File:Norberto Alonso 1986.jpg

URAA template violation, never published in the US (although a similar one by El Gráfico was: https://www.elgrafico.com.ar/tapas/busqueda?ediciontipo=0&pubdesde=1920-01-01&pubhasta=2018-12-31&termino=&edicionnro=3470). Crispybeatle (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Casa da Arquitectura exterior.jpg

duplicated from File:Casa da Arquitectura.png DiogoBaptista (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of New Zealand.png

Currently uploaded as PD due to being a work of the UK government, but I highly doubt that - I would think its a work of the New Zealand government, where crown copyright lasts 100 years. Earliest this version was drawn is in 1956, that puts PD date in 2057 TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg is a deriv of this file as well TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I've put on notice about the extra licence description on Canada, UK and Singapore as well? Absolutiva 22:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

sorry can you reword I don't understand what you mean? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean, you've looking for an extra licence as described here at File:Coat of arms of Singapore.svg: To avoid confusion when using this representation of the coat of arms, it is suggested that you should mention in the image caption that it is a version of the coat of arms constructed on the basis of its blazon. It's about the coat of arms by user-generated version of a derivative work distinguished from a copyrighted version. Absolutiva 09:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed both statements which essentially repeats the statement above it. Absolutiva 12:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, there is a free illustration of the coat of arms of New Zealand (File:Hand painted Armorial Bearing of New Zealand. (1957)..jpg) under Creative Commons license. Absolutiva 09:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't really trust that Archives New Zealand has the right to licence that. They licence many things as CC when they are either PD or they do not have the rights to it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Permit To Travel machine at Salfords station.jpg

This file was initially tagged by CuriousWhistler as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Don't want this image on Commons anymore. Files older than 7 days require a deletion discussion. Speedy deletion request from uploader, in this sense, has been converted. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 05:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC) it need delete (theme). I did mistake

•  Delete This is AI slop. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

File:KeithTenku.jpg

This file was initially tagged by ~2025-40605-29 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: This file claims to be “own work”, but the depicted event took place in 1962. The EXIF data shows a digital camera from 2002, indicating this is a photograph of an older photograph. Rephotographing does not create a new copyright, so the uploader is not the copyright holder. -- Converting to regular DR The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:PRT 502.jpg

copy: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Partizansk_246.jpg III.XI.MMXXIV (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Wikistander (talk · contribs)

Images uploaded with the claim that they are "the work of a computer algorithm or artificial intelligence and does not contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim" and therefore public domain. No statement from the publisher that this is the case. The uploader asserts that the images look AI generated, which I'd entirely agree with, and points to other filenames on the Black Vault website (eg. ) to show that the website uses AI. But we can't know from that that each image "does not contain sufficient human authorship", from that: they may be heavy AI edits of older human-made artwork, they may have been edited prior to upload.

• File:The Black Vault (Site Header).jpg
• File:The Black Vault.png
• File:The Black Vault.jpg

Belbury (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Forgive a dummy question, as copyright isn't my wheelhouse here. Don't we have logos and symbols under fair use anyway for innumerable websites and stuff over on en.wikipedia.org? Why can't the logo just live there as fair use? Very Polite Person (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, enwiki could host a logo image as fair use (albeit at lower resolution), however it was made or whoever made it. Belbury (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep No substantial evidence that the images "contain sufficient human authorship", since possible original artwork that I found, (one of the Black Vault's logos), , , and don't have a close enough resemblance. Wikistander (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Am I reading that right that the first link is a 2015 iStock photo from the Black Vault website, but the 2/3/4 links are just general offsite stock photos which the Black Vault haven't used? I don't think that can tell us anything about how the AI logos were produced. --Belbury (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Belbury The point (which I should have made clear) is that photographs and other artistic representations of vaults don't look closely like the Black Vault images, as shown by this Google image search. As such the AI-generated logos are not derivative works, since there are no particular image(s) that could be named as the significant basis of the Black Vault logos (as far as I'm aware). In this case, I believe that the (loose) basis is the Black Vault images have is only the image dataset the A.I. image generator has. (Also, this RFD has potential implications for these other Commos images and similar ones: File:2024-05 ZvD SD variations Wikimedia Commons logo 03.png and File:2024-05 ZvD SD variations Wikimedia Commons logo 09.png.) (:]) Wikistander (talk | contribs) 02:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Sepulchre at St. Kilian's Cathedral (Würzburg)

copyvio; stained glass windows are contemp. artworks, no fop.

• File:2022 Kiliansdom Sepultur 1.jpg
• File:Sepulturkapelle 13.09.2024 004.jpg
• File:Stammtisch Süddeutschland-GLAM 2017-04-3497.jpg
• File:Würzburg, Dom St. Kilian (11. Jhdt.) (42369562604).jpg
• File:Würzburg, St.-Kilians-Dom, Bleiglasfenster.JPG

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

(re File:Stammtisch Süddeutschland-GLAM 2017-04-3497.jpg) Beiwerk, "unwesentliches Beiwerk neben dem eigentlichen Gegenstand" this isn't an image of a stain glass window, because there is just fuzzy, unsharp corner of one, that isn't even 10-15% of the whole window. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23. Dec. 2025 (talk • contribs) 21:12 (UTC)

Hallo @Martin Sg.,

ich hatte das Bild c:File:Sepulturkapelle 13.09.2024 004.jpg damals als Gesamtbild erstellt und das Kirchenfenster eher als Beiwerk betrachtet. Ich kann aber verstehen, dass es da immer verschiedene Sichtweisen gibt. Meinst du, ich könnte das Foto noch einmal so bearbeiten, dass das Kirchenfenster unkenntlich wird, z. B. durch eine starke Helligkeit?

VG - Nilaxus (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Salut Nilaxus, Danke für den konstruktiven Kommentar! Was noch als Beiwerk/de minimis toleriert wird, ist im deutschen Urhebrecht sehr eng gefasst. Aber ein Unkenntlichmachen der Glaskunst könnte tatsächlich zielführend sein – allerdings bin ich mir nicht sicher, ob nicht auch Kruzifix und Altar noch urhebererechtlich geschützt sind.... Frohe Festtage! Martin Sg. (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hallo @Martin Sg.,

danke für deine Antwort. Ich habe mich auf deinem Profil etwas schlau gemacht und mich nach den ganzen Diskussionen doch für die nette Variante entschieden :)

Was das Beiwerk betrifft, bin ich mir immer unsicher. In solchen Fällen sollte man am Ende die sichere Variante wählen. Ich glaube, Kruzifix und Altar sind auch nicht so alt. Daher hast du meinen Segen.

Mir ging es damals vor allem darum, ein altes Bild durch ein neues, aktuelles zu ersetzen. Aber ich denke, ich habe auf Commons schon eine sichere Alternative gefunden. c:File:Würzburg, Dom, Sepulturkapelle-20151106-001.jpg

Noch einen schönen 2. Weihnachtsfeiertag.

VG - Nilaxus (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Vladissimo18 (talk · contribs)

Scans of physical photos; no proof uploader is the author.

• File:Manastire margine.jpg
• File:Vita de vie directia sat.jpg
• File:Biserica pocaita.jpg
• File:Biserica indepartata.jpg
• File:Biserica noua.jpg
• File:Casa margine.jpg

Gikü (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

 Keep These images are 11 years old. It was not uncommon at the time for users to scan older digital photos. Strainu (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

 Keep No reason for deletion. Photography started very long before the digital age! -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Girona - Catedral, claustro, capiteles 09.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since). @Εὐθυμένης: why do you doubt the claim of "own work"? Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Mostly because of the combination of lack of metadata + rather low size of the file. The latter in contrast with its actual resolution which seems to be more or less ok. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 19:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Zarateman. This picture was taken by me on August 26, 2014, and was uploaded by me on September 13, 2014. I ignore who Εὐθυμένης is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarateman (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Εὐθυμένης: just to clarify one thing: Zarateman is a native Spanish-speaker, and when he wrote, "I ignore who Εὐθυμένης is," he presumably was not intending the insult that could mean in English. He presumably is intending something more like the Spanish-language ignorar, just meaning "I'm not aware of who Εὐθυμένης is." - Jmabel ! talk 20:16, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Zarateman: do you have other images on Commons that you took at roughly that time and place? And can you remember why you would have stripped EXIF from this? Either of those would help settle the matter.

And Pinging @Εὐθυμένης: Zarateman is a longtime user, and I'm unaware of any history of his passing off others' work as his own. It is not required to have EXIF on every photo. I've certainly uploaded a few of my own where some editing tool had stripped the EXIF data, or added its own in lieu of that from the camera. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I always had the impression that the presence of metadata was mostly working as a proof - evidence of real "propriety" over the photo(s) uploaded on Commons. In fact, recently, after editing a photo of mine that I had taken personally, I made the "mistake" of uploading it on Commons without its metadata, so I had to re-upload it, with its metadata this time. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 20:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Zarateman (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The photo I took of my PS5 in July 2023 and used all over Wikipedia similarly lacks metadata. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 21:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

 Keep: lack of metadata can be helpful in judging own works but this photo was literally uploaded 3 minutes after it was created. Enough personal context has been given by the author to also confirm its originality. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 21:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi again. (Thanx Εὐθυμένης for your explanation about my use of the verb "to ignore"; you're right) I'm afraid I've never been concerned about metadata, and don't know whether the photos I usually upload include it or not. I've uploaded more than 140,000 pics since 2007, and this issue has never come up concerning my stuff. Some pics were subject to deletion requests due to copyright issues, and they were indeed deleted. The picture in question was taken by me, just like several others of the cloister of Girona Cathedral sharing the same category. Zarateman (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: I also think this is a  Keep, but how do you know this photo was literally uploaded 3 minutes after it was created if the photo has no EXIF? - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: the timestamp given in description is "13 September 2014, 22:49:17" and upload log says "22:52, 13 September 2014" which is about 3 minutes difference. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 01:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: All that means (given lack of EXIF data) is that the uploader said that is when the photo was taken. Anyone could take a photo from anywhere on the Internet, strip any EXIF data it might have, and upload with a false timestamp indicating they'd taken the photo minutes earlier. I'm not saying that happened here (this photo seems consistent with Zarateman's many uploads), but a recent date in {{Information}} is not evidence of anything. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I see. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 01:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

 Keep: Ovious keep. --Joanbanjo (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Ангел у входа Казанская надвратная церковь Свято-Троицкий женский монастырь Муром.JPG

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for paintings and probably the photo violates artist's copyright. By style this is after-1991 painting. I do not know, who the artist is. Taivo (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a restored version (or maybe edited version?) because the painting looks older in other photos. Shutterstock claims that it is ancient . The text is definitely not written in modern Russian as it contains letters that don't exist in the modern Russian alphabet (like Є) and has words written in a way that would be considered orthographically and grammatically incorrect in modern Russian (like виидє). Nakonana (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I know. In my opinion this is modern drawing in old style. Shutterstock image is definitely not the same, but similar painting (and the Shutterstock image can really be ancient). Taivo (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Francisco-orellana.png

Not a reason for deletion, just for the record: Depicted is Francisco Pizarro, a hires image is available on https://www.meisterdrucke.uk/fine-art-prints/Unbekannter-K%C3%BCnstler/1482312/Portrait-of-Francisco-Pizarro.html. However, per https://www.album-online.com/detail/de/ZTE4ODFmMA/daniel-vazquez-diaz-portrait-francisco-pizarro-1478-1541-spanish-conquistador-alb344935?sT=FRANCISCO+PIZARRO&iSF=3 and https://www.alamy.com/portrait-of-francisco-pizarro-1478-1541-spanish-conquistador-oil-on-canvas-125-cm-x-105-cm-museum-centro-iberoamericano-madrid-spain-author-daniel-vazquez-diaz-image630905387.html it is a modern painting by en:Daniel Vázquez Díaz who died in 1969. Achim55 (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Logo of Ave Mujica anime.jpg

This logo is reaching the threshold of originality (COM:TOO Japan), because the letter M is stylized and merged with the neighboring letters, additionally the letters "c" and "a" are joined and a symbol that may be an asterisk is detailed. Taichi (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

No futher comment. Depending on sysop's verdict. Thank. Kasaki Miozre^Talk 04:56, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

The decision on whether this is above COM:TOO Japan would have to rule on whether, per the Tokyo High Court: "although the shape is stylized, the text is in a normal arrangement and keeps its function of being read as a sequence of letters". On the face of it, that's true, and I don't think an asterisk is copyrightable. However, there is another Tokyo High Court ruling to consider: "Copyright protection of fonts is limited only to those that raise artistic appreciation as much as artistic works do." Is this such a font? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep easily readable text, with a slight modification simpler than "CUP NOODLE" case. Mzaki (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Screenshot of TikTok error when accessed in US.png

I'm not sure this meets COM:TOO in the US or China. These are three full sentences with a lot of creative choices taken in the crafting that should count as original expression. (For a slightly unconventional analogy, if I for some reason used this text in an article without attribution or quotation marks, it would almost certainly be treated as a copyright violation, at least on enwiki.) Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Pylypenko artur.jpg

Out of scope: this is an AI-generated image. If this image was generated based on a freely licensed photograph of a notable individual, please upload the original. Omphalographer (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Abuelo 3.jpg

Believe it or not, this is a Spanish artist, not Peter Cushing or Grand Moff Tarkin. The photo is dated to 1948, which would rule out public domain in the US unless it is a "simple", non-creative photograph under Spanish law. The uploader appears to be a relative of the subject, judging by the file name. Unless they can provide more information as to source, I fear this file must suffer the same fate as Alderaan. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a crop of a photographic portrait taken in a studio so this doesn't look simple to me. Deletion in this case is hiding it from public view, the photograph is not destroyed like Alderaan in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Abzeronow (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Since the photo was taken and likely published solely outside the US, the copyright would be restored by URAA even if it didn't comply with US formalities. Are you saying this might be a "simple photograph" rather than a true photographic work? Update: I may have misinterpreted the "doesn't look simple to me" comment. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep "Simple" is a sliding scale between File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg where the photographer uses a set, costumes, and elaborate poses versus pointing the camera with good lighting, and pressing the shutter release, something a monkey can do. See: File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg. This image falls more on the simple section of the scale. --RAN (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Enara Gaminde Sertutxa.png

Out of scope: this is an AI-generated image. If this image was generated based on a freely licensed photograph of a notable individual, please upload the original. Omphalographer (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Таруса Заболоцкий 2.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. Taivo (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Sigillo Capo provvisorio dello Stato.png

I uploaded it by mistake PeppeChannel072 (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Namibia, Land of the Brave.ogg

The Namibian anthem dates to 1991. This song was written by Axali Doëseb, who died in 2023. Since Namibian copyright law for "musical works" is 50 pma, the copyright of the Namibian anthem will last until 2074. SVG-image-maker (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Buddha Memorial Center, Taiwan 06.jpg

This is a modern Buddha statue after all. This was created in 2004, during the 90th birthday of the then-Monk King of Thailand, and was gifted to Taiwan. See also w:en:Fo Guang Shan Buddha Museum#Statues. Since Taiwan does not grant commercial Freedom of Panorama for artistic works, this image infringes on the Thai sculpture designers' copyright. Since US provides longer term for anonymous works (than Taiwan), then only undelete this file either 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

It is likely that Thai copyright law could also apply, as the physical sculpture was made in Thailand.

With the advent of the Internet and digital photography having become mainstream, it is highly probable that it was published, as in a photo posted to the web, shortly after its debut.

Undelete no earlier than 2099. SVG-image-maker (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@SVG-image-maker FoP-wise, it's a practice here to apply the law of the country where the artwork is located. If there are multiple copies of the same artwork, we can only host the copies in countries with relevant FoP. Thailand does allow liberal Freedom of Panorama, but since this is located in Taiwan, we will apply the conservative Taiwanese FoP rule here. However, due to COM:URAA, we need to take US copyright duration into account (which is longer than Taiwanese or Thai terms). And yes, probably 95+1 years after publish. January 1, 2100, way beyond Taiwanese copyright term. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Abuelo Emilio Silva Faban.jpg

Subject died in 1936 at the age of 43 or 44. He lived in at least three countries - Spain, Argentina, and the United States. Need a date and (ideally) a country of origin for this photograph, otherwise undelete in 2032 when {{Orphan work}} will cover. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

That photograph is my property. It shows my grandfather, Emilio Silva Faba, and I hold the copyright to it and have decided that it can be freely copied. ~2025-42734-07 (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

In that case you need to go to Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator and complete that process, providing evidence that you have the authority to release rights to the photo. Please confirm here when you have done so, otherwise the file will most likely be deleted after seven days. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Spain is life + 80 for authors who died before 1987, this is a portrait photograph taken approximately in the 1910s so this is not simple enough for Spain IMO. If from Argentina, public domain as a published photograph (Argentina is publication plus 20 years). If US, PD by age. Abzeronow (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)