File:Tino Rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty movement flag.svg

This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Request on behalf of Linda Munn the holder of copyright this is not in the public domain - Previously kept as ineligible for copyright. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep per above. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  this needs to be removed.

  This is under copy right as per NZ Law - copyright act 1994 Māori M (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @The Squirrel Conspiracy your assertion that it is ineligible for copyright is incorrect as per the act above Māori M (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

   Comment Noting for the closing admin that Maori M is a self-disclosed paid editor on behalf of Toi iho, which as best as I can tell is a trade association for Maori artists. They appear to primarily deal in Non-copyright restrictions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify I am not on this page in my work capacity which works across both legal and indigenous IP.This is about breach of legal copyright.

  I am here to support a friend whose Copyrighted work is continually being stolen. This Wikipedia site has been cited as the users of this design who thought it was in a public domain. I refer you to the NZcopyright act 1994

  https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/143/en/2020-08-

  soecifically Māori M (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  specifically sections

  5 (1)

  18 (1)

  19 (1)

  21 (1)

  22 (1) Māori M (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Question In these edits on English Wikipedia, User:Māori M cites a news article that seems to say the flag's intellectual property rights are owned by a charitable trust and not in the public domain. Does this conflict with Commons:PD: "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work"? --Iiii I I I (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  that is correct. This needs to be removed. It is not in the public domain in New Zealand. Māori M (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  to add further context I have just assisted Linda with dealing with a company who illegally produced items in breach of copyright because of the incorrect information on Wikipedia saying this is in the public domain. Māori M (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep I still do not see anything showing it is copyrigted, and a lot of indirect suggestion otherwise. The linked article states the artist (or remaining survivor from a group of artists) is seeking to obtain the IP rights in partnership with some sort of trust. From where? From another rights holder, or to establish rights to the flag that were left unexercised at the time of its creation? Another person interviewed said it would be best for the rights to be returned to the creator(s). Again, from where? Nothing establishes that it is in fact copyighted and those rights held by someone or some organisation identifiable. Fry1989 ^eh? 13:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per above. The thing about this flag, is that it's one of the cases where it may be trademarked, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's eligible for copyright. TansoShoshen (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Under the NZ Copyright act 1995 the work is copyright

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/143/en/2020-08-07/#DLM345931 Māori M (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@TansoShoshen your comment is based on your opinion without and evidence. Māori M (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Māori M Respectfully, I don't think you know what an opinion is. You also did not provide the most recent iteration of the act, located here: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/143/en/latest/#DLM345639.

Under section 14,

A work is not original if— (a) it is, or to the extent that it is, a copy of another work...

Korus have been used in Māori art for centuries, and like how crosses are used by Pākehā, I'd argue that using either on a banner alone are not eligible to be copyrighted. TansoShoshen (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@TansoShoshen

We are not talking about a design element. We are talking about a total design.this was created around 1990. In NZ designs are copyright as soon as they are created and that lasts 50 years to after the author (legalise for designers death)

You have no irrefutable evidence that this design is in the Public Domain.

Your opinion about trademark was just that. This Kara is not trademarked. It is protected under the Copyright act 1994.

"Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work"?

ONLY and PUBLIC DOMAIN... IN...THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF THE WORK are the key words.

This IS NOT in the public domain in New Zealand which is the country of origin. Māori M (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I have not mentioned American copyright law once in any of my previous statements. My argument against Tino Rangatiratanga not falling under NZ copyright law is that it does not meet the threshold of originality required under New Zealand law. That is what Section 14 of the Copyright Act of 1995 at it's most recent iteration deals with, alongside the unrelated topic of copyright infringement.

What you are doing is not following COM:AGF and assuming that I am coming from an America-centric view of IP law. The reason I brought up trademarks is that it's an entirely separate thing legally speaking. I have not even argued in favour of Tino Rangatiratanga falling under the Public Domain, yet you assert that I am. Anything that is under trademark in New Zealand isn't in the Public Domain under the Trade Marks Act 2002. TansoShoshen (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@TansoShoshen it has to be under public domain to be here. You mentioned trademark which is irrelevant. You can argue all you like about copyright law. It is irrelevant.

Again what evidence do you have that this design is is in the public domain? Māori M (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@TansoShoshen I remind you of the image use policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#:~:text=Wikipedia%20encourages%20users%20to%20upload,all%20copyright%20and%20licensing%20restrictions.

Own work: this was not uploaded by the designers of the flag

Freely licensed: this design is not freely licensed

Public domain: this design is not in the public domain

Fair use/non-free: this design does not meet the fair use criteria

Ths image needs to be deleted Māori M (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you have to ping me thrice? Firstly, Commons is not Wikipedia. Secondly, again, I never argued that Tino Rangatiratanga was under public domain. Again, trademark law is relevant and only relevant in that regard. There are PLENTY of files on Common that have a trademark, making them not in the Public Domain, but are regardless copyright-exempt.

There is no such requirement for Commons to host files. Commons holds files which are free to use, and I'd wager a majority of those are under an open license, not public domain files. TansoShoshen (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@TansoShoshen I have no interest in other designs and their status. What I am interested in is this specific design which is not in the public domain, and it is incorrectly being listed that it is in the public domain.

This design is not free use and is protected by NZ Copyright.

It is very simple. It needs to be deleted because it's in breach of copyright. Māori M (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I'll exclude myself from further conversation. COM:TOO New Zealand exists, it also does cite section 14 of the Copyright Act. I think that unless you can extensively document the historical production of the flag, we'd have to treat this like most other flags which originate in New Zealand. TansoShoshen (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@TansoShoshen if you don't think this design meets the threshold of originality. You are free to take that to court in NZ to be tested to allow it to be retained here

Until you have established that copyright sits with the designer as per the NZ Copyright Act 1994 Māori M (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Well has the designer ever taken this to court and won? If so many people are misusing the design, as the designer claims in all the press interviews linked throughout these discussions, would she and her representatives not have taken that issue to court themselves? If so, a court would have ruled one way or the other on whether the work was legally protected by copyright. But I've seen no evidence that the claimant in this case has ever successfully taken legal action against another party for infringing on the flag design. 19h00s (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to this discussion.

You are diverting.

In NZ Copyright is granted at creation and lasts to 50 years after the authors death. There is no requirement to register or go to court to prove copyright. It is automatically granted. Māori M (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m not diverting, I’m asking! Clearly this has been an issue for a while - the surviving designer has been talking to the press about it for over 15 years. Has she actually sent DMCA takedown requests before? Did she escalate to legal action if those requests went unanswered or were rejected? Obviously none of that is required for copyright to be valid, and I never said it was! But if any of it happened and the legal action was successful, it would prove your position that this work is protected by copyright. 19h00s (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no need to prove my position. As I stated previously court action is not required to prove copy right in NZ.

As I have explained a number of times. NZ Copyright law is straight forward. All that is required under the act is production of work, and copyright is automatically awarded which lasts 50 years after the artists death. There is NO onus to prove copyright.

The onus is on those who are saying there is no copy right to provide evidence of that, and evidence it is in the public domain. NO evidence has been given here.

This image needs to be removed. Māori M (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm extricating myself from this discussion because you are saying the same things over and over again without really listening. Copyright is automatic in NZ, yes, but there is still an originality requirement, whether you want to recognize that or not. 19h00s (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

undrr NZ law the flag is copyright. This was referring to who in the group that designed the flag owned copyright. The families or the designers.

Nevertheless this is NOT in the public domain in New Zealand. Under the copyright act 1994 copyright is accorded to a piece when it is created. And lasts until 50 years after the last designers death.

having ths up is in breach of the act. It is causing hardship to the designers through commercial use of this copyrighted design.

This needs to be removed. I suggest you read the act Māori M (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fry1989

I have shared links to the NZ legislation.

What evidence are you basing your opinion on that it is in the pubic domain? Māori M (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I am incredibly sympathetic to the cultural motivations behind wanting to exercise some form of protective rights over the Tino Rangatiratanga flag. I also understand that according to legislation, eligible works become copyrighted upon creation. But the additional information paints a very different set of circumstances, one in which the rights were never exercised by the creator(s) for many years, and now one of the creators has been trying for over a decade to "obtain" the rights. From where? Neither in 2013 or 2026 has a source been shown that identifies with whom the rights actually lie, and that in absence of a rights holder, the flag has been treated as in the public domain and produced/sold by various flag manufacturers of New Zealand and foreign origin uncontested in law whilst this effort to obtain the rights has gone nowhere. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fry1989

It does not matter if the rights weren't exercised.

It does not matter that one creator was asserting rights over others.

What matters is the copyright act 1994

Copyright is given at creation.

Linda Munn is the only surviving of the designers.

Copyrights lasts for 50 years after her death.

This work is eligible for copy right under the act. It has copyright.

If you want it to remain you need to provide evidence that it is eligible as free as per Wikipedia guidelines. No evidence of that has been presented here. Māori M (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we know that New Zealand has copyright. Is this original enough to be copyrighted in New Zealand? You've just dismissed that question as opinion, but it's the crux of the discussion. You can resort to more legalistic actions, but you're not convincing anyone by pointing at the legislation that doesn't clearly answer that question and playing the sympathy card, or by making random assertions that it is eligible for copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The opinion of Wikipedia Editors that it is not "original" enough has no relevance on this designs copyright status. There is no onus in NZ to register copyright or prove originality. That would only come into play if there is a dispute. Should you wish to test if this copyright is not valid then I presume you could challenge in court. In the interim by virtue of the Copyright Act 1994 this design is copyrighted as it meets the definitions in the NZ Copyright Act (1994) Māori M (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

 Weak delete That swirl in the flag looks like it is a creative enough expression for me to think it could be above ToO for New Zealand which is not that high to begin with. (disclosure: I came here from Maori M's post in COM:VPC) Abzeronow (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

 Weak delete for me too. I'm a bit dubious this qualifies for U.S. copyright, but is certainly more complex than the Aboriginal flag. Both Australia and New Zealand inherited their very low threshold from the UK, and their courts still use UK court decisions when interpreting the language in the laws (which I believe remains unchanged from older UK law). The UK has since had to conform to different threshold wording that comes from the EU, but all the other countries which had adopted their copyright law did not change. I think it would be OK to move to en-wiki since that uses U.S. law alone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:Strong delete

NZ Copyright Act 1994 s14(1) grants copyright to original works automatically, no registration required.

---

The work still has to be original. Per University of Waikato v Benchmarking Services Ltd (2004) CA, para 27, the bar is low but real: sufficient time, skill, labour, or judgment expended in producing the specific expression. This flag has three named designers (Hiraina Marsden, Jan Smith, Linda Munn) who made a documented, specific creative arrangement in a 1989 competition. That meets the description above.

---

As of 2024, Munn, the sole surviving designer, and Te Tuhi Māreikura Charitable Trust are actively working to establish who the copyright now sits with and enforce rights over the flag, describing it as widely misused and misappropriated . Since copyright vested automatically at creation in 1989, this is a succession and administration question, not a question of whether copyright exists at all.

---

Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle sets the bar at significant doubt, not proof: "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." An identifiable author with a documented creation history and an active, ongoing rights claim meets that bar.

---

In deletion requests

"Under the rules of evidence we apply here, the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept."

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests

There has been no proof from those arguing it should be kept that the file can be validly hosted Māori M (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

It would be better to cite some examples that New Zealand *has* ruled copyrightable, i.e. court precedents, or at least some other legal opinions which give examples. The interpretation of New Zealand law is the question here, and this area often has little legal precedent and some vague terms. Different countries can even interpret the same word differently -- the word "original" can imply some creativity, as it does in the U.S., or it can be a drier term in that it simply means a work originates from a human (more of the UK interpretation). You simply state the answer to that question is obvious here, but that's really not always the case.

Copying from the VPC discussion... one New Zealand court case which mentions this is a Supreme Court case here. They say: There need be nothing novel in a work to qualify it for copyright protection. To be original for copyright purposes the work must originate from its author and must be the product of more than minimal skill and labour., and The threshold for originality is a low one and it can be material for other purposes how original the work is; that is, how much skill and labour has gone into its creation. In general terms the greater the originality, the wider will be the scope of the protection which copyright affords and vice versa. That decision cites the "skill and labour" rulings from the UK, meaning they are favorably citing UK opinions from their older law (before the EU forced some changes there). Not surprising, as the wording in New Zealand law was taken directly from older UK law and I don't think anything has forced a change there. Similarly, Australia also inherited the same older UK law, and also cites UK opinions (see here or here). They ruled a simple circle on a flag with two other background colors as copyrightable (the Australian Aboriginal flag, though the case was more about the ownership of that copyright than its existence). So, it would seem the UK "skill and labour" copyright line would apply in New Zealand, as it does in Australia, and that "original" just means that it originates from a person, not implying any level of creativity. Given the precedent of the Australian flag, I do think this is similar, despite almost certainly having no copyright in the U.S. The latter part though likely means it could be moved to en-wiki, which I think uses exclusively U.S. law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

If anyone has Springer Link access, I imagine this chapter will be extremely useful when searching for NZ precedent. Wikipedia Library normally has access but there's an issue with the connection right now, so I can't see this chapter myself. 19h00s (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

 Delete After reading Carl's take and the above-linked chapter now that Springer Link access has been restored, I would agree that this flag most likely meets the New Zealand threshold of originality and should thus be deleted. I would also note that the author of that chapter expressly says "Uncertainty over the current originality threshold has been expressed by users of copyright works as well as rights holders, with the low standard for originality not only being criticized for capturing too many works, but also being difficult to meet." So I think it's quite fair for Commons users to question whether this work meets the threshold given that uncertainty, and it's safe to say the application of New Zealand's threshold will continue to develop in the coming years as more issues are brought before the courts. 19h00s (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep but only if we added some sort of disclaimer. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment in 2024 Linda Munn announced she was seeking to establish her intellectual property rights over the flag There was a crowdfunding campaign for this that met its goal Despite all this I see no updates on the project and what happened. If Linda Munn did establish herself as the copyright owner then I would expect to see at least some source covering it? If the Aboriginal flag could be copyrighted then I don't see why this wouldn't but I also find it very odd that an attempt was made in 2024 to obtain intellectual property rights but nothing since has been heard of. This would be closed as delete very swiftly if actual evidence was provided instead of repeatedly asserting its copyrighted. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep googling "is the māori flag copyrighted" you get articles talking about how one of the designers is fighting to gain intellectual property rights, you think if there had been success with this there would be articles about it in the past 15 years they've been trying (just looking at news article dates on how long this has gone on).TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Overwatch 2 - Junker Queen gameplay.jpg

Subject is copyrighted element Ahri Boy (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep, see COM:FREEDEPICTION and COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Minecraft#Files in Category:Minecraft from Xbox México. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 07:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Larry Eugene Phillips, Sr. and Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr.png

What reason is there to believe this image was contemperaneously published without notice? Based5290 (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Muh-hund-original-rondell-liten.jpg

An original file that was uploaded to en.wiki as non-free with the line "This is the image by Lars Vilks published in Nerkes Allehande along with the editorial. With permission from the Artist." That doesn't imply this is CC. After 5 years, there is no OTRS evidence that this is free. Tbhotch™ 03:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:CDM Female Restroom.svg

It was designed for a Wikipedia template, but has been deprecated. Benteds (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep, uploader's request but uploaded a year ago, still COM:INUSE in zh-wiki, and unclear what the reason for deletion is. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

File:WW Downe.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Leyo as no source (No source since) Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

A missing { was the cause of {{Cite book}} no displaying correctly. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:新國家運動大遊行.jpg

創用cc標示錯誤 Dy0ykidd (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Egapark Erfurt Danakil 025 Wüstenteil.jpg

unzureichende Relevanz, schlechte Bildqualität Tommes (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Ich brauch(t)e das Bild für den Text der egapark-Artikel auf WP und WV, da es Name sowie Eigenschaften dokumentiert, da ist die Bildqualität nicht wichtig. Ousw (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Egapark Erfurt Danakil 023 Wüstenteil.jpg

unzureichende Relevanz, schlechte Bildqualität Tommes (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Ich brauch(t)e das Bild für den Text der egapark-Artikel auf WP und WV, da es Name sowie Eigenschaften dokumentiert, da ist die Bildqualität nicht wichtig. Ousw (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Egapark Erfurt Danakil 063 Endbereich.jpg

unzureichende Relevanz, schlechte Bildqualität Tommes (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Das Bild ist eine Möglickeit für die egapark-Artikel auf WP und WV, da es ohne das Copyright-Problem bei längeren Texten in dem Gebäude den einen Didaktik-Aspekt illustriert, vgl. die Artikel. Ousw (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Ergänzung: Für "Egapark Erfurt Danakil 064 Endbereich.jpg" habe ich in diesem Zusammenhang selbst eine Löschanfrage ("copyvio: maybe too much text") gestellt, daher ist dieses Bild hier die Alternative. Ousw (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Brasil-COT-Logo-Brasao.jpg

PD template used in the file does not apply to this image. At least some elements of this seal/coat of arms are copyrightable. SamuelInzunza (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:ERS Logo.webp

Not notable, just spam. Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I missed the fact that it is used in a Wikipedia article, so my original rationale probably does not apply. However, it seems to me that it meets the threshold of originality and is therefore most likely protected by copyright. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Rosa Fernández, himalayista.jpg

Proof of own work needed. If you go to the uploader's user talk page you see that they uploaded a copyvio of the same woman five days before uploading this file. Jonteemil (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:习近平会见加拿大总理：中加关系健康稳定发展符合两国共同利益.webm

视频来源：中央广播电视总台 (China Media Group), not a work from the China News Service, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Ligue 1 Trophy 2024.png

Likely to be copyrighted by Ligue 1. Proof of permission needs to be sent to VRT. Jonteemil (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Mini Free Logo BAR.png

The fact that the logo is just 50px height/width doesn't make the file enter the public domain. w:File:British american racing logo.png is non-free. Jonteemil (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Node NFT art gallery.jpg

Photograph of presumably copyrighted artworks: en:File:Cryptopunks general.jpg considers similar content to be "copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed". Belbury (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Files by Opelogbon

The uploader claimed their authorship of the following files. However, they have apparently been scanned from some printed media, so it is highly improbable that they are the work of the uploader. It is also highly improbable that the uploader was present in person in all the photographed events.

• File:Gbenga Danniel and the family.jpg
• File:Gbenga Daniel and his wife, Olufunke Daniel.jpg
• File:Gbenga Daniel as the Governor of Ogun State.jpg
• File:Gbenga Daniel with late Pa Abraham Adesanya.jpg
• File:Gbenga Daniel at Kresta Laurel.jpg
• File:Gbenga Daniel as Sales Engineer with H.F Schroeder (W.A.) Limited.jpg
• File:Gbenga Daniel UNILAG graduation .jpg
• File:Gbenga Daniel at Polytechnic Ibadan.jpg
• File:Baptist Boys' High School Group picture with Gbenga Daniel.jpg
• File:Most Rev. Adebola Daniel and Mrs Olaitan Daniel.jpg

Because the uploader's talk page is already full of copyvio notifications, I suggest that other photos by them depicting Gbenga Daniel are not considered trustworthy and I nominate them for deletion for this reason too:

• File:Gbenga Daniel new.jpg
• File:Gbenga Daniel in Finland.jpg

The uploader's lack of understanding of copyright can be illustrated also by their comment at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-08#File:Gbenga Daniel.jpg.

--Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification Jan Kameníček , do you have any other reasons apart from my talk page being previously debated on copyright issues? The pictures in question were uploaded almosts five years ago and no single topic has been raised about them. All the images above were independently sourced unlike the previous discussion highligthed. If you have noticed any of the pictures in violation of copyright, please single such picture out and the metadata. Thank you. Opelogbon (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, they are scans from some printed media and the source is not given. Thus they are most likely copyrighted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

As you rightly observed, they are scans from printed images because when the images were taken, there was no digital cameras. Like I also pointed out, the images were independently obtained and have never been in digital. It is also important to note that they were all supplied by the office of the public figure after requests were made. Not all the images are scan copies. For example, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gbenga_Daniel_new.jpg which you included for deletion is not scan. Neither is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gbenga_Daniel_in_Finland.jpg. Opelogbon (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The last two I added because all the previous cases showed that your contributions are generally not trustworthy. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not a tenable excuse. You also cannot say my contributions are not generally trustworthy because that relates to not just images but all other edits I have made in the last six years. I have also identified to you that the images were independently sourced; you can’t remove pictures based on mere assumptions. For old pictures to be scanned and uploaded, two things must have happened: either the pictures were given to me in hard copy to scan, which means I have the permission of the owner to do that OR the scanned copies were sent to me, which means the owner authorised such to be uploaded. If you cannot show cause that proves that the metadata of the images were lifted from anywhere other than being a scanned copy, then flagging the images for deletion is obviously an error on your part. If there is a violation, please identify such, but don’t base your action on the fact that there was a previous discussion about images which was completely different from these ones. Opelogbon (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Chinese New Year decorations along New Bridge Road, Singapore - 20150215.jpg

decorations are temporarily objects, so not covered by FOP SomeFancyUsername (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:习近平会见英国首相：只要是符合国家和人民根本利益的正确的事 领导人就应当事不避难 勇往直前.webm

视频来源：中央广播电视总台 (China Media Group), not a work from the China News Service, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Rapid natural selection in Geospiza fortis.jpg

this image violates copyright Bioanthropologist1 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Armoiries du Togo.svg

Nothing in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Togo (nor in Template:PD-Togo) indicates that Togolese state symbols are inherentily in the public domain. Janhrach (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by RY01162049 (talk · contribs)

No evidence of CC license at source ("Copyright© 2026 Lingnan University. All rights reserved."). Possibly old enough for copyright to have expired, especially for the earlier ones, but that'd require actual dates and possibly actual authors.

• File:2 Dr. Benjamin C. Henry.jpg
• File:3 Dr. Henry V. Noyes.jpg
• File:4 Dr. Oscar F. Wisner.jpg
• File:5 Dr. Charles K. Edmunds.jpg
• File:6 Dr. James McClure Henry.jpg
• File:9 Dr. Chen Su-ching.jpg
• File:7 Dr. Chung Wing-kwong.jpg
• File:8 Dr. Lee Ying-lam.jpg
• File:10 Dr. Nai-hsin Chien.jpg
• File:15 Dr. Chi-to Huang.jpg  Delete Image taken in 2000. Delete unless University releases under CC or "no known copyright restrictions".
• File:13 Prof Yuk-chau Mak.jpg
• File:11 Dr Howard G. Rhoads.jpg
• File:12 Dr James K.C. Juan.jpg
• File:14 Prof. Raymond Huang.jpg

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

According to page 7 of the Lingnan University Alumni Association San Francisco Chapter Newsletter #68, titled Lingnan 125 Glorious Years, the information in files 2 to 8 can all be verified.

https://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/lingnan_history_bks/article/1004/&path_info=Lingnan_125__Oct2013__Final.pdf

According to page 13 of the Lingnan Newsletter #154 on 15 Jan 2003, the information in file 10 can all be verified.

https://luaa.hk/news/lnn_154.pdf

According to the 天天日報, "嶺南書院在香港成立的新聞報導 : 天天日報(1967年11月19日)" (1967). Historical Texts of Lingnan University 嶺南大學歷史特藏. 20, the information in file 11 can all be verified.

https://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=lingnan_history_bks

According to page 5 of the Lingnan University Alumni Association (Hong Kong) Ltd Lingnan Newsletter #63 on 6 Nov 1970, the information in file 12 can all be verified.

https://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=lingnan_history_bks

According to page 34 - 35 of the "嶺南大學香港復校 – 開創以傳承 (The Hong Kong Story of Lingnan University : The Old Spirit in a New Setting)" on Dec 2017, the information in files 13 and 14 can all be verified.

https://www.lingnan.org.hk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LN_book_interactive_PDF.pdf

According to page 12 of the Lingnan Newsletter #148 on 30 Sep 2000, the information in file 15 can all be verified.

https://luaa.hk/news/lnn_148.pdf

Therefore, the relevant images and files should not be deleted; otherwise, it would violate the platform's principles. Thank you.

RY01162049 (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I downloaded the first PDF. Unfortunately, while it does say "This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the History of Lingnan University at Digital Commons @ Lingnan University", that isn't sufficient. To be on Wikimedia Commons, they need to indicate a specific license which allows for modifications and commercial use, or place it in the public domain (i.e. waive copyright). Their statement just means that it's free to read. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Copyright© 2026 Lingnan University. All rights reserved" would only cover their original text and original images. Rote copyright boilerplate would not create a new copyright when republishing an historical public domain image. It would not restart the copyright clock or transfer a copyright. --RAN (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. That's why I said "Possibly old enough for copyright to have expired, especially for the earlier ones, but that'd require actual dates and possibly actual authors." The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep Excerpt the one marked for deletion because of the year. --RAN (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

   Comment: @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), please refrain from moving files while a deletion request is pending, in accordance with COM:FRNOT. Instead, add them to your watchlist and rename them after the deletion request has been closed. Many thanks. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Haoxuahu28 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope as plain text

• File:轷大写楷书.jpg
• File:中国汉字轷.jpg

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Llocs d'unió del factor H.jpg

Image is superseded by native version File:Llocs d'unió al factor H.png, this photoshot version should be deleted Btrs (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Autobahnausfahrt - Ankündigungstafel unmittelbar am Autobahnende - vor Einführung der StVO 1956.svg

the redirect link must removed SilverJapan2006 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:TRF-A

Unused license template for a one-off custom license. This license template was only in use on a single file (File:Greylisting infographic.png) which has itself been nominated for deletion, and which has been substed on its file page. Omphalographer (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Mohammad hajeer (talk · contribs)

These files can't be accepted because Jordan, unfortunately, does not have freedom of panorama. See COM:FOP Jordan.

• File:Contents of the Salt Archaeological Museum 99.jpg
• File:Contents of the Salt Archaeological Museum 98.jpg
• File:Contents of the Salt Archaeological Museum 97.jpg
• File:Contents of the Salt Archaeological Museum 96.jpg

Aplucas0703 (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Aplucas0703 I think The signs are official informational boards located at archaeological sites and are being documented as informational objects. So I believe the Freedom of Panorama restriction does not apply to these files. I would appreciate it if you could review them again. Mohammad hajeer (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mohammad hajeer Although they are purely informational, and photographing them is useful for preservation, it still possesses copyright protection and would fall outside the scope of Commons. Though unfortunate, this is the case when countries do not possess Freedom of Panorama. Aplucas0703 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our governments will probably discover the concept of Freedom of Panorama sometime in the next century :) Until then, even photographing simple informational signs ends up being a copyright issue on Commons. Mohammad hajeer (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably we need investigations on TOO level of Jordan, any ideas? --~2026-38847-11 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Magic Johnson Steve Lipofsky.jpg

Uploaded from alamy. Original files uploaded 15+years ago had VRT ticket via Lipofsky(User:Cavic) which were all low resolution photos. I suspect the VRT doesn't cover alamy file in higher resolution. See discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Larry_Bird_Lipofsky_(high_quality).jpg#Licensing_and_source_verification_for_higher-resolution_version there may be more instances from said user. --JoeJohnson2 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The images are the same, and the permission applies regardless of the quality of the photograph. Both are literally the same image and so the permission is supposed to stay the same regardless Wcamp9 (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at this, Commons’ “Same work” guidance, you may be right. Which means it may also cover other photos like these File:Lipofsky Shaquille O'Neal.jpg File:Lipofsky Kobe.jpg File:Lipofskydotcom Lamar Odom-13052.jpg File:Jordan Lipofsky.jpg (which was already uploaded by you here: File:Steve Lipfosky -- Michael Jordan (1997).jpg --00:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC) JoeJohnson2 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

 Delete infringing portions until the copyright expires. I warned the uploader.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I sort of messed up here by uploading portions that are not part of the elements (ie: infringing) here: File:Lipofsky Kobe (high quality).jpg.. But the current crop looks good. Anyway the previous history uploads can be removed? —16:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC) JoeJohnson2 (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I added Template:‘Non-free embedded revdel’ on said file.—JoeJohnson2 (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@JoeJohnson2: {{Non-free embedded revdel}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Ken Rodger.png

License is invalid. CEDADE was a Spanish magazine. And even if this was originally published in Rhodesia, URAA means it is still copyrighted in the US. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)