasari#South Korea
  18. ↑ w:Pulgasari#Release

File:PengLifa.jpg

No free license at source. No FoP in New Zealand or China for 2D graphical works. Abzeronow (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The drawer clearly stated "这是我创作的四通桥勇士的肖像，请大家帮助转发。" (This is the portrait of the Sitong Bridge Warrior created by myself, you, please help share it.) and "我开放版权，欢迎大家打印出来宣传。" (I open up the copyright, all of you are welcomed to print this out for publicity.) in Chinese in the source X post.
“ 这是我创作的四通桥勇士的肖像，请大家帮助转发。我在新西兰相应勇士彭立发的号召，推翻共产党，建立民主中国！我开放版权，欢迎大家打印出来宣传。我们会永远记得: 在这个饱受中共蹂躏的国家，在严刑峻法的残酷统治下，还有人敢震臂高呼，还有人是有脊梁的，中国还有希望！ ”

-- 筆和擦膠必有用 (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

-- 筆和擦膠必有用 (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I'll let someone else (that can read Chinese) make the decision whether or not that is a meaningful dedication to the public domain, or just a statement that they can use it for publicity (which is not free enough for Commons). Abzeronow (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
"转发" (Share) is a very collective term, which includes forwarding, reuploading, retweeting something. So I would say reuploading to Wikimedia Commons is a kind of "share". With indicating opening up copyright, I recommend keeping this file. -- 筆和擦膠必有用 (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:2005 Western Australia registration plate W AB 502A europlate.jpg

Low quality and unusuable image. Much better options on the europlate segments LuvsMG481 (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Albert Borto à l'AS Amicale.jpg

1946 French photo, might be PD in France but was restored by URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Kosevski potok 13.jpg

duplicate with File:Kosevski potok 19.jpg Santasa99 (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Young woman with medium-length black hair from behind (22 November 2025) (cropped).jpg

Creepy rear photo behind. Subject no consent LuvsMG481 (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Comment Original was deleted as speedy, this is a cropped version focusing on the hair. The image is COM:INUSE. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Woman with shoulder-length blond hair from behind 02.jpg

Creepy photo looks like no consent given LuvsMG481 (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Woman with shoulder-length blond hair from behind 01.jpg

Creepy rear shot of woman looks like without permission LuvsMG481 (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Jack Wagner 2009.jpg

Poor quality image ~2026-14172-06 (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep image might be 'poor quality' but its still useable LuvsMG481 (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Files from Philippine Embassy in New Zealand

Copyvio, although it does say "public domain unless stated otherwise" at the sitemap, there is a further copyright section that specifically says all rights restricted

TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep: in any case {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} applies. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
oh sweet nm then TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Dr. Sulaiman Al Habib Hospital in Qassim.jpg

This hospital was opened in 2009. It is too recent to be out of architect's copyright. Since there is no Freedom of Panorama in Saudi Arabia, this image needs commercial Creative Commons licensing permission from the building designer/s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Enigma8210 (talk · contribs)

Possible COM:COPYVIO. "Own work" claims on images from the 1990s with no source given. Copying, scanning or photographing a image does not automatically make the uploader to the new copyright holder. Consequently, there is no way to verify who the true copyright holders are and whether these images can be made available under a free license.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Спасибо за сообщение. Я не являюсь автором фотографии.
Изображение было взято из архивных источников и у меня нет информации о лицензии.
Если файл нарушает правила Wikimedia Commons, его можно удалить. Enigma8210 (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Aspiració de 's'.png

I myself uploaded it by mistake. I edited the map and the right one is already uploaded. CS20M (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that File:Aspiración de 's' posvocálica.png is the "right one". Since it appears identical in the map but has a filled out map key:  Delete per nom. --Enyavar (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

File:2024 Isuzu MU-X 2.2 Ddi Max Force Elegant (cropped).jpg

Poor quality file, more options out there LuvsMG481 (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Ett fall och en lösning by Pecka Söderberg

This work of art is copyrighted. As Pecka Söderberg is still living and Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests.

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Gullspira av Amalia Arfelt (2017) 01.jpg

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Kastanjefrukter by Molander

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests.

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Restare

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests.

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Quoting Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama:
'Following the WMF official statement on 9 August 2017, it's strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden"'
– LPfi (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep per Julie. //shb (t • c) 22:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. See explanation of LPfi and Julle above. /DIFFswe (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Pretty Vacant (Cajsa von Zeipel)

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests.

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    This was my thought too, but now several deletion requests has been approved for just this, including Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Declination (Cragg, Borås). And based on this undeletion request no one is actually willing to take this discussion. In my mind, it's urgent to have this conversation as possibly more files are being deleted because of this. // Kakan spelar (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Vid Älven

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests.

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

File:"Mänsklig byggnad" av Arne Jones. Skulptur vid campus Luleå, LTU - panoramio.jpg

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll ping @Edaen: who has commented at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden concerning Swedish FoP issue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)


  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Små varelser-2 av Ralf Borselius, skulptur i Trelleborg.jpg

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC) Category:FOP-related deletion requests/pending

File:Små varelser-1 av Ralf Borselius, skulptur i Trelleborg.jpg

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC) Category:FOP-related deletion requests/pending

File:Icarus, Kvissleby.jpg

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC) Category:Swedish FOP cases/pending

Files in Category:Standing man, Stockholm by Sean Henry

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests.

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

See comments at the other deletion request. / Lokal_Profil 17:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Diana, Kungsparken

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests.

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Marmorlyran, Staffan Nihlén, Malmö.jpg

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC) Category:Swedish FOP cases/pending

Files in Category:Rosen, Folkets park

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests.

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

See comment at the other deletion request. / Lokal_Profil 17:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Flicka i balja2.jpg

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Pål Svensson - Sagan om ringen.jpg

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep As per above. /ℇsquilo 10:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete. 2017 WMF said "Commons; You decide, we recommend to wait and see." That is 9 years ago, and no changes in swedish legislation. So if some one wants to use Commons pictures of artworks in public places by linking them on a map, they are still obeyed to pay a license fee the Swedish copyright body. That is not "free" per commons definition of free licensing. Maybe Lukas Beck is doing it in the wrong way and in the wrong place, but still.LittleGun (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC). Category:FOP-related deletion requests/pending

Files in Category:2006 bronze statues in Sweden

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests.

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

When you look at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama and then Public art - you see "OK and do not delete photos based only on the court ruling". The restriction is only for the databas offentligkonst.se. And somwhat lower you see "Works of fine art may be reproduced in pictorial form if they are permanently located on, or at a public outdoor location." --Nordelch (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC) Category:FOP-related deletion requests/pending

File:Peter Hellbom Billströmska Folkhögskolan Tjörn.jpg

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC) Category:Swedish FOP cases/pending

Files in Category:Berättelser från de sju haven

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests.

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Per Inge Björlo Riktning.JPG

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC) Category:Swedish FOP cases/pending

Files in Category:Here and Here

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests.

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Lokattsundsvall

This work of art is copyrighted. Unfortunally Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, so the file cannot be hosted under a free license. See previos deletion requests.

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)


Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Calin Sebastian Catalin (talk · contribs)

Scans from different sources, claimed to be "own work", which is highly unlikely to be true.

 —Andreitalk 08:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep Attribution corrected. --RAN (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Punch monkey.jpg

Unused and inaccurate AI rendering of an individual monkey from Ichikawa zoo. Actual photos of the monkey (eg. https://www.augustman.com/my/entertainment/travel/punch-the-abandoned-baby-monkey-who-carries-his-plush-toy-orangutan-everywhere/) show a different toy. Belbury (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC) Category:AI-generation related deletion requests/pending

File:Anti-M.S.I. and Monarchist Italian article.jpg

The source doesn't claim to be the copyright owner to "release it to the public domain". It just have the CC PDM stating that they believe there is no copyright restriction. That might be true for Italy, the country of origin (70 years ppa for anonymous works) and other European countries (the web is from the European Union). But it was not the case in 1996 at URAA time (protection was 50 years ppa at that time). Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following PCP, we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Anderson smart (talk · contribs)

High quality professional photos with no meaningful exif, I think we need VRT

Gbawden (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Musheghyan Araksya (talk · contribs)

Claimed as own work but most have author info in exif, i think these need VRT

Gbawden (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

These photographs were taken by a professional photographer who transferred the copyright to me.

I am the current copyright holder of these images and the uploader. Permission confirmation has been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

The file descriptions will also be updated to properly credit the photographer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musheghyan Araksya (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Lisa Ullyna Tarigan dan Antoni Albalat di Jakarta.jpg

Personal photo of me with my ex-husband. we are divorced and i request removal for privacy reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-14208-02 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

personal photo of me with my ex husbnad. we are divorced and i request removal for a privacy reason. ~2026-14208-02 (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

 Info The photo is used as a source for File:Antoni Albalat Salanova in Jakarta.jpg. We have no similar quality photo of this poet. Ankry (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
@Ankry: Would it be acceptable to remove the joint photo and leave the poet photo intact with some sort of notation about where Admins may find the source?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I am  Neutral about this, leaving the decision to others. Frankly, I would prefer to crop another photo, but the other available is too low resolution. Ankry (talk) 21:03, 15 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:Eb-logo.jpg

This file was initially tagged by MJHTrailsolid as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I would say this is below TOO for USA. PaterMcFly (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Kept: per discussion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Original request was based on license in use (self-created vs fair use) with image.MJHTrailsolid (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Eb-logo.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 11:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Horch.gif

Sourced from "Auto News.com" with no date given. The claim of "own work" here is also highly dubious given that the photo was taken at least by 1951 (subject's death). No reason is given to believe the country of origin in this case is Israel. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Ligne-ic-ne-illustration-de-logo-d-ensemble-d-industrie-li-d-usine-90235470.jpg

Copyright dreamstime (r) DSwissK (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Юрий Васильевич Емельянов.jpg

Disputed Egor (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Я, Емельянова Наталия Михайловна, автор этой фотографии, я сама снимала своего мужа на фоне домашней библиотеки. Прошу её не удалять, а заменить ею нынешнее изображение, которое взято с канала "История" и очень мне не нравится, потому что не отражает сущности моего мужа, он никогда не был таким - надутым и самоуверенным. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NataEm1942 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I, Emelyanova Natalia Mikhailovna, the author of this photograph, took a picture of my husband myself against the background of our home library. I ask that it not be deleted, but that it replace the current image, which was taken from the 'History' channel and I really do not like because it does not reflect the essence of my husband; he has never been like that - pompous and self-confident.
translator: Bing - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Are there any specific reasons to doubt the file's licensing status? --Yellow Horror (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep I see no specific reason to doubt the license of this file. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep No reason to to doubt the file's licensing status is given. I previously warned the uploader on her Russian-language Wikipedia page that only herself work or work with the author's written permission can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The work is claimed to be herself, and I see no reason to doubt it.--Yellow Horror (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

File:1943-10-05-제88여단 대원.jpg

1943 photo taken in 북야영(北野營), near Vyatskoye, Russia, by soldier from 88th Separate Rifle Brigade. This is a anonymous work in Russia, which has entered PD in 1943 + 70 + 1 = 2014. URAA date for Russia is 1 January 1996, so copyright was restored in the US. (1943 + 95 + 1 = 2039) Should be restored in 2039. Namoroka (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Dani Alves en Sevilla.jpg

Likely copyvio. TinEye reverse image search shows multiple instances of this image at the same resolution published well before 2017. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:The Desert Prophet's Journey GPT.png

AI slop. Dronebogus (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep — per COM:INUSE. This file has been restored to active use at he:קרב בדר. Note that the nominator removed the file from the article themselves in order to undermine COM:INUSE. ידידיה צ' צבאן (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: The file was removed from the article by a user who is not active on Hebrew Wikipedia and provided no edit summary explaining the removal. This appears to be an external removal aimed at undermining COM:INUSE, similar to the earlier removal by the nominator. The file serves a clear illustrative purpose in the article's section on the Islamic tradition of the Battle of Badr, accompanying Quran 8:5–8. I request that this context be considered before closing. ידידיה צ' צבאן (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

2D works on stele

No FoP for 2D works in China. The textual or graphical content, or both, presented on at stele in historical or tourist sites is not in the public domain and is protected by copyright law. --Huangdan2060 (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

JRRT monogram

This monogram was probably drawn by J. R. R. Tolkien and is under copyright per COM:TOO UK. See information at: https://www.tolkienestate.com/frequently-asked-questions-and-links/ and https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/J.R.R._Tolkien%27s_signature -- Absolutiva 14:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

They say it's trademarked, not copyrighted. We have many many signatures on Commons. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
It also affects copyright per COM:SIG UK. Even does exist locally on fair use, see en:File:JRRT logo.svg. Absolutiva 23:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
We don't exclude signatures even though all the thousands of them on Commons have copyright. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Desfile da mordomia 1.jpg

quero mudar titulo António Tedim (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Roman Reigns makes his way to the ring.webm

Sports coverage, rights in which are typicall owened by event orgnaisers, this is however claimed as own work.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by User:Vanguard Man

Not an own work --JaydenChao (talk) 15:09, 5 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:Scale 1200.jpg

Duplicate Мункач Варош (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


Deleted: already deleted by Billinghurst. --Rosenzweig τ 13:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Scale 1200.jpg

It is claimed that this work is in the public domain, but its author (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B0,_%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB_%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87) is still alive, so it is still copyright-protected. Rijikk (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Josh Jobe SBLX Victory Parade.jpg

Misidentified multiple times by myself, please reupload if this person is 100% identified. When I uploaded it, I thought it was Leonard Williams, but was disproven, then thought it was Josh Jobe due to the facial structure, then was disproven again. Fadedreality556 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Adamus.spirits (talk · contribs)

Most of these images are uncategorized, and look plain product promotion from its producer. Maybe some can be salvaged, like File:Destilaria Levira.jpg if we can find the original photographer or agency with a VRT permission..

Btrs (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Being uncategorized is no reason for deletion, because a category could easily be added, as I have done by now. For me it is difficult to decide whether it is a "plain product promotion" or just professional product photography. Thus I recommend to keep these files, please. NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Horizontal Log Map of the Observable Universe No Text.jpg

GoogleEarth CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Should I update the image with a version with that part cropped? Unmismoobjetivo (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
How about replacing the offending part with a free image such as the Blue Marble? cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 22:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
New upload no longer "offends";  I withdraw my nomination. The old version should be version-deleted to fully finish this process. --Enyavar (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Screenshot of Plexamp interface being shown on a Linux desktop.png

Copyrighted album artwork which is not de minimis. Etiher needs censoring or a new screenshot should be made using an album with public domain artwork. Based5290 (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I can replace it with a public domain album and take an entirely new screenshot, that's fine by me. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Aruvälja kool, Ahaste, Pärnumaa.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Estonia and probably the photo violates architect's copyright. The house was built in 1984. Taivo (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep for same reasoning as in here: Rääma 38 --LeeMarx (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
This is not a very generic type of building, no way. There's no other such building in Estonia. Taivo (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
The building appears to be a very typical late-Soviet rural institutional structure. Its design is extremely utilitarian and resembles many agricultural or industrial utility buildings found across Estonia — for example livestock facilities or farm service buildings. The architecture consists of basic geometric volumes and standard construction elements without distinctive decorative or creative features. Because of this, it is questionable whether the building reaches the threshold of originality required for architectural copyright protection. Similar functional designs were widely used in rural construction during the Soviet period, and the appearance here seems driven primarily by practical considerations rather than individual artistic expression. Therefore the photograph should be acceptable on Commons as a depiction of a generic building design that does not qualify as a protected architectural work. --LeeMarx (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Likely generic indeed (at least in the original form). Just looks it has been retrofited to new use and modified (so no true autor could even be identified). Kruusamägi (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
I disagree. Surely the house must have an architect and the architect has copyright to the work. Taivo (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:PMF infobox.png

Created by a globally blocked user, a hoax flag, as I cannot find any sources for the flag, the flag also is low quality and looks like it was drawn by a child. EditorShane3456 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

(relisted) EditorShane3456 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Child soldiers during the Cambodian Civil War.png

Cambodian work during the Khmer Rouge era would not be PD in the United States per the URAA. TansoShoshen (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Mons-elieser-rivero.jpg

Most likely not own work: See https://diocesisdesanfernando.org/biografia-2/ Mammut74 (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:2018 Medellín - Aeropuerto Olaya Herrera - Monumento Conmemorativo de Carlos Gardel.jpg

The freedom of panorama in Colombia doesn't cover artworks located indoors. Some of the photos displayed are from the Colombian photographer Jorge Obando (1892-1982) and are still protected (Colombia has 80 years pma). The text might also be protected by copyright. Günther Frager (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Fred Ott's Sneeze

File:Fredd Ott.jpg is a 2017 upload that is unused and very similar to Fredott.jpg which was uploaded in 2007 . It's a slightly different frame and extracted from a different (worse looking) source. For the actual movie there are historical reasons to preserve different versions, but for an extracted still there isn't much of a point.

The other file is an Alamy-watermarked version of Fredd_Ott's_Sneeze.jpg. The image has a slightly higher resolution, likely due to Alamy upscaling it - which they are known to do -, it doesn't add anything. I will move it's current use to that file.

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Austin.gochua

The user Austin.gochua uploaded several files with false copyright status. There are many paintings by the artist Batal Japua (Баҭал Џьапуа, see https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B0,_%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB_%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87), who is still alive, but the files all marked as "public domain". Additionaly, there are many historical photographs, paintings and drawings with "Own work" in the description. There are some more images without any clear description of their origin (no source, Author: Unknown), so I suspect these may be copyvio too. I haven't tried to contact the user since he is inactive for quite some time. --Rijikk (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:QPr.jpg

The UK has a lower threshold of originality than the US. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Comment. Does this fall under the new THJ v Sheridan standard for UK threshold of originality? IronGargoyle (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)