Commons:Deletion requests/2026/01/13

January 13

Files in Category:中國之命運

Work by Chiang Kai-shek (died 1975) and Tao Xisheng (died 1988) (see ).

dringsim 03:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep.
Copyright in China and Taiwan (PRC and ROC) both have a 50 year term. That makes Chiang Public Domain (1975+50=2025) and Tao Xisheng was never credited as an official author of Zhongguo zhi Mingyun (so, work-for-hire, if someone could prove he did coauthor the book, which is still debated by pundits) and the 50 year after publication has long happened too. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Late Sunanda Pushkar.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 03:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

What's the evidence that the uploader was not the photographer? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:An Abandoned House (15737403510).jpg

This file was initially tagged by JM082 as no license (No license since) Krd 04:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

 Question @JM082, why are you tagging your own uploads as "no license"? Especially given that: "This image was originally posted to Flickr by Saurabh Bayani at https://flickr.com/photos/105392494@N07/15737403510. It was reviewed on 2026-01-05 15:17:51 by FlickreviewR 2 and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the Public Domain Mark." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Bharatanatyam (48011925571).jpg

This file was initially tagged by JM082 as no license (No license since) Krd 04:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:DSC 2483 (51584678166).jpg

This file was initially tagged by JM082 as no license (No license since) Krd 04:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:DSC 7340 (49726677302).jpg

This file was initially tagged by JM082 as no license (No license since) Krd 04:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:DSC 8670 (49783017398).jpg

This file was initially tagged by JM082 as no license (No license since) Krd 04:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:India 2018 (39531109875).jpg

This file was initially tagged by JM082 as no license (No license since) Krd 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Old Temple (36580227683).jpg

This file was initially tagged by JM082 as no license (No license since) Krd 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Parasailing in Evening (37085755501).jpg

This file was initially tagged by JM082 as no license (No license since) Krd 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Rangapravesam (47991629477).jpg

This file was initially tagged by JM082 as no license (No license since) Krd 04:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Ppk (пистолет пулемет коровина 1).jpg

Copyright violation: image taken from Orujie (Оружие) magazine №7, 2000 Msgevans00 (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Авлов, Таиров, Крамов.jpg

Can not be original own work of 2023. Pictured man died in 1960. Original date? Author? Source? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Это фотография из семейного архива, из семейного альбома. На фото - прапрадед моей жены. AndreiVViktorovic (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Добавлю то, что в 2023 году фотография из семейного альбома была отсканирована сканером CanoScan LiDE 110, а не сделана камерой. Canon CanoScan LiDE 110 — это сканер. AndreiVViktorovic (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Ещё вопросы будут? AndreiVViktorovic (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
@AndreiVViktorovic, please contact the COM:VRT, as they will probably want more evidence if you can give it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per {{PD-old-assumed}}. The depicted person (Авлов) was born in 1885 according to the ruwiki article. The photo shows Авлов as a secondary school (gymnasium) student, which means that it was taken around 1900. PD status is assumed 120 years after creation, so for anything taken in/before 1906. Авлов would have been 20-21 years old in 1906 and certainly not a gymnasiast anymore. So, the photo was definitely taken before 1906 and thus meets the PD-old-assumed criteria. Nakonana (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
According to the ruwiki article Авлов entered university in 1903, so, this is a pre-1903 photo. Nakonana (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Replaced the license by PD-RusEmpire. Quick1984 (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Г.Авлов, В. Полицеймако, Н.Ольхина, А.Сонин и студенты.jpg

Can not be original own work of 2023. Pictured man died in 1960. Original date? Author? Source? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Это фотография из семейного архива, из семейного альбома. На фото - прапрадед моей жены. AndreiVViktorovic (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Добавлю то, что в 2023 году фотография из семейного альбома была отсканирована сканером CanoScan LiDE 110, а не сделана камерой. Canon CanoScan LiDE 110 — это сканер. AndreiVViktorovic (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Ещё вопросы будут? AndreiVViktorovic (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Вопросы остаются прежние. Вы не автор этого фото, и, сканируя его, тоже не становитесь автором. Читайте COM:DW/ru о производных работах и COM:EVID/ru о необходимости доказательства возможности публикации под свободной лицензией. Quick1984 (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Григорий Авлов-Шперлинг и Лидия Лесная-Шперлинг фото.jpg

Can not be original own work of 2023. Pictured man died in 1960. Original date? Author? Source? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Это фотография из семейного архива, из семейного альбома. На фото - прапрадед моей жены. AndreiVViktorovic (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Добавлю то, что в 2023 году фотография из семейного альбома была отсканирована сканером CanoScan LiDE 110, а не сделана камерой. Canon CanoScan LiDE 110 — это сканер. AndreiVViktorovic (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Ещё вопросы будут? AndreiVViktorovic (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
 Keep depicted boy was born in 1885. This is a pre-1900 photo and thus {{PD-old-assumed}}. Nakonana (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Replaced the license by PD-RusEmpire. Quick1984 (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
That might require proof of publication during the time of the Russian Empire. Nakonana (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Г.А.Авлов-Шперлинг на сцене Передвижного театра.jpg

Can not be original own work of 2023. Pictured man died in 1960. Original date? Author? Source? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Это фотография из семейного архива, из семейного альбома. На фото - прапрадед моей жены. AndreiVViktorovic (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Добавлю то, что в 2023 году фотография из семейного альбома была отсканирована сканером CanoScan LiDE 110, а не сделана камерой. Canon CanoScan LiDE 110 — это сканер. AndreiVViktorovic (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Ещё вопросы будут? AndreiVViktorovic (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Replaced the license by PD-RusEmpire. Quick1984 (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Location ESA member countries.png

Rasterized outdated duplicate of File:Location ESA member countries.svg. Unused, unnecessary file. Ratherous (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Graben (Weimar) 2.jpg

Bildfehler - Dopplung und Verzerrung Tommes (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Sg dresden striesen.svg

Dieses Logo ist nicht mehr aktuell PetraH1403 (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Das ist kein Löschgrund. Abgesehen davon ist es noch in mehreren Artikeln verlinkt. --Frank Murmann (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Genau!  Speedy keep per COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Capitolium4025 (talk · contribs)

Out of COM:SCOPE.

Ahmadtalk 13:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Capitolium4025 (talk · contribs)

big collection of netcopyvios, copyrighted artworks, etc. --Geoffroi 20:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Многие файлы (их большинство), вероятно, внесены в список ошибочно либо с непонятным намерением. На каждом из них помечен источник, из которого ясно их обоснованное использование. Убедительная просьба пересмотреть список Capitolium4025 (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
обоснованное использование
@Capitolium4025. Этот аргумент здесь не работает. Чужие фотографии, не опубликованные их автором по свободной лицензии, сюда загружать нельзя. --Kaganer (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Uploads by Capitolium4025 with unknown authorship and/or source (1)

PD-Trivial ?

Uploads by Capitolium4025 with unknown authorship and/or source (2)

Schemes drawings by Capitolium4025, combined with PD artworks (photographed or drawing by uploader)

Schemes drawings by Capitolium4025, combined with unknown photo/drawings

Schemes, drawings by uploader (Capitolium4025)

Artworks by uploader (own works by Capitolium4025)

Paper works by Capitolium4025 (book covers etc)

Maybe unfree book design - addition permissions may be required

Photographs of PD artworks (buildings, paintings, sculpture) taken by uploader (Capitolium4025)

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

may be kept as "own works" without addition investigations

--- All was kept.

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

PD artworks from other source (scans etc) uploaded by Capitolium4025

Needs to update description, categorisation etc.

Photographs of uploader (Capitolium4025) by unknown authors

addition permissions may be required

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Kept. --Kaganer (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Files uploaded by Capitolium4025 - Discussion

Большинство помеченных файлов - это мои собственные фотографии: архитектурные памятники 18 и 19 веков сняты мной с натуры, как и линейные схемы вычерчены мной же для моих же публикаций и авторские права принадлежат лично мне (издательства ужен давно не существует). Непонятно, какие тут могут быть вопросы Capitolium4025 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Чтобы не возникало таких претензий, нужно было сразу корректно атрибутировать все изображения, указав для всех производных работ авторство исходных произведений искусства. (Если где-то Вы использовали не собственные фото скульптур, а брали чьи-то чужие, то нужно было в явном виде ссылаться на автора и источник исходной фотографии, если изображение свободное - или не использовать такие изображения, если автор Вам неизвестен).
Датировать свои старые фото нужно не датой загрузки, а годом съёмки исходной фотографии.
Поскольку Вы загружаете явно сканы публикаций, и указываете при этом имя автора "В. Г. Власов", нужно как-то подтвердить, что участник с именем Capitolium4025 и "В. Г. Власов" - это одно и то же лицо. Это делается непублично, с помощью электронного письма на адрес permissions-ru@wikimedia.org, и последующей простановки на странице участника шаблона {{Verified account}} (пример - User:Ilya Varlamov). Если Вы уже ранее делали такое подтверждение, и у Вас имеется номер тикета, проставьте этот шаблон с указанием этого номера.

--Kaganer (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Capitolium4025 - кто автор исходного фото для File:Квадратура. Схема пропорционирования фасада собора Нотр-Дам в Париже. По О. Шуази. Чертёж В. Г. Власова.tif? Я вижу цветной вариант того же снимка, но нигде не вижу источника. Думаю, что желательно было бы наложить Ваше построение на другой свободный снимок с понятным авторством. --Kaganer (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Это свободный снимок, повторяющийся во множестве книг и статей. По этой причине авторство установить невозможно, поэтому я и выбрал этот в качестве исходного. Тем более, что нужен чёрно-белый. Во многих подобных случаях источник не указывается, тем более, что на итоговой файл авторские права принадлежат мне Capitolium4025 (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
То, что снимок широко используется, не означает, что он "свободный".
Это точный термин, он означает, что снимок был опубликован автором по одной из свободных лицензий. В данном случае это, скорее всего, не так. Нельзя просто так брать изображения с неясным авторством и загружать их сюда. --Kaganer (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Во всех похожих случаях, в основном это схемы мной вычерченные, в описаниях файлов я поставил уточнения, в разделе: Источник Capitolium4025 (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Этих случаев всего два - Нотр-дам и вила Ротонда, см. раздел #Schemes drawings by Capitolium4025, combined with unknown photo/drawings. Более проблемный - Нотр-дам. --Kaganer (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
File:В. Г. Власов. Защита диссертации.jpg - если на фото Вы, значит автор фото - не Вы, не так ли? Должен быть указан именно автор фото, и именно он должен был его загрузить или прислать разрешение на публикацию по свободной лицензии (как это было сделано для File:Виктор Георгиевич Власов.jpg). --Kaganer (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Снимок передан мне в личное пользование, а связаться с автором нет возможности. Capitolium4025 (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Тогда его нельзя было сюда загружать. "Личное пользование" не означает передачу исключительных авторских прав, а только имея такие права можно загружать фотографии на Викисклад (если только это не общественное достояние). --Kaganer (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
File:Орнамент масверка и льняных складок. XV в. Дерево, резьба.tif - что именно тут было сфотографировано? Где находится оригинальный предмет? --Kaganer (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
За давностью установить дату фотографии невозможно, она используется во многих производных источниках, могу указать один из них, но за давностью авторские права перешли в общественное достояние (более 70 лет) Capitolium4025 (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Если это чужая фотография из какой-то старой публикации, то, естественно, нужно было указать выходные данные. И если с момента публикации прошло более 70 лет, то это еще не значит, что прошло более 70 лет со смерти автора фото.
Поэтому изображения условно советского периода и неясного авторства лучше сюда не загружать, чтобы не провоцировать выяснения - была ли исходная публикация анонимной, или нет. --Kaganer (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Piero Fornasetti (1913-1988) is under copyright for sure, but Hubert Robert has lived in the 18th — early 19th century, same with Thomas de Thomon (1760-1813),
Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781-1841), Leo von Klenze (1784-1864), Stackenschneider (1892-1865). Some engravings are old, definitely old (19th century or earlier). Not a subject of copyright. But there is one question : @Capitolium4025, what’s the reason not to use categorisation for the uploaded images? ~Fleur~ 23:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
 Keep until to detailed clarify. All images given from paper publications by uploader and based (mainly) on public domain artworks, photographed by uploader. Subset of problem images will be formed separately. --Kaganer (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
File:0 f0f92 113e963a l.jpg Брать файлы из интернета и загружать как "собственную работу" - категорически не следует, пусть даже в названии и было указано имя автора. --Kaganer (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Чт же теперь делать? по каждому файлу добавлять объяснение? Я так и не мог найти способ как его вставлять и куда (пытался долго). Потом в большинстве случаев это сделать невозможно и работа огромная, а снимки, сделанные в общественных парках и зданиях за многие годы? Это же абсурд! Обложки собственных публикаций, тем более исчезнувших издательств? Понятно же, что авторские права остались за мной. Я, конечно, неправильно оформил авторские права. В случае удаления придётся делать всё заново Capitolium4025 (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Не так уж все и сложно. Я выше классифицировал основную часть файлов, которые были выставлены на удаление, и чуть позже разберу остальное. Пока что просто проверьте, правильно ли я отделил ваши (сделанные именно Вами) фото от чужих. Далее да, для каждого файла кому-то придется что-то исправить.
Что до исправления описаний, то посмотрите пример. Зачем вообще нужно было загружать этот файл из неясного источника, да еще не в оригинальном качестве?
И ещё пример.
Два раздела #Uploads by Capitolium4025 with unknown authorship and/or source (1) и #Uploads by Capitolium4025 with unknown authorship and/or source (2) - кажется, что однозначно под удаление. Это, вроде бы, все чужие мелкие фотографии, взятые из неназванных источников. Тут обсуждать почти что нечего, таков суровый мир копирайта. То, что эти картинки широко гуляют в интернете, ничего не меняет. --Kaganer (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
В целом, проблема не в том, что что-то неправильно оформлено (такое легко исправимо), а в том, что часть изображений в принципе не нужно было пытаться сюда загружать, как их ни оформляй. --Kaganer (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
File:Павильон Бельведер с портиком кариатид. Петергоф.jpg - это точно Ваше фото, или Вы взяли его откуда-то? Если второе, то зачем? --Kaganer (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
File:Арматура. Деталь декора здания Михайловского манежа. 1824. Архитектор К. И. Росси.jpg - это Ваше фото, или взято откуда-то? --Kaganer (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Это моё фото, снятое с натуры с фасада здания. И на всех остальных, где нет сомнений, я везде поставил уточнение Capitolium4025 (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Я не умею это делать. Проще в случае удаления мне будет всё загружать снова с открытым именем автора снимка, где это действительно так. Иначе такие статьи теряют смысл и тогда вообще нет смысла работать! Capitolium4025 (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Вы можете редактировать файлы. Фотографии, сделанные лично Вами, к примеру, в старинных дворцах, никто не будет удалять, можно добавить там в описании “my own photo” и хотя бы пару категорий, что это и где (это необходимо). А вот с тарелкой Форнасетти без разницы, взято ли фото из книжки или интернета или сфотографировано вами в магазине — так и так нарушение авторских прав, пойдёт под удаление. ~Fleur~ 17:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Oleksii Kulagin i.png

Likely COM:NETCOPYVIO with suspicious Exif data, though I couldn't find the original image. HyperAnd [talk] 10:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:04.06 總統視導國防部軍事新聞通訊社及青年日報社 (49740921618).jpg

non-free 2D works in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Tulip icon by Freepik (Flaticon).png

Picture from Freepik https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/tulip_1196535, see Commons:Bad sources#Freepik.com An insect photographer (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:大武軍艦 舷側.jpg

Copyrighted photo of the Youth Daily News Solomon203 (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per nom, Youth Daily News website does not have GWOIA statement and all its media are copyrighted per their statement, and the image was sourced from Facebook. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:BUAFL 300.gif

Logo is probably above COM:TOO US because of the athlete silhouette. HyperAnd [talk] 10:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

This should probably be COM:TOO UK, which is generally a lower threshold than the US version so almost certainly met here.
However, the original uploader claimed it was released under CCO 1.0, not that it was below the threshold of originally. The website for BUAFL was www.buafl.net (available on the wayback machine); the terms and conditions there make it clear that images on the website are under copyright and do not say anything about the logo being available under Creative Commons. Robminchin (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Huh, didn't see that it was from the UK, whoops. Though, I'm not sure how this would fair with TOO UK after THJ v Sheridan. HyperAnd [talk] 10:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Wind-turbine.png

Picture from Freepik, see Commons:Bad sources#Freepik.com An insect photographer (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

However it's made of simple geometric shapes and maybe doesn't meet the Commons:Threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. I'm not sure that's why I started this request. An insect photographer (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Seems likely to be below COM:TOO, but which country's TOO is at issue? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Australia flag icon round.svg

Picture from Freepik, see Commons:Bad sources#Freepik.com An insect photographer (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I haven't seen Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:flaticon after what this picture has been kept here. I'm afraid of having made a mistake. An insect photographer (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Calligraphy of Imam Abu al Qasim Rafi.png

i have already created this ShafiNotes (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)


File:Calligraphy of Imam Abu al Qasim Rafi.png

This illustration of Abu al Qasim al Rafi'i have some flaws ShafiNotes (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Frédéric François (journaliste) 2012-09-24.jpg

1970's or 1980's photograph. Claimed to be own work, but the uploader is not reliable. BrightRaven (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Photo Gbadolite avec Mobutu et Polspoel 1992.jpg

1992 photograph. I strongly doubt this image is own work given the subject and the copyvio record of the uploader. BrightRaven (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Photo Sénat.jpg

1970s or 1980s photograph. I strongly doubt this image is own work given the subject and the copyvio record of the uploader. BrightRaven (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:19340518 Dessin de Charles Maurras dans Pourquoi pas ?.png

Drawing signed by Jacques Ochs, who died in 1971. Will be in the PD in Belgium in 2042. BrightRaven (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Maurice Despret.jpg

Drawing signed by Jacques Ochs, who died in 1971. Will be in the PD in Belgium in 2042. BrightRaven (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Graffiti in Grand réseau sud de Paris

There is no freedom of panorama for 2D artworks in France. Note that it being a graffiti is not a reason to keep it, see COM:GRAFFITI.

Günther Frager (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

the panorama I made [File:Catacombes La plage (panorama).png], yes, it can be deleted
the others photos can be still in discussion. Err404 (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
the file: File:Mosaique.jpg
it is a mozaic, not a graffiti and it is not a panorama.
this file should not be deleted. Err404 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
@Err404: Freedom of panorama is a legal term and it has nothing to do with panoramic photographs, you can read the definition here. Being a mosaic it doesn't invalidate the reason for deletion "copyrighted 2D artwork in a country without FoP", my second sentence was just a note as many people argue that graffiti are not protected by copyright. Günther Frager (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Tona (artist)

There is no freedom of panorama for 2D artworks in Laos. Note that them being graffiti is not a reason to keep it, see COM:GRAFFITI.

Günther Frager (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

  • There is no proof, only circumstantial evidence.
  • Has anyone a "proof" that this image for example (like all others uploaded by a red-linked user called "Günther Frager" on Commons), coming from Flickr, with an author called "jorgemejia" on Commons alias "Jorge Mejía peralta" on Flickr, without {{Personality rights}} warning (before I added it) has really been authorized by the famous activist George Henriquez? Does anyone has a "proof" that this person or the photographer, or the red-linked user, or the CIA, will never sue Wikimedia Commons? Do you have a "proof" that the flickr account is not a fake or an usurpation? Do you have a proof that it's not AI generated? Do you have a proof that the exif data are reliable? Etc.
  • But here you have circumstantial evidence: the Copyright notice and CC licence is published in a public space. You can archive it and show the evidence to a brave judge :-) Let me tell you that if this permission is not accurate, then you'll have your work cut out for you with the thousands of tagged images I've uploaded here myself, under my own name. So I advise you to trust me, which is both the truth and common sense.
  • There has already been a DR request, and following this DR closed with "kept", I uploaded 6 more images I had on my computer since 2020. If the file had been deleted, 1) I would have respected the decision, 2) I would have not uploaded similar photos, all the more so that I have hundreds of my own works taken in Paris and elsewhere taken with a Canon 5R to upload here. If you want all the links to Wikimedia Commons removed from my own website, go ahead and delete these 7 small images. I will adapt (and others may follow).
  • Wikimedia Commons has always worked on trusted users, and there is no reason to doubt my good faith. I've been here for a long time, and created hundreds of quality images like these ones.
  • I have no idea if this artist Tona makes money with his work (please give the links if that's the case), but I know 1) these images are offered for free to Commons, then you should be grateful, and 2) money is always useful. To buy material, for example.
  • This street artist has no personal website, that's why mine has been used, and because I am the photographer. But you can reach Tona by email. The contact address is accessible online through one of the websites given. In my experience a few weeks are necessary before a response. Not sure he will appreciate to be harassed but the pictures are okay for Commons, this is the truth.
  • I'm not going to start a long VRT procedure, as I successfully did in the past with the Japanese artist Yasumichi Morita, because 1) we also have no "proof" that the people behind the emails are real, and 2) because it's time-consuming. Now do as you want. But I will follow this case. Pinging User:IronGargoyle, who closed the previous DR: what do you think?
  • Last thing I would like to say: Graffiti in general are not my main concern. I love countries like Japan that are free of graffiti, for example. So why did I photograph these images? Because I find this artwork wonderful artistically, it changes something ugly into something beautiful. A sad wall, deteriorated, with decay, becomes interesting and poetic with hope. That's art, in my opinion. And that's courageous, from Tona. You have to find dark places, abandoned buildings, sometimes isolated, to bring something visually clean, fresh and innovative. Like a story where you would not expect to find one. A spirit. This is just my subjective point of view, and you're free to think differently, of course. Have a nice day everyone -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • 💡 Info For the record, the original images are available in high resolution here:
🍀 Explicitly shared with a free license CC BY-SA 4.0 (Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International).
Feel free to use them from the source! And save these links to prove they are official :-) Wikimedia Commons has problems with Shutterstock. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Günther Frager (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • See COM:USERPAGE#Content to learn about content and userboxes. Could be useful for you, red-linked.
  • If you ignore about COM:PEOPLE please take a look. You may learn that portraits of people sticking out the tongue like this one you upload here, where all the details are visible at full size, or children having bike accidents are worth a {{PR}} template. But also double check concerning the (reliable) sources. It looks like most of the photos you import here since 2023 come from FlickR, but any one can create a flickR account, pay for the "PRO" status, and it doesn't make Flickr the most reliable website. Several of your uploads have dead links as Flickr source, and it happens often. When you say "people are not artworks", certainly you should consult the List of most expensive photographs on Wikipedia to discover the $ millions a portrait can cost.
  • My website is not a "lambda website" and certainly much less "lambda" than thousands of FlickR accounts where you find your uploads. Commons' bots accept them all as long as the license is notified "free", but bots make mistake and don't identify plagiarism. I find extremely embarrassing your behavior, because all these files were clearly marked as valid in their talk pages. Sorry but this is harassment. I made the work to prepare everything, and that was generous. But hyper-skeptical participants like you always find something wrong. To be very honest, I am prepared to remove all the links to Wikimedia Commons from my website, and to say bye bye. Also because after the hard work my files here are regularly stolen by Shutterstock.
  • Many photographers here sell their artworks. And so what? Is it forbidden to make business? You should be happy that Tona accepts to give these images for free. He asks nothing in exchange. He could have answered to me "no, sorry, not Commons, a free website, I prefer to sell my works" but on the contrary he generously answered "yes, it's ok". Thank you, Tona. Thanks also to those who have common sense and understand that the same stencil have been reused multiple of times. The artworks for sell are signed and have a physical support, sometimes in metal. It's completely different. Here it's just a photograph of a painting on the wall in the street. Potential customers perfectly know that. In your DR you write "being graffiti is not a reason to keep it" but that's a particular case where the artist gave the permission. Now don't make things more difficult than they are already. If you have ten artists collaborating together, are you going to request 10 different publications on 10 websites with 10 emails to the VRT team? Nonsense. These files are ok. The artist accepts them here and is aware. You have the materials in high resolution at a specific source, you have the permission granted with explicit copyright notice, now thank you, keep them and bye bye. Otherwise you will simply chase all the well-intentioned and well-established participants. You will read a notice "retired" on their user pages, or just a blanked page, and you will know why. Keep these files, and focus on really problematic matters. There are, for sure, but elsewhere. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Thanks, for the tip on userboxes, I'm aware of them. But could you tell me why it was relevant for the DR?
    • When you say "people are not artworks", certainly you should consult the List of most expensive photographs on Wikipedia to discover the $ millions a portrait can cost. You are comparing a portrait photograph where the only copyrighted material is the photograph with a photo of a graffiti where the copyrighted material is the photo and the graffiti. Is that difficult to understand?
    • Again, if you have concerns with other images open a DR. Flickrwahsing is problem and since you took the work of inspecting my contribution you can see the many DRs I opened trying to address those issues.
    • Many photographers here sell their artworks... the concern is not the copyright of your photograph is about the artwork that you are not the copyright holder, it is explained in COM:DW.
    • My website is not a "lambda website" and certainly much less "lambda" than thousands of FlickR accounts where you find your uploads. photo with derivative works are routinely deleted even if they come from high profile accounts like governments.
    • You have the materials in high resolution Did you read the part were I explicitly said that I was not challenging that you took the photo?
    • but that's a particular case where the artist gave the permission I asked you to request a VRT to the artist and you refuse.
    Günther Frager (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Could you tell me why it was relevant for the DR? => you don't trust me, although I'm transparent, then why should we trust a red-linked user with absolutely no background? You want a proof, but which "proof" do you have, for example when you upload Flickr works made by others, these works don't even come from your own camera! What do you know about others' creations? Only suppositions. Only unverifiable assumptions. That's the comparison.
  • We are both copyright holders, here, Tona and me. And we made this public page to share our work for free. Not enough in your subjective view? Too bad. The links will remain active. And I won't waste my life on this no-problem.
  • There won't be any legal action, contrary to what you mistakenly believe. When Tona gives his explicit permission, he has a reason in mind. He's aware that his work can be reused, and he agrees. The previous DR should have been an indicator to you, Günther Frager, but either you didn't see it, either you choose to refuses the obvious, and that's a shame.
  • After 14 years here, I read a lot of DRs, and can tell you that reasonable views usually dominate the section. With exceptions sometimes, but most of the time, people keep the files that should be kept.
  • You suggest me to nominate your uploads for deletion, but the thing you don't understand is I'm just not engaged in a competition of who will destroy the other more. I'm sure you can find around people with such a revenge spirit, and yes, someone could nominate your File:Bike accident.jpg with a rationale like "Cruel" or "Non-educational personal image", or "Failure to assist a person in need", etc. Sorry, I have nobler pursuits. -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Grachi.png

Likely above COM:TOO US because of the complex 3D effects. HyperAnd [talk] 12:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Union Tpke 184th St td (2018-07-23) 03 - Hillcrest Jewish Center.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

When do they date from? - Jmabel ! talk 23:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Kostel v Děrném – letní pohled (2012).webm

Nahráno omylem, archivní materiál – nevyřešená autorská práva. Očnap (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Бюст Героя Советского Союза генерала И. В. Панфилова, проспект Красноармейский, 110, Барнаул, Алтайский край.jpg

File:Dr. Caldwell1.jpg

Possible copyvio. No clear evidence that uploader has the rights of this image TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Twee Gebroeders Oostzee 1987.jpg

A picture of a ship at sea taken in 1987 with an Apple IPhone? At almost 5000 meters above sea level? Impossible LeeGer (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that it can be explained bij making a copy by iPhone of an hard copy photo. Please ask the photographer to explain the process first.--Stunteltje (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Making a photo of a picture and claiming it as your own work is a copyright volation and reason for deletion as well. LeeGer (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Not necessarily true because analogous cameras existed in the past and one way to digitize them is to use a digital camera to take a photo of the photo. 1987 is recent enough for the uploader to be the actual copyright holder. Nakonana (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

File:2014 Alabama public service commission seat 2 election results map by county.svg

This file is a duplicate of File:2024 Alabama public service commissioner election results map by county.svg. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Карта Казахского ханства.png

Низкое качество карты Sazhik99 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Map of the Kazakh Khanate in its heyday.png

Низкое качество карты Sazhik99 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Kazakh Khanate map.png

Я был молод и глуп Sazhik99 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Kazakh Khanate (Urusov Yurt) map2.png

Я был молод и глуп Sazhik99 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Kazakh Horde under Tauekel Khan 1598.png

Я был молод и глуп Sazhik99 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Kazakh Horde under Hack-Nazar Khan.png

Я был молод и глуп Sazhik99 (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Kazakh zhuzes under Abylai Khan.png

Я был молод и глуп Sazhik99 (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Khanate of Kasym (Kazakh) in the period of power.png

Я был молод и глуп Sazhik99 (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Aekicy.jpg

Previously used on deleted page on English Wikipedia due to self-promotion: en:Draft:Aekicy Btrs (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Inaccurate Zimbabwean traffic signs

These files where created at a time when my abilities in creating images were very primitive. They were far from accurate, and have recently been superseded by far superior versions uploaded by another user. The two with asterisks next to them were created by the Jermboy sock farm, but followed my model and therefore are equally invalid. The wild animals sign does not yet have an alternative file, but it is being worked on, so I also request its deletion. Fry1989 eh? 23:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:F2UL- zWAAAysNk.jpg

No encyclopaedic purpose; seems to have been created solely to troll the subject by replacing better images in infoboxes with this one. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The previous image was over a decade old. This is a recent, close up, well lit and high res picture depicting much more accurately how the subject currently looks. I don't understand the 'trolling' accusation. Kralex (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment: This image is likely a copyright violation, though I see VRT has been involved to see if the owner will release the image to be used on Wikipedia. Significa liberdade (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)