Commons:Deletion requests/2026/02/07

February 7

File:Razones para hacer una editorial.pdf

Author request: the file contains a logo that I do not wish to release under a free license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by La Mantis (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

 Weak keep per com:De minimis SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

This file was initially tagged by La Mantis as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Author request: the file contains a logo that I do not wish to release under a free license.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as file was uploaded in 2021. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Recueil."Victor" d' Henri Bernstein - btv1b105350088

These are scans from several French newspapers and a theater program published in 1950 . Many of them are signed and clearly still copyrighted in France, like File:Recueil."Victor" d' Henri Bernstein - btv1b105350088 (50 of 88).jpg, signed by fr:Didier Daix (1905-1971). Even the unsigned ones are still copyrighted in the US due to URAA (copyright protection in France was 50 years + war extension in 1996).

Günther Frager (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Jacobs Kimberley biscuits.jpg

Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)


 Keep Not sure there's anything copyrightable here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
The package shows a biscuit icon, which is above COM:TOO--A1Cafel (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Stuffed Crocodile of the Musei Civici di Reggio Emilia.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)


 Comment The crocodile was donated to the Civic Museums of Reggio Emilia by the Italian explorer en:Raimondo Franchetti (see here). These animals were hunted during the 1912-1913 expedition in Sudan. These animals were later taxidermized: their skins were assembled above plaster manniquins. I think that it's very likely that this procedure was done immediately after Franchetti came home, since he initially kept these animals in his villas. Between 1931 and 1951 the Franchetti's collection was donated to the Museums (see here).
From the copyright POV I think that we can apply Template:PD-anon-70-EU. I couldn't find anywhere any information about the taxydermist, I believe that I've done due diligence. As written in this source these taxydermized animals were made to decorate Franchetti's villas. It's therefore IMHO highly unlikely that these works were made in or after 1931, since in that same year Franchetti started to donate his works to the Museums, and IMHO it wouldn't have made sense to pay a taxidermist to make these works only to donate them to a museum immediately thereafter. Moreover please note that Franchetti died in 1935. I think that under these circumstances the significant doubt required by COM:URAA about the fact that this work is free under US law (I'm citing from the policy: A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.), is not met. Since the skins are not copyrightable, I've also some doubts wether these animals fall above the high Italian ToO (here I found a discussion on the matter). Anyway, even if we decide that they do, as I explained above it shouldn't be an issue, and I'm therefore inclined to  Keep the image. Friniate (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep This is not a sculpture but a real taxidermed crocodile. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Окупанти вдарили «Точкою-У» по залізничному вокзалу Краматорська 05.jpg

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)


This isn't just a "toy." It's a child's life stolen and reduced to a blood-stained object on dirty pavement—a stark reminder of a moment of unspeakable pain. But go ahead, erase this from memory too. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Murales Eduardo De Filippo poesia.jpg

Photograph of public art and copyrighted poem; Italy has no freedom of panorama Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Dallet mine des rois2.jpg

Il s'agit de mon image, je ne suis pas d'accord qu'elle soit utilisée ~2026-83088-9 (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Spomen-ploča u Aucklandu.jpg

No freedom of panorama for 2d works/text in New Zealand. Text is original enough to be copyrightable. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:1943sanok kosciuszki ukr ss.jpg

PD-PRL requires evidence of publication in Poland without a copyright notice before 23 May 1994. That is not demonstrated on the file page, the simultaneous use of CC-BY-3.0 contradicts a public-domain claim. The licensing therefore cannot be verified. Fails COM:LIC. Rajendra Alben (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep Meets PD-Poland. The image is also available at other archives and there is no record that it met copyright eligibility in Poland, so also PD in USA. --RAN (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) No evidence of qualifying publication for {{PD-Poland}} / {{PD-PRL}}. Archive availability is irrelevant. Conflicting CC-BY claims. Licence unverified. Fails COM:LIC. Rajendra Alben (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • None of the sources mention that the image has remained as a negative in an archive (unpublished, or never "made public") or that it is under an active copyright. See: Category:Bain copyright notice for images with a conspicuous copyright symbol in the corner. "Made public" is more than appearing in a newspaper or magazine, it is when a copy of the image leaves the custody of the creator. I am not seeing the "significant doubt" required by COM:PCP. --RAN (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks for updating the file and removing the CC-BY-3.0 licence. Rajendra Alben (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:1943zaklik.jpg

Conflicting and unsupported licence claims. PD-Polish and PD-GermanGov are not demonstrated. Public-domain status cannot be verified. Fails COM:LIC. Rajendra Alben (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:1943 malinowski.jpg

PD-PRL is not demonstrated, CC-BY-3.0 cannot apply to WWII photo with unknown author. Museum attribution does not establish public-domain or free-licence status. Fails COM:LIC. Rajendra Alben (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep Meets PD-Poland. The image is also available at Getty and there is no record that it met copyright eligibility in Poland, so also PD in USA. --RAN (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Getty availability is irrelevant to copyright status. Museum attribution does not demonstrate {{PD-PRL}} / {{PD-Poland}}. No evidence of qualifying publication is provided so PD claim cannot be verified. Fails COM:LIC. Rajendra Alben (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • None of the sources mention that the image has remained as a negative in an archive (unpublished, or never "made public") or that it is under an active copyright. "made public" is more than appearing in a newspaper or magazine, it is when a copy of the image leaves the custody of the creator. --RAN (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
    Thanks for removing the CC-BY tag and clarifying the licensing. Rajendra Alben (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of SKSL.png

User made reconstruction of a historical flag based solely on a textual description, fails Commons’ requirements on verifiability. Lacks a published, contemporaneous, reliable visual source. Rajendra Alben (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Her Majesty, The Queen (5588762086).jpg

COM:FOP UK and COM:GRAFFITI ~2026-83743-6 (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Her Majesty, The Queen - Eska Did It - Art is the Cure (5588168641).jpg

COM:FOP UK and COM:GRAFFITI ~2026-83743-6 (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Domino's Pizza The Noid - Punching Machine (1986).webm

commercial published after 1981 and less than 60 seconds SomeFancyUsername (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

But it's wasn't registered within 5 years
https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/search?page_number=1&query=%22The%20Noid%22&field_type=%22keyword%22&records_per_page=10&sort_order=%22asc%22&type_of_work=%22motion_picture%22&model=%22%22 Popeyefan1 (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
As per Popeyefan1, a search of the US Copyright Office PRS yields no registration for the advertisement in question. There are some for newspaper adverts and figurines, but none for commercials. Unless there is a specific part of US copyright law pertaining to commercials published after 1981 under 60 seconds which exempts them from the registration requirement (I can't find any such information on COM:US), it seems it is in the public domain. Coleisforeditor (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

File:The Noid Dominos.png

screenshot from commercial what published after 1981 and less than 60 seconds SomeFancyUsername (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:The Noid mascot character from Domino's Pizza.png

screenshot from commercial what published after 1981 and less than 60 seconds SomeFancyUsername (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, if the length was relevant, then that clears up all the confusion about 80s commercials' copyright status. Go ahead and delete this if needed.
You may also want to remove File:Love's Baby Soft - Take on Me commercial.webm RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Bildnis des Malers Hans Gassebner, Rudolf Levy, Thesing 184.jpg

The 1937 portrait was still under copyright in Germany on 1 January 1996 (Germany had a life + 70 year term by then), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the COM:URAA and will last until 1 January 2033 (95 years after publication).

West Germany’s 1965 copyright act set a term of 70 years after the author’s death, and upon German reunification in 1990, that term applied countrywide (even reviving works that had expired under the former East German 50-year rule). Additionally, the EU Directive 93/98/EEC was implemented by 1995, ensuring any work still protected in an EU country by 1 Jan 1995 (like Levy’s) remained protected in all member states. Consequently, on 1 January 1996 this painting was firmly under copyright in Germany. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Jan von Horn 2.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Yann as no license (No license since) This is a painting, not a picture, so the license is not valid. Yann (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Demirkapı İstasyonu.png

This is a copyright violation. The original picture was taken by a Bernhard Kußmagk in 2011 and is copyrighted - see this link: https://urbanrail.net/as/tr/istanbul/istanbul-T4.htm (second picture from top left). This version appears to have been cropped to omit the watermark which is shown in the original image (again, see the link). Zach1055 (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Bildnis Hans Purrmann, Rudolf Levy, Thesing 154.jpg

The 1931 portrait was still under copyright in Germany on 1 January 1996 (Germany had a life + 70 years term by then), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2027 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Mannheim Károly.jpg

No reason given for why this is public domain in the US. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 11:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Bertrand Russell smoking in 1936.jpg

Evidence of publication in the US not provided, furthermore this photo would have been copyrighted in the US on the URAA date. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 11:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anne-Vere-Chamberlain-ne-Cole.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Neville-Chamberlain.jpg. On former, "The photo was created anonymously by studio Bassano Ltd, which has since ceased to exist without known heir. The copyright on source country UK has expired. The photo is copyrighted in USA until 2035, but it is unknown, who can claim copyright." I admit that my licensing must have been off, but that can be fixed without a deletion. JJLiu112 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
@JJLiu112: for the photo to be kept, evidence must be provided that the photo was published according to the criteria at {{PD-1996}}. No such evidence was provided in any case, and those prior deletion discussions should be revisited. Orphan works are only permitted on Wikimedia Commons according to the criteria at {{Orphan work}}, which this file does not fulfill either. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 22:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
(Also if the licensing is off at this moment, please inform me what the correct licensing would look like if this photo were to be kept.) – Howardcorn33 (💬) 22:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Clara Ewald - Portrait of a Man.jpg

Although Clara Ewald’s painting is public domain in its source country (UK) as of 2019, it was published in 1940 and was still under foreign copyright on the URAA date, so its U.S. copyright (restored in 1996) will last until 31 December 2035. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Geneviève with the Apple by André Derain, 1937-38.jpg

André Derain died in 1954, so while this 1938 painting is public domain in France from 1 Jan 2025 (life+70 after 1954), it was protected in France on 1 Jan 1996 and thus had its U.S. copyright restored – lasting 95 years from publication, until 31 Dec 2033. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Correction, France had life +50 until 1997, but that would still have been protected at the URAA date (1954+50 = 2004). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Prato-erba.png

Vorrei che questa immagine venisse eliminata, opera propria Federico rossi zampriolo (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Prato-erba.png

Vorrei che questa immagine venisse eliminata Federico rossi zampriolo (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Sir John Richard Geers Cotterell (1866–1937), 4th Bt, Lord-Lieutenant of Herefordshire (1904–1933).jpg

The portrait was painted in 1934 by an artist who died in 1937 (making it public domain in the UK from 2008), but because it was still copyrighted abroad on the URAA date it had its U.S. copyright restored – lasting 95 years from 1934, until 31 Dec 2029 – so the file cannot be hosted on Commons until 1 Jan 2030 . --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Herbert Schofield CBE PhD.jpg

The 1950 portrait of Herbert Schofield by Oswald Birley was still under copyright in the UK on 1 January 1996 (UK had implemented life + 70 years by then), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2046 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The Artuk website from where I obtained the image says that it can be used for non-commercial purposes. Jgdc47B (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
non-commercial is not ok there SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Madame Louis-René de Gramont (1931), styled comtesse de Gramont (née Antoinette de Rochechouart-Mortemart) by Philip Alexius de László.jpg

The 1931 portrait was still under copyright in the UK on 1 January 1996 (due to the implementation of Directive 93/98/EEC extending terms to life + 70 years), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2027 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Gustave Van de Woestyne - The opulence of Flanders.jpg

The 1931 painting was still under copyright in Belgium on 1 Jan 1996 (Belgium had life+70 by then), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2027 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Gustave Van de Woestyne - Still Life with Pears and a Blue Vase with Flowers.jpg

The 1937 painting was still under copyright in Belgium on 1 January 1996 (Belgium had a life + 70 years term by then), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2033 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Gustave Van de Woestyne - Fruit bowl on a window sill.jpg

The 1937 painting was still under copyright in Belgium on 1 January 1996 (Belgium had a life + 70 years term by then), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2033 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Vivian Jill - Image.png

White bar on the left suggests that this is a screenshot. Permission needed. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 13:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

 Delete, higher resolution at https://www.threads.com/@owusuadujnr/post/C93KXwLo-5h from 2024. Belbury (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Gustave Van de Woestyne - Christ in the Desert.jpg

Van de Woestyne had been dead for only 48 years at the URAA cutoff, so his work “Christ in the Desert” was still under copyright in Belgium on 1 Jan 1996. (Even under life+50, it wouldn’t have expired until end of 1997; life+70 extended it further.) In other words, the painting was not public domain in its source country at that time. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Poncefrancisco1 (talk · contribs)

Mix of cameras. One credited to Piper Jaramillo another 2 to Alberto Tamargo, not own work as claimed

Gbawden (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:HeavenEarth.jpg

Sculpture by en:James Clover (b. 1938) installed in Michigan in 1990. Notice that there is no freedom of panorama for 3D artworks. Günther Frager (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per Commons:Hirtle_chart#Architectural_works SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Sculptures are not considered architectural works, and this particular one is not an ornament on building. You can have a better picture here: https://artgallery.gvsu.edu/Detail/objects/3170. Günther Frager (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Love's Baby Soft - Take on Me commercial.webm

commercial published after 1981 and less than 60 seconds SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Hermey the elf and Rudolph (2).jpg

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is copyrighted untill 2035 SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Gaborone, Botswana - Sir Seretse Khama International Airport.jpg

COM:FOP Botswana SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Fleeing Duvaliers.jpg

Reason for public domain claim appears spurious. Under Haitian copyright law, this would be copyrighted for 60 years after the death of the author, if known, or 60 years after publication if anonymous. URAA would thus have extended the copyright in the US, leaving this non-free in both country of origin and in the United States.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

As a photograph I think the current law (2005 non retroactive) puts 25 years for the copyright, though I dont know about the the 1968 law which says 25 years after authors death (doesn't say anything about anonymous author though). Nevertheless it would still hit the URAA limit. Perhaps it should be moved to enwiki as a fair use file for Baby Doc's article? Not everyday you have a picture of a dictator fleeing. MSG17 (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Should also add File:Fleeing Duvaliers (cropped).jpg to this ddiscussion - we could consider moving it to enwiki for fair use in Michèle Bennett's article, though we could get another, clearer picture. MSG17 (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
A FU usage would certainly make sense, especially for Michele. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Almost certainly not PD, and in any case the justification currently given is far too weak. A FUR on Wikipedia would have no issues and would allow use of the photo in the article, but not on the main page. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The uploader is correct in that the credited source claims the image is public domain. Whether it actually is, I can't speak to, but I felt we should at least take into account that detail. DS (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
TBH, Ive seen plenty of sites that tag a pic "public domain" just because it was available on Google Images. MSG17 (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Photos from Vahid Online

The user who claims to own the rights of these images via Twitter/X (Vahidonline) is based in the United States according to his twitter, so we have a user posting images he has no rights to as they were taken in Iran ad then releasing the rights to all under the CC-by-SA, This is definitely illegal and breaks our policies on what is permissible for use on Commons, all these images at the very best are under the Fair USE licence and thus do not belong on commons. This is deliberately being done by an admin on Farsi wikipedia as this user (Vahidonline) isn't the only user who was manipulated into releasing the images under this specific licensing on social media and telegram. IMO this is propaganda and this has no place on Wikimedia. None of these images contain any identifying EXIF information or verifiable markings and as such cannot be verified and thus should be deleted per unclear copyright status.

Stemoc 16:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Wait a bit to see if VahidOnline will fix it. I have explained more here. In most cases, people send video clips and images they have taken to w:en:Vahid Online on various social media and messenger platforms for him to check and post, so he is often in direct contact with the copyright holder. VahidOnline also has a history of attributing any media taken from other sources to said source, making it easy to review and verify licenses. For example, compare File:VahidOnline 2026-01-10 69747.jpg, where the caption reads "received images with the caption..." (showing VahidOnline received it directly) with File:VahidOnline 2026-01-06 69310.jpg, where it reads "has been published with the caption..." along with a link to the original source (Iliaaaa6 on X).
When VahidOnline shares images or videos from other sources, he cannot publish them under a free license. However, when he receives them directly from the copyright holder, he could ask for permission to release the images under a compatible CC license. He could instead announce that all images and videos shared with VahidOnline will henceforth be released under a CC license to avoid having to ask and explain each time. That license, if it comes, would not apply to these, which are published before the date of the hypothetical announcement, but VahidOnline could choose to contact the copyright holders for at least some of the works above and ask for their permission to release their work under a CC license.
@Darafsh: If you've contacted VahidOnline about the license already, could you follow up by asking him to take the necessary steps to resolve licensing issues? Some more explanation here and here.
Also a note to @Stemoc: Please focus on the issue, not contributors (COM:NPA). You suggested above that Darafsh has deliberately ... manipulated VahidOnline to issue a CC release, and in a related thread implied recent discussions about state media coverage is linked to w:en:Hasbara and pressure of these state terrorists. Avoid personal attacks against others. Ahmadtalk 09:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Both VahidOnline and mamelekate have almost similar licence they released the images under, as if someone told them what to post, that to me is odd, also as per this DR, its not about using the correct licence or VRT, the fact is atleast for this one, the user is based in USA, but posting images from Iran which he did not take and thus does not own the rights to.. If it was this easy to get images and videos from the region here, I would have already added 1000's of videos from the Genocide being perpetrated on Palestinian people by getting people who mass post videos of it on their twitter or telegram to release it under that license, but the reality is, the person mass uploading it to their X/Insta/Tiktok/Telegram **DO NOT** own the rights to those videos, they are sharing it but they don't own it. You are an image reviewer too, so you should understand this. Once I'm done with this, I will also nominate the mamelekate ones cause we can't have double standards on allowing one group of people to post images and videos they did not take and then them trying to block the other group who are following our licensing policies by claiming they are terrorists and trying to discredit them..I was active here when IDF supporters/contributors here were mass posting lies within the first few months after Oct 7th, we won't allow that to happen again...Wikipedia has already been used once to justify a genocide...not again. Every Image posted by both Vahid and mamlekate is propaganda cause they are not verifying what they have posted, posting images of dead people and claiming IRGC did it is propaganda...I have not seen a single image posted by Tasnim/Mehr or even the Khamenei websites that are propaganda in nature relating to dead bodies and false narratives...Also don't forget, since Israel banned every media in that region and bombed the others, to stop them from taking images of their "genocide", the only verifiable and trustable images and videos coming from that region that we can use on wikimedia comes from Iran, its not their fault they are the only source left..Well there is IDF but are we really gonna allow more images and videos posted by them to be used anymore?. WMF should consider blacklisting them.
P.S there was no personal attacks, its exactly whats happening on multiple social media right now, where fake propaganda videos and images are being shared by so called "Iranians" (who don't live in Iran but claim to be in Iran) posting videos as if they are there even though their location is nearly always in US or UK...
If a user adds a image without context and which cannot be verified, Wikimedia has the rights to delete those images regardless of the license it was released under.. Stemoc 05:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Unless there is a good reason to doubt the declaration by w:Vahid Online that the people taking the photos have effectively granted him copyright under that licence, I don't see any justification for deleting the images. The implication is that he could ask for permission to release the images under a compatible CC license was already done; people giving photos to Vahid Online were something like in the situation of uploading to Commons: they are aware of the licence they're posting under; with the difference that they feel that their security against being arrested and executed is better protected through Vahid Online compared to Wikimedia Commons. If someone is suspicious, then you could ask at Commons talk:Volunteer Response Team whether VRT accepts Vahid Online's holding of copyright for these photos, or whether they want some sort of individual email proof for each image. If there is any suspicion of AI usage in a photo, then that particular photo should be proposed for deletion and the uploader Darafsh should be warned to be more careful for future uploads. I see that File:VahidOnline_2026-01-24_70140.jpg has some obvious scribble added to hide what appears to be an identifying tag on someone on a bed having pellets removed. That really should be described there, but it's not AI - it's just use of an image editor like w:GIMP. Boud (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
    That is not how declarations work, I could mass collect images and videos taken by other people and release it on a licence i choose but those images do not belong to me or were taken by me so i literally have no rights to those images, that is what Vahid is doing and he has no rights to release those images under any other licence as he does not own the rights to them. This is License laundering and as such, not permissible on commons, The users who want these images can upload it to their wikis under a fair use licence, it can’t be used on commons, we DO NOT HOST NON-FREE IMAGES/VIDEOS here.. Stemoc 01:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep No valid reason for deletion.   ARASH PT  talk  16:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  KeepThese photographs are not propaganda but historical testimonies of a harsh reality, of high value for the encyclopedia. Therefore, I suggest not being destructive, but constructive, for which I agree with what Boud suggested to ask for an opinion on Commons talk: Volunteer Response Team and also, if possible, suggest to Vahid Online to request the C.C. release for every image he has received and will receive in the future.--Bramfab (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Historical testimonies of a Iran current history to show Iranian regime acts during 2025–2026 Iranian protests[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete how can Vahid claim to be the 'copyright owner' when he did not take the images? How does the account verify that the images/videos he is sent belong to the person who is sending them? There is no reasonable way for us to determine which images posted by the account have been released properly by the actual rights holders and which have instead been shared without the rights holders consent/knowledge. Too much doubt around this for it to be considered acceptably free. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per nom, the statement on X by VahidOnline claiming they are the copyright holder is insufficient.
It has been more than a month since this DR has started, there are still no evidence provided that the photographers transferred their copyright to VahidOnline, or the photographers released these images under CC licenses.
Per COM:EVID, it is up to the uploader (or those arguing for keep) to provide this evidence to Commons. If not, we have to delete this per COM:PCP. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Pelotas - correto.PNG

This is a "simulation of the Pelotas coat of arms" (in Portuguese: "simulação do brasão de Pelotas"), a wrong version of the official one: File:Brasão de Pelotas.png (also SVG version). heylenny (talk/edits) 16:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Calligraphy of Imam Abu al Qasim Rafi.png

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


File:Calligraphy of Imam Abu al Qasim Rafi.png

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

File:Imam al-Tahawi.png

It is actually work of someone, but somehow I download this work from social media , now I make a new calligraphy of al tahawi, please kindly delete this ShafiNotes (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Promesses de Dieu à Abram (Genesis 13 16) • invenit James Tissot • pinxit James Tissot • excudit Maurice de Brunoff apud Philip de Vere • praesentat Phillip Medhurst..jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Phillip Medhurst (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:E Cotton+N Popova - femmes francaises 4Aout1951.jpg

Scan of a magazine cover published in France in 1951. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, provided the photo is not credited. However, it was clearly not in the public domain in 1996 at URAA time (French copyright at that time was 50 years plus wartime exceptions). Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Claudine Chomat 1952 femmes francaises.jpg

Scan of a magazine cover published in France in 1951. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, provided the photo is not credited. However, it was clearly not in the public domain in 1996 at URAA time (French copyright at that time was 50 years plus wartime exceptions). Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Francoise Leclerq -FF- fevrier 1952.jpg

Scan of a magazine cover published in France in 1952. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, provided the photo is not credited. However, it was clearly not in the public domain in 1996 at URAA time (French copyright at that time was 50 years plus wartime exceptions). Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Pierre Daix -femmes francaises 29Juillet1950.jpg

Scan of a magazine cover published in France in 1950. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, provided the photo is not credited. However, it was clearly not in the public domain in 1996 at URAA time (French copyright at that time was 50 years plus wartime exceptions). Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Loleh Bellon FF Sept 1952.jpg

Scan of a magazine cover published in France in 1952. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, provided the photo is not credited. However, it was clearly not in the public domain in 1996 at URAA time (French copyright at that time was 50 years plus wartime exceptions). Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:JA8109.png

There are no permission for this image to uploaded Thebaldball (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Marko milovanovic.jpg

error, wrong picture, it is not mine! RMingues (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Bob Sculpture Brighton Michigan.JPG

Sculpture installed in in Michigan in 2006 (see plaque). There is no freedom of panorama in the US. Günther Frager (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:David Santerre, Dec 2012.jpg

C'est moi sur la photo et j'aimerais qu'elle soit retirée de Wikimedia. Dsanterre (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:DKPattammal.jpg

Photo published in the Indian journal Pesum Padam in 1949. The photo is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA time (60 years ppa for anoymous works). Thus it is still copyrighted in the US. Following PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Felix Timmermans - Self-portrait.jpg

The 1947 self-portrait was still under copyright in Belgium on 1 January 1996 (Belgium had a life + 70 years term by then), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2043 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Тема с группой и водяным знаком.jpg

This image should be deleted from Wikimedia Commons as it contains a copyrighted Reddit logo and has no active use in any Wikimedia projects. Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Тамаш Деак с трубой, 1960-ые.jpg

Not in the public domain. Futbollo (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Charles Portal, 1st Viscount Portal of Hungerford.jpg

he 1948 portrait was still under copyright in the UK on 1 January 1996 (the UK had a life+70 term by then), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2044 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Portrait of King George VI in Coronation Robes.png

The painting’s author (Albert Henry Collings, d. 1947) was still under copyright in the UK on 1 Jan 1996, so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2033 (95 years after its 1937 publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Photo-1470240731273-7821a6eeb6bd.jpg

After a quick Google search, it seems that this photo is used in a lot of sites. The source may be wrong. Aristorkle (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Air Vice-Marshal R. H. Peck.jpg

The 1941 image was still under copyright in the UK on 1 January 1996 (UK had implemented a life + 70 years term by then), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2037 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Aggenstein Gipfelaufbau Rupicapra rupicapra template.jpg

COM:SCOPE, this is a fictionous, non encyclopaedic image highly manipulated (see source at File:Hagelberg B1.JPG), without description and proper categorization. If you need a cross for heaven's sake, we have enough images of Category:crosses. Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Marjory Kennedy-Fraser by John Duncan 1931.jpg

The 1931 image was still under copyright in the UK on 1 January 1996 (UK law had extended copyright to life + 70 years, protecting works by the 1945-deceased artist until end of 2015), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2027 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:James-vote-bomford-d0c17b5b-978c-4200-b4c2-b0c427329e5-resize-750.jpg

I don't think user took this picture and still lives. Nurken (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Obviously public domain image from the 1800s. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete No source, so no way of verifying date or identity. Gamaliel (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Kingdoms of Israel and Judah map 830.svg

Original research. Only source is to a map from Jewish Virtual Library which is not reliable. Also this map doesn't match the JVL map. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep. If you are familiar with the Old Testament in the Holy Bible, this map provides a very good insight into the circumstances and political and religious conditions at that time! --Wieggy (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep The map conforms to widely held views on the borders of ancient Israel and Judah. See e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-map-of-the-biblical-kingdom-of-Judah-and-the-location-of-sites-mentioned-in-the-text_fig1_305756856 Echo713 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete the Bible is not a reliable source for archaeology, anthropology or ancient history. The linked to researchgate does not contain a similar map. If this is not deleted for being propaganda (well, Commons has a lot of that, just its usually not contemporary) then it should at the very least be tagged as historically inaccurate EasternShah (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Even if it were OR, that's not an argument to delete if from Commons. Regioncalifornia (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep. This map depicts one widely held view on what the historical borders of those kingdoms were. Concerns about the historical accuracy of the map can be addressed by an amended caption stating "Map of the region in the 9th century BCE according to the Bible." I note that the historicity of those kingdoms is confirmed by extra-Biblical sources, and that modern historians rely on both archaeological evidence and textual analysis of the Bible to piece together the history of the Iron Age Levant. (See e.g. here: Sergi, Omer, 'The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah', in Karen Radner, Nadine Moeller, and D. T. Potts (eds), The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East Volume IV: The Age of Assyria (New York, 2023; online edn, Oxford Academic, 23 Mar. 2023), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190687632.003.0048, accessed 15 Apr. 2026.) The Bible contains both supernatural narrative elements and its authors' retelling of historical fact. The Homeric epics (re: Troy), the Icelandic sagas (re: Vinland), and the Chinese Shiji (re: Shang Dynasty) are all similar. It would be an NPOV violation to dismiss the historically verifiable elements of those texts as "propaganda". StoneDante (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Kingdoms around Israel 830 map.svg

Original research. Only source is to a map from Jewish Virtual Library which is not reliable. Also this map doesn't match the JVL map. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

This is based on the map File:Levant_01.PNG via File:Oldtidens_Israel_&_Judea.svg. I note that improving the map is preferable to deletion given that it isn't a copyright violation and given the widespread use of the map. Also do you have a link for the purported source? JVL itself seems to link to other sources and has multiple such links. I would say the map cities need double checking, and, that boundaries likely fluctuated. Erp (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)


Original images are not original research, see WP:IMAGEOR.
This request should be cancelled. Squibman (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Porto Empedocle, murales ad Andrea Camilleri.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama for 2D artworks in Italy. Günther Frager (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The artwork was painted in 2020 by the living artist Salvo Ligama (see here) Friniate (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Thomas Cantrell Dugdale Underground 1932.jpg

The 1932 image was still under copyright in the UK on 1 January 1996 (the UK had a life + 70 years term by then), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2028 (95 years after publication).¨ --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Porto Empedocle - Statua di Montalbano.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama for 2D artworks in Italy. Günther Frager (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The statue was made by the living artist Giuseppe Agnello in 2009 (see ) According to the article, the statue was "wanted by the mayor", so it was probably commissioned by the Municipality. If it's so, it would enter the public domain in 2030 in Italy, but unfortunately not in the US. Friniate (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Portrait Friedrich Frey-Fürst von Heinrich Knirr.jpg

The 1932 (year assumed as last possible creation date) image was still under copyright in Germany on 1 January 1996 (Germany’s term was life + 70 years, so the artist’s 1944-deceased works were protected until end of 2014), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2028 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Francis Picabia, 1943c - La Résistance.jpg

The 1943 image was still under copyright in France on 1 January 1996 (France had a life + 70 years term by then), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2039 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Correction, France had life +50 until 1997, but that would still have been protected at the URAA date (1953+50 = 2003). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Estats neohitites i arameus a Síria al segle VIII aC.png

Original research. Not educationally useful as not based on any reliable sources. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. I'd say it is very educationally useful, it's used on multiple pages and gives one visuals of the geography. Articles it is used in describe the geography of these states. Wlaak (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Untitled1 - panoramio (1320).jpg

No freedom of panorama in Russia for 3D art Altenmann (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)


 Details w:ru:Файл:Памятник_Мойдодыру_(Москва).jpg and both point to Марчел Коробер as the author, and the latter indicates 2012 as the year this sculpture was placed in the park. I can’t really locate much information about him, but it seems we’re out of luck regarding copyright expiration in this case. What about this sister photo? -- wikimpan (Talk) 02:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Philip alexius de laszlo mrs philip astley d6462354095459).jpg

The 1935 image was still under copyright in the UK on 1 January 1996 (the UK’s life + 70 years term was in force, covering works by this 1937-deceased artist until end of 2007), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2031 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Viggo Langer - Bondeidyl - 1935.png

The 1935 image was still under copyright in Denmark on 1 January 1996 (Denmark had a life + 70 years term by then, so works by the artist who died in 1942 remained protected until end of 2012), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2031 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Émile Baes - Portrait of Admiral Guépratte.jpg

The 1937 image was still under copyright in France on 1 January 1996 (France’s term was life + 70 years, so the artist’s 1953-deceased works remained protected through 2013), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2033 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Correction, France had life +50 until 1997, but that would still have been protected at the URAA date (1953+50 = 2003). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Jean Vanden Eeckhoudt - Portrait of the artist and his wife.jpg

The 1946 image was still under copyright in Belgium on 1 January 1996 (Belgium’s term was life + 70 years post mortem, so the artist’s 1946-deceased works remained protected until end of 2016), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2042 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why this artwork is treated differently from other works that have lost their copyright protection in Europe. So maybe nominator can clarify the argument why this particular work deserves deletion. Pretski (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
We don't apply URAA to countries that have FoP. Or does Belgium not have FoP for sculptures? Nakonana (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

File:The Stock Exchange London 1933. The Financial News Map of the Stock Exchange.jpg

The 1933 image was still under copyright in the UK on 1 January 1996 (the UK had a life + 70 years term by then, which revived protection for the 1944-deceased artist’s works), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2029 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:John Lavery - Self-portrait, The Silver Casket (1934).jpg

The 1934 image was still under copyright in the UK on 1 January 1996 (the UK had a life + 70 years term by then, reviving works by artists who died before 1945), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will remain in force until 1 January 2030 (95 years after publication). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why this artwork is treated differently from other works that have lost their copyright protection in Europe. So maybe nominator can clarify the argument why this particular work deserves deletion.Pretski (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
It is not, unless the upload is pre-2012, then we "ignore" the fact it may be protected in the US per COM:URAA. If there are other post-2012 uploads, please feel free to nominate them for deletion - manpower is low, but that's' not a reason to claim en:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Hermey the elf and Rudolph.jpg

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is copyrighted untill 2035 SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Isn't there a fully explained rationale under the picture detailing why copyright does not apply to this still image? Deinocheirus (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
I think the argument is that the character of Rudolph was created in a 1939 story and therefore any depictions or derivative works of the character remain under copyright. See this story. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Muddy area since this static *image* doesn't seem to have any content that intends to infringe on the *written* work. We'd have to look at more than just this image, as we have so many others under Category:Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. If the Rudolph character rights holder wants to contact us regarding this to clarify they're position on our content, let them. Until then, I propose we postpone this request for, say, 9 years? -- Netoholic @ 02:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Kazusa Yoneda sign.svg

COM:SIG Japan。 Immunity1386 (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

独創的で著作権が発生する可能性のある署名。「​米田和佐」の文字と下部の線に著作権が存在しないことは明らかだが、右下の図形には著作権が発生するおそれがある。--Immunity1386 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
 Weak delete although the most part is not eligible for copyright protection, the cat-like drawing at the lower right could be above TOO. Mzaki (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2026 (UTC)