Commons:Deletion requests/2026/02/09

February 9

File:Polish Gun Permits By Purpose 2024.svg

I have uploaded an updated version of this file under a different name. This file is not used on any page right now. Malgond (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Marcella tv show.jpg

How could this be "own work" unless the user is a representative of ITV or Netflix? ~2026-87060-4 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Coats of arms of Abai Province.jpg

Out of scope: this certainly isn't a coat of arms. It looks more like a logo or wordmark, but I can't find any source for it. Omphalographer (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Official links: https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/abay/about/structure?lang=en https://www.instagram.com/abai_oblysynyn_akimdigi https://web.telegram.org/a/#-1001753180325 https://www.facebook.com/AbaiOblysynynAkimdigi — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhassenY (talk • contribs) 07:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Do not touch the image! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhassenY (talk • contribs) 07:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Could a passing administrator indef KhassenY for possible legal threats? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
@KhassenY: you need to see the above reply I left regarding you Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:MoM-z14 in the COSMOS Legacy Field as seen by the NIRCam instrument on the JWST.png

Higher res available here: MoM-z14 in the COSMOS Legacy Field as seen by the NIRCam instrument aboard the JWST.png Georgelazenby (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Delete: agree with rationale; "on" is currently unused Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy link to the other file: File:MoM-z14 in the COSMOS Legacy Field as seen by the NIRCam instrument aboard the JWST.png Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Security camera footage of Germany

§ 95 Laufbilder of the Urheberrechtsgesetz – UrhG confirms that videos ("sequences of moving images") that dont reach the threshold of a "film work" (Filmwerk) are still entitled to copyright protection

Die §§ 88, 89 Absatz 4, 90, 93 und 94 Absatz 1 Satz 1 sind auf Bildfolgen und Bild- und Tonfolgen, die nicht als Filmwerke geschützt sind, entsprechend anzuwenden.

§ 95 Laufbilder of the Urheberrechtsgesetz – UrhG protects the copyright of screenshots of CCTV videos

(1) Lichtbilder und Erzeugnisse, die ähnlich wie Lichtbilder hergestellt werden, werden in entsprechender Anwendung der für Lichtbildwerke geltenden Vorschriften des Teils 1 geschützt.

(2) Das Recht nach Absatz 1 steht dem Lichtbildner zu.

(3) Das Recht nach Absatz 1 erlischt fünfzig Jahre nach dem Erscheinen des Lichtbildes oder, wenn seine erste erlaubte öffentliche Wiedergabe früher erfolgt ist, nach dieser, jedoch bereits fünfzig Jahre nach der Herstellung, wenn das Lichtbild innerhalb dieser Frist nicht erschienen oder erlaubterweise öffentlich wiedergegeben worden ist.

In Germany the copyright of the files would typically belong to the owner of the CCTV camera in question (the "Producer"). Trade (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per German law. Uploader should be aware that {{PD-automated}} does not necessarily mean CCTV is free to use everywhere. Raskuly (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

AlsinayColon

Reasons for deletion request: G7, author or uploader request deletion. AlsinayColon (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep: you need to re-read the criterion you provided; it only works for speedy deletion and on content no older than seven days that nobody is using. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Headstone of Wing Commander James Fraser Barron.jpg

As per source, file license is CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. https://www.aucklandmuseum.com/war-memorial/online-cenotaph/record/C20628?pob=Dunedin&p=2&from=%2Fwar-memorial%2Fonline-cenotaph%2Fcustom-search&ordinal=36 Prosperosity (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Super ninja2 (talk · contribs)

"Art" of unidentified significance. Out of scope?

Takeaway (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Super ninja2 (talk · contribs)

"Art" of unidentified significance. Out of scope?

Takeaway (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Super ninja2 (talk · contribs)

"Art" of unidentified significance. Out of scope?

Takeaway (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Super ninja2 (talk · contribs)

Commons:Derivative works from anime/manga.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Super ninja2 (talk · contribs)

The first image appears in David Rohde's book "In Deep" (about 3% in). The only differences I see are the crossed arrows in the book being a lighter shade of gray and the font being different. "David Rohde deep state in America 2.png" is the same, but with good and bad reversed, putting good at the top and an added color gradient to make liberal blue and conservative red.

The question becomes: is a list of terms organized in a simple shape/table eligible for copyright? Personally I suspect not, but if that's the case we might as well upload the original diagram from the book as {{PD-chart}}. (which would likely void the educational potential of "David Rohde deep state in America.png" as it's near-identitcal) @Clindberg: what do you think?

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure you can copyright that general arrangement, but the selection part -- if the exact same set of words were chosen -- then I think it's a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Clindberg, here's the original from the ebook: https://imgur.com/a/TjjcRcE.
I suspected it may not be eligible for copyright protection because recipes and shopping lists typically aren't eligible either. This is slightly different of course, but it feels like plain data. It could be represented in a simple table:
Subject Conservativeness Badness
Good government 0% 0%
Lawmaker 50% 45%
The Market 90% 15%
The Swamp 95% 80%

But I'm not 100% certain about this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
File:David Rohde deep state in America 2.png is the exact same set of words, ordered the same way. Recipes are different -- the ingredients are functional, so the selection is predetermined, and there aren't many creative ways to arrange them after that (and the order can be functional too). In this case, I don't think it's that certain -- someone else trying to express the same idea would almost certainly come up with a different set of words, and order them differently. It's fair use in most cases, but still copyrighted. This is more like a poem. I don't think the idea of having those axes, and arranging words in that manner is a problem -- but picking the exact same words and ordering them the same, can be. Even something like a greatest hits album can have a selection and arrangement copyright, separate from the music itself. The copyright is on the particular selection of words, and the precise arrangement. That is copied exactly, and so the copyright is with the original -- changing the position of the axes is not a copyrightable change. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
someone else trying to express the same idea would almost certainly come up with a different set of words, and order them differently.
1. Wrong. Bc these aren't made up words. these are the exact words that are used by the Americans to describe the deep state. So You can't alter them, change them, or tweak to your likings in order to avoid copyright vio or for any other reason. It's not possible. Also you can't change the arrangement since the political spectrum isn't changeable: conservative is always right and liberal is on the left. Changing that wouldn't make any sense and it would be plain wrong.
2. Even so, still. That doesn't make it any less of a chart and doesn't exclude it from charts and graphs copyright act.
Recipes are different -- the ingredients are functional, so the selection is predetermined, and there aren't many creative ways to arrange them after that (and the order can be functional too)
you realize that these words are ordered this way to represent data, right? Super ninja2 (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Super ninja2, So You can't alter them, change them, or tweak to your likings
It's not data from a survey or something. If it is, it's not sourced.
I'd add "lobbyists". They live in The Swamp, I guess. But it's a list of terms people use, not groups, so you could have both. And the Supreme Court? w:Gerrymandering? Lawyers, celebrities, the media, influencers? The top 1%?
I don't know what a "Wall Street Tool" is. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
data are data regardless of where they are from or whether they are accurate or who the person who put them together is.
I don't know what a "Wall Street Tool" is
oh ok so it must be a piece of art then. lol. Is that how you classify whether something is art? If you have to try that hard to prove something is art, then it probably isn't.
It is still a chart even to the blind eye, so maybe don't try so hard to tell us our eyes are lying. Super ninja2 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
There also a discussion at Commons:Help desk#How do I challenge speedy deletion of my file about this file. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep. ineligible for copyright because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. the data that I used from the source isn't subject to copyright.

Charts, graphs, and tables are not subject to copyright protection because they do not meet the first requirement for copyright protection, that is, they are not “original works of authorship,” under the definitions in the Act.[1]

Period. Super ninja2 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Trabich (talk · contribs)

Trabich describes these as her (or his) "own work". But in Draft:Bertha Trabich w:Draft:Bertha Trabich, it's implied (or stated) that they're by somebody who died in 1941. Which?

Hoary (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC) Error fixed -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hoary: you forgot the interwiki prefix (the correct project link is w:Draft:Bertha Trabich) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Indeed I did, Whyiseverythingalreadyused. Apologies for the stupid mistake. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
lol we're good here Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 23:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Vase (AM 1990.224-1).jpg

Impossible to know whether underlying work (the vase) is copyrighted or not without a date of creation. I believe that this object would qualify for copyright as an artistic and creative vase. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have any particular expertise, but it looks to me to be almost certainly no later than 1930s. (Of course, it could also be newer and retro, but given the museum's comment "possibly an early form" that seems very unlikely.)
Pinging @The Transhumanist I realize this isn't your usual wiki, but any thoughts, or know who would have more expertise? - Jmabel ! talk 06:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment – Let's research it out: The picture is posted on the article of Crown Lynn Potteries, which operated in New Zealand. A search reveals that the Crown Lynn name wasn't used until 1948 (incorporated by Tom Clark in that year). Browsing auction sites confirms it is a Crown Lynn Kiwi Spill Vase with shape number 165. Definitely a modern piece. So, the copyright hasn't passed into the public domain yet. I could find no indication that the current copyright holder has released the copyrights. The Transhumanist (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
as per below: the maker/manufacturer has NOT been definitely identified (according to both the file info AND the museum's object info records). there are NO recognisable manufacturer's markings, copyright markings, etc. anywhere on the object. & the style does not look postwar. Lx 121 (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep - it's an antique household decorative/utility object, on display in a museum. the picture was released by the museum as cc-licensed. there are no copyright markings on the object (including underside, as per photo-series) or identifiable maker's markings of any kind; only the museum obj # sticker & a smudgy notation in pencil). the maker has NOT been definitely identified (as per both the file info here AND the object info @ the museum's own website. (AND the art/design style of the object looks too old to be Crown Lynn Potteries; this item looks like something something btwn victorian-ish & interwar period)
AND, happily, NZ has generous fop rules, INCLUDING building interiors (re: on public display, in a museum) - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama
SO KEEP, unless a clear case can be made to demonstrate copyvio (i.e.: confirmed identity of manufacturer, date, & copyright status). there are sanity & reasonableness limits to the "precautionary principle". - Lx 121 (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
We do not keep files when we cannot establish that they are PD. There is nothing reasonable in assuming this is PD given its attributed to a company that began operation in 1948. Sherwood Pottery was established around 1950 as well, which means the work likely is copyrighted. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
nothing to say about nz fop for objects on display in a museum? AND your statement: 'We do not keep files when we cannot establish that they are PD.' is not correct; there are multiple licensing terms allowed at commons, & various circumstances (LIKE FOP, no evidence of copyright, cosplay, etc.) under which commons' policy allows keeping of files. AT MOST this is an "in question/in play" case. point of observation - the outcome on such cases could affect a HELL OF A LOT of files on commons from museums, art galleries etc., showing object/items on exhibit. Lx 121 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The object is not on display in the museum, its in the storage/backrooms and is not accessible to the public. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Aerial image of Afgooye.jpg

Old photograph of a Somali town that looks early 20th century, might be public domain if first published in Italy or Somalia, but we'd need that information to be shown not assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Afleming cn.jpg

1960 photograph, probably not public domain in Canada, and definitely restored by URAA. Undelete in 2056. Abzeronow (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Agricultural machinery in Atalanti.jpg

1930s Greek photograph. Publication information needed to determine if author died before 1943 to clear it from URAA or if died before 1956 and can be restored in 2033. Abzeronow (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Clube-do-remo-atual.png

Atualmente, já existe o arquivo Clube do Remo.svg, que é de melhor qualidade e sem estrelas Senseii05 (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Exclui essa imagem Senseii05 (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Magical Mystery Tour US Cover.jpeg

Album is very much under copyright and not Public Domain. As can be seen in this ebay listing for the US LP release, there is a notice on the front cover that we can see up close . "© 1967, NEMS ENTERPRISES LTD." You can't see it well in the provided source by uploader, but better due diligence is needed before uploading album covers that are obviously copyrighted. Category:The Beatles album covers needs a second look overall. PascalHD (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

If you want to see why this was uploaded, en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 November 25 is the discussion related to the upload. Closers are not required to do insane investigations. I frankly don't care what the outcome is, but the image should be transferred to relevant wikis. Sennecaster (Chat) 07:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Caixa Econômica Federal logo.svg

This is not the official logo from Caixa Econômica Federal, and never was. It is a reconstruction made by an unknown third party, and it does not follows the correct form of the real logo. The existence of this file is specially harmful, because it's the first image that is shown on Google when searching for 'logo caixa'. The real logo is this one, sourced from the bank's brand repository on their website: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caixa_Econ%C3%B4mica_Federal_logo_1997.svg Bazem (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  •  Speedy keep per COM:INUSE. If you want the logo removed, you need to remove it from the Wikipedia articles in which it's used, preferably by substituting the real logo. However, I don't see any difference between this file and the one you linked, other than that that one is larger. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - in use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Caixa Econômica Federal logo.svg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caixa_Econ%C3%B4mica_Federal_logo.svg 09/02/2026 This is not the official logo from Caixa Econômica Federal, and never was. It is a reconstruction made by an unknown third party, and it does not follows the correct form of the real logo. The existence of this file is specially harmful, because it's the first image that is shown on Google when searching for 'logo caixa'. The real logo is this one, sourced from the bank's brand repository on their website: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caixa_Econ%C3%B4mica_Federal_logo_1997.svg All pages linking to the false logo file were already corrected, so no page have links to it. On a previous deletion request, the reviewer claimed they 'don't see any difference' between the false logo and the official logo. So I will list here the key visual differences: - The letter C in the false logo has a very open curve, and the letter is thinner. On the real logo, the gap in the middle of C is narrower than the thickness of the letter. - The kerning between the letters A, I and X is much larger on the false logo. - All the letters are wider on the real logo, but it is especially visible on the letters C and I. - On the letter A, the inner triangular gap on the real logo have a slight curve and a flat top, while on the false logo it is a straight and pointed triangle. In fact, the entire geommetry of the character is different. - The stylized X on the false logo does not folow the correct inclination. On the real logo the X is much more skewed to the right (45 degrees on the real logo, 32 degrees on the false logo). - On the false logo, the upper and lower elements of the stylized X are far apart from each other. Bazem (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Graphene Nanoribbons of controlled width.jpg

source is cc-by-nc-sa 3.0, not cc-by-sa 1.0 shizhao (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:The sound of angklung and Si Cepot.webm

The video consists mostly of channel advertising, the sound of the musical instrument promised in the file description is barely audible. The content value of the file is close to zero. Sillerkiil (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Rocky Gimpo fansign.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Orangesclub as Copyvio (copyvio). @Orangesclub: So, what's the proof of copyright violation? 0x0a (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep: no reason to delete Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I recognise I could have started a deletion discussion, sorry about that. The uploader uploaded two high quality photos of members of this group that do not include any demonstration that they did indeed take them, which is why the other photo they uploaded was deleted. There is no demonstration that this uploader actually was at this event, so we are meant to believe that they took one singular photo of this man and that's their only contribution to Wikipedia Commons. However it has been uploaded for so long that it is hard to find the original source, as other websites have now used it, crediting Wikipedia. Orangesclub (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Assume good faith. Deleting a file based on the precautionary principle requires significant doubt. The upload has not been that long ago (2020) for it to be impossible to find the original source. If the source were an offline source, that would be troublesome, but for a 2020 upload/event it shouldn't be too hard. Nakonana (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Receipt of Internetional Registered Mail(CHINA).jpg

Reasons for deletion request (in English): This work is a pre-printed receipt designed by w:China Post Group Corporation. The uploader of the file is not the author of this content, so the use of the {{cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} is factually incorrect.

In addition, this work does not fall within the public domain as stipulated by {{Template:PD-PRC-exempt}} or {{Template:PD-text}}, but is protected by the s:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China for the following reasons:

Article 11, Paragraph 3 of the law stipulates that "Where a work is created under the auspices of, representing the will, and under the responsibility of a legal person or unincorporated organization, such a legal person or unincorporated organization shall be deemed the author of the work." Article 23, Paragraph 2 stipulates that "for a work of a legal person or unincorporated organization, and a work for hire whose copyright (excluding the right of authorship) is enjoyed by a legal person or unincorporated organization, the term of protection for the right of publication shall be fifty years, expiring on December 31 of the fiftieth year after the completion of its creation". The judgment of the Supreme People's Court (2012) Min Shen Zi No. 1150 Case: Hainan Publishing House Co., Ltd. v. Jilin Fine Arts Publishing House (included in the 50 Key Intellectual Property Cases of 2013 released by the Supreme People's Court) held that "the protection covers the intellectual arrangements such as layout, typography, font selection, line spacing, and punctuation, but not the content itself; as long as it is an independent intellectual selection and arrangement, it possesses originality and does not require absolute novelty; identical reproduction, minor modification, or scaled reproduction shall constitute infringement."

As this file is a receipt produced by China Post Group Corporation as a legal person through independent intellectual selection, for its layout, choose of color, font of use, order or items and place of logo, neither are acquired by the law. Like the judgement of the book layout in the aforementioned case, the receipt is also a combination of information structure + typographic layout + visual elements. Therefore, it is protected by the s:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China and does not belong to the public domain. However, I, the requester for deletion, believes that although this file cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as a public domain work, it can be uploaded on local zh wiki under {{Template:fair use}}.

提删理由（In Chinese (Simplified)）: 本作品是w:zh:中国邮政集团公司的预制收据，文件上传者并未该内容的作者，因此使用{{cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}模板存在事实上的错误。

此外，本作品也不属于{{Template:PD-PRC-exempt}}或{{Template:PD-text}}规定的公有领域范围，属于受著作权法保护的内容，理由如下：

《s:zh:中华人民共和国著作权法》第十一条第三项规定，“由法人或者非法人组织主持，代表法人或者非法人组织意志创作，并由法人或者非法人组织承担责任的作品，法人或者非法人组织视为作者”、第二十三条第二项规定，“法人或者非法人组织的作品、著作权（署名权除外）由法人或者非法人组织享有的职务作品，其发表权的保护期为五十年，截止于作品创作完成后第五十年的12月31日”。最高人民法院发布的2013年全国五十个重点知识产权案例中的最高人民法院（2012）民申字第 1150 号案：海南出版社诉吉林美术出版社著作权侵权纠纷案的判决结果认定，“保护版面布局、排式、用字、行距、标点等智力安排，不保护内容本身；只要是独立智力选择与安排，即具独创性，不要求绝对新颖；原样复制、微小改动、缩放复制均构成侵权”。

由于本文件是w:zh中国邮政集团公司作为法人经过独立智力选择而产出的收据，其版式与前文判例中的图书版式一样，均为信息结构 + 排版布局 + 视觉元素的组合，因此受到《s:zh:中华人民共和国著作权法》的保护，不属于公有领域。然而，提删人认为，尽管本文件不能作为公有领域作品上传到维基共享文库中，但可以在中文本地维基以{{Template:fair use}}上传。 -HCCB3947 (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep: This receipt template is the product of functionality and standardization. Every design feature is driven by practical necessity and does not reflect the author's personalized intellectual creation or aesthetic choices. It fails to meet the minimum level of creativity required by copyright law.
  1. This international postal receipt template is a purely functional and standardized document that does not constitute a "work" under the meaning of China's Copyright Law. The core requirement for constituting a "work" is "originality," meaning it is independently created and possesses a minimal degree of creativity. As for this file, the elements in this receipt are necessary functional components of any postal receipt. The selection and arrangement lack creativity. Fields are typically arranged linearly following business processes (top-to-bottom) or reading habits (left-to-right). This layout is the most efficient solution and common industry practice, a functional design for quick completion, identification, and processing. It does not constitute a unique expression of aesthetic significance. The use of lines, boxes, generic fonts, colors (e.g., postal green), and official logos primarily serves the purposes of functional zoning, brand identification, and anti-counterfeiting. While a logo itself may be protected as an artwork (com:DM may be applied), this does not confer originality upon the entire functional form.
  2. The Supreme People's Court case (2012) Min Shen Zi No. 1150 cited by the nomination does not apply to this file.

“出版者有权许可或者禁止他人使用其出版的图书、期刊的版式设计。前款规定的权利的保护期为十年，截止于使用该版式设计的图书、期刊首次出版后第十年的12月31日。” “Publishers shall have the right to license or prohibit others’ use of the typographical design of the books or journals they publish. The term of protection for the rights referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be ten years, expiring on December 31 of the tenth year after the first publication of the books or journals using the typographical design.”

— Article 37 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China
This article protects"layout design rights", which is a separate w:neighboring right. Its subject matter is the labor and investment made by a publisher in typesetting specific, existing content (e.g., a particular book). Its term of protection is only ten years. The file in question is a generic template containing no specific typeset content and therefore does not fall under the subject matter of this article at all. Extending this right that protects a “specific content layout” to a “blank template” and claiming it enjoys full “work copyright” is a misapplication of the law.--Hehua (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Also per PD-PRC-exempt, Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China: Article 5; This law shall not apply to:(...)(3) calendars, numerical tables and forms of general use, and formulas.The postal receipt is a standard document for performing postal services and falls within the category of "general forms". It should not be copyrighted. Hehua (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
@Hehua: You claimed that the pre-printed China Post receipt is a purely functional and standardized document without originality, belonging to the "form of general use" under Article 5 of the Copyright Law, and that the relevant Supreme People's Court case is inapplicable. This view contains multiple misinterpretations of the law and is untenable.
  1. Functionality does not exclude originality. The division of information modules, collocation of visual elements, and layout of the receipt in question are all independent intellectual choices of China Post. Differences in receipt designs among different postal enterprises in the world confirm that there is room for discretionary design, meeting the requirement of minimum originality under the Copyright Law. It's standardized function is a kind of real need, the motivation to design the work, rather than the reason to be in the public domain.
  2. The case is correctly applicable. I acknowledge that the "layout design rights" is a kind of w:neighboring right, however, the core of the Supreme People's Court (2012) Min Shen Zi No. 1150 case is that "independent intellectual arrangements possess originality", which applies to all layout designs regardless of the carrier. By denying the originality of the receipt in question on the basis that 'the carrier of the layout design right is a book,' you are actually confusing the logical relationship between "type of right'‘ and '’determination of originality," regardless of the type of right ultimately protecting it, originality is the prerequisite, and the originality of the receipt in question has already been confirmed through judicial precedent.
  3. You may misapplicated legal provisions. The receipt in question is an exclusive business document of China Post, only used within its scope, and does not have the universality of a "form of general use" under Article 5 of the Copyright Law. Its internal standardization does not equal social universalization. As I mentioned above, no law acquires it to design like this, this is not a work created by government, rather, it's by the legal person/entity - China Post.
  4. AGAIN, Article 11, Paragraph 3 of the law stipulates that "Where a work is created under the auspices of, representing the will, and under the responsibility of a legal person or unincorporated organization, such a legal person or unincorporated organization shall be deemed the author of the work." The receipt is created under the auspices of China Post, representing its will and for which it bears responsibility. Combined with its originality, it fully complies with Article 11, is protected by copyright, and does not fall into the public domain.
While you might think that receipt layout is simple and not intellectual property from a practical standpoint, pre-made receipts are like publications, with legal notices even on the back. Whether a receipt design can be considered a simple general form should be determined by case law, not by life experience. The text content of the receipt itself is not protected by copyright, and the logo in the upper left corner matches what you said com:DM, but these do not detract from the originality of its design and layout. Furthermore, it is worth noting that, according to the State Council's Postal System Reform Plan, the State Post Bureau initiated the separation of government and enterprise functions in November 2006, after which the China Post Group Corporation was established. The earliest possible production date of this receipt could not be earlier than that. Moreover, to my knowledge, this format of receipt first appeared in the China Post Group Corporation's Rules for Handling International and Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao Mail in 2009. Whether the receipt was designed and published in 2006 or 2009, when the uploader uploaded this receipt to wikicommons in 2014, it was still within the 10-year protection period stipulated in the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, therefore, the document is infringing. -- HCCB3947 (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The opposing argument contains several fundamental errors in legal logic:
  1. Misapplication of the "originality" standard: It equates the "existence of design variations" with "possessing the creativity required by copyright law," ignoring the merger doctrine (or w:scenes à faire principle and w:Idea–expression distinction). When expression is solely dictated by function, it is not protected. The layout of a postal receipt is a functional, standardized solution driven by necessity, not originality.
  2. Erroneous expansion of the precedent's scope: The (2012) Min Shen Zi No. 1150 case protects the neighboring right (layout design right) arising from the typesetting of pre-existing copyrighted content. Its principles cannot be reversed to argue that a blank template itself is a work. This is a logical inversion. And the protection period should be calculated based on the current time rather than the upload time.
  3. Misinterpretation of "form of general use": The term "general use" in Article 5 of the Copyright Law refers to forms that serve a common category of business or legal affairs (e.g., mailing). A postal receipt is precisely such a form for the common business of postal service. Its design is a public tool and should not be monopolized.
  4. Inferences based on a flawed premise: Since the receipt template does not constitute a "work" in the first place, discussions about whether it is a "work made for hire" (legal-person work) or whether it is still within a "protection term" lack any legal foundation.
Therefore, based on the principles of copyright law and a correct reading of the judicial precedent, this receipt template lacks originality, belongs to the category of forms of general use, does not constitute a protected work, and should be retainable on Commons.--Hehua (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
@Hehua:
  1. I still want to remind you that the statement that expression is not protected by copyright if it is only for the purpose of fulfilling a certain function is your own interpretation and does not have clear legal support.
  2. In addition, if the copyright time is calculated based on the current time instead of upload GMT time, then all Chinese stamps on the site should be deleted now, rather than those uploaded before a specific year being retained. Therefore, it is evident that there is an issue with your second viewpoint, or there may be logical loopholes in the expression.
  3. Regarding the third point, having copyright does not necessarily mean that the layout has monopoly. This case is still difficult. Different publishers may have different layouts for the same book. You cannot say that a single layout holder will monopolize the publication of this book, because others can still publish this book while reasonably formatting it in other ways. If there are other swimming companies in China, their document style may be a different layout and not subject to the constraints of China Post.
  4. Your point of view is that copyright law only mentions the protection of publication layout, without mentioning whether there is protection for other works. You cannot arbitrarily infer that no such protection can be applied to other works just because there is a lack of explicit copyright protection provisions for other works in the law. This is not a black-and-white relationship, but a state to be defined. You may think that my inference of receipts through publications is incorrect, but you cannot assume that receipts are not protected just because there is no legal provision for receipts.
Well, it seems that none of us can persuade each other. We are neither a court nor a qualified subject with the right to interpret the law. Let's leave this issue to the China National Intellectual Property Administration and ask the question to them. -- HCCB3947 (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA; 国家知识产权局) is the patent and trademark office and primary intellectual property regulator of the People's Republic of China. It will not comment on this issue about copyright. Hehua (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Tanks for figuring out; I thought the copyright administration was cancelled and merged into CNIPA. Please also raise a question to the copyright administration. HCCB3947 (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't think they will comment on a single issue. There's only an online report link for copyright owners to report the copyright violations. Hehua (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
@Hehua, how do you know without a try? At least they will figure out where you should reach out. My question to CNIPA got an answer, see here. The Chinese Lunisolar New Year is approaching, maybe we can call this telephone number after the festival. HCCB3947 (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  1. Please read w:Idea–expression distinction and w:scenes à faire. It is not my interpretation. Here is a report from People's Court Daily said :Article 9(2) of the TRIPS Agreement stipulates that "Copyright protection shall extend to expressions and not to ideas, processes, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such." Although China's Copyright Law does not directly stipulate the "idea-expression dichotomy", this principle is generally recognized in judicial practice. Article 6 of the Regulations on the Protection of Computer Software clearly states that copyright does not protect ideas. The article provides: "The protection of software copyright under these regulations does not extend to the ideas, processes, methods of operation or mathematical concepts used in the development of the software." It is evident that in accordance with the principle of the "idea-expression dichotomy", the Copyright Law does not protect ideas but only specific expressions. Specifically, the Copyright Law does not protect abstract ideas, thoughts, concepts, theories, conceptions, creativity, concepts, processes, systems, methods of operation or technical solutions.
  2. "all Chinese stamps on the site should be deleted now" is relatively right. All Chinese stamps published after 1946 are copyrighted in US per URAA. However, the community has decided that the files uploaded before 1 March 2012 could be kept with Template:Not-PD-US-URAA. Other files could be deleted. But the stamps are copyrighted because they are art work, not related to the layout design right. Using the long-term rules of the former to challenge the temporal logic of the latter is legally unfounded.
  3. You correctly note that "having copyright doesn't mean monopolizing a business," but this is precisely the key issue. Copyright protects original expression. If the layout of the China Post receipt were truly original, the law would protect that specific expression. Yet, as we observe, other postal companies designing different receipts are not restricted by it. This indicates that the basic layout of a receipt is an unprotected, functional "general language," not an "original expression" that can be exclusively owned.
Hehua (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
@Hehua, regarding your first argument, it correctly states the idea-expression dichotomy as a general copyright principle, but misapplies it to the present work.
The copyright exceptions for ideas, processes, and methods under TRIPS Agreement and the Computer Software Protection Regulation apply only to abstract ideas, not to the original, specific, detailed expression with sufficient originality.
w:Scènes à faire only covers standard, generic elements, not the unique selection, structure, and specific details of this work. It does not apply to original selection, arrangement, structure, plot design, specific detail, and unique expression created by the author.
Regarding TRIPS Agreement Art 9(2), Article 6 of the Regulations on the Protection of Computer Software and the idea-expression dichotomy recognized by Chinese courts, none of these are wrong, BUT: These provisions do not state that all non-software works shall be treated the same as computer software ideas. They do not deny copyright to original, creative expression with sufficient originality.
As you mentioned in 3, The real boundary under copyright law is originality, not a vague “idea vs. expression” label you impose. In other words, as long as there is a concrete expression with "originality," it is protected; only completely abstract ideas without a fixed form are not protected. Don't tell me that you think the physical receipt is a kind of abstract ideas. HCCB3947 (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Your response attempts to redefine originality while misrepresenting several fundamental doctrines.
  1. You misunderstand the idea-expression dichotomy. TRIPS Article 9(2) and Chinese law have never limited its application to abstract ideas.The Regulations on the Protection of Computer Software is only an example. Courts consistently apply it to any expression inseparable from function, regardless of how specific or detailed that expression may be. A detailed engineering blueprint is highly specific, but its functional aspects are not protected by copyright. Specificity does not equal copyrightability.
  2. Scènes à faire applies precisely to this case. The selection, structure, and specific details of a postal receipt—weight/postage blocks, barcode placement—are dictated by postal operation procedures, international standards, and user expectations. These are not unique creative choices but standardized, functional elements necessary for any mail processing system. This is the very definition of scènes à faire.
  3. You have inverted the test for originality. Originality requires creative choices, not merely the existence of details. The question is not whether details exist, but whether those details reflect artistic or literary creativity rather than functional problem-solving. In this case, every design element serves a practical purpose. This is industrial design, not artistic expression—and industrial design, if protected at all, falls under patent or design law, not copyright.
  4. Your logic leads to absurd conclusions. If your standard were correct, every branded form, every instruction manual, every business document with specific details would enjoy copyright protection. This would monopolize the basic tools of commerce—exactly what copyright law, through the doctrines you seek to dismiss, aims to prevent.
This physical receipt is not an abstract idea. It is functional expression, and functional expression falls outside the scope of copyright protection. That is the boundary clearly established by law. Hehua (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
As for the fourth one, your argument inverts the fundamental logic of copyright law.You have precisely confused the fundamental principle of statutory copyright.
The core of copyright protection is that without explicit legal provisions, there is no protection, rather than the presumption that "everything not prohibited by law is protected." The law clearly enumerates the scope of subject matters eligible for protection, which constitutes a legislative choice rather than a "gap to be defined."
  1. Copyright is a statutory grant, not a default state. Protection is the exception, not the rule. The burden is on you to prove the receipt qualifies as a protected "work" under the law's defined categories (e.g., artistic work), not on others to prove a negative. "The law doesn't explicitly forbid it" is not a legal basis for protection.
  2. The publication layout precedent proves the opposite. The law specifically created a neighboring right for publishers regarding books/journals. This precise, closed list argues against analogy. If the law intended to protect other layouts broadly, it would not have created such a narrow, specific right.
  3. The conclusion is based on positive legal criteria, not an undefined "grey area." The verdict of "no protection" is reached by applying the fixed legal tests of originality and classification into a work category. The receipt fails both tests definitively. This is a concluded analysis, not a pending question.--Hehua (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The receipt is below com:TOO like many other files in Category:Receipts. Hehua (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The copyright laws of each country are different. I noticed that in this category, the Category:Receipts of China is either printed on thermal paper, non pre-made data, handwritten filling, or some invoices (fapiao). The first type is not pre formatted data, nor is it in the format pre arranged by the receipt provider; The second handwritten one only has written records, without deliberate typesetting; The format of the third invoice is statutory content, which falls under the exception of Article 5 (Para 1) of the Copyright Law. No one can compare to the receipt from China Post in this nomination. HCCB3947 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Sander Terras.jpg

This appears to be a television screencap. MKFI (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Kaljup (talk · contribs)

Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.

Estopedist1 (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Photos from the 1980s / 2000s aren't that old. If the uploader is in their 50s or older they could have easily taken those photos themselves. Is there a reason to doubt their own work claim? Nakonana (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bank of China symbol.svg

This file was initially tagged by Wcam as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G4|Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bank of China Logo.svg Converted to DR. I cannot see what the previously deleted images are, but according to the DR, it sounded like the version with the calligraphy text (i.e. en:File:Bank of China.svg). This version only contains the coin symbol. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)


Kept: nominator is correct, this version and the previously deleted version are different. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Bank of China symbol.svg

I think the coin sign is also copyrighted per it is above com:TOO China because it is relatively low. (The Gang Heng logo is copyrighted.) Hehua (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Info, according to the Bank of China's website, the coin symbol is designed in 1986 by Hong Kong designer Kan Tai-keung (靳埭強), who is currently still alive. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
However, com:TOO Hong Kong is not OK. Hehua (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
 Delete The old UK TOO HK is presumably using was is basically nonexistent Dronebogus (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

File:LOGO-VIB-Blue.png

Cross-wiki upload image have low quality, smaller than 200,000px (this is policy of viwikipedia for fair used images). A logo of a bank should be of higher quality or they should upload there. --Henrydat (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version, so I withdraw. --Henry (dat) 15:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:1390587 532433720165847 1892297760 n (26632783303).jpg

Redundant with , of poorer quality. BilletsMauves (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Enzo Avitabile La gente di Napoli - Humans of Naples 2021.png

File vecchio di anni.va aggiornato con una nuova e recente fotografia Ioleblond (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

La richiesta di cancellazione File vecchio di anni.va aggiornato con una nuova e recente fotografia a mio parere non è un motivo sufficiente per la richiesta. Chiedo all'utente Arrow303 una conferma, grazie. Freddiev600 Freddiev600 (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
@Freddiev600 Infatti non lo è.
  •  Speedy keep, no valid reason for deleting, LicenseReview passed and also COM:INUSE
Arrow303 (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

l autore vorrebbe inserire una foto piu recente Ioleblond (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Non c'è nessun problema. Questo però non significa che tutte le foto "vecchie" debbano essere cancellate. Semplicemente basta che l'autore (o chiunque ne abbia i diritti) inserisca una foto aggiornata. Freddiev600 (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Ciao @Ioleblond, due cose: in linea di massima va bene aggiornare una foto su Wikipedia con una più recente del soggetto ma in assoluto non esiste un diritto dei biografati a scegliere le fotografie usate sulle pagine, né in generale a far cancellare fotografie se hanno una licenza valida, trattandosi di personaggi dello spettacolo. Detto questo, rispetto a File:Avitabile Enzo 2026.jpg, visto che si tratta di fotografia professionale con watermark, occorre inviare una mail di autorizzazione a permissions-it@wikimedia.org per confermare che il tuo caricamento è riconducibile allo studio fotografico. Da ultimo, se hai ricevuto commissioni devi seguire it:WP:CSC e it:WP:COI, grazie. --Arrow303 (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Алим 6 (talk · contribs)

DW of a screenshot? photo? Not own work

Gbawden (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)


Это фотография из архивов нашей семьи. Сделана собственноручно более 20 лет назад. Скопирована из галереи моего устройства. Файл напрямую из галереи не грузился, поэтому пришлось через скриншот.

Использование скриншота при загрузке не запрещено правилами Википедии и не означает отсутствия иниеллектуальных прав на фотографию

This is a photo from our family archives. I took it myself over 20 years ago. I copied it from my device's gallery. The file wouldn't upload directly from the gallery, so I had to use a screenshot.

Using a screenshot when uploading is not prohibited by Wikipedia rules and does not mean I have no copyright in the photo.

File:TimeWellScheduled Logo.png

Claimed as {{Attribution}} but I can't find permission on https://timewellscheduled.com/ (still uses the same logo) or https://web.archive.org/web/20121225151947/https://timewellscheduled.com/ (first snapshot after the upload date of 2012-11-16).

Also not quite sure if this would be promotional/advertising as I see no independent sources write about this software. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, w:User talk:IvAgBp#Speedy deletion nomination of TimeWellScheduled explains why this was uploaded. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Vivien Insam.jpg

Dubious claim of own work. Tight crop- we need to see the original photo with exif. PCP Gbawden (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The image is a snapshot taken from a video made by mine that I deleted sono after capturing the still frame. If this raises any concerns, anyway, feel free to proceed as you see fit. --Vale93b (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
You can upload the video if you like but please use the correct license that it is your own. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Annik beauchamps.jpg

Unjustified CC-BY license. Patrice Picot is a well-known French photographer that worked for the French photo agency Gamma. We was active until the 1990s . and therefore this image is still copyrighted in France, its country of origin. To keep this image we need a VRT ticket with an explicit permission from the copyright holder. Günther Frager (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Casualty (3960780743).jpg

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment not at all sure there is enough here that is distinctive enough to be over TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sock Pig.JPG

Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 Keep indeed a cute thing, not a copyvio, good picture for Category:Stuffed animals category. Trycatch (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

 Comment I'm on the fence -- we don't keep personal art, so Ices2Csharp is correct, but, as Trycatch says, it's cute and good for the Cat because we have the creator's permission, which is not possible for most stuffed animals. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Sock Pig.JPG

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)


 Keep invalid DR SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep. Per previous DR, this is the uploader's own work. Omphalographer (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per others above, it appears the toy depicted in the image is created by the uploader. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Toto cutugno.png

Bogus CC-BY license. Photo taken in 1983 by French photographer Frederic Garcia who worked for the French photo agency Gamma, Still protected by copyright in France, its country of origin. Günther Frager (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Hàng hóa mì gói, ng31th3n2020 (tích trữ chuẩn bị phong tỏa Covid) (1).jpg

Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:BHX ng14th8n2022 (mì gói các loại, mì 2 tôm Miliket) (1).jpg

Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)


 Keep per Com:de minimis SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:BHX ng14th8n2022 (mì gói các loại) (mì vị hương 2 tôm) (2).jpg

Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)


 Keep per Com:de minimis SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Feet Connect Soul to Sole Official Movie Poster.png

Copyrighted movie poster. MKFI (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Willie Mae Huggins.jpg

A picture-of-picture taken from a display screen; original source and author unknown. MKFI (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Luangdimai (Zeliangrong) Traditional Attire.jpg

It's Zeme traditional dress not Zeliangrong, my mistake, I made this picture quite long ago without knowing much. Phohoshuu (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File name is wrong, should be Zeme traditional attire instead of Zeliangrong. My mistake, I made this file back then when I didn't have enough knowledge of Naga tribes. Phohoshuu (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Can some please delete my picture, I'm pleading for the deletion of my photo. Phohoshuu (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep invalid DR, you should just request rename this file. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Its not even my picture, I used someone else's work. Poshlinoodles (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
>own work
>someone else's work
Then  Delete, unless you give evidence what this photo is on free license SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
So please delete it, i just found this image on Instagram and decided to use it. My mistake Poshlinoodles (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Not my image, I used someone else's work and pretended it was mine, please delete this image. Also I used Zeme traditional dress not Zeliangrong. Poshlinoodles (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment, @Poshlinoodles, there is no need to start another deletion request, usually it takes up to 7 days for deletion request to be closed. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
how can i delete my image? Poshlinoodles (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
@Poshlinoodles Eventually an admin will assess the comments above and make a decision whether to delete the image. Usually this happens after 7 days of the deletion request being opened, but sometimes it may take longer, so all you can do at this point is to just wait. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Not my image, I used someone else's work and pretended it was mine, please delete this image. Also this is Zeme traditional attire not Zeliangrong. Zeliangrong have various other attires this is Zeme specific. Poshlinoodles (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:William Beckford ( Foto Stadtarchiv Sintra - Portugal ) .jpg

This seems to be Category:Francis Cook, 1st Viscount of Monserrate Rathfelder (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep Great research! But no need to delete, name and description changed. Someone needs to delete the image from the Wikipedia article. --RAN (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:4fEzd5 1hNM.jpg

Previously used on spam page on Russian Wikipedia, since deleted: ru:Лисавцов Владислав Владимирович Btrs (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Socks

File:Tracés des voies 3 et 4 de la gare de Vandières TGV.jpg

satellite picture claimed to be "own work" Enyavar (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:溪涌站水牌.jpg

Derivative work of non free content. Yann (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I’d like to know what the “non-free content” here refers to — does it mean the sign on the left side of the image? 浅村しき (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes. Yann (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Per nom. Sakurase (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I consider COM:FOP China may be applicable here. The author's intended subject should be the pillar with the station name on it, together with the interior of the station in the background. The promotional stand can be redacted without affecting that goal much. Srapoj (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
I think the approach suggested by Srapoj works. If it’s possible to trim that half, then go ahead and trim it; but if not, then just  Delete it. 浅村しき (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
The board sign on the left is the main reason for this picture. How would it be still useful without it? Yann (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Ah, true — after cropping out the left half, the image doesn’t really amount to much anymore. In that case, go ahead and  Delete it. The original uploader can consider uploading another photo that doesn’t include that sign. 浅村しき (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

File:IraklisTeam2000.jpg

Unless the original uploader of the file is the official photographer or the mandated photographer for this official pre-season photo shooting, I cannot really see how would it be possible for this photo to be compatible with Wikimedia Commons. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 12:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:1914 Modell Ruhrtalbahn mit Dampfkessel.jpg

Invalid license: source lists the license as CC-BY-NC-SA, which is not compatible for Commons. Btrs (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:1957 Plakat Hannover-Messe.jpg

Again, invalid license: source lists this as CC-BY-NC-SA, which makes it unsuitable for Commons. Btrs (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Nachtigall Battalion.jpg

Photo reproduced in a 2007/2011 book that explicitly claims copyright over the photographs. No free licence or public-domain status demonstrated. Fails COM:LIC Rajendra Alben (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

that explicitly claims copyright over the photographs — the copyright is with the photographer usually, not some random book that decided to use the image. The book's author must be around 100 years old (or rather around 105 years old) to be the photographer. Nakonana (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
No free licence or PD status has been demonstrated for this image. The photographer is unidentified and the image's copyright status remains unresolved. COM:LIC requires a demonstrated free licence not an argument that someone else's copyright claim is invalid. Rajendra Alben (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
It still means that the book author's copyright claim can be ignored and any copyright assessment doesn't have to take the book author's year of death into account to determine PD-status. There are then two-three options:
  1. It's an anonymous work and we can figure out whether it was published around 1941, then its copyright expired 70 years after publication (either per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine#General rules or, if it's of German/Polish origin {{PD-anon-70-EU}}).
  2. The photo originated from the army of Nazi Germany, which is very well possible and likely given that it depicts a subunit of the German Abwehr which was created on 25 February 1941, and the photo was taken in February 1941 (according to the enwiki article). In that case it might fall under {{PD-US-alien property}}.
  3. We go for {{PD-old-assumed}} which means assumed PD-status 120 years after creation, which would mean undelete in 2061/2062.
Nakonana (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you @Nakonana your points on anonymous work status and origin makes sense. If the appropriate tag is applied to the file page reflecting the 1941 publication and anonymous authorship I would consider the nomination concern addressed. Rajendra Alben (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Pizza argentina gourmet.jpg

Duplicado. Mistake. Horacio Cambeiro 13:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Pizza argentina gourmet (bandeja).jpg

Duplicado. Mistake. Horacio Cambeiro 13:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:JP 日本 Japan 沖繩 OKINAWA 那霸 Naha 久茂地 Kumoji 那霸OPA購物中心 mall bus route sign display January 2025 R12S 01.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)


 Keep per Com:de minimis SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep This is documentation of public space. It is not a copy of a 2D work of art. --PetrVod (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:JP 日本 Japan 沖繩 OKINAWA 那霸 Naha 國際通 Kokusai-dori Chome Matsuo January 2025 R12S 15.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Unjustified proposal. Per Com:de minimis. --PetrVod (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep clear de min Dronebogus (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kežmarok - pohľad na mesto z Vysokých Tatier 1.jpg

I uploaded a wrong picture file by mistake. Has to be reuploaded. Kezmarcan (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Image looks fine to me. It does not hurt anyone, if you upload a new image without deleting this file. Lukas Beck (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Kežmarok - pohľad na mesto z Vysokých Tatier 1.jpg

I want my picture to be removed. Kezmarcan (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep no valid reason for deletion (again!) Lukas Beck (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I created the file a few years ago. The original was on flickr and as far as I remember it had an open Commons licence with no restrictions. I resized it to focus on the characters and added it to the Wiki article. It was checked at the time and its licence was approved. It is useful because I could not find images of the original characters anywhere else. I cannot see any reason why it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger 8 Roger (talk • contribs) 18:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Characters from the original Magic Roundabout.jpg

Author of the characters died in 1990, so this file should be restored in 2061 SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Iryna Bilyk at Laima Rendez Vous Jurmala 2017 (cropped).jpg

The photo is not licensed for use. Kuzialook (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep, can you perhaps elaborate further? I checked and the author of the source image (File:Aslan Akhmadov and Irina Bilik at Laima Rendez Vous Jurmala 2017.jpg) has indeed licensed the image under CC-BY-SA-4.0. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Фото зроблено та кадровано надто близько, через що воно виглядає невдало й негативно впливає на репутацію артиста. Kuzialook (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment, thank you for the explanation. I struck out my keep vote since I agree the framing and angle of this image is not good, and there exists other images with better quality of this person (e.g. File:Iryna Bilyk22.jpg). So, I think this image can be deleted based on quality issues. Also, this image technically is not COM:INUSE since it is only used in user pages and auto-generated list pages. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Jonandertapia (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logos.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:User of Ru-WP Anatolich1 and the World.JPG

The map on background is copyrighted, De minimis may not apply. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Sunderland AFC Bus.jpg

Falsely claimed as 'own work', image attributed to Sunderland AFC/blatantly taken from club socials with no evidence of permission, see club Twitter page. Hullian111 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-logo-vi-tet-mau-tuat.svg

This logo is a derivative work from non-free vector components.

  1. Watermelon and chưng cake image was first uploaded on the Internet in 2015. TinEye's results page: link, archive link 1, archive link 2, screenshot (image will be deleted after 2 months). According to the vector image source (link) archive link, it said nothing of a free license.
  2. A branch of yellow apricot blossoms: Reverse Image Search on Google (backup screenshot, image will be deleted after 2 months) traced back to this original source on kindpng.com, which states clearly that "Image License: Personal Use Only" thus not compatible with Commons' licensing policy. Archive link, screenshot (image will be deleted after 2 months).

 Băng Tỏa  16:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Karol G signature.jpg

I made a mistake uploading the PNG file. Dante100012 (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Carlo Semenza alla diga di Pieve (1955).jpg

This file was initially tagged by ~2026-89450-5 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Image taken from Facebook. Arrow303 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep This is a simple photo taken in Italy in 1955 so it is in the public domain in both Italy and the USA ('cause taken before 1976) under PD-Italy+PD-1996. There's no other valid reason(s) for deleting. --Arrow303 (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Facebook is the only source where this image was present. It's better to delete it, since Facebook is not permitted as sources. ~2026-91575-5 (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-91575-5 Facebook is permitted as source if the photo is in the public domain. There's no longer copyright on that picture, whatever is the source. Arrow303 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Since this photography is present only on Facebook, it's better a deletion. Can you do it? Thank you very much. ~2026-18844-97 (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Hmm. The conditions for PD-Italy seem to be fulfilled, except that we have no evidence whether it was first published in Italy (though that is very likely), which is also relevant for PD-1996 to be applicable. The cited image-source, Facebook, might be considered as publication (dated 2014), but should this be rated as Italy or the USA? --Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Italy 2014. Better to delete it as copyvio from Facebook. ~2026-19241-98 (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Ali Gaffar okkan.jpg

Copyrighted poster. Above COM:DEMINIMIS. Kadı Message 17:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Queen of Peace Church (Interior)(2019) - Norval, ON.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake JFVoll (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:St. Lawrence Church (Interior)(2023) - Hamilton, ON.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake JFVoll (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:St. Joseph Church (Interior (2019) - Hamilton, ON.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake JFVoll (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Acharya Jagadish Chandra.jpg

This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since) There is a license, which certainly not valid, but this could be old enough. Source? Yann (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Three calmansi tree in village.jpg

Das Bild wird nicht verwendet. Es ist sehr stark (wahrscheinlich mit einem HDR-Programm) bearbeitet und nicht dazu geeignet, die Eigenschaften der abgebildeten Pflanzen verlässlich darzustellen. Es gibt genug Fotos von der Calamondinorange, die besser geeignet sind, z.B dieses: File:The calamansi in village.jpg Cuello de pepino (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Tübingen-Springmann-Immobilien.jpg

Das Unternehmen Springmann Immoblien ist umgezogen so sieht das Büro nicht mehr aus, wir sind jetzt in der Engelfriedshalde 28, 72076 Tübingen und nicht mehr in der Langen Gasse. ~2026-88474-5 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Outdated is no reason for deletion. We document history here. Herbert Ortner (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep Das Foto wird vom Stadtwiki für Tübingen, dem Ort der Aufnahme, in www.tuepedia.de zur Dokumentation genutzt. Ich habe es gemacht. Wenn wir ein aktuelleres Foto haben (bitte nur mit den passenden Creative Commons Rechten), so tragen wir das gerne bei der Firma im Infokasten ein. Das alte aber dient zur Dokumentation der Veränderungen in der Altstadt, auch wenn ein Umzug stattgefunden hat. Ebenso kann jeder, auch ohne Anmeldung, den Eintrag zur Firma bearbeiten. Aber das Foto hier zu löschen ist nicht der richtige Weg. Gerne können sie TÜpedia kontaktieren. --Qwave (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Panther hit by a ISU-152 HE shell.webp

I have certain doubts that this Soviet image from 1944 (at least this is the claim) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Better source and proper licensing information is need in order to keep this image. Msb (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment This deletion request includes File:Panther tank destroyed by ISU-152 hit.jpg as well. --Msb (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Rudolph.gif

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is copyrighted untill 2035 SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Voskr V Fire.JPG

COM:FOP Russia SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

1975 work by artists А.И. Симонов (born 1940), Б.П. Булгаков (born 1944), С.Л. Кондратьев (can't find any info on him). Nakonana (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Frengky Ardian Profile.jpg

Copyright www.indometro.id 🏹Nathan Veritas 19:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Sharona snoeren (talk · contribs)

Files have been uploaded as own work, but two files have different copyright holders. The third image also looks like it is from a professional photographer.

Wimmel (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Wesley Gassova Corinthians.png

Non-free image, per: here. The source of the file itself already shows it's non-free... BrazilianDude70 (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Louis de Funes by Fiduovec.jpg

This file has two main problems. First it is a clear Flickrwashing, the image was taken from https://www.flickr.com/people/paille-fr/, a Flickr user that is not the author of the drawing, it cites a DeviantART user "Fiduovec", but it doesn't provide any link to it. Currently, the DevianART user has no artworks, but a an archived version shows that it was taken from there, see https://web.archive.org/web/20150922061141/https://fiduovec.deviantart.com/. There is no indication it was published under CC-BY in the source, and the Flickr account uses CC-BY for all the files I checked and includes works that clearly have no such license, like the Clockwork Orange poster, a Charle Haebo front page, a Noval Morrisseau painting, and a long etcetera. The second problem is that the drawing itself is a clear derivative of this photo that is widely available on the web. Günther Frager (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Paul-emile-victor.jpg

Clear COM:Flickrwashing. The Flickr account uses CC-BY for all the files I checked and includes works that clearly have no such license, like the Clockwork Orange poster, a Charle Haebo front page, a Noval Morrisseau painting, and a long etcetera. Günther Frager (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by جعفر أبو ابراهيم (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: plain text. Books of essays in Arabic about literature.

Omphalographer (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Zrzut ekranu 2026-02-09 191928 — kopia.png

Uploader describe it as "artistic conception vision of Fatimid coat of arms". No, Fatmids did not have coat of arms, they were muslim dynasty, not medievel european christian. This is full blown OR Nous (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, rozumiem to, ale proszę o przywrócenie mojej edycji zawierającej infobox o dynastii fatymidów, gdyż nie miała ona żadnych kontrowersji. Zdjęcie usuń - ok, ale infobox zostaw. Pozdrawiam @Nous SantiagoPolonia (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Ok, it is done Nous (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Brandon Leake.jpg

Doubtful that this professional-looking photo is made by the uploader. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete - Considering the only image of this that I can find with anything resembling a credit or byline is in the bottom of this 2018 article by The Stockton Record which simply says "The Record", I'm inclined to agree with the opener's rationale here. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Lycee de bandja ville.png

Author (also on the picture) is obviously not the real author Culex (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Mekam Elvis un footballeur camerounais.png

Author (also on the picture) is obviously not the real author Culex (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:B36 crash.jpg

The file claims to depict a specific historical B-36 crash site, but no evidence is provided to substantiate authorship or identification. Only a heavily compressed, very low-resolution version is available, with no original file or creation context. Requesting clarification or deletion pending verification. PlutoidRepublic (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:2018-02-21 Shakhtar Donetsk vs Roma

These images are attributed to FC Shakhtar Donetsk (ФК Шахтер) and not to Football.ua, its photographers or employees. The VRT permission applies only to images from photogalleries except images gathered from news agencies or image services like Getty Images. From this point of view, FC Shakhtar Donetsk should qualify as an agency and thus is not covered by VRT permission

NickK (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Jackpotxp.jpg

Obviously uploaded for promotional purposes, cf. de:Spezial:Redirect/logid/140333112 and en:Special:Redirect/logid/173799211. Schniggendiller (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Kostas Manolas

This image is attributed to FC Shakhtar Donetsk (ФК Шахтер) and not to Football.ua, its photographers or employees. The VRT permission applies only to images from photogalleries except images gathered from news agencies or image services like Getty Images. From this point of view, FC Shakhtar Donetsk should qualify as an agency and thus is not covered by VRT permission

NickK (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  1. ↑ Copyrightability of Charts, Tables, and Graphs