Commons:Deletion requests/2026/03/13

March 13

Files found with Special:Search/Sitwell

The photographer is not anonymous, it was credited on the original publication to Curtis Moffat (died 1949) and Olivia Wyndham (died 1967). As a work of UK origin, the copyright for the photograph remains 70 years after the death of the last surviving author, so until 2038. As it was published prior to 1931, I have uploaded this photo instead to local hosting on enwiki here.

– Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)


  •  Keep That's not how copyright works. Only the singular natural person who clicked the photo determines the period of protection. It is literally impossible for both of those people to be the authors of the photo. The estate of Curtis Moffatt credits another photo from the same shoot to him individually and also credits the creative choices for the sitting to him. Moffatt and Wyndham operated a studio together and the studio may have supplied this photo, but Wyndham *did not take it*. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 01:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
     I withdraw my nomination: since the article you provided confirms that Moffat was solely responsible for both the shot and its creative composition, it is reasonable to infer that Wyndham does not have a claim of authorship in this case. However, I disagree with your point that photographs cannot be works of joint authorship, as it is still possible for a second author to provide creative instruction on composition to the camera operator (see eg. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Me at the zoo.webm). – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Nard the Bard: for further info on this see meta:Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Adalsiza Pinto (talk · contribs)

Template:PD-IDGov/en clearly states that items are only public domain if there is no copyright notice.

"Any Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction executed by or on behalf of the government, unless stated to be protected by laws and regulations, a statement to such Works, or when Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction to such Works are made;" (bold mine)

These items are from various government websites, and at the time of uploading each Indonesian government webpage had a clear copyright notice:

  • DPD.go.id (archived 31 July 2024) - © Official website Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia 2024
  • MPR.go.id (archived 24 March 2024) - Hak Cipta © Sekretariat Jenderal MPR RI
  • DPR.go.id (archived 1 November 2024) - © 2016 Sekretariat Jenderal DPR RI. All rights reserved.

Sorting out this mess is complicated by poor sourcing; for many of this uploader's uploads, the link goes to the homepage of the government organization rather than the specific source.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep The template reads: "Any of the following acts are not considered Copyright infringement: … Reproduction, Publication, and/or Distribution of Portraits of the President, Vice President, former Presidents, former Vice Presidents, National Heroes, heads of State institutions, heads of ministries/nonministerial government agencies, and/or the heads of regions by taking into account the dignity and appropriateness in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations." The only exception is a violation of "dignity and appropriateness". Since these are official portraits they have been approved as not violating "dignity and appropriateness". For instance Pete Hegseth in the USA disapproved of images taken of him. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/03/11/hegseth-press-briefings-photos-iran/ If we saw similar complaints about these images, then they would not pass the "dignity and appropriateness" test. -RAN (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    • None of these fall under that list. The subjects are not "heads" of agencies, but rather members of parliament and other legislative bodies. That list does not include members of parliament, sub-head employees of state agencies, or sub-heads of regions. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Pink Line.jpg

wrong metadata, i will upload the correct version. this is a later version and the meta data reflects the wrong time of creation Peterydeen (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Ma Ying-jeou in one year old.gif

Not public domain in the US per COM:URAA Absolutiva 02:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:KBS (1983) (unused).svg

This is a falsified logo resulting in disinformation. Neither on anywhere of KBS's assets nor online does it indicate KBS has ever considered this logo variation. Furthermore there is no citation or source for the existence of this logo anywhere aside from a logo-based Wikia which isn't resourceful. 🦊 08:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Verification of Wikipedia Page Stokes parameters.pdf

Out of scope: plain text. AI-generated mathematics, used only on a talk page. Omphalographer (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not generated by AI, and it's useful for the improvement of the "Stokes parameters" Wiki page. Xiangdong Zhang (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Xiangdong has posted some math for discussion. I'm not sure what the policy is on using uploaded files for this purpose but it makes sense to me to allow the file to persist for a while.--Srleffler (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Stewdeane8 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: I'm not sure what "proof of copyright" is meant to imply here, but these collections of draft/proposal advertising concepts have no clear educational purpose.

Omphalographer (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

hi there
I have been trying to update the Night Shift 2023 Movie poster on Wikipedia, but the poster was deleted as it didn't have proof of copyright. After checking Wikipedia guidelines, a copyright is created at the moment of creation and the concepts PDFs prove that I created the files — they are timestamped and have various iterations.
They are not meant for educational purposes, they are to support the fact that the Night Shift poster I have uploaded is indeed mine and I own the copyright.
The movie itself is owned by the filmmakers, who commissioned the work.
Does this help clarify? Stewdeane8 (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
It seems that you are trying to supply evidence of permission for File:NightShift 1532x2176 StewDeane.jpg. There are instructions on your talk page about contacting the Volunteer Response Team in order to supply the information there. They will be able to evaluate the information. Regards, Marbletan (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Stewdeane8: I believe that the two files nominated here were an attempt to make a point and should hence be deleted
As for the original file you wanted to upload, the permission has been verified Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 05:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete This should have been dealt with in VRT, not by uploading more files--Trade (talk) 15:56, 20 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 uploaded by Sintegrity (talk · contribs)

Speedy requests converted to DR: Too old for G7, but no objection to courtesy deletion.

1st deletion request

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Deleted: Fairly prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Sintegrity (talk · contribs)

Speed deletion requested by the uploader. Licenses issue. I thought the Flickr profile was good, but after the upload I realized it's all a license washing case.

2nd deletion request

Sintegrity (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  •  Keep I don't see any indication of license landuring. MTur Destinos seems to be a reliable Flickr user. --A1Cafel (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I didn't check all, but at least for most of the "Flavioandre..." and "Flavio Andre...", Metadata says Com autorização de uso pelo criador ao MTUr e associados descritos na autorização. This at least seems incompatible with the license MTur provided to Flickr. -- Gauss (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Strong keep per {{Flickrstream MTur Destinos}}. MTur (an official account) Flickr stream requires only attribution (something related to Brazilian law, I suppose), and marks its photos as public domain (sic). It is a matter of fixing the {{PDMark-owner}} to the correct template, not deleting the files. Pinging A1Cafel and Gauss. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    Please check the following links if necessary:
    • MTur disponibiliza imagens do Rio de Janeiro para uso gratuito (gov.br, official Brazilian government site) — O acervo, que já está disponível no FLICKR, reúne os principais destinos de lazer por meio de fotos da cultura, gastronomia, arquitetura e natureza de 169 cidades brasileiras. Todo o material é 100% gratuito para download e utilização das imagens, basta clicar aqui para ter acesso as mais belas paisagens do Brasil.
    • Dia do Fotógrafo: MTur promove destinos brasileiros em banco de imagens (again, gov.br) — No Flickr “MTur Destinos” é possível ter acesso a mais de 5,9 mil imagens de 169 destinos / Diante de tamanha relevância, o Ministério do Turismo possui um álbum online — MTur Destinos — com fotos de atrativos do Brasil inteiro disponíveis de forma gratuita.
    And so on… RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    Sintegrity, entendo perfeitamente a boa-fé e, sobretudo, a honestidade ao nomear uma quantidade enorme de arquivos carregados por você mesmo(a) para eliminação, mas tente tomar mais cuidado. Se essa eliminação de fato ocorresse, isso abriria um precedente que, no limite, poderia quem sabe ser visto como comportamento desestabilizador. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    Obrigada pelo conselho. Quando subi, não percebi que era um perfil que reúne fotos de várias pessoas. Desde esse upload, redobrei a análise das licenças no flickr antes de subir. Sintegrity (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
    @RodRabelo7: , no caso a gente pode retirar as tags de eliminação dos ficheiros que formos encontrando? André Koehne TALK TO ME 20:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    @André Koehne, não sei ao certo. Sei que os administradores podem fazer isso automaticamente, mas não sei se é permitido remover a marcação antes de um administrador fechar de vez este deletion request (acho que não é). Por via das dúvidas, eu apenas trocaria o template {{PDMark-owner}} por {{Flickrstream MTur Destinos}}, só para deixar mais claro que a atribuição é exigida. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    @RodRabelo7: Pois... Achei que já estava encerrada por conta da mensagem no topo... André Koehne TALK TO ME 20:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
    Só o primeiro pedido, relacionado às fotografias da posse do presidente Lula. Este, relacionado ao MTur Destinos, continua aberto. @DarwIn ou @Teles, alguém pode fechar isto aqui? RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Deleted: One image deleted (File:RenatoSoares Museu Comunitario Engenho do Sertao Bombinhas SC (26088986657).jpg) per COM:TOYS. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Kept: Files are from the official Flickr account of MTur, which seems to have an agreement with the creators. I don't know what means the information on the exif of the files by Flavio Andre, it could well mean that he authorized MTur to use them as they please, including relicensing - that would be on the contract they signed or otherwise agreed with MTur. In any case, that's MTur responsibility. -- Darwin Ahoy! 22:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. there is no evidence whatsoever that the flickr uploader had permission to publish these files of these different photographers. --Ellywa (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ellywa: Why have you reverted the decision of closed DR and deleted dozens of files without any discussion?! -- Darwin Ahoy! 00:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Restored files deleted by mistake, see Special:Diff/926142501/937759273 and {{Flickrstream MTur Destinos}}.-- Darwin Ahoy! 02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Sintegrity (talk · contribs)

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Angola the copyright term in Angola is either Life + 45 years after the photographers death or + 70 years after the date of publication in cases of anonymous photographs. In the case of these images specifically, although they were uploaded to Flickr under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license they were taken by an unknown photographer and there's zero evidence that the uploader owns the copyright to them or can release them in the public domain. So the images should be deleted until at least 2085 per the normal term for anonymous works in Angola since they appear to have been taken in 2014. If not until an undetermined date to the unclear years of creation.

Adamant1 (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Sintegrity (talk · contribs)

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Angola the normal term for photographs is life + 45 years after the photographers death. Although these photographs were uploaded to Flickr under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license there's zero evidence the uploader is the original photographer, that they own the copyright to said images, or that the person who took them has been dead for more then 45 years. So the images should be deleted until an undetermined date unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination, permission would be required from Jessica Wadsworth. --Ellywa (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Sintegrity (talk · contribs)

As Adamant1 alerted me: these photo may not be had taken by the Flickr user.

3rd deletion request – part III

Sintegrity (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: I think you added the comment to the wrong DR since most, if not all, of these images are from the account of someone named PaulBlake1957, who clearly uploads "found photographs" that they didn't take themselves. Regardless, to answer your question, no one said it isn't the official Flickr Account of SIM USA. I certainly didn't. The question here is if SIM USA owns the copyright to the images uploaded to their Flickr account or not, and I'm of the opinion that they don't. Especially since of their admittance the photographs are either taken by an unknown photographer or a missionary named Jessica Wadsworth. They clearly aren't Jessica Wadsworth and there's a difference between them having photographs taken by her versus owning the copyright to said photographs. Otherwise we would need evidence of the later, which I don't see us having. Otherwise be my guest and provide some. Just playing devils advocate doesn't cut it though. Especially with the photographs from PaulBlake1957's account. Since again, they clearly upload found photographs that they haven't taken themselves and therefore don't own the copyright to. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
SIM USA is a missionary work organization. It is more than reasonable that they have permission to upload photographs from their missionaries. Your opinion, if not corroborated by facts, is needless and disposable. Otherwise you’d need evidence of the later, which I don’t see us having – have you tried contacting them instead of letting yourself get carried away by your usual deletionist instincts? Don’t worry, I have already done so on their website and soon we will have a response.
In regards to PaulBlake1957’s uploaded photographs, please mark them as such, because I am not going to check all of nominated photographs, one by one, since you have mixed photographs from two different account, one of them being totally legitimate. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1 (pinging). By the way, does someone oppose removing all the needless almost 400,000 bytes from previous nominations? I can barely edit here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@RodRabelo7: As far as I know all the images that I nominated for deletion in the original request are from SIMUSA. Sintegrity then nominated the other images for deletion in separate DRs. Including this one. So I'm not really sure what your talking about or how it's my problem. The same goes for your insult about my "usual deletionist instincts" or whatever. Since again, I didn't start this DR, Sintegrity did of their own accord after messaging me on my talk page about it and I'm obviously not responsible for their actions. You might not know this for whatever reason, but it's possible to create and vote on separate DRs started by different people having to do with the same uploader.
More to the point, it might be "reasonable" that they have permission to upload photographs from their missionaries, and I disagree that it is, but that doesn't mean they have the permission. Or again, be my guest and provide evidence that they do. I find it hard to believe they would own the copyright to photographs they themselves say are by unknown photographers, that were taken at unknown dates, and are of unknown people. It would be pretty trivial for them to posses random photographs people took while doing missionary work under their remit. Again though, that doesn't mean they would own the copyright to said images. Although I'm more then willing to put my DR on hold for now while we wait to hear back from them about it. But there's no reason not to delete the other images nominated by Sintegrity in the meantime. Especially since they are requesting it themselves. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This DR page is a mess. Consider writing notes on the side of the file names. Which photographs are credit to unknown photographers? Which were uploaded by Paul Blake? RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, it's multiple DRs. The photographs in this one are from to PaulBlake1957's Flickr account and are probably "found photographs" by other people. The ones in the original DR are from SIMUSA and were again taken by unknown photographers. Essentially every image not specifically credited to Jessica Wadsworth in the file name is by an unknown person. It doesn't help that you needlessly collapsed everything though. To the point that it's a mess that's only because you turned it into one. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment In regards to this last DR, opened by Sintegrity, it should be noted that Paul Blake apparently uploads photographs taken by his parents, by himself, and by others, some of the latter likely being already in the public domain while others maybe not. I’d suggest closing this DR because we are not going anywhere with that many files to assess. RodRabelo7 (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Or we could just delete the images since the uploader requested it within the 7 day curtesy window and there's no way to determine which were taken by whom or are in the public domain anyway. We usually respect deletion requests by the uploader within 7 days of them uploading the images anyway though. Otherwise it's just wasting everyone's time nominating the images in smaller batches when they are probably just going to be deleted anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sintegrity nominated them to deletion not because she wanted to remove them from their upload history, but rather because she thought there were copyright issues to them. Anyway, she could simply add {{SD|G7}} to the files. Let’s see what she thinks. RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, @RodRabelo7 and @Adamant1. Sorry for all this work and worry besause of a batch. I think these images are important to ilustrate not only the missionary mission, but also (and more important) people from that region of Angola. But if they are not appropriated within the PD rules, I guess we should delete them. Just let me know what I should do. Sintegrity (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
RodRabelo7 can try and make an issue out of it, but at least with this DR the images clearly have copyright issues since of their own admission PaulBlake1957 uploads found photographs to their Flickr account sometimes and it's clear which ones he took or not. The other DRs aren't any better either and RodRabelo7's provided absolutely nothing to contradict that. So the DR should just stay open until a administrator deals with them and hopefully deletes the images. There's no reason to not delete the photographs though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. Per this declaration: https://www.flickr.com/photos/oldangolaphotos/29626779256/ the uploader to flickr made scans of old photos. He clearly does not own the copyright, perhaps of photos made by his parents, but it is totally unclear who the photographers might be. Therefore the files must be deleted from Commons. --Ellywa (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Sintegrity (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: these images of people were generated or modified using AI. AI images of identifiable people are generally not permitted on Commons. If these images were generated based on freely licensed photographs of notable individuals, please upload the originals.

Omphalographer (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hiǃ I took these pics hours ago and used chatGPT to improve quality (take out people on the background). Should I upload the originals? ̴̴ Sintegrity (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
You may see them hereː
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Original_pic_of_Daniel_Tonsig_as_Ennis_del_Mar.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Original_pic_of_J%C3%BAlio_Oliveira_as_Jack_Twist.jpg Sintegrity (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Omphalographer Sintegrity (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:الاكل في رمضان.png

Out of scope: AI-generated image of a table of food. Omphalographer (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Omphalographer Hey, The image is not AI-generated. It is an original photograph; I only adjusted the colors slightly to improve the visual quality (color correction and lighting). No AI generation or synthetic content was used. DERDAKI ILIAS (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Daniel G. Trindade de Queiroz (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: these images were generated or modified using AI. If these images were generated based on freely licensed photographs, please upload the originals.

Omphalographer (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment, both images are currently COM:INUSE in pt-wiki. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 14:35, 13 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 uploaded by Daniel G. Trindade de Queiroz (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: these images of people were generated or modified using AI. AI images of identifiable people are generally not permitted on Commons. If these images were generated based on freely licensed photographs of notable individuals, please upload the originals.

Omphalographer (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 09:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Counties of Durham and Northumberland Counties, Province of Ontario, 1865-66.jpg

User Erigalle made an error, choosing to remove and restart with a better-sourced map image. Cannot figure out how to delete myself. Erigalle (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:The Winn-Dixie Company Logo - 2026.svg

Better, not image-traced, SVG version available at The Winn Dixie Company logo (2026).svg 痛Designism (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Madonna Sixtina (Injustice).jpg

Pre-1931's Technology can't made 3D CGI ConcededBear657 (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:The Union City Tornado.png

This photo was not taken by a National Weather Service Employee, it was taken by storm chaser Drew Brummel. Quincy Gordon (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Support Deletion The source states that the storm chaser took the photo, and its not listed under any free license to warrant any keep. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Strongly Support Deletion Not only that the source states a storm chaser took the photo and that it wasnt released under a free lisence, but it also never even states the name of the storm chaser despite it being featured https://www.weather.gov/iwx/03062026_LowerMichiganTornadoes here. TornadoEF4 (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Fête des Lumières (Lyon, 2024, place Bellecour).jpg

In France, every creation (even located in public places) is a property of its designer. This is a property of the lighting director or creator. There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama for any public object in France. See both Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des lumières and Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des Lumières by Romainberth. See the notice at Category:Fête des lumières. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Simple plastic bubble is too simple for copyright, as is the lighting. The confetti element is creative, but it is not copyrightable because it is not in a fixed form. Underlying statue is in the public domain due to age. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

File:StLB Dortmund.jpg

This file was initially tagged by ~2026-13892-60 as no permission (no permission) Krd 06:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Translate of text in permission section: "Approval from the city and state library has been obtained." SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Call of Cthulhu - Flickr - fromfarbeyond.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Red panda bot as no license (No license since) Krd 06:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Looking down - Flickr - JanStreetphotographer.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Red panda bot as no license (No license since) Krd 06:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Todo se detiene con mi camara y entonces el Lago florece con tu luz. ✨🌟 - Flickr - abel.maestro.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Red panda bot as no license (No license since) Krd 06:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:General Authority of Media Regulation

Fake icons. The real icons are already uploaded.

FruitJ (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Sticker art in Sydney -- 2026 -84.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Australia for "graphic works". HyperAnd [talk] 08:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:WTC Painting.jpg

Derivative of copyrighted 2D work Based5290 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:CINEMATECA-e1495567929532.png

Personal information of a child ~2026-15858-47 (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:CINEMATECA-e1495567929532.png

Full name of a child ~2026-15858-47 (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep vandalism SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Скріншот з сайту brd24.jpg

non-free image, CC-BY-CA license is not confirmed Bestalex (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:The old huntsman, and other poems (IA oldhuntsmanother00sassrich).pdf

Not PD in UK, author died in 1967 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment undelete in 2038 SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
 Comment do we know when it was published in the U.S.? If it was within 30 days, that counts as simultaneous and we don't need to concern ourselves with UK copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
The first American publishing was May 1918 by E. P. Dutton & Company. There is no evidence of publication or distribution to America for the 1917 edition. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 01:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
@Nard the Bard,
Can you provide a link to support your statement that
  • "The first American publishing was May 1918 by E. P. Dutton & Company." -- Ooligan (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
You can see that right on this file in the Edition notice page. Published in London. Literally 5 seconds with Google would have pulled up info on the American edition . Answering this question for you was a waste of my time. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)


At the very least, this should be localised to English Wikisource, if a suitable US edition can be located. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Vile Bodies (Waugh).djvu

Localise to English Wikisource : Waugh died in 1966 (so this isn't PD in the UK), However this is a 1930 US edition. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree, this should be localized to English Wikisource. Sorry I initially posted it on Commons. (It IS PD in the US and this is the US edition, so I don't see any problems there) SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Localised to ENWS, can be deleted now. — Alien  3
3 3 19:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Cal Bitxo - P1060649.jpg

Out of project scope due to bad quality. Taivo (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

This image is not going to win any prize and it's unlikely to be used in any Wikipedia article as it is. However the goal of this image and other general views (usually of better quality) is to give context to identify (and to check the identification) of images of notable buildings and geographical features in the same area. For example, this image File:Cal Bitxo - P1060649.jpg and File:Cal Bitxo - P1060648.jpg, neither of which are good quality images, are the only images in Category:Can Martí (Subirats) that give context enough to check against a map that File:Can Bitxo - P1060648 (cropped).jpg depicts indeed Can Martí (Q105967184), which now can be of secondary importance but was crucial during the nearly whole year when that was the only image available of Can Martí (Q105967184). Pere prlpz (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:David Duke

The creator of this photo was Louisiana-based photographer Michael P. Smith (died 2008), per here. Per here, his first photographic collection was not published until 1991. Explicit evidence needs to be provided this specific photo was actually published prior to March 1989 without a valid copyright notice rather than citing modern websites, many of which do not credit even fully copyrighted images.

– Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

If this is true, then I fully agree it should be deleted. ~ AlaskaGal (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment If I remember correctly, some of Smith's photos were published before the 1991 collection for example in New Orleans area music magazines and alternative press. However I agree if we cannot find evidence that this particular photo was published without proper notice prior to 1989, this one should be deleted as unfortunately we cannot confirm free status. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)


File:Mario Bros. Game and Watch French variant.jpg

The screens shown in the picture appear to make the picture itself a derivative of the video game in question, which is under copyright. thejiujiangdragon 🔥🐉 13:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused. There are many images on Commons that depict the screens of Game & Watches with their screens turned off. If the screens count as a derivative work, then this may be expanded into Category:Game & Watch as a whole. (An example would be the Quality image File:Game&watch-donkey-kong-2.jpg.) Are all of the similar images in Category:Game & Watch derivative works, or not? JudeHalley (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I'll upload a new version with the screens blurred, as with File:Fire Attack - Game&Watch - Nintendo (pixelized screen backdrop).jpg, similar to its deletion request. JudeHalley (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
You may look at the new version here: File:Mario Bros. Game and Watch French variant (blurred screens).jpg JudeHalley (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep In reference to this non-blurred image, I believe that this falls under de minimis. JudeHalley (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Sorry if this is all over the place. I now think this should be deleted myself, having reread the guidelines. For further information, see COM:G&W. JudeHalley (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Nolan au PRJ.png

Photo datée. La personne présente sur cette photo souhaite sa suppression Nolan dt (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Yota00 (talk · contribs)

Files copied from a YouTube account that is clearly infringing on copyright. See souce videos. --Voncercue (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

This YouTube account is an extremely malicious account made up entirely of copyright-infringing files. --Voncercue (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

File:2024-10-09-Revolution-1989-Jubilaeum-14.jpg

Bild wurde aus Versehen hochgeladen, sehr schlechte Qualität Anana Sanana (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Tel Aviv 120326 HaMasger Trump 03.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Israel A1Cafel (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  • This image appears heavily manipulated or AI. Trump consistently wears his flag pin on his left lapel, and never in line with the lapel as in this photo, always straight horizontal. The American flag itself is PD. If the image is AI, it's not copyrightable. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 02:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

File:محمد عزیزی شاعر و نویسنده.jpg

Taken by one Azizi Reza, according to metadata. Uploaded as own work. Doubt it's own work, since all other files from this user have been uploaded without the permission of the photographer. Sinigh (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The copyrighted characters on the cover; may be a derivative work. JudeHalley (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)


File:Grusonia parishiorum 24.jpeg

archivo repetido RamsesVII (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Grusonia parishiorum 25.jpeg

Archivo repetido RamsesVII (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Grusonia parishiorum 26.jpeg

Archivo repetido RamsesVII (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Grusonia parishiorum 27.jpeg

Archivo repetido RamsesVII (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:AK-19.jpg

Not own work, image appeared with the same whitespace (although a smaller image size) a year previously at https://www.military.africa/2022/12/kalashnikov-mass-produce-ak-15-and-ak-19-assault-rifles/ - https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/59297 credits the photo to "Kalashnikov website". Belbury (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Lena Romul fot.Łukasz Stępniewicz.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Masur as no permission (No permission since). No speedy deletion. See user page of Lena Romul Wouter (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  • It is described as fot.Łukasz Stępniewicz, which means that the uploader isn't its creator - therefore I asked for a permission. Masur (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Ugolino di Nerio - Panel from the Santa Croce Altar - WGA23255.jpg

very bad quality, very blurry, 3 better files File:Ugolino di nerio, scomparti di polittico da santa croce a firenze, 1325-35 ca. 02 flagellazione.JPG, File:1де Ugolino di Nerio. The Flagellation. 1324-5. Berlin, Gemaldegaleree.jpg, File:Ugolino di Nerio - Santa Croce Altarpiece Predella 2 Flagellation.jpg Oursana (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:Genetta tigrina of Kruger National Park

Genetta tigrina is not present as north as the Kruger, therefore files placed in this category are misidentified and actually depict G. maculata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Kleine Schlange (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:NAZIM On a caltural Program

Misconception AZIZUL HAQUE SANY (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Otravolta (talk · contribs)

It seems impossible that they are from the same uploader/author. He published or licensed photos from 1964 to 2023

Docosong (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:2026-0203 Goode Pretti Poster on East Lake Street.jpeg

While the photo of Pretti is PD, the photos of Good are not (and they are most certainly not de minimis). Could be saved if the photos of Good were removed or blurred. Based5290 (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Retrato de Luis Toledo Velasco dibujado y firmado por el payaso Cepillín.jpg

made by cepillin Luis Toledo Russo (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Edith Gueugneau ONM.jpg

Online before Commons upload, dubious ownership claim Gyrostat (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Myself (color) (16731425372).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is, or appears to be, a picture of the origimal Flickr uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate to holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT Convert to regular DR as it is in-use. EXIF states the Flickr user is the copyright holder, it is possible the subject is the photographer if this photograph is a taken as a selfie using a tripod. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

My view is that COM:PCP applies coupled with the track record of the Commons uploader. YMMV. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep: easily could be a selfie. The fact that the uploader would not have done diligence is irrelevant, they weren't a vandal, just indiscriminate. We have to judge the source on its own merits. Source account on Flickr is clearly a highly competent photographer, fully capable of taking a high-quality self-portrait. We do not normally question what Flickr accounts as sources of valid licenses without some active evidence they are not. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Otravolta (talk · contribs)

It seems impossible that they are from the same uploader/author. He published or licensed photos from 1964 to 2023

Docosong (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)