Commons:Deletion requests/2026/05/24

May 24

File:Fidel Castro 1950s.jpg

Does this image of Fidel Castro have an actual license? We need to find out. It's possible the image is in the public domain in the US because of a lack of a copyright notice, but maybe the home country of this image is not the US. This is the current infobox photo of Fidel Castro. Don't delete it without replacing the image first if the image is deleted. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Valencià: (missing text)
Surely it does, have a look through the page history . Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Prof. Lynn Morris.jpg

https://www.wits.ac.za/about-wits/office-of-the-vice-chancellor/ is not identical but clearly from the same shoot. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:19, 24 May 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 in Category:Photographs by Mikhail Koltsov

Mikhail Koltsov was rehabilitated in 1954, so his works are not free until 2025 - COM:Russia

VLu (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What does "rehabilitated" mean, and what does it have to do with these images? Please explain 73.132.67.15 16:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 Keep: Кольцов died in 1940. --Achim (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Achim, especially for you and an unregistered user, if it is somewhat hard for you to read COM:Russia#Durations: If the author was subjected to repression and rehabilitated posthumously, countdown of copyright protection is to begin not from the death date, but from the rehabilitation date. --VLu (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom, unfortunately. The 1954 rehab is sourced here under Кол — Кол. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. Undelete in 2025. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Collage guerra civile spagnola.png and File:Infobox collage for Spanish Civil War.jpg had previous revisions deleted due to this DR. Those revisions should be undeleted when the files in this DR are restored. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Undeleted: per . Yann (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Photographs by Mikhail Koltsov

These should not have been undeleted. While they are in the public domain in Russia now, they are still protected in the US because of the URAA, as correctly pointed out by Jameslwoodward at COM:UDR (rehabilition in 1954 means protected in Russia until the end of 2004, which means the works were still protected in Russia in 1996, and the URAA kicked in).

Rosenzweig τ 00:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Added File:¡No pasarán! Madrid.jpg to this list, since it was tagged as copyvio for speedy deletion. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
 Delete As noted above by Rosenzweig. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Phone/tablet photos marked as copyvio

These were marked as {{Copyvio}} by Cuello de pepino, but these simple designs are not eligible for copyright. They are possibly covered by design patents, but that's COM:NCR.

Phillipedison1891 (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Assyrian-Chaldean-Aramean flags.png

Confusion, chaldean flag should not be included with other flags FrankieChaldean (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Akihabara Electric Town 9999 222.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)


 Keep COM:DM whatever it is. Mzaki (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep. The image contains a few small, potentially copyrightable artworks, but none are emphasized; each is de minimis because the composition of the image depicts the storefront realistically, with images, text and reflections competing for attention. TheFeds 09:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Akihabara Electric Town 9999 278.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)


 Weak delete The gorilla logo of ゴーゴーカレー is above COM:TOO Japan, and COM:DM could not applicable to this image. As for the street banner with characters （秋津ミツバ and アキベア）, COM:DM. Mzaki (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Akihabara Electric Town 9999 281 (cropped).jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)


 Weak keep The central subject is the building, so COM:DM could be applicable to the out-of-focus ad with Detective Conan. Mzaki (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per Commons:DM. Commons:De minimis describes the law as it was when introduced in 2012, but the 2020 amendment expanded and clarified the scope of the provision’s application.

（付随対象著作物の利用）

第30条の2　写真の撮影、録音、録画、放送その他これらと同様に事物の影像又は音を複製し、又は複製を伴うことなく伝達する行為（以下この項において「複製伝達行為」という。）を行うに当たつて、その対象とする事物又は音（以下この項において「複製伝達対象事物等」という。）に付随して対象となる事物又は音（複製伝達対象事物等の一部を構成するものとして対象となる事物又は音を含む。以下この項において「付随対象事物等」という。）に係る著作物（当該複製伝達行為により作成され、又は伝達されるもの（以下この条において「作成伝達物」という。）のうち当該著作物の占める割合、当該作成伝達物における当該著作物の再製の精度その他の要素に照らし当該作成伝達物において当該著作物が軽微な構成部分となる場合における当該著作物に限る。以下この条において「付随対象著作物」という。）は、当該付随対象著作物の利用により利益を得る目的の有無、当該付随対象事物等の当該複製伝達対象事物等からの分離の困難性の程度、当該作成伝達物において当該付随対象著作物が果たす役割その他の要素に照らし正当な範囲内において、当該複製伝達行為に伴つて、いずれの方法によるかを問わず、利用することができる。ただし、当該付随対象著作物の種類及び用途並びに当該利用の態様に照らし著作権者の利益を不当に害することとなる場合は、この限りでない。

２　前項の規定により利用された付随対象著作物は、当該付随対象著作物に係る作成伝達物の利用に伴つて、いずれの方法によるかを問わず、利用することができる。ただし、当該付随対象著作物の種類及び用途並びに当該利用の態様に照らし著作権者の利益を不当に害することとなる場合は、この限りでない。 著作権法

The Agency for Cultural Affairs also provides the following explanation. "As long as the use of a copyrighted work is not the main purpose but merely incidental to another activity, and that use is considered qualitatively or quantitatively minor by general social standards, the essential justification for incidental inclusion is preserved. In such cases, it is considered desirable to allow a broad range of activities."

"Among the everyday activities commonly carried out in daily life, those that are socially accepted as legitimate and reasonable, and that would not normally be expected to unfairly harm the interests of copyright holders, should be treated with greater flexibility under the expanded provision. Taking a photograph of a child holding a stuffed toy is also not illegal."

"This amendment is intended solely to allow flexible handling within the scope in which the essential justification for incidental inclusion remains valid."

著作権法及びプログラムの著作物に係る登録の特例に関する法律の一部を改正する法律(令和2年著作権法改正)について(解説) The reasons for the revisions to the Japanese language by the Agency for Cultural Affairs are presented on pages 24 through 28. this photograph is legal under Japanese law.--Y.haruo (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Konnichiwa @Y.haruo, I have extracted the five pages as there's a limit to the document permissions after download (i.e., can't copy/paste the selection directly, but my browser did the trick):

３．写り込みに係る権利制限規定の対象範囲の拡大（新法第30条の２関係）
（１）改正の趣旨

写り込みに係る権利制限規定は、平成24年の著作権法改正によって創設されたものであるが、規定の適用場面を明確にする等の観点から、当時、立法の必要性が特に高かった部分に限定された規定となっており、日常生活において広く一般的に行われている行為等についても妥当な結論を導くことができない場合があるとの指摘がなされてきた。 また、その後、スマートフォンやタブレット端末等の急速な普及に伴ってスクリーンショットがごく日常的に行われるようになるとともに、動画投稿・配信プラットフォームを活用した個人による生配信が容易になるなど、著作物等の利用に係る社会実態が大きく変化している中で、従来の規定では不都合が生じる場面が顕在化してきた。さらに、本規定の要件を緩和することで、ドローンを有効活用した生配信サービスなど社会的に意義のある新規サービスが可能となると思われる事例も新たに明らかとなった。 こうした社会実態の変化等を踏まえ、今般の改正では、写り込みにおける本質的な要素（正当化根拠）が妥当する限度において、規定の適用範囲の拡充・明確化を行うこととした。具体的には、①従来は「写真の撮影」「録音」「録画」に限定されていた対象行為を、複製や伝達行為全般に拡大した上で、②著作物等の創作以外の場面における写り込みも対象とし、③対象となる著作物等をメインの被写体から分離が困難なものに限定しないこととするなどの見直しを行っている。 一方で、想定外の利用態様にまで適用範囲が拡張されることや、濫用的な利用を招くこと、既にライセンス市場が形成されており無許諾での利用を認めた場合には権利者の利益を不に害することが明らかな行為や自ら利益を得る目的で他人の著作物を意図的に利用する場合など、権利者から許諾を得て利用することが可能かつ合理的と考えられる行為までが対象とならないよう、従来からの付随性・軽微性等の要件は維持しつつ、「正当な範囲内」という要件を新たに規定することで一定の歯止めをかけている。

（２）改正の概要

１）対象行為の拡大拡充

改正法による改正前の規定では、写り込みが生じる場合の典型例として想定される「写真の撮影」、「録音」及び「録画」のみが対象行為として規定されていたため、固定を伴わない生放送・生配信や、固定を伴うものであってもその他の方法によるもの（スクリーンショット、模写等）は対象外となっていた。

この点、スクリーンショットが広く一般的に行われるようになるとともに、YouTubeなどの動画投稿・配信プラットフォームを活用して個人が生配信を行うことが容易になるなど、日常生活における行為実態が大きく変化していることに加え、ドローンを有効に活用したサービスを提供する際の利用など、平成24年改正時には全く想定されていなかった新たなビジネスニーズが生じていることを踏まえると、著作物等の利用が主たる目的ではなく他の行為に伴い付随的に生じる利用であり、その利用が質的又は量的に社会通念上軽微であるという写り込みにおける本質的な要素（正当化根拠）が担保されるのであれば、幅広い行為を対象とすることが望ましいものと考えられる。

このため、日常生活等において一般的に行われる行為のうち、写り込みが生じ得るものが漏れなく対象となるよう、写真の撮影等と同様に事物の影像や音を①複製する行為及び②複製を伴うことなく伝達する行為を広く対象行為とすることとした。

これにより、例えば、①’スマートフォンの画面をスクリーンショットして保存する行為や、風景等を忠実に模写する行為、風景等をCG化する行為、書籍等をコピーする行為（例：自らの記事が掲載された雑誌をコピーする際に、同一ページに他人の著作物等が入り込む場合）、②’生配信や生放送など、対象となる事物の影像又は音を固定せずにリアルタイムで伝達する行為などが広く対象に含まれることとなる。

なお、複製・伝達を行うに当たり、例えば、模写等においてその対象を完全にそのままの形では再現できない場合や、生配信等において顔の部分に自動的にモザイク処理を施す場合など、複製と評価される範囲であれば全く同一でなくても差し支えない。

２）著作物創作要件の削除

改正法による改正前の規定では、「著作物を創作するに当たつて」という要件が課されている結果、創作性のない行為を行う場合に著作物等が写り込むことは権利制限の対象外となっていた。

これは、映画の盗撮のような違法行為に伴う写り込み（例：映画を盗撮していたところ、携帯の着メロが鳴り、それが付随的に録音される場合）を権利制限の対象から除外するとともに、著作物等の創作行為を促進するという観点からは一定の合理性を有するとも考えられるが、上述の写り込みにおける本質的な要素（正当化根拠）が担保されるのであれば、必ずしも「著作物を創作するに当たつて」という要件を維持する必要はないと考えられることから、当該要件は削除することとした。

これにより、例えば、固定カメラでの生配信やスクリーンショットなど、著作物等の創作とは認められない行為を行う場面における写り込みも広く対象に含まれることとなる。なお、違法行為に伴う写り込みに関しては、上述の写り込みにおける本質的な要素（正当化根拠）からすると、主たる行為が違法であることのみをもって一律に権利制限の対象外とすることは適切ではないと考えられるが、主たる行為が違法行為であるという事情は、後述の「正当な範囲内」という要件やただし書の解釈を行う際の一要素として考慮され得るものと考えられる。

３）「分離困難性」・「付随性」の要件の再構成

改正法による改正前の規定では、権利制限の対象となる著作物等について、メインの被写体（＝写真の撮影等の対象とする事物又は音）から、①分離することが困難であるため、②付随して対象となる他の著作物等（＝付随対象著作物）に限定されていた（以下では、①を「分離困難性」、②を「付随性」という）。

分離困難性については、付随性を満たす典型的な場合を示すものとして厳格な要件設定が行われたものであり、それを物理的なものに限定せず社会通念上の分離困難性と捉えて一定の柔軟な解釈を行う余地はあるものの、例えば、家族の思い出を残すため子供にぬいぐるみを抱かせて写真を撮影する場合など、自ら意図的に著作物等を設置して撮影等を行うような場合は、この要件を満たさないと解さざるを得ないなどの課題があった。

この点、上述の写り込みにおける本質的な要素（正当化根拠）を前提として、平成24年の規定創設後相当期間が経過し、社会実態等が大きく変化していることなどを踏まえると、「分離困難性」という外形的・画一的な基準によって一律の判断を行うよりは、日常生活等において一般的に行われている行為のうち社会通念上正当かつ合理的と認められ、著作権者等の利益を不当に害することが通常想定されないものについては、必ずしも分離が困難とは言えない場合や意図的に著作物等を配置して撮影等を行う場合を含め、対象に含まれ得るよう規定の柔軟化を図っていくことが望ましいものと考えられる。

このため、「分離困難性」の要件は削除した上で、写り込みにおける本質的な要素である「付随性」を中心として、規定ぶりを改めることとした。その際、外形的・画一的な基準によらず柔軟な対応を可能とする一方で、濫用的な利用を招くことや既に形成されているライセンス市場を阻害することなどを適切に排除するような、実質的・規範的な判断を行うことができるよう、別途、「正当な範囲内において」という要件を新たに設定している。

なお、改正法による改正前の規定では、メインの被写体（例：子供）とそれに付随して取り込まれる著作物等（例：背景にあるポスター）が別個の場合（事例Ａ）を想定して規定がなされていたが、写り込みが生じる事例としては、街の雑踏を撮影する際に看板が入り込む場合のように、被写体（雑踏の光景）の中に当該著作物等が含まれる場合（事例Ｂ）もあり得ることから、事例Ａだけでなく、事例Ｂも権利制限の対象に含まれる旨を条文上明確に規定することとしている。

４）軽微性要件の内容の明確化（考慮要素の明記）

改正法による改正前の規定では、対象となる著作物等は、創作する写真等の全体のうち「軽微な構成部分」となるものに限定されていたところ、軽微な構成部分といえるか否かは、写真等の全体に占める当該著作物等の面積の割合だけで判断されるものではなく、画質、音質、利用時間（録音・録画等の場合）、作品全体のテーマにおける重要性等の関係性の程度などを総合的に考慮して、社会通念に基づき判断されることになると考えられる。

一方で、条文上その点が必ずしも明らかでなく、例えば、映像全体のごく短時間であったとしても画面全体に大きく著作物等が映るような場合には、軽微とは言えないなどの解釈が行われる可能性も否定できないため、考慮要素を複数明記することにより、上記の趣旨を明確化することとした。

なお、軽微性については、利用行為の態様に応じて客観的に要件該当性が判断される概念であり、当該行為が高い公益性・社会的価値を有することなどが判断に直接影響するものではないことに注意が必要である。

５）対象支分権の拡大

改正法による改正前の規定では、対象行為が「写真の撮影」、「録音」及び「録画」に限定されていることに対応して、著作物等の「複製」及び「翻案」（旧法第47条の６第１項第２号）のみを行うことができることとされていたが、今回、対象行為を拡大することに伴い、公衆送信（送信可能化を含む。）や、演奏・上映（例：同一構内でリアルタイムの伝達を行う場合）等を広く認める必要があることから、「いずれの方法によるかを問わず、利用することができる」という包括的な規定とすることとした。

６）ただし書（上記の各要件の見直しに伴う取扱い）

本規定のただし書は、もともと、その具体的な利用態様や規模等によっては、なお権利者の利益を不当に害する場合やそのおそれがある場合があり得ることは否定できない、という理由で最終的な安全弁として設けられたものである。

今般の改正は、あくまで、写り込みにおける本質的な要素（正当化根拠）が妥当する範囲で柔軟な対応が認められるようにするものであり、付随性・軽微性の要件を維持しつつ、「正当な範囲内」などの要件を設定することにより適切な絞り込みを行っていることから、依然として、本規定が権利者に与える影響が特段ない又は軽微な場合に限定されたものであることに変わりはない。このため、基本的に、今般の改正に伴って、ただし書の適用場面・適用事例が大きく拡大することはないと考えられる。

Feel free to machine-translate for your enlightenment, while I make up my own. From a skim... it seems OK for the Frenchman to upload a photograph of Denkigai buildings with Detective Conan and Re:Zero posters without worries, and let an Italian otaku crop to just focus on one with the former. What seems to be the problem? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 07:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Hinatazaka46 4th Hinatansai (53076905983).jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per COM:DW. The subjects of this photo are photo-printed banner flags temporarily placed at outdoor event venue. Although COM:DM could be applicable for some banners, but not for the others. Mzaki (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
 Comment for similar cases, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photo-printed nobori Mzaki (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/Cintra flats

Photographs taken circa 1940 may not be PD in the US. If the photographs were created before 1944 they are PD NZ and PD US 1996, if created after then they were likely copyright restored by the URAA and thus are not PD in the US. Without precise date or evidence of publication we cannot be certain the images are free in the US

Traumnovelle (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Exit 3 of East Nanjing Road Station in Shanghai 2026.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in China A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)


This is a photograph of a public building, not a 2D artwork. Kmchang28 (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
This image is used to demonstrate an exit of Shanghai Metro, and the UNIQLO advertisements (which are the "2D works" mentioned in the deletion requests) are unnecessary elements and are copyright protected in China, see Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines for further information. Maybe blurring out these advertisements (as performed in this image and this image) and reupload the image would be a feasible idea with out deleting the file. 4084470 0.smil (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
I don't think they are unnecessary, quite prominent. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Plaque for the Centennial Totem Pole, Queens Park, New Westminster, British Columbia.jpg

Derivative work of a 2020s sign; Canada doesn't have freedom of panorama protections for images of 2d works GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The text is very fact-oriented and bland. Reading Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada#Threshold of originality it seems questionable to me whether the text on this plaque would really meet that. Someone ordered a plaque and said "Write text for a plaque for the New Westminster Centennial Totem Pole. Keep it brief, make sure it states the height, who carved and painted it, list the crest figures and describe the colors. Of course it should include who commissioned it and why, and finally add a line about the restoration effort, the whole reason we're ordering this plaque in the first place." The result will inevitably be pretty much this plaque.
TOO Canada says "an original work must be the product of an author’s exercise of skill and judgment". If you told me the text on this plaque was written by ChatGPT and only fact-checked/corrected by a human, I'd believe you. As a matter of fact, I just asked ChatGPT to generate a plaque text using the instructions above, and it generated a text very close to the actual text. There's just not that much room for creativity. I don't really consider this an "exercise of skill and judgment". It's a plaque virtually identical to thousands like it, only swapping out the facts to accommodate the artwork it was made for. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
ChatGPT's ability to create creative-looing works doesn't isn't a PAG-based debate reason in a policy discussion; let alone one worth half your !vote.
To respond to the part of your argument that has actual substance: I've seen a lot of Northwest totem pole plaques/descriptions, and I disagree that they're as formulaic as you suggest. There's creativity in which parts of the totem pole were described, there's creativity in the "why this was restored" section. Whether that creativity came from the person who wrote the plaque of the person who commissioned the plaque is not for me to decide. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
GreenLipstickLesbian, why does it have to be PolyAcrylamide Gel-based?
The argument isn't "ChatGPT's ability to create creative-looing [sic] works", the argument is that ChatGPT generated something very similar based on a simple list of facts. You could ask a dozen humans the same thing, and you'll get a dozen highly similar plaque texts.
If instead of "it was painted in four traditional colours, with black as the primary colour and red, yellow and green as secondary colors" it would say "it was painted using traditional colors to capture the cultural spirit of this art form from indigenous tribes", that would be a creative choice. But there's very little of that in here. The only "creative" part could be "..so residents and visitors can enjoy it for years to come". If you google that exact phrase, you'll find even that's not unique. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Grantha aksharamala.svg

subpar quality Symphonicallyu (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Proton e.MAS.png

This file appears to contain the official logo of Proton e.MAS, a Malaysian commercial sub-brand of Proton Holdings. The uploader claims "own work" and releases the file under CC0. However, the uploader does not appear to be the copyright holder of the original logo design, and therefore may not be able to validly release it under CC0. While the file may potentially fall below the threshold of originality, the current licensing information seems inaccurate and potentially misleading. Requesting review of the copyright and licensing status. ~2026-31123-88 (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Filem Negara Malaysia (Mosquito PSA, 1982).jpg

This file appears to be a screenshot taken from a 1982 PSA produced by Filem Negara Malaysia during the tenure of former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. While the material may have historical significance, that alone does not make it freely licensed on Wikimedia Commons. The uploader is not the copyright holder, yet the file has been released under CC BY-SA 4.0 without evidence of permission from the original rights holder. The licensing claim therefore appears invalid. This is not merely a simple text logo, but a screenshot from an audiovisual work containing creative visual elements. Requesting deletion due to lack of valid free licensing. ~2026-31123-88 (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:砂拉越达雅党标志.jpg

This file appears to depict the official logo of Parti Bansa Dayak Sarawak, a real political party in Malaysia. The uploader claims this is “own work” generated using Google Gemini and releases it under CC0. However, AI generation does not automatically grant ownership of the original logo design, especially when the image closely reproduces an existing party emblem. The current licensing information may therefore be inaccurate or misleading, and the file may constitute an unauthorized derivative recreation of a pre-existing logo. Requesting review of the copyright and licensing status. ~2026-31123-88 (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Lomma kommun - Kyrkfurets naturreservat - 2026-05-24 09-42-30 001.jpg

It was uploaded in the wrong place. Should not be Kyrkfurets naturreservat! Emilmoul (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Lomma kommun - Kyrkfurets naturreservat - 2026-05-24 09-42-30 001.jpg

It was uploaded in the wrong place. Should not be Kyrkfurets naturreservat! Emilmoul (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Lomma kommun - Kyrkfurets naturreservat - 2026-05-24 09-42-30 001.jpg

This is Kustdammarna, not Kyrkfurets naturreservat Emilmoul (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:مكتبه الإسكندرية 20.jpg

No Freedom of panorma in Egypt. Modern architecture artwork. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 08:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dyolf77 Kindly check out the discussion here regarding FOP in Egypt. Thank you.--Amr F.Nagy (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

File:BenzNr1comparison.jpg

Having prepared the image with the caption and copyright notice for the replica, I uploaded the earlier version without these RobertSimons (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:H 199 Mount Cenis At the Fell Museum May 2026.jpg

Deletion request Mister Jaguar (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Jean seberg panorama 1963.jpg

1963+50=2013. While this photo is public domain in Argentina, it is not public domain in the United States due to URAA restoration unless simultaneous publication in the United States occured. Based5290 (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Wrong statement. The correct sum is 1963+20=1983. Copyright for photographs expires after 20 years of being published, according to law 11.723, article 34. Therefore at the time of URAA restoration the photo was PD in both countries. Fma12 (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Ahh, I think I have problems reading. Withdrawn. Based5290 (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, I hope and admin close this DR as soon as possible. Fma12 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
 Comment although the copyright hasn't been restored, no evidence why this photo is in PD in the United States. Potential reasons can be publication without proper copyright notice or absence of copyright registration. See Commons:Subsisting copyright. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
 Comment - Replying to user: the photo entered in the PD in Argentina in 1983 (20+); template {{PD-1996}} clearly states that "the work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements: 1) it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), 2) it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States, 3) it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries)".
Further discussion can be found at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Argentina#Berne Convention duration for photographs, where a consensus to undelete photos published in Argentina between 1971 and 1975 was reached. Moreover, all the photos published in Argentina until 1975 are considered PD in both countries.
Fma12 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
 Keep The full magazine is at the source you can see it has no copyright notice on it
999REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:El compositor John Jairo Betancur (El Mono Betancur).jpg

This file has been tagged as advertising by Geoffroi. Reason was: "no Wikipedia entry in any language". This file is in use on Wikidata. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Princedom of simsim.jpg

The uploader claims the author is "Unknown" and the date is 2020. However, the map text itself contains a copyright notice and attribution at the bottom: "Составлена З.А. Тесаевым" (Compiled by Z.A. Tesaev) and "c Грозный 2018" (Grozny, 2018). This is a modern, copyrighted map created by researcher Z.A. Tesaev in 2018. The uploader does not hold the copyright and has provided false metadata. It must be deleted due to copyright violation. Liptink0 (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Dr Darling.jpg

Unused personal picture. Nv8200pa (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Shipka Memorial Church 3D model 2026 max.stl

This was a test. Now uploaded witht the correct ownership info to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shipka_Memorial_Church_3D_model_2026_1M.stl Nikola Tulechki (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Collage Wien 15, Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus.jpg

Includes file File:Wiener Stadthalle Aussen 2008.jpg deleted as missing permission. Consigned (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:René Alexandre MEYER de Versailles.jpg

This image was "enhanced" and colored by IA, the watermarks are still visible. Thus, this isn't a historic testimony and it does not have its place here. Rémi sim (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Air India Flight 171 CCTV RAT deployment still.png

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Figure 15 CCTV screenshot of RAT Deployment – (2).png, "[...] it would appear that CCTV footage is protected by copyright in India. Deleted per COM:PCP [...]." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Air India Flight 171 CCTV RAT deployment still (cropped).png has also been nominated for deletion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Could you specify where in COM:PCP this falls under? Is it only screenshots or something else? Fadedreality556 (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
This file is essentially the same as the one that was deleted/discussed in the deletion request. I'm bringing this here to see if the consensus will stay the same. COM:PCP says that "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." The interpretation of the closing administrator, @Abzeronow, was that CCTV is copyrighted in India based on some comments presented at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Air India 171 runway CCTV.webm. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Per the arguments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Air India 171 runway CCTV.webm, since the image was automated with no human intervention was cropped (which applies here since this is a cropped image of a still from the CCTV recording provided in the preliminary report), it shouldn't be awarded new copyright (via making it a non-free image or all rights reserved image).

It was also pointed out that setting up a CCTV camera wasn't considered an intellectual process by one of the users, using the Delhi High Court's ruling on MRF ltd. vs Metro Tyres ltd in 2009,

"68. Although the differences in respect of the concept of originality still exist under national legislation, there is a trend that the distinction is fading away, and a kind of convergence is taking place in this respect between the above-mentioned different schools of thought and legal CS (COMM) 753/2017 Page 29 of 46 systems. According to Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties Administered by WIPO and Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms, the direction of this trend is that mere ―sweat of the brow‖ is not sufficient for a production to qualify as a work; for this, it is also necessary that it be an „intellectual creation‟. However, at the same time, this is the only condition; that is, it is not justified to require some "higher" level of creativity, or some "reflection of the personality of the author" going beyond the mere requirement of „intellectual creation'."

Unless I am mistaken, this ruling applies to this image. FadedReality556 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the crux of whether or not CCTV is copyrightable in India or not is whether or not setting up a CCTV camera qualifies as an "intellectual process" or "original". So the following is going to be based on an issue from the Law Mantra journal (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer). Let's say we apply the Skill and Judgement Test ("This test provides for the Indian approach to determine whether the ‘work’ in question is ‘original work’ or not"), in the case of Eastern Book Company and Others v. D.B. Modak & Anr., "a case [which dealt] with the concept of originality under Section 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957" , the court "majorly relied on the ‘skill and judgement’ test as formulated by Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of CCH Canadian v. Law Society of Upper Canada":

37. ... to be original under the Copyright Act the work must originate from an author, not be copied from another work, and must be the product of an author's exercise of skill and judgment. The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise. Creative works by definition are original and are protected by copyright, but creativity is not required in order to render a work original. The original work should be the product of an exercise of skill and judgment and it is a workable yet fair standard. ...

In addition:

The Canadian standard of copyright is based on skill and judgment and not merely labour. [...] Such work is to be created by the exercise of skill and judgement of the author. Also, such exercise of efforts on the part of the author should not be trivial in nature and thus should not be a mere exercise of the mechanical function of copying the work of another. Variation must be substantial in nature than merely trivial thus requirement of degree of originality is quantitative in nature. According to this midway standard, an ‘original’ must be a “product of an exercise of skill and judgment”, where ‘skill’ is “the use of one's knowledge, developed aptitude or practised ability in producing the work” and ‘judgment’ is “the use of one's capacity for discernment or ability to form an opinion or evaluation by comparing different possible options in producing the work.

To conclude:

[...] To establish copyright, the creativity standard applied is not that something must be novel or non-obvious, but some amount of creativity in the work to claim a copyright is required.

If we go back a little, something original "must be a ' product of an exercise of skill and judgment '", skill is "' the use of one's knowledge, developed aptitude or practised ability in producing the work '" and judgment is "' the use of one's capacity for discernment or ability to form an opinion or evaluation by comparing different possible options in producing the work. '" Regarding setting up a CCTV, one could argue that the entire process of setting up a CCTV camera does require "skill and judgment" (original), skill being needed to know how to install, link up, and set up everything related to the CCTV camera. On the opposite end of the argument, the contrary could also be argued (and perhaps the only part that this would fail is judgement but even then I'm not so sure). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
I guess I can see why COM:PCP was invoked at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Figure 15 CCTV screenshot of RAT Deployment – (2).png. Unlike the US where CCTV footage is in the public domain, India doesn't have any specific laws regarding this topic and one has to scour Indian copyright laws and court cases on copyright to make a judgement (only to come to the conclusion that it is inconclusive). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
There is a split between judgement in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Figure 15 CCTV screenshot of RAT Deployment – (2).png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Air India 171 runway CCTV.webm. Yann (whom I believe is an administrator), stated that "[...] In absence of information, I would follow US law." in the png file. But Abzeronow, (who is an administrator as well), ruled that based on another user's argument (Shaan Sengupta) on the Webm file, which as of now, was ultimately kept and not deleted, said that CCTV apears to be copyrighted. The closer on the Webm file, (Infrogmation), ruled that based on the other arguments at the Webm file, CCTV in India is not copyrighted.
Ultimately, until a law is passed specifying the copyright status of CCTV in India, it is left up to the judgement of others to determine whether or not CCTV is able to be copyrighted in India. Fadedreality556 (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
The problem is that per COM:COPYRIGHT, "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." Per the US standard, we know that this is in the public domain. However, we do not know what the Indian approach to CCTV footage is. Every court case is different, so only relying on one to make a PD determination isn't exactly ideal.
Something interesting to note from the Law Mantra International Monthly Journal issue is its conclusion for the Skill and Judgement Test part and the general takeaway:
  • Skill and Judgement Test conclusion:

Summing up the Indian approach to test the originality of a work, the Delhi HC held in a recent case “... not every effort or industry, or expending of skill, results in copyrightable work, but only those which create works that are somewhat different in character, involve some intellectual effort, and involve a certain degree of creativity ...”

  • Overall conclusion:

India provides a practical approach in the ascertainment of a original work as it does not completely rely on modicum of creativity as developed by the U.S. Courts, in fact, it very well balances the sweat of the brow approach ["This test [...] conferred copyrights on work merely because time, energy, skill and labour were expended (ie, originality of skill and labour)."] with the creativity element by ensuring that skill and judgement are exercised by the author in the creation of an original work. Since, the issue of originality is centric to the copyrightability of a work, regard has to be placed on the skill and judgement test to be applied on the factual circumstaces of every individual case.

With the above, one could argue to keep this article whilst another could vote delete. I'll just note that "follow[ing] US law" is less-than-ideal since Indian courts since "do[ ] not completely rely on modicum of creativity as developed by the U.S. Courts." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

File:DroneNearPole.jpg

According to the artist who created the "CARET" sculptures, she was unaware that these photos were even made. Rjjiii (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I have read that article carefully as it's a source on my CARET Drone Wiki page. She didn't make the CARET Drones. She (allegedly) made the language that is seen on the drones. She's also not the copyright holder of said language as she claims the person who stole her design said he was claiming copyright, but never did because it continues to be in the public domain with no copyright claim. Raj, the "photographer" who took the photo of the drone, told people that he wanted the photos everywhere for analysis and education on the subject. LanaiGuy (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
@LanaiGuy "it continues to be in the public domain with no copyright claim" how is a recent sculpture in the public domain? Rjjiii (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, you somehow left out the rest of what she said. She didn't create the drones. She designed the artwork and diagrams which eventually became the alien hardware in the CARET documents ONLY. She did NOT create the drones:
"Because I made these, too— I made the diagram for them, at least— and I intended them to be fucking confusing. They didn't even put them together right. The idea behind the physical objects seen here (I provided the designs; another person in the group made what they thought my diagram assembled into) was, the line art was supposed to be diagrams, to build certain objects."
And she posts the photo of Isaac's "alien hardware" as her illustration, not the drones. She never created the drones, themselves.
Secondly, Isaac wasn't talking about the drone photos when he said that, he was talking about the photos of the "alien hardware" in the documents he provided. Even still, if I wanted to use the alien hardware photos, that's pretty much written permission to reproduce his hardware scans.LanaiGuy (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Here you go:
"...I did think it was important to keep those pictures online. Thankfully you guys mentioned that you kept copies of the originals. Can anyone on your forum post them somewhere? I would be appreciative. I dont need to keep credit of them or anything, I just think they are important to keep available..." LanaiGuy (talk) 21:13, 25 May 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 Thelezifor (talk · contribs)

Likely copyvio: these images all look like they were scanned from a printed map.

Omphalographer (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Thelezifor (talk · contribs)

I spot tested a few and suspect all of it is AI slop. Non-notable artworks that are not useful to educationally illustrate anything.

Removed File:Pachypodium horombense 001.png from w:mg:Pachypodium horombense. There are others that are in use on mgwiki. not anymore I removed them

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep Commons is not there to editorialise mgwiki (or enwiki or any other wiki for that matter). If the editors of mgwiki think they have educative purpose, that's enough to be in scope in Commons. Assuming that we know better than them would be rude, pretentious and against the basic rules and the main fundational reason of Wikimedia Commons.--Pere prlpz (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Pere prlpz, much more likely, outside of the uploader they have no idea as they have only 112 active users and 2 admins. I left a message at w:mg:Dinika amin'ny Wikipedia:Dinika tsy miteny malagasy#AI-generated images by User:Thelezifor but we'll see if anyone even responds to that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
      Assuming that you alone know better than those 112 active mgwiki users and 2 admins what's better for mgwiki is outrageous. If that is so important as to override their judgement (or lack thereof) you can reach to stweards.
      Again, Commons doesn't exist to editorialise Wikipedias, even when some Commons user think they would do a good job at editorialising some Wikipedias. Pere prlpz (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
      Pere prlpz, my apologies, they don't have two admins. One of them has no contributions and their username translates to "Filter against exploitation".
      The other one is Jagwar, last edit in January. 112 "active" users is what m:List of Wikipedias says. "Active Users" are registered users who have made at least one edit in the last thirty days. This includes some spammers (TAKARAFX (revision 1139345)), probably some global renamers, User:CommonsDelinker, User:MediaWiki message delivery, and I'd expect a few file movers from Commons as well.
      Out of the users that actually are active I wouldn't be surprised if some are OpenClaw instances. At least one has a strangely checkered history.
      So, uh, yeah.. I guess I do know better than the entire community, but that's not exactly a high bar.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
  • On File:Volahavana02.png the uploader actively tried to hide the Gemini logo. That's just bad.
    Withdrawn the two Olax photos (don't seem to be AI). I've written AJSDelinker just for this and removed usage of everything else (except File:WikiPhyto logo.png) because "I assume that I alone know better than those 112 active mgwiki users and 2 admins". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
    There seem to be a real hype of accusations because of so called IA pictures ?
    I see several in the list that she (yes, the User is a she) had made himself: so it's already nonsense. Others I've seen that she had modified (included a species name, etc.) but the original pic was her own work, but she might have used an IA programm for this.
    There seems to be a bunch of IA investigators around at Malagasy wikipedia: Please stay out from mg.wikipedia if you do not do anything else there
    I was myself victim' of one of these persons recently (apparently German) that blocked me for nonsense reason, telling a hole bullshit, also accused my to use AI:
    Tsy marina velively izany; nandainga izy, tahaka ny mety ho nataon'ireo mpitantana rehetra ao amin'ny Wikipedia.
    == My mistake: I speak 5 languages, and had been raised in my youth abroad: Malagasy have to keep on their island and mustn't speak any foreign languages, the Colonialists apparently think ?
    ===
    I had been in direct contact with User:thelefizor she seems to be a simple person, but legit. Few language still than Malagasy. So, please, edit the IA page in Malagasy (but without help of AI, I cannot anymore, also I won't like)
    Very few of these pages are translated to Malagasy. Good reason to learn it.
    ===
    Malagasy is a very basic language, many technical terms do not exist, and also names for some names for 'cities/countries/and other geographical names, from abroad: Malagasy never went there before beeing colonized, they did not invent an Malagasy term. I will not change it anyway.
    These are phonetically described, or just the foreign term is used.
    ===
    Also French is an official language in Madagascar.
    Aonther banned user from Madagascar, that was eliminated by another sucker from abroad by false accusations.
    There is an urgent need to tidy up the admin's list: I see that also the thread-opener has very few, likely to be excusive edits only. How did he become an editor ?
    ==
    Yes, I came he by coincidence, don't remember anymore why. Maybe I looked around who had made new images for wikipedia?
    Don't know anymore.
    Regards
    ~2026-38747-61 (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
 Delete AI slop Dronebogus (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:TNT 2016 Logo.jpg

Created by a banned user ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 14:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Chiesa di San Pietro Apostolo (Orgosolo).jpg

Found at https://www.sardegnadigitallibrary.it/detail/6499bdafe487374c8f80a669

Unsure if this is a "simple photograph" (COM:ITALY) or when it was taken. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:LUIS ZILVETI.jpg

found elsewhere with copyright https://zilvetiluis.com/luis-zilveti-biographie-la-paz-paris-expositions-peintures-exhibitions/ Jmax (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep — I am the uploader. This photo was taken by my mother, Marcela Zilveti Saavedra, who is also the spouse of Luis Zilveti (the subject of the photo). She asked me, her son, to upload this image on her behalf. She has authorized the release of this image under the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence and is willing to confirm this authorization by email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org if required. Marcosandreszs (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Amazon Luna games categories

Requesting deletion as creator. When making these categories I was under the impression Amazon Luna was a platform similar to Google Stadia, rather than a rotating subscription service like Playstation Now. Since games on Amazon Luna come and go it does not make sense to have a category for them, and so I'm requesting this deletion --ChaosAmber (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Statue Of Baga Mauretania.jpg

No reliable source establishes that this statue represents the Mauretanian king Baga. The file is self-published (“own work”), without provenance, museum attribution, archaeological reference, academic source, or historical evidence. Ancient historians do not provide any known iconography of King Baga. This appears to be an unverifiable or misleading attribution, potentially original research. LeRagondinSuave (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Statue Of Jugurtha.jpg

Appears to be a fabricated or arbitrary identification. LeRagondinSuave (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I don’t know whether this image was created digitally or is a photo of a real statue, but either way what’s depicted is a copy of this ancient statue of Hermes with the addition of helmet, animal skin, and an arm holding a shield. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Statue Of Bogud.jpg

Appears to be a fabricated or arbitrary identification. LeRagondinSuave (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Cittanova, Modena.jpg

Low quality, picture with watermark ExplainsTrains (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Wappen von Attenkirchen.png

ist in dieser Form nicht das Wappen von Attenkirchem sondern das Emblem des Sportvereins Sukaq (talk) 15:01, 24 May 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:Quadretto votivo del Cav. Mario Amerighi (Fine '500).png

The file is defective and was replaced with this Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Kept: No corrupt file, and not an exact duplicate or scale down. Wdwd (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Quadretto votivo del Cav. Mario Amerighi (Fine '500).png

Questa immagine è una copia esatta di [File:"Quadretto votivo" del Cav. Mario Amerighi (1590 - 1600).jpg] Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Lai Ka-ying astronaut portrait.png

This image appears to be a CMSA handout. Although it was shown in a freely licensed video, the image itself likely remains under its original copyright status unless there is evidence that it was separately released under a free license. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I talked at my talk page yesterday. This file can found at Xinhua News Agency too, but I assumed in good faith that there was no copyright issues when I uploaded this file. If this file will be deleted, I will approve of this approach. Shwangtianyuan (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Wappen Truchtlaching.png

die Gemeinde Truchtlaching hatte kein Wappen, daher ist schon mal die Lizenz "amtliches Werk" falsch; möglicherweise, aber die Details wären zu prüfen, war das das Wappen der Adelsfamilie Truchtlachinger Sukaq (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Enshittification poop emoji logo.png

derivative work of an Apple emoji (proprietary) Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 16:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not a derivative work of Apple's emoji; it is derived - as are all other emojis (including Apple's!)- from Unicode's reference implementation (https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html#1f4a9). It is not a copyright infringement to create a glyph from these reference implementations - otherwise *every* emoji on WP would be an infringement: Doctorow (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Kept: No reply to explanation for why the deletion request was in error after seven days. Doctorow (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Kevin Ramadhan Bertinggi Badan 172 Cm.jpg

Bukan Artikel Diri Sendiri Kevinramadhan1439h (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Machine translation says "Not own article", presumably referring to my efforts to get their autobiography off idwiki. Seems a bit vindictive.. This photo is actually a reasonable illustration of Category:Human height gauges, so it's clearly in scope. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by RareArtReserve (talk · contribs)

{{NoFoP-Bulgaria}}; copyright violations against other people. See COM:UDR § File:Photograph from Forbes of Mihov.jpg.

  1. File:Mihov and Larry Warsh.jpg
  2. File:Music Video with TIME!.png
  3. File:In the Air, We Share.jpg
  4. File:£Ø¥€ Exhibition by Mihov.jpg
  5. File:Charity art auction.jpg
  6. File:One Basq Murals.jpg

Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 18:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete (1) and (3) were shot with the same phone, so might be {{Own}} as claimed, but note that RareArtReserve has claimed {{Own}} when it was blatantly untrue. (2), (5), and (6) have no useful EXIF. (4) was shot with a different phone. (3), (5) and (6) have art works prominently featured, so are all derivative works. All in all, only (1) might possibly be kept. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

File:1922 Akşehirspor.jpg

Zaten yüklü Salimcan 1907 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep as incomprehensible nomination. If this is a duplicate, where's the earlier version? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley What do you think about the copyright status? Jonteemil (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Not own work and unlikely to be freely licensed. Probably above COM:TOO Turkey. Jonteemil (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

File:ETTORE CANU - LYON WGF - WHENGAMERSFAIL › LYON.jpg

Vorrei eliminare perché esiste già una pagina con lui Manuel Riccardi (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Photograph of Indian advocate Dheeraj Raghav in supreme court of india taken in Delhi, India.png

Out of scope: this image of a person was generated or modified using AI. 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) 22:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Ditto for File:Advocate Dheeraj Raghav in 2026.png and File:Photograph of Indian advocate Dheeraj Raghav taken in Delhi, India.png. Omphalographer (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:20210421 111021 copy.jpg

No COM:FOP for textual works in New Zealand. There is enough originality for a literary copyright for this text Traumnovelle (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Napier 3 (31743040576).jpg

No COM:FOP for 2d artworks in New Zealand Traumnovelle (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Foto Perfil Perto Ayala.png

Out of scope: this image of a person was generated or modified using AI. 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) 22:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Same goes for File:Perto Ayala.png. Omphalographer (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Graffiti in New Zealand

No COM:FOP for graffiti/2d works in New Zealand. All the images nominated emphasise the graffiti.

* File:Sculpture-1120015, Wainuiomata, Wellington, New Zealand.jpg

Traumnovelle (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

COM:FOP New Zealand intends to apply to public 2d works where there's a potential copyright for a 'graphic work'. That's likely true for this list apart from the Uncle Sam graphic, which apart from added text, is a reproduction of the military poster which is out of copyright. Fæ (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
It isn't an exact reproduction, there are artistic differences. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Armiati Mohd Ismail.jpg

Out of scope: this image of a person was generated or modified using AI. 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) 22:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Grey Eagle by D F Barry ca 1883 original cabinet card.png

Out of scope: this image of a person was generated or modified using AI. 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) 23:01, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I am brand new and learning how to write articles here. I am working on rewriting the article with citations, etc. I should never have saved the version you are looking at.
Would something like this be acceptable? Gabriel Gray Eagle, Standing Rock Reservation, c. 1900. Original photograph courtesy of XXX Collection. Restored and digitally enhanced by Otto Monson, 2026. Thanks for your help. Otto Monson (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
No, the issue at hand here is that Commons does not generally allow AI-generated or altered images of identifiable people. If you have an image of the original photograph, please upload that instead. Omphalographer (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
This is incorrect: per the page you linked Photographs of people that are subsequently altered by AI are not allowed on Commons unless all of the following criteria are met:
  • The original, unaltered image is linked in the altered image's {{Information}} template (or other comparable template). This can be fulfilled either by uploading the original image to Commons and including in the "other versions" field, or by linking to the external source hosting it in the "source" field. This serves three purposes: it demonstrates that the file in question is an alteration rather than a new generation, it allows others to verify that the source file is available under a free license, and it gives anyone using the altered image an easy way to find the original and make an informed decision about the quality of the alteration.
  • The file is tagged with {{AI upscaled}} or {{AI modified}}.
Provided the uploader complies wtih these requirements (and given the uploader's citation, it seems they are able and willing to), this is a  Keep. Based5290 (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Ring and hook.jpg

No longer needed Granmaestroarmero (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)