Wikimore

1 March 2026

3 March 2026

Deletion requests on 2 March 2026

March 2

File:Teak stamens.jpg

Out of focus. No taxonomic, aesthetic, or other type of aesthetic value. Alexander Abair (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment Do we have a better illustration? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

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

File:The Busan Biennale.jpg

including painting s which may be under exclusive copyrights Motoko C. K. (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Kept: clearly de minimis. Ruthven (msg) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

File:The Busan Biennale.jpg

Paintings are DM, but not the sculpture. Poppy by Zoro Feigl (1983–). There is no FOP in South Korea. Namoroka (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Manripo.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Hyolee2 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: deletion|COM:FOP#Korea (South)
Converted by me to DR, as it should be discussed whether this monument is copyrightable in Korea. If yes, then permission or deletion. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I shot this photo by my own camera by myself, and upload it by my self as license as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. I can't believe why this photo is requested speed delete. You can see my description note. This photo is necessary to explain Korean geography. -- Jjw (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

ADD: The license of this photo has not any problem in Republic of Korea (South) -- Jjw (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

ADD2: According to COM:FOP#Korea (South), the copyright about FOP bind to "artistic work", but not memorial land marker such as this. If someone argue that this memorial marker is artistic, commons may delete all photo about geographic marker.-- Jjw (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Jjw, nobody doubts that you shot the photo. The question is whether the memorial, i.e. the stone construction as well as the text on it, are legally considered a work of art resp. copyrighted by Korea's copyright law and jurisprudence. In most countries this would be the case. Please see also this report. Please remember that images uploaded to Commons are required to be free also for commercial use (COM:L). --Túrelio (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree on Jjw's explanation. Asadal (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

만리포찬가는 저작권보호기간내에 있다. 유지는 100%없다.--hyolee2/H.L.LEE (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Kept: IMHO not copyrightable. If you disagree, please take this case to Com:VPCOPY Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Manripo.jpg

The text on that monument is still protected by copyright in South Korea. Manripo Yeonga (만리포연가, left) was written by Park Mi-ra (박미라, 1952–) in 2005 and Manripo Love (만리포사랑, right) was written by Ban Ya-wol (반야월, 1917–2012) in 1958 . And there is no FOP in South Korea. See also: 공익목적으로 비석에 새긴 시(詩)이용 (by Korea Copyright Commission 한국저작권위원회) Namoroka (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Kunkhmerclinchfighting.webm

Interlaced video, no audio. Doubtful claim of own work. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Nespressso Machine.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Komarof as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Please explain why did you propose this image for deletion. I personally took photo of this machine at the campus of my university. @Komarof Verbal.noun (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Verbal.noun, 1. no one here knows or can know that Author: Stanislav Wald has anything common with user:Verbal.noun. When users upload their own photo, they typically use the {{Own}} template. Further, in case you are Stanislav Wald, how did it happen then that File:Day picture of the shoreline at Cabo de Roca.jpg had a name Anvar Valeyev listed in description and two other names were listed in files that were already deleted? 2. What does it mean: permission for distribution was granted by owner? Distribution of what? Owner of what? 3. The image should be used solely to complement the wikipedia article about Nespresso: This restriction contradicts Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. Komarof (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Komarof As I see, both images uploaded on the same year when user even registered account, the "permission notes" and differend names might be considered as a mistakes by newbies.

For File:Day picture of the shoreline at Cabo de Roca.jpg should be VRT permission.

For File:Nespressso Machine.jpg situation is differend - this file has metadata, so it means what this photo very likely was created by user who uploaded it there, as he said above. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep valid metadata, so "no permission" deletion reason is invalid SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Question. @Verbal.noun are you Stanislav Wald? -- Geagea (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Klepkinpv (talk · contribs)

Professional photos with no exif, unlikely to be own work

Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

own work, just dont know how to use exif Klepkinpv (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

If you are the photographer please upload the original file. It should contain the EXIF. -- Geagea (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Venus 2 Approach Image (Stretched For Accuracy).jpg

because it is actually innacurate, the original file was fine and as the owner i would like this file to be deleted. Anonymsiy (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Question what you mean at "actually innacurate"? If you want rename file, just request renaming the file. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

see Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests - Wikimedia Commons Anonymsiy (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by TheTwenea (talk · contribs)

There is nothing at the source to verify this license claim. New user- they need to confirm they are Turpits via COM:VRT

Gbawden (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I have recived permission from the copyright holder via email. TheTwenea (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@TheTwenea Please send to COM:VRT Gbawden (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Landtagsabgeordnete Kirsikka Lansmann.jpg

This needs VRT. User has uploaded copyvios as own work before. This was taken by a Leica and was found online https://www.landtag-niedersachsen.de/abgeordnete-und-fraktionen/abgeordnete/details/kirsikka-lansmann/ - they need to confirm permission Gbawden (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Foto de Barbijaputa (María Pozo Baena).jpg

contiene metadatos privados Barbijaputa (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment File was Edited with Google AI per Metadata. --Rosenzweig τ 10:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

contains metadata that includes ‘edited with AI’, which may raise suspicions: AI was used to remove the shadow of the mobile phone on the jumper, as the photo is a selfie. Barbijaputa (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Trønderbataljonen på hemmelig oppdrag i Antarktis (1939) (16375095884).jpg

Surely this is not correct 212.251.218.188 18:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Keep This was a April fools joke from Trondheim byarkiv, apparently. The file is in fact in use on the Norwegian wiki page for April fools, so it might be better to just change the file description to make it clear this is a April fools joke. TommyG (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Trønderbataljonen på hemmelig oppdrag i Antarktis (1939) (16375095884).jpg

Perché è un ‘alterazione o fotomontaggio rispetto alla foto originale, visibile nel file successivo. Inoltre la descrizione è sbagliata, in quanto racconta di fatti mai avvenuti. ~2026-13548-62 (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't really care much either way, but as the file is in use, the correct resolution is probably to update the description to reflect it's actual content and status as a april fools joke.

TommyG (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Automotore FS 208.4003.jpg

This picture isn't before 1976 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinaio56 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete that certainly invalidates the PD tag that is given. - Jmabel ! talk 05:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. There is also no US tag. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Владимир Матвеевич Фридман в 2021 г.jpg

Недостоверные сведения: объект умер в ноябре 2025 и не мог быть сфотографирован в феврале 2026 -- Tomasina (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Фотография подписана 2021 годом. Февраль 2026 - это когда она была загружена в пространство Википедии. Universe is big (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Внесено изменение Universe is big (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Slideshare office warming party 2011

Please refer to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Uploads by Fabe56 where this uploader has uploaded multiple files uncritically from Flickr. This tranche is a set of pictures of random unnamed people at what appears to be a private event. Event though the Flicker licence is acceptable, they appear to be a collection of private pictures, possibly containing the uploader in some cases, possible in none. They appear to have no educational value. Commons is not a host for private pictures. This diff where the uploader states "All my upload must be deleted ASAP, so do not waste time here." may be relevant.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Slideshare office warming party 2011

Please refer to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Uploads by Fabe56 where this uploader has uploaded multiple files uncritically from Flickr. This tranche is a set of pictures of random unnamed people at what appears to be a private event. Event though the Flicker licence is acceptable, they appear to be a collection of private pictures, possibly containing the uploader in some cases, possible in none. They appear to have no educational value. Commons is not a host for private pictures. This diff where the uploader states "All my upload must be deleted ASAP, so do not waste time here." may be relevant.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Tulku Hungkar Dorje in 2018.png

I don't think that the YouTube channel owner is the one who took this image. It's very low-res even in the source video and I can find it in multiple places. The channel itself uploads things like entire anime episodes and other low-res images of people with music playing over it. Nothing suggests that the channel owner is traveling and meeting these people to get their images. HurricaneZeta^C 14:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The YouTube channel has ceased its activity several years ago. Its name, is Vietnamien, "Bồ Đề Tâm Vương", which means in English "Bodhi Mind King" or "King of Bodhicitta". This name can be find on the youtube original photo from which this file was extracted. This suggest that Bồ Đề Tâm Vương is the author of this photo dated 2018. I have not find any copy of this photo taken before this date, therefore, this indicate that this (or the current file) is the source of all the photo found with this same image but published later. Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It could have been taken from somewhere offline or a site that is no longer live or hasn't been indexed. Low-res shots like this are a sign of that. I don't see anything in the channel's uploads that says they're taking these images; it would be much more organic if it were their own work. HurricaneZeta^C 16:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll look more in detail for this issue. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:JLP07868.jpg

and:

Commons:Derivative works from background. Should be blanked to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

In JLP07866.jpg, the cosplayers are blocking the copyrighted characters with their bodies tho. For the other images, the only way to retain them would be to contact Neowiz directly? Or would cropping be enough? Jotamide (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Just blank background on all images as it was suggested originally. EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:HKCEC night ferry.jpg

Unclear image, the HKCEE is very blur, the Center Plaza is also unclear and blur ~2026-13526-77 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete, image very unclear ~2026-24139-25 (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Armoiries grande comore.jpg

Needs to be cropped, but the original uploader has already done so except it was uploaded with a different filename (File:Armoiries Royale Grande comore.jpg). This version is therefore unnecessary. Marbletan (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Prototype wooden turan iii turret with a mock-up gun on a turan ii chassis.jpg

Copyright violation 43MZrinyiII (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:PD-Hungary. Author unknown, 70+. Blockhaj (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:43m turan iii.jpg

Copyright violation, this is not own work. 43MZrinyiII (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:PD-Hungary. Photo is 70+ years old, author unknown. Iirc this is outside the Hungarian Army's HQ or something like that. The shot is set up for official use. Blockhaj (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:44M Buzogányvető.jpg

Copyright violation, this is not own work. 43MZrinyiII (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Photo is more than 70 years old, author is unknown since this is wartime and under the Hungarian Army trials: template:PD-Hungary Blockhaj (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Toldi Pak 40.jpg

Copyright violation, this is not own work. 43MZrinyiII (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This photo is more than 70 years old OrionNimrod (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That may well be but its without proper source it's impossible to determine if a better copryright tag fits. --Denniss (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a mockup by author Ádám Bíró: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/hungary/toldi-pancelvadasz/ He started writing in the 1990s it appears. Blockhaj (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Toldi IIa.png

Copyright violation, this is not own work. 43MZrinyiII (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This photo is more than 70 years old OrionNimrod (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That may well be but its without proper source it's impossible to determine if a better copryright tag fits. --Denniss (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a factory photo. It goes under template:PD-Hungary. Blockhaj (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:2020-07-28mediaparticipationpdg0016.jpg

est remplacé par ce fichier https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020-07-28mediaparticipationpdg0017.jpg JosephMelin (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:43M Turán III, spring of 1944.png

This image is not public domain. The photographer, József Czimmermann, died in 1977. 43MZrinyiII (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:LouCity and Lexington SC Scarves.jpg

Incorporates copyrighted elements in two scarf designs, COM:DW Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:British Board of Film Classification (1985-2019)

no copyright

Adygea9191 (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: in other words, TOO is low in the UK Adygea9191 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep per previous DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:BBFC Universal Children (Uc, 2002-2009).svg, all of these should be below the new COM:TOO UK. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep, perTvpuppy. - Jmabel ! talk 07:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

keep FireDragonValo (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:2007-2008 Hyundai Entourage, 02-28-2026.jpg

Wrong file order purposes 2000chevymontecarlo (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:George Floyd mural Mauerpark Berlin

While FOP exists in Germany and it might cover murals, however this appears to be a derivative of a copyrighted photograph of the subject, which the painter is not able to "release".

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there should be enough abstraction between the original image and the painting. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with GPSLeo. लोकाः समस्ताः सुखिनो भवन्तु (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: What would be the issue if there weren't? FOP in Germany appears to cover murals, but I could not find legal evidence that one has to verify the originality of the photographed works. The original painter did not "release" their derivative work; the main issue IMO is whether this even matters at all and whom the rights holder would be able to raise claims against at all. --stk (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep a photo of graffiti on a wall, that may in itself be derivative, is not derivative. Nfitz (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete Its fair, some of my drawings depicting people, which I uploaded here, were actually deleted from the site because they were «derivated works». It will not be fair to keep this photographs, for me that would not be right. We should be fair people. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

If we talk about fairness it would be better to keep these as they have an important political message. As there is many art around based on these image it would may be the best to find the creator of the original image or is it a selfie, I am not sure. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep: Is a graffiti, not a photo. Remember that people's appearance is not copyrighted. --I Mertex I (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep as per others above. Yann (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Well then I think its also fair that we keep the drawing I made myself for the page of wrestling fugure Kemonito - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_TheBellaTwins1445#Files_uploaded_by_TheBellaTwins1445_%28talk_%C2%B7_contribs%29 TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep I can't see any violation of a copy right. The artist placed the graffiti in public space and wanted to send a clear message. To delete this on Commons would mean sending a completely wrong signal. --Stolp (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep The mural and the photo depict the same person so there are bound to be similarities, but to call the mural a derivative work based on the selfie is like calling this sculpture a derivative of this one. -- Malatinszky (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep FOP covers this photo no matter how the copyright status of the graffiti itself might be. // Martin K. (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- No! FOP, or freedom of panorama as it is called, is the right to photograph copyrighted works without the 2D-photograph infringing on the underlying artwork you've photographed. If the artwork however is a copyright infringement, so does the 2D-photograph become. You can't make a Micke Mouse sculpture and place it in the public and therby be allowed to upload photos of it, since only Disney is allowed to place their work in public. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  - Is this really the case? Is this an issue the person invoking FOP has to check and verify, or is this a problem the graffito artist has with the original rights holder? I have been digging for leading cases regarding this and haven't found anything so far. --stk (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    - In order to permanently place an artwork in to "the public" they need to have the legal authority and ability to do so. If you do not own the copyright of the artwork, you can't legally place it in the public without that being a copyright infringement. FOP states that a photo of a copyrighted object in public does not infringe n the artist copyright, however, if the artist doesn't hold the copyright, then...FOP can't be invoked. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
    - If a copyright holder places a work permanently in public, then it "limit the right of the copyright owner to take action for breach of copyright against the creators and distributors of such images. It is an exception to the normal rule that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorize the creation and distribution of derivative works." If the copyright owner of the picture was not the one who placed the artwork in the public, then it hasn't "given away" their rights. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
      - I would totally see this argument if the artwork in case were the original artwork that is supposedly being infringed upon. This is, however, definitely not the case. The argument seems to hinge around the question whether the depicted graffito is a derivative works of its own according to § 24 Abs. 1 UrhG. If it is, it is in and of itself a protected work that does not need permission by the rights holder of the work from which it was derived. The way it is contextualized with a political slogan, as well as the production style with (possibly) a distinctive style of spraypainting by the artist can each be arguments for the graffito to be covered by at least the same umbrella of copyright legislation as the selfie that the work was based upon. Just out of curiosity: Are there precedents where the Wiki Commons community starts trying to preemptively delete images of works of art because they suspected them to be copyright infringement themselves? --stk (talk)
        We delete on a precautionary principle (COM:PCP) since we only want free work we are sure are ok. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
        As in my contribution above, I would totally see this argument if the artwork in case were the original photograph. This is still not the case. There is ample evidence that the graffito constitutes a work of its own, that, in turn, falls unter FOP. --stk (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
        
        Addendum: If you still believe that this graffito cannot constitute a Freie Benutzung according to § 24 UrhG and therefore a original work, would you mind going ahead and also mark the photographs of the Brezhnev/Honecker mural for deletion? It is also based on a protected photograph (Corbis currently holds the rights to it) and is painted on a wall in Berlin. --stk (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep: People's appearance is not copyrighted. The graffiti is based on a photograph but only based on the appearance of George Floyd. --I Mertex I (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep In the German Urheberrecht we have the Freie Bearbeitung for a work like this, which clearly goes way beyond a derivative work. This mural is a original work, it is not even obvious that it is inspired by the linked photograph. --Seewolf (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Kept: consensus is that these images are FOP-Germany. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Files in Category:George Floyd mural Mauerpark Berlin

Mural is a COM:Derivative work of this copyrighted photo

– Howardcorn33 (💬) 16:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed the photos were already nominated for deletion above.

Nevertheless, I disagree with the decision of the non-admin closer as the photo is a clear derivative of the original photo, regardless of FoP. More recent deletion nominations (here and here) has upheld that German FoP does not apply if image is a derivative of a copyighted work. I would thus like a second person to re-review the copyright status of these files. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 16:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations by someone who puts something at a place where it is covered by FOP are only a problem who does this. You can not demand from a photographer to ensure that the photographed work was put into the public with permission from the author. This would also eliminate the FOP for buildings if they got changed without the permission from the architect. GPSLeo (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not denying FOP entirely here, only when the public artwork being pictured is itself an unauthorized derivative of a copyrighted work. The nominations I linked above ultimately concluded that such images were not permissible even under German FoP. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 18:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

If the law would give an obligation to check the legitimacy of the subject to the photographer, this would be a de facto end of FOP. It is not possible to check if there was permission to display something in the public and make FOP apply to it. GPSLeo (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

FOP is not a general permission granted to photographers; it is merely an exception that prevents a photo of a publicly visible copyrighted work from infringing the original artist's rights. That exception can coexist with the public artwork itself being an unauthorized derivative (and therefore infringing), and we should stop and ask ourself if we truly should (or want) to host files that are not truly free simply because a legal loophole allows it. Otherwise, let's reproduce all copyrighted images out there in Germany. I truly believe this contradicts our mission as champions of free media, ever if we are "allowed" to do so. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

KEEP – huge time sink. The cropped image is much cleaner, which is usually why crops happen. I'm pretty busy with more important things to do, as I'm sure others are as well, and hope this AfD goes away...far away...and never resurfaces. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep, many graffitos are, in fact, a copy vio inthem selves but this here is covered under FOP-Germany. Adtonko (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Avenue Léopold-Robert no 39-41 f.jpg

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The avenue Léopold-Robert is located at La Chaux-de-Fonds, in Switzerland, not in France.
L'avenue Léopold-Robert se trouve à La Chaux-de-Fonds, en Suisse, et non pas en France. MHM (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep not in France. Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

File:COVID19-GE-Parc Baud-Bovy-2.jpg

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, we are not in France. The Parc Baud-Bovy is in Geneva, Geneva is in Switzerland, not in France. MHM (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Portraet Claudio Hils Ausstellung "heimatfront. Bühnenbilder des Krieges", Artist Claudio Hils, Kunstmuseum Thurgau 2021.jpg

Copyright holder: Dieter Langhart. Unless the uploader is verified as being that person, this is not "own work" but copyvio. ~2026-13441-66 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep INUSE on dewiki Adygea9191 (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

INUSE is completely irrelevant if it is a copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 06:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment Besides everything else, there are copyrighted works in the background, and I believe there is no FoP for 2D artworks indoors in Switzerland. - Jmabel ! talk 06:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Dieter Langhart wurde von mir kontaktiert und hat die Nutzung des Fotos auf WikiCommons freigegeben. Eine Löschung ist also nicht notwendig. OioioiW! (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Portraet Claudio Hils Ausstellung "heimatfront. Bühnenbilder des Krieges", Artist Claudio Hils, Kunstmuseum Thurgau 2021.jpg

Diese Datei ist wohl von Dieter Langhard und wurde von mir vershentlich falsch zugeordnet und deshalb auch fälschlicherweise hochgeladen. Dieter Langhad wurde von mir zwischenzeitlich kontaktiert und muss nun selbst entscheiden, ob er sein Foto für diese Nutzung freigibt. Der Löschprozessvorgang sollte weiter gehen. OioioiW! (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@OioioiW!: why are you starting a second DR on a file that already has an open DR? - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
@OioioiW!: Wenn Sie sagen „Der Löschprozessvorgang sollte weiter gehen“, meinen Sie dann, dass wir mit der Löschung fortfahren sollen oder dass wir diese Diskussion fortsetzen und sie nicht abschließen sollen, bevor Sie eine Rückmeldung von Dieter Langhard erhalten? - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Antonín Švorc ND1983.jpg

Claim "own work" on a very old monochrome photo (though person depicted was born in 1934, so not old enough to automatically be public domain). No information about failure by publisher to provide notice or non-renewal. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo-eltrona.png

Violation de Copyright - Ne peut pas être hébergé sur Commons doit être hébergé sur Wikipédia et utilisé en Fair Use In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates? Beaufix 17:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It says in english: Copyright infringement - Cannot be hosted on Commons, must be hosted on Wikipedia and used under Fair Use Adygea9191 (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep: clearly below TOO, not copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 07:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Bonjour, je comprends effectivement le problème de copywright. Je viens de réuploader ce logo sur Wikipédia FR, en tant que logo de marque déposée, afin de pouvoir l'intégrer dans l'infobox de l'article encyclopédique correspondant, conformément aux exceptions de copywright autorisées pour les logos. Le fichier uploadé sur Commons peut donc être supprimé. Merci à vous. AmandAstral (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@AmandAstral: Encore une fois : il n’y a pas de problème de droits d’auteur ici. Cela reste en deçà du seuil d’originalité tant en France qu’aux États-Unis. - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, très bien ! C'est noté pour les prochaines fois, merci beaucoup pour votre retour. :) AmandAstral (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:71-101-0109 Cherkasy SAM 7160.jpg

No FOP in the Ukraine Traumnovelle (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:مجموعة من الجنود السعوديين يسيرون خارج القصر بالرياض.jpg

The dates are inconsistent; the copyright expiration date in the United States is January 1, 1931, and the date of the photograph is 1942. Siwbdg (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Ana de Miguel

Per COM:DW. The photographer is not the author of the drawing on the wall.

Günther Frager (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Gisèle Pelicot in art

The freedom of panorama exception only applies to artworks permanently installed in a public place, clearly not the case here.

Günther Frager (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Map of River Orisa.jpg

Suspected CopyVio: where does the satellite picture come from? Enyavar (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Aerial view of Olla Kwara.jpg

Suspected CopyVio: The satellite imagery appears to not be under free license, since OpenStreetMap doesn't offer satellite imagery (to my knowledge at least): About Mapcarta. Data © OpenStreetMap contributors and available under the Open Database Licence. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence, except for photos, directions, and the map. --Enyavar (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Er. Harish Chandra Pathak.png

Previously used on abandoned draft article on English Wikipedia: en:Draft:Harish Pathak Btrs (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Les Comadres Homenaje a Rosario de Acuña en el Ateneo de Madrid

Per COM:DW. The author of the painting is Carlos Roces and is still alive.

Günther Frager (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Penis erection movement.gif

May include content of a graphic, violent, or sexual nature.

This is not the original uploaders penis. It was gained unlawfully. Kindly delete it as it i is causing a lot of distress ~2026-13549-97 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom/COM:PENIS Dronebogus (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

per COM:PENIS Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ejakulation.gif

May include content of a graphic, violent, or sexual nature.

This file is not to be in the publick domain. the original uploader gained it unlawfully and it is causing a lot of distress. please remove it ~2026-13549-97 (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom/COM:PENIS Dronebogus (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Raygun Gothic Rocketship

Copyrighted modern artwork; no freedom of panorama in the United States

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this was a lot newer than I thought when I photographed it - 2009 rather than ~50 years ago. So it doesn't fall under the FOP exeptions for older images that I presumed it would. I've emailed the creators of the sculpture to ask if they would be willing to provide a copyright release here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. Now news since. Ruthven (msg) 11:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Files in Category:Raygun Gothic Rocketship

2009 sculpture - the US has no freedom of panorama for sculptures.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Tomatomsonatomiko (talk · contribs)

Nonsense and unused trims from File:Licensing tutorial en.svg. per COM:NOTUSED.

Netora (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2026/03/02

March 2

Files uploaded by Klepkinpv (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by TheTwenea (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Slideshare office warming party 2011

Files in Category:Slideshare office warming party 2011

Files in Category:British Board of Film Classification (1985-2019)

Files in Category:George Floyd mural Mauerpark Berlin

Files in Category:George Floyd mural Mauerpark Berlin

Files in Category:Ana de Miguel

Files in Category:Gisèle Pelicot in art

Files in Category:Les Comadres Homenaje a Rosario de Acuña en el Ateneo de Madrid

Files in Category:Raygun Gothic Rocketship

Files in Category:Raygun Gothic Rocketship

Files uploaded by Tomatomsonatomiko (talk · contribs)