Commons:Deletion requests/2026/06/11

June 11

Files in Category:JAL MYAKU-MYAKU JET 2

Probable copyright violation. I claim that the pop art illustrations are not COM:De minimis and there's not enough COM:FOP Japan. (See also Category:Myaku Myaku and en:Myaku-Myaku.) Per our policy, one can do some checks with Commons:De minimis#Guidelines:

  • the image is categorised in relation to the mascot characters depicted
  • it is a valid expectation that the livery was the motivation to take the image

These bullet points make for that "the file containing copyrighted work X is less likely to satisfy de minimis" per our guideline.

Grand-Duc (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep de min Dronebogus (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per Commons:DM. I would argue that, as stated in “Commons:De minimis#Guidelines”, these points are only guidelines. The fact that a file is categorized in relation to a copyrighted work, or that the filename and description mention the copyrighted subject, does not in itself constitute a reason for deletion. For example, consider “File:Louvre and Pyramid, Paris January 2014 002.jpg”. Both the filename and the description refer to the Louvre Pyramid, and the file is categorized under “Louvre Pyramid at night. 　The copyright on the Louvre Pyramid is still in effect.

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

（付随対象著作物の利用）

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

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

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

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

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

著作権法及びプログラムの著作物に係る登録の特例に関する法律の一部を改正する法律(令和2年著作権法改正)について(解説) The reasons for the revisions to the Japanese language by the Agency for Cultural Affairs are presented on pages 24 through 28. All of these photographs are legal under Japanese law.--Y.haruo (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:JAL MYAKU-MYAKU JET 1


Probable copyright violation. I claim that the pop art illustrations are not COM:De minimis and there's not enough COM:FOP Japan. (See also Category:Myaku Myaku and en:Myaku-Myaku.) Per our policy, one can do some checks with Commons:De minimis#Guidelines:

  • the image is categorised in relation to the mascot characters depicted
  • it is a valid expectation that the livery was the motivation to take the image

These bullet points make for that "the file containing copyrighted work X is less likely to satisfy de minimis" per our guideline.

Grand-Duc (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep my photo as uploader for the following reasons:
1. I did inform you previously of my belief that the category itself is insufficient as a rationale for deletion.
2. Your rationale of “valid expectation” can be countered by the evidence that of the 50 files in Category:Japan photographs taken on 2024-11-18, 21 of these were taken by myself at Itami Airport on that day. Therefore, it can also be concluded that the motivation of photography was that they are airplanes, and not because of the livery. This is, in fact, my actual motivation for taking the photograph at the time: I pressed the shutter for all the planes passing by at the time.
3. This comment by a Japanese user demonstrates why these do fall under Japanese DM laws. Furthermore, due to heat haze, the livery has experienced some degree of distortion (see the text on the plane for example). This diminishes the quality of the artwork of the airplane and makes it less suitable as a substitute for the original design, reducing the likelihood of infringement. S5A-0043🚎 04:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
If you're going to shoot motifs that may be controversial in regard to intellectual property rights, then you're bound to get involved in deletion requests about your stills, S5A-0043. And it was only you that defended the opinion that a category is "insufficient as a rationale for deletion", a large majority of DR wordings in the last months where I used a similar rationale convinced an administrator to proceed with a deletion. It's not so wrong as you apparently would like it to be.
I'm accepting your good counter-argument about a complete series that happened to include the Myaku-Myaku in File:(JPN-Hyogo) J-Air Embraer ERJ-190STD JA252J @ RJOO 2024-11-18.jpg, thanks.
Y.haruo wrote in the comment you linked "Among the everyday activities commonly carried out in daily life, those that are socially accepted as legitimate and reasonable, and that would not normally be expected to unfairly harm the interests of copyright holders, should be treated with greater flexibility under the expanded provision. Taking a photograph of a child holding a stuffed toy is also not illegal." Well, in my country (Germany), there's a legal distinction between taking images and publishing them. There's a lot of allowances for photography (in fact, most prohibitions are related to military premises or intrusions into privacy), but quite a lot of limiting statutes when it comes to publishing them. That Japanese law looks quite similar to what I'm used to here. It apparently wants to protect "normal" photography (as done by tourists and as leisure activity, likely including online sharing with friends and acquaintances - I'm deducing this from the wording "that use is considered qualitatively or quantitatively minor by general social standards"), but still aims at somewhat protecting the commercial interests of the IP rights holders, too. Making foreign intellectual property available through our free licensing is likely not included within "socially accepted as legitimate and reasonable", Remains to argue whether this livery included in "As long as the use of a copyrighted work is not the main purpose but merely incidental to another activity"... COM:PRP would probably stand against that. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
1. Firstly, I uploaded that when the subject of aircraft liveries were uncontroversial per the older Pokemon Jets decisions. My remark about me being the uploader was to disclose that I am not an independent party to this DR. I do not see the need for your somewhat passive-aggressive first sentence trying to imply that I should've known better, because, for the lack of ways to express this, I cannot possibly predict the future where this issue was brought up again. Secondly, I wrote in my statement that the category itself, or to rephrase it, alone, is insufficient to prove that de minimis is invalid. We do not delete File:Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg only because it contains Cat:Louvre Pyramid from the northwest for example. De minimis should be based primarily on the copyrighted subject itself supplemented by other factors including categories, and not solely due to a category outside the photograph. If a single category at the bottom of the file page was the deciding factor for any of the previous DRs, then in my opinion they should be reviewed again. Notwithstanding the Myaku-Myaku category wasn't even there the last time I edited the file. (And by the way I continue to hold the opinion that aircraft liveries should be considered as de minimis for all cases, but that is a topic for another day)
2. Skipped
3. As long as the use of a copyrighted work is not the main purpose but merely incidental to another activity. That is precisely the point here. Photography of this plane with a special livery on it is part of planespotting, an activity socially accepted as legitimate and reasonable (as demonstrated by point 2 in my comment), and henceforth publishing the photograph with a Creative Commons licensing, which for any other aircraft would be socially accepted as legitimate and reasonable, is in my opinion acceptable as well. The photograph of this plane can also be used to illustrate the plane (JA252J), the company (J-Air) or the aircraft model (Embraer 190). Whether any subsequent use of a copyrighted work is the main purpose is out of our control, but that is for the reuser to bear the risk (per the Commons general disclaimer and as present on several NoFOP templates such as Template:NoFoP-France). S5A-0043🚎 11:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
@S5A-0043: I'm glad that we're on (back to?) factual arguments. I didn't mean to disparage your disclosing, while I didn't see that you were the author when I wrote the DR, I wasn't surprised by your defence (I would always expect authors defending their work whenever possible). Your wording "You’ve been told before" brushed me a bit the wrong way: within it, I felt the expression of a kind of a rank difference and that you intended to (for a lack of better word) "disciplining" an unruly individual, which I both felt unmerited. It was your opinion, not visibly shared by (lots of) other people. An avoidance of this possibly wrong understanding by me would have been possible by saying something like "I told you before that I think that the category itself is insufficient as a rationale for deletion", thus emphasising that as a personal standpoint, not as a general one. N.b. English is not my mother tongue.
As far as I understand Commons:De minimis#Guidelines, the category-based argument means that when a pictural element is reason for an author or even a random passers-by to put an image in a category about said motif, then that element is important to the picture or bears a relationship to the image content as a whole. It means that this element is neither replaceable nor that it can be ignored, good reasons to consider it not being De minimis. If an image with such a picture element is to be allowed on Commons, one can only hope for national laws granting a bit more leeway in regard to unavoidable inclusions of copyrighted material. This leeway may be e.g. numeric (like using a percentage limit of the work) or economic (allowing it when there's no harm to the actual IP owners). But without explicit allowances in laws or court rulings, the pattern of making a pixel surface area count to gauge the applicability of De minimis as seen in some DR is too simplistic and IMO misleading. That said, your Louvre example is a bad one in my eyes. I'd deem it a copyvio, but I don't want to engage with that Louvre pyramid mess yet, though I should be able to prepare an argumentation based upon actual French law texts (there's even a FP that I'd see in jeopardy). I may do so in the future.
In the same vein, I don't get the purpose of those NoFOP templates, besides making a maintenance category for upcoming DR. While I could understand that people would prefer to slap a category on a page instead of writing a DR and leave the actual deletion requesting to others, these templates appear mostly pointless. If a useful picture element is copyrighted, then the whole image has no business staying here; and if it's a minimalistic inclusion, then a copyright warning is unnecessary.
Back to Japanese DM: of course, I wouldn't doubt that vehicle spotting is anything else than socially accepted (when I get the chance, I'm doing that myself, see the ships and trains I have on my profile, for instance). I'd go as far to say that publishing imagery produced while planespotting is also a reasonable activity - as long as it strictly stays non-commercial (on one own's blog or homepage, with a borderline sitting around presenting imagery on Flickr or in social networks). But due to Commons' mandatory requirement of commercial re-usability, we may have left the limits of the realms of the activity being "socially acceptable and reasonable", as it implies to grant usage rights to stuff where those rights reside elsewhere. And only this is the point of contention in this DR, as far as I'm concerned. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the rewording in Special:Diff/1230712751/1230965488, S5A-0043. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
 Keep copyrighted elements, which are few, are de min Dronebogus (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per Commons:DM. I would argue that, as stated in “Commons:De minimis#Guidelines”, these points are only guidelines. The fact that a file is categorized in relation to a copyrighted work, or that the filename and description mention the copyrighted subject, does not in itself constitute a reason for deletion. For example, consider “File:Louvre and Pyramid, Paris January 2014 002.jpg”. Both the filename and the description refer to the Louvre Pyramid, and the file is categorized under “Louvre Pyramid at night. 　The copyright on the Louvre Pyramid is still in effect.

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

（付随対象著作物の利用）

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

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

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

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

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

著作権法及びプログラムの著作物に係る登録の特例に関する法律の一部を改正する法律(令和2年著作権法改正)について(解説) The reasons for the revisions to the Japanese language by the Agency for Cultural Affairs are presented on pages 24 through 28. All of these photograph are legal under Japanese law.--Y.haruo (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)


Files in Category:Myaku Myaku

Probable copyvio derivative. This is a depiction of the mascot en:Myaku-Myaku. The costume is not utilitarian and rather sculptural in its impression. There's no statue of limitation applicable like COM:FOP Spain or COM:TOO Spain as far as I can tell. (Kagami Biraki 4 to 7 could be salvaged by cropping the mascot away, though. In that case, REVDELs are necessary.)

Grand-Duc (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

"rather sculptural in its impression"? What? I have no clue what this is supposed to mean in this context. That's not how I'd describe the mascot/costume at all and am extremely confused by that description. I don't think that descriptor makes sense or is relevant at all, frankly. –Fpmfpm (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
@Fpmfpm: my expression stems from bullet points stated in COM:COSTUME: "If the costume is purely utilitarian and has no distinct or original graphical features - for example, if it's the kind of clothing that an ordinary person might wear on the street or on the job - then it is permitted under #Clothing above." and "Pictorial and/or sculptural masks are generally covered by copyright unless they depict a character whose design is released under a free license or in the public domain." This mascot costume is not a "kind of clothing that an ordinary person might wear on the street" and the mask is "sculptural" for me. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clarifying. So should photos of all Japanese mascots be deleted then, by your reasoning? e.g. those on the articles for Kumamon (File:Kumamon.png, File:Berryz Kobo x °C-ute (14481908950).jpg, Hikonyan (File:Hikone Castle mascotte.jpg), and essentially anything listed on Yuru-kyara or in Category:Japanese mascots? –Fpmfpm (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
The policy is that Commons:CARES and has a precautionary principle, so yes, lots of mascots would be in jeopardy. The example you gave with File:Kumamon.png is perhaps a safe area. As the article says, the mascot was created by the Kumamoto government, it's quite likely (even observing PRP) that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan has the rights to release imagery of that mascot (if I'm not mistaken, prefectural governments are subordinated to the state government). The PNG stems from a video clip made by the ministry, so it sensible to rely upon that rights release.
The Hikonyan example seems different. While the mascot was also created by an official government body, the image File:Hikone Castle mascotte.jpg isn't. It's not up to Hyppolyte de Saint-Rambert, the photo creator, to release image rights of the intellectual property of the Hakone government. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
OK. I don't think that's the proper reading or interpretation of that policy, but alas. FWIW, Myaku-Myaku is released under a license where non-commercial reproductions of the character and all derivative work are expressly allowed and encouraged. Images on Wikimedia Commons certainly fall within that. –Fpmfpm (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I am the author of the pictures. I apologize. I was not aware that there could be a problem with mascots. If finally the pictures must be deleted, it would be better cropping the mascot away, as you suggested, please, because the main spot of the pictures is not the mascot but the manga event in Barcelona. Thank you. --Ferran Cornellà (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Ningbo Cihu High School Audio-Archive.png

This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since) Krd 05:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  •  Comment clearly licensed by uploader; unclear what "permission" is missing. @Shizhao: That said, I am unsure what this depicts and if it has in-scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Famille Luebkert (Holstein).svg

Out of scope: Personal or fictional coats of arms, that were made upon request, with the designer having taken no trouble to verify the legitimacy of the arms, and the client having subsequently taken no trouble to provide the requested information since 3 June 2026.
All involved have been notified of this deletion request on their talk page.
Kontributor 2K (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Artami2331: you've added to the file's page:
“reference for this arms description= (german) Heraldry Lion Society 2026 Lubkert (Holstein) 2931-01/26 19.01.2026 (Link: www.https://www.wappen-loewe.de/”
Is that website an official website (governmental)? Is “19.01.2026” the date of registration of the arms?
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Hi Kontriburtor2K, yes 19.01.2026 should be the registration date for publication. It is a heraldic society's website. Under the law of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland and some other european countries, no official permission is required to assume or bear a coat of arms, as statutory law either does not regulate the matter or does not prohibit it. (translated) Artami2331 (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Hi User:Artami2331, anyone indeed can bear a coat of arms, but anyone's coat of arms doesn't fall into scope; also, commons in not a personal web host.
Coats of arms registred on commercial or contributives websites, or any association's, are out of scope, since these are not valid sources.
 Delete --Kontributor 2K (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Hi, okay, I unterstand what you mean.
 Delete --Artami2331
Artami2331 (talk) 14:32, 3 August 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 Evelyn-rose (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded today using {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, a template that can only be used for files uploaded before March 1, 2012, see template documentation. It is the obligation of the uploader to provide evidence the images are PD in the US, e.g. simultaneous publications. If no evidence is provided, then we cannot keep these images.

Günther Frager (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Evelyn-rose (talk · contribs)

Oof, this is a big one. These are all scans of Japanese publications dated 1957 or later. The copyright was almost certainly restored by URAA and therefore they are still copyrighted in the US. Some of the photos appear to be reprints of American or other foreign photos, in which case even the Japanese copyright tag is inappropriate. This user is extremely prolific and this list, long as it is, is only skimming the top of the barrel.

List of files

Phillipedison1891 (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep File:The-Monthly-Korean-Affairs-1961-September-1.jpg, File:Sekai-Seiji-Shiryo-1962-January-late-1.jpg per COM:TOO Japan Mzaki (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not as familiar with Japanese law, but definitely too much text to be below TOO in the United States. Jokes of around 20-30 words have been considered copyrightable before. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
These texts are Title, Date, Publisher, and Table of Contents of the journals, which I believe non-copyrightable in general both in Japan and US because simple facts and simple list of those are ineligible for copyright. For the design, i.e. arrangement of elements, color, and geometric shapes are below TOO at least in Japan. Mzaki (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
To keep things moving along, I have withdrawn these two, and accordingly struck your keep vote as moot. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
agreed. Mzaki (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
 Keep
File:Kankoku-Taikan-1966-17.jpg
File:Kankoku-Taikan-1966-16.jpg
File:Kankoku-Taikan-1966-15.jpg
File:Kankoku-Taikan-1966-14.jpg
File:Kankoku-Taikan-1966-13.jpg
File:Kankoku-Taikan-1966-12.jpg
per {{PD-South Korea-photo-1977}}. The country of origin is South Korea, and the source indicated is a Japanese translation of a book published in South Korea. Mzaki (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
 Keep
File:Josei-Kyoyo-1957-February-1.jpg
File:Josei-Kyoyo-1957-March-2.jpg
File:Josei-Kyoyo-1957-December-1.jpg
per {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} since the photos are published in 1957. The date boundary for {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} have been confused, but now is considered to be 1957/58. Mzaki (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Swisstopo-000-597-113-Luftbild Glarus.tif

Ist ein Doppel zu einer im gleichen Zug hochgeladenen jpg-Datei. Swisstopo historic (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

tif waren afaik besser wie jp(e)g Adtonko (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Saaser Trilogie.pdf

possible copyvio - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Umbauen Renovieren 2007.pdf

possible copyvio - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Beasain Ikaztegieta.svg

11 km is wrong. It is 22 km Izasala (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep Not a valid deletion reason. If you want to correct the information, write a request at COM:OWR. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 12:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Square Victoria @ Ville-Marie @ Montréal (29903932083).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in Canada Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Question Is this a 3D works covered in graphic works or a graphic works covering a 3D work? I disagree that this falls under "graphic works" However, I'd recommend  Weak delete because the label can hint towards a non-permanent exhibition. Per COM:FOP Canada, the a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship has to be permanently situated in a public place. Webfil (talk) Webfil (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Philologische bibliothek.jpg

Die Datei ist nicht ausreichend frei lizenziert. Die angegebene Nutzung („frei ausschließlich zur Berichterstattung im Zusammenhang mit der Freien Universität, jegliche weitere Verwendung durch Dritte ist honorarpflichtig“) stellt eine erhebliche Nutzungseinschränkung dar und entspricht keiner freien Lizenz im Sinne der Wikipedia- oder Wikimedia-Commons-Richtlinien. Insbesondere ist keine freie Weiterverwendung, Weiterverbreitung oder Bearbeitung durch Dritte erlaubt. Daher erfüllt die Datei nicht die Anforderungen an frei lizenzierte Medien und ist nicht geeignet für die Nutzung in Wikipedia-Projekten. Universitätsbibliothek (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hallo, innerhalb von Commons gibt es eine gültige CC-BY-SA-4.0 Lizenz, genau wie von dir hochgeladen. Falls es sich nicht um ein Foto durch dich handelt, dann entstammt der von dir zitierte sehr restriktive Nutzungstext womöglich dem Bildarchiv, aus dem du die Datei entnommen hast? In letzterem Falle wäre mein Votum  Delete. --Enyavar (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
 Delete "Verwendung durch Dritte ist honorarpflichtig)" means re-users must pay - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Graffiti on Brick Lane (3074045084).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in the United Kingdom Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by MadarLevi (talk · contribs)

Plausibly copyrighted. See COM:TOO France

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 11:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Apple Intelligence iOS 26.png

Dies ist kein eigenes Werk das ist ein Werk von Apple Inc. Eine Lizenz gibt es nicht AB1209LJ (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per COM:TOO US. Simple lines and gradients, replace the license with {{PD-textlogo}}. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 12:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Street art @ Paris (30308229253).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in France Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Street art @ Paris (31001054911).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in France Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Street art @ Paris (31078761626).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in France Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Street art @ Paris (31114879825).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in France Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Street art @ Paris (30308210983).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in France Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Delete - per COM:FOP France. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Street art @ Paris (31078736856).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in France Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Street art @ Paris (30971997242).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in France Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Street art @ Paris (31114660975).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in France Evelino Ucelo (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2004 04 16 Salzburg 008 (51048705437).jpg

Blurry, photo of another work without known copyright status Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Blury would be something different than light reflections. {{FoP-Austria}} as part of the interior of Hotel Sacher. Adtonko (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2003 12 07 Budapest 135 (51036360121).jpg

This logo likely is above TOO. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep @Evelino Ucelo look at media in category "Pizza Hut logos" SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
 Info related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pizza Hut logos. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
@Evelino Ucelo just because some logo are above TOO, it's reason what ALL logos are above TOO SomeFancyUsername (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
But these logos are belong to the same brand and are similar. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2003 11 29 Wien Advent 005 (51039064052).jpg

Per COM:TOYS Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:What is really happening in West Papua (Human Rights Monitor 2025 Report).webm

No proof that this was released under CC0. The YouTube video does not even have a CC license in its description. The website has a CC-BY 4.0 license, but that presumably only applies to content on the website, not YouTube or other platforms. Battlesnake1 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Other versions/Morpholine-2D-skeletal

not very useful (category should suffice), wrong name captions Mykhal (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  • There are more than just formulas in the category. All signatures are correct, int = international. Do not delete the template. Д.Ильин (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC).

File:Слив разбора Моргенштерна. Делать анализ- Вот так!.webm

Возник вопрос: а может ли распространяться по CC ролик, в котором по fair use использованы фрагменты других видео, защищённых авторским правом? Быть точнее, авторские фрагменты могут, но использованные по fair use — наверное вряд ли. sᴋᴇᴘsɪᴢ (обс.) 13:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment @Skepsiz De minimis SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Spanowski (talk · contribs)

Some files have Epson scanner EXIF.

File:Youri Joukov, Yuri Zhukov 1947.jpg: English: Portrait of Yuri Zhukov, 1947 Source archives, free access, public domain

For the others, many if not all are likely public domain. But it's all claimed as own work..

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment for pre-1918 photos - {{PD-RusEmpire}} SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:LL-Q9292 (aze)-Allahverdi Verdizade on a flying visit-lənət.wav

mispronounced Allahverdi Verdizade on a flying visit (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Serú Girán - David Lebon.jpg

Not in the public domain in the US (per Not-PD-US-URAA template used in the file: "Files uploaded after [1 March 2012] (...) should be treated as other violations of the Commons:Licensing policy are"). SamuelInzunza (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Lola Hermoso (talk · contribs)

not own work

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Sazava budinsky mlyn.jpg

From 1936 according to https://www.vodnimlyny.cz/mlyny/objekty/detail/1503-spinaruv-mlyn-valcovy-mlyn-pila-j-spinar - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Jorj Oriel Molxona.jpg

image on this book is still copyrighted SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Village @ Le Grand-Bornand (51043597403).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in France Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Télécabine du Rosay @ Le Grand-Bornand (51044419847).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in France Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2004 02 14 Bécs - Flamand festök 017 (51045673037).jpg

Photo of unknown painting with cropped sides Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep this is a 1434 painting (see bottom of the photo) so it's obviously PD. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2004 02 14 Bécs - Flamand festök 022 (51044851818).jpg

Photo of unknown painting, copyright status isn't known Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep this is a painting from Kunsthistorisches Museum and almost all paintings from that museum are PD by age. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2004 02 14 Bécs - Flamand festök 023 (51045672892).jpg

Photo of unknown painting with cropped sides Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep this is a painting from Kunsthistorisches Museum and almost all paintings from that museum are PD by age. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2004 02 14 Bécs - Flamand festök 025 (51044851278).jpg

Photo of unknown painting, copyright status isn't known Evelino Ucelo (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep this is a painting from Kunsthistorisches Museum and almost all paintings from that museum are PD by age. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2004 02 14 Bécs - Flamand festök 027 (51045672847).jpg

Photo of unknown painting, copyright status isn't known Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep this is a painting from Kunsthistorisches Museum and almost all paintings from that museum are PD by age. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2004 02 14 Bécs - Flamand festök 026 (51045583016).jpg

Photo of unknown painting, copyright status isn't known Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep this is a painting from Kunsthistorisches Museum and almost all paintings from that museum are PD by age. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2004 02 14 Bécs - Flamand festök 028 (51045582991).jpg

Photo of unknown painting, copyright status isn't known Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep this is a painting from Kunsthistorisches Museum and almost all paintings from that museum are PD by age. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2004 02 14 Bécs - Flamand festök 029 (51045582956).jpg

Photo of unknown painting, copyright status isn't known Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep this is a painting from Kunsthistorisches Museum and almost all paintings from that museum are PD by age. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Annecy (51046109271).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in France Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2004 02 14 Bécs - Flamand festök 034 (51045582836).jpg

A fragment of unknown painting Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep this is a painting from Kunsthistorisches Museum and almost all paintings from that museum are PD by age. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2004 02 14 Bécs - Flamand festök 035 (51045672687).jpg

Photo of unknown painting, copyright status isn't known Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep this is a painting from Kunsthistorisches Museum and almost all paintings from that museum are PD by age. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:SC court seal.jpg

An SVG version is now available and in-use on wikipedia. I am the uploader and requesting deletion as this is obsolete. Alpacaaviator (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Manuelle Anzeigentafel Eintracht Trier.jpg

Augenscheinlich URV (sport1) P170 (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Category:Orthetrum sabina Vinayaraj

Inappropriate user category, implies this is a subspecies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 June 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.

User talk:François Malo-Renault

Parce que cette image au format tif fait 3 M0 au lieu (c'est un dounlon) de l'équivalente au format jpg (400Ko environ) 176.144.154.30 06:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. Apparently some sort of mistake. The nominator probably wanted to request deletion of File:Scan Portrait EMR.tif. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

User talk:François Malo-Renault

Pouvez-vous supprimer les 2 fichiers suivants Photo de Jeanne Gautier l'un .pdf et l'autre .jpg trop lourd . François Malo-Renault (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Shibuya Station (50011530036).jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)


 Weak keep per De minimis SomeFancyUsername (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
 Keep as above. de minimis. The advert is very incidental to the station and staircase. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep per my rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shibuya Station (52650816520).jpg. ("Image depicts entire scene without emphasizing copyrightable elements to the exclusion of others. Some works are oblique or obscured; one is central, but not overly prominent given that the individuals in the crowd and the shape of the space are also shown.") TheFeds 03:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
 Keep advertising is not the focus of the image and could be removed non-disruptively Dronebogus (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Chris Kemp (Astra).jpg

Unlikely to be own work and probable copyvio. Similiar photos are found on employee's linkedin pages. Unless there's proof the company release photos under CC license, this should be deleted Sevgonlernassau (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Delete, no evidence of permission. I will note that he appears in this video (which is public domain since it's from NASA), so if somebody wants to upload a screenshot of the video that would be a perfectly fine replacement. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
 Comment The description of the above video indicates that "All content copyright to NSF. Not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from NSF." ForeverFlying (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Bald Eagle - panoramio.jpg

Very blurry photo of a bird, we have a number of high quality images of it Юрий Д.К. 17:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep no valid reason SomeFancyUsername (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
  • There are no reasons to keep very blurry image of common bird with many high-quality alternatives of it. The same applies for other DRs above. In tons of similar DRs result was delete. Юрий Д.К. 10:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Юрий Д.К. you should know border between too blurred image what obviously is out of scope and blurry, but still in scope image. The files what you nominated are not too blurry to be deleted SomeFancyUsername (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Início da NOVUS.jpg

This file has been tagged as personal by Heylenny. Converted to regular DR for possible discussion. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep No policy-based reason given for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
 Keep but I tagged it as missing permission. heylenny (talk/edits) 15:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
 Comment small file size and lack of EXIF data raise questions here. Might be worth a reverse image search. Nakonana (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Note: several images by the same uploader on the topic of NOVUS have been nominated for deletion and were then kept. Nakonana (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Laboratório de metrologia.jpg

This file has been tagged as personal by Heylenny. Converted to regular DR for possible discussion. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep No policy-based reason given for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Conditional  Delete - Happy to delete this copy as a duplicate if we decide to keep the other. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
 Keep useful photo of educational value, no valid reason for deletion. Darwin Ahoy! 14:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
 Keep this one.  Info There is a duplicate: File:Metrologia NOVUS.jpg heylenny (talk/edits) 14:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Copyrighted (copyright symbol at the bottom of the website). --heylenny (talk/edits) 14:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
So what if it's copyrighted? I'd always assumed it would be. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
So there is no compatible free license or explicit permission indicated on the source website. heylenny (talk/edits) 15:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be. At most we might require COM:VRT in order to confirm this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Sweepea1933.jpg

first appearance of the Swee'Pea might be covered in renewals. (note for ZZTS: on the next time please upload on commons media what undoubtully are not copyrighted or on free license) SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay and understandable, I’ll only upload pre May 1933 Popeye strips and green entries from now on. I was gonna nominate this for deletion and some other accidental uploads too back in January but I was busy. Mandrake is the only one I’m confused about. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
E.C Segar died in 1938 so all his work is in Public domain. --Olivier Tanguy (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Hmm.. I did think, could https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:PD-US-no-renewal-unvested count for Segar? It’s okay if not because it might be different due to work for hire but since the Conan stories are on here despite the weird tales issues themselves renewing I wonder if segar was the one required to do the renewals on the post-May 4, 1933 strips? @Olivier Tanguy
I could be very wrong, but I know his works are public in Europe and if true then it would mean Popeye was public domain in the US before 2025 but unvested law is a bit murky and I’m not a expert on it. If not then only the pre May 1933 strips are public domain. But it seems unlikely unvested law would count for Segar since Popeye was work for hire possibly. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
@Olivier Tanguy Are you sure it applies to segar? ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Segar dies in 1938. The Copyright Act of 1976 explains that copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years. The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 changes 50 years in 70 years. So 1938 + 70 equals 2008. Since 2008 all the works drawn by Segar are in Public domain in many countries (Europeans and Japan). In 2025 the copyright of the Thimble theatre entered the public domain and Characters introduced after that date are also in public domain because the copyright was not renewed. As I understand the American law the society may have the copyright meaning that you can’t use the character (until the copyright is expired) and create new stories, but the art drawn by Segar is in PD. --Olivier Tanguy (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
If a character debuted in a non renewed work they can be used. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Opinion on Oliver’s statement? @999real ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Only the king features strips made before May 4, 1933 are undoubtedly in the public domain if not renewed or registered. The rest after that date is a bit disputed due to whatever weekly is and might still be copyrighted unless it’s Mickey Mouse or whatever.
However the page considers Swee’Pea to be public domain due to his date not being registered. But idk. FernWalters20 (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
I'm not american so I don't know anything about the laws but I read https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:PD-US-no-renewal-unvested and clearly it seems that it applies to the case of E.C. Segar. --Olivier Tanguy ([[User talk:Olivier Tanguy|

File:KargoXpress.png

This is a photo originally from , not own work. Thebaldball (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per nom, unlikely "own work" of uploader. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:(Monthly Best) Binge Watch COOL EPISODES - 80 Minutes - SEALOOK Compilation.webm

This file was initially tagged by Romano1981 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Fake free license, the source video is All rights reserved.

 Keep The file had a "Creative Commons" license when uploaded. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I don't see a Creative Commons license at the source YouTube video. Do you have any evidence for the existence of the CC license? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Apparently this video was not saved in Wayback Machine (I can try to find out a different cache service) but at leaste evry other file in the category has:
TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Irishkidd

The name has been changed, so this is outdated. Irishkid0 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Pictured is Gregory Bovino, a Special Patrol Agent of the U.S. Border Patrol.jpg

the author is not stated Victorgrigas (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:DSC07297 (3925264474).jpg

No FoP for graphic works in Canada Evelino Ucelo (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Delete Does not fall under de minimis, cannot be blurred without altering the photo's integrity; typical COM:FOP Canada case. Webfil (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Statue @ Jardins du Prieuré @ Le Bourget-du-Lac (50976567086).jpg

No FoP in France Evelino Ucelo (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:The data page of the Azerbaijani biometric passport.jpg

Personal data must be deleted. Yousiphh (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep, image is COM:INUSE in multiple wikis. The image indicated this is a "specimen" of a passport page, so I don't think the "personal data" is actually real. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:The description data page of the Azerbaijani biometric passport.png

Personal data must be deleted. Yousiphh (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep, image is COM:INUSE in multiple wikis. The image indicated this is a "specimen" of a passport page, so I don't think the "personal data" is actually real. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Հայկական անձնագիր 2.jpg

Personal data must be deleted. Yousiphh (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Паспорт Армения 2.jpg

Personal data must be deleted. Yousiphh (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:LEGO minifigures (theme) display case - 4.jpg

Per COM:TOYS Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Delete blurring can't save this - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
@NHHP, has also uploaded other images of Lego display cases:
Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Could be COM:DM Qzekrom (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Escritora Lilian Sais.jpg

I see quite a few indicators that this image may not really be Commons-compatible: there's no metadata; its publishing here remains the only contribution by the uploader on Commons; it is used in this 2024 post and also appears in this undated link; this really looks like just a generic promotonal picture of unclear copyright status that was copied and uploaded. Victor Lopes (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)