Files uploaded by BrugesFR (talk · contribs)

Photos/postcards from 1940 and later all tagged with {{PD-old}} or some variant. Missing evidence that photographer died over 70 years ago.

• File:Church of San Francisco Bogotá Altarpiece.jpg
• File:Bogotá Cathedral 1950.jpg
• File:Santa Bárbara Military Cathedral Santo Domingo early 20th century.jpg
• File:Church of Nuestra Señora de Las Mercedes 1957 Santo Domingo.jpg
• File:Palacio de Torre Tagle 1971.jpg
• File:Zaguan of Palacio de Torre Tagle 1947.jpg
• File:Church and Covent of los Dominicos, Santo Domingo 1940.jpg
• File:Denise et ses trois filles en vacances à l’île de Ré en 1948.png

Consigned (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep The Mexican ones. {{PD-Mexico}} Tbhotch™ 02:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Specifically do you mean the last part of PD-Mexico, Anonymous works are considered in the public domain until the author or the owner of the rights are identified? -Consigned (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Specifically I mean "It is an artistic or literary work published before 1918" for files published before 1918". For others I refer to the text you highlighted, example: File:Emiliano Zapata and followers.jpg. Tbhotch™ 07:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by BrugesFR (talk · contribs)

Files missing source - unable to confirm they're PD, particularly in the US which may depend on publication date (COM:HIRTLE).

• File:Palace of Cortés in 1878 (Cuernavaca, Mexico) (cropped).jpg
• File:Palace of Cortés in 1878 (Cuernavaca, Mexico).jpg
• File:Cathedral of Potosí in 1876.jpg
• File:Main altar of the Church of Santa Prisca de Taxco in 1908.jpg
• File:Church of La Compañia in 1867 (Arequipa, Peru).jpg
• File:Church of La Compañía in 1900 (Arequipa, Peru).jpg
• File:Palacio de Hierro in 1908 (Historic Center, Mexico City).jpg

Consigned (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep All appear to be PD, the newest is 1908 and the earliest is 1867. --RAN (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album art

This Beatles album cover was uploaded under the rationale that it was first published in the USA due to {{Simultaneous US publication}}. Based on the evidence I found, the earliest US Vinyl pressings appear to lack a valid copyright notice (MAS 2653). However, it gets interesting. I found the Reel to Reel and 8-Track releases of the album from the same time period, and they contain full copyright notices. So {{PD-US-no notice}} may not apply, as it might actually be copyrighted? BUT... they misprinted the claimant. It was supposed to say "© 1967 NEMS Enterprises Ltd." but it incorrectly says "© 1967 News Enterprises Ltd." instead. Would that be enough to be considered {{PD-US-defective notice}}, even though its a minor typo of one letter - W not M? Although the template suggests it could be defective, I'm not sure.

• File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album art.jpg
• File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album art (3x2).jpg
• File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album art (drum).jpg
• File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album art (band crop).jpg
• File:People on the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album art.jpg
• File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album art (John Lennon portrait crop).jpg
• File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album art (George Harrison portrait crop).jpg
• File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album art (Ringo Starr portrait crop).jpg
• File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album art (Paul McCartney portrait crop).jpg

PascalHD (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

So, to be clear, I transferred these as a result of an English Wikipedia FfD discussion. Closers are not required to do this level of investigating, although I typically do a fair amount personally. I don't really feel strongly one way or another, but it might be worth figuring out if NEMS Enterprises Ltd. can be confused with News Enterprises Ltd. per the template stating A defective notice does not invalidate copyright in cases where the error is immaterial and would not mislead an infringer, such as an abbreviated name. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

For reference: w:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 November 25#1967–1970 Beatles album covers. George Ho (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

For the U.S. before 1978, it doesn't matter that the earliest publication had correct notice (though that would mean that it at least briefly had copyright in the U.S.). Any authorized distribution of a significant number of copies without notice would lose that copyright.

I would think that the trickier thing about this cover is that it is multiply derivative work, and some of the images it incorporated would probably still have their own copyrights. If they were used only on a "fair use" basis, they would not have lost their copyrights over the lack of notice, and so there may be portions of the cover that we would have to blur or otherwise cover to avoid violating our own "no fair use" policy. - Jmabel ! talk 05:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Delete There are several copyright problems with these images. First, the cover is a collage of numerous separately copyrighted images. In fact the Beatles' label initially refused to approve the album art concept due to this reason. However, through a great deal of effort and expense the Beatles managed to license all of the images. I have no idea how many of those images would still be copyrighted, but no doubt it would be many of them. There is an argument that the cover as a whole is a transformative work, but this argument has been significantly weakened by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith. Plus the transformative argument only affects fair use; it doesn't nullify the underlying copyrights. Second, I find it hard to believe that after all of that effort they would have forgotten to put a copyright notice on the jacket. All of the evidence I've seen so far that there is no notice involves tightly cropped images of the front cover. The back cover has several copyright notices on it including an almost microscopic one running along the spine that I haven't been able to read yet. It's completely valid for an album artwork to have it's copyright notice on the reverse of the jacket or the spine. Have people checked the entire jacket? Regarding the "defective" notices, I've never heard of a court invalidating a copyright claim due to a minor typo or misspelling rather than missing information. Unless someone can show an example of this, I'm not convinced the notices are defective. Nosferattus (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I finally found a high resolution image of the reverse of the jacket and the microscopic copyright notice running along the spine says "©1967 [unreadable] ENTERPRISES LIMITED" so the US vinyl pressing does in fact have a copyright notice, which should surprise no one. Nosferattus (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

    Looking on Discogs, the first three pressings listed appear to lack a copyright notice, possibly early manufacturing inconsistencies between pressings? The fourth one "SMAS 2653 - LP, Stereo, Los Angeles Pressing" has the notice. I'm not sure that the album art would be PD, not all copies lacked notice on their first day of sale/distribution. As Jmabel metioned above, "Any authorized distribution of a significant number of copies without notice would lose that copyright...", but would a possible manufacturing defect in certain pressings not having the copyright notice be authorized? PascalHD (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

    @PascalHD: What images are you looking at? All the images I see at Discogs either show the copyright notice or don't show the spine at all, but maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing. Nosferattus (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

    @Nosferattus I also looked at ebay listings of album copies, I tried to cross reference from Discogs. I'll admit it's a bit confusing with the different pressings and numbers, some copies have the notice and others don't. My guess is that early copies didn't have it, because it makes less sense to remove a notice later on. Random example; This one has notice, and this one does not. PascalHD (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

    I think all pressings (including the ones you link to above) have the copyright notice on the spine. The difference is whether the spine is clearly visible in the photos. Even in the example you cite above it is clear that there is text printed on the spine even though you can't read it. The claim that some pressings of this album are missing the copyright notice is an extraordinary claim that requires firm evidence. Unfortunately, people rarely photograph the spines of vinyl albums, but that is what we would need a photograph of in this case. Nosferattus (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

    @Nosferattus Spine visible on 1967 mono copy, no copyright notice present .

    Just to clarify, I do agree it is likely not Public Domain. I agree that too many album covers are being uploaded to the Commons based on an assumption there is no notice after checking one copy off eBay with little research. However, there are some covers that genuinely do lack a notice. PascalHD (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

    Interesting. Thanks for the additional sleuthing. Unfortunately, even if the cover were public domain, we would probably have to blur out much of the content due to the copyrights of the constituent photos. Nosferattus (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

    Then the partially blurred album cover art would appear awkward and less meaningful, IMO, especially if almost all non-Beatles figures were to be blurred out. George Ho (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• For reference, here's the discussion about the local copy of the album cover art: w:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 November 25#File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.jpg. George Ho (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per nom.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep ElhamHusey (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

File:K-1 Air Base (cropped).jpg

Not PD-USGOV, as the sat footage is from Google Maps JayCubby (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment This would also apply to the uncropped version; adding that to the deletion request: File:K-1 Air Base.jpg -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you. JayCubby (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:UST Quadricentennial Set Stamp.jpg

Not entirely {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. 30 out of 40 stamp copies in this set are probably copyrighted stamps, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps of the Philippines#Files in Category:Stamps of the Philippines / UST Quadricentennial Stamps for more details.

Only 10 stamps are copies of File:The Foundation of the University of Santo Tomas by Archbishop Benavides 2011 Stamp.jpg which is a public domain painting from 1911. Having 30 copies out of 40 means the copyrighted stamps in this set are not de minimis (not trivial enough). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Wanderer above the Sea of Fog.jpg

very bad quality, very low resolution better File:DWUDN 1.png and file in Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer (Caspar David Friedrich) Oursana (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Khamlangba — God King of mining iron ores & metallurgy (esp. crafting of steel) — Tutelary Deity of Kakching — Classical Meitei mythology & traditional Meitei religion (Sanamahism AKA Lainingthouism) of Kangleipak civilisation.jpg

AI slop. Dronebogus (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep - what's with your vendetta against AI images? I think they have a place on Commons too, why not? Nesnad (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Delete It's not a "vendetta", it's COM:SCOPE. In this case the same if it were drawn with pens and paper - out of scope dubious personal "art". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Beautiful-anime-woman.jpg

Unused AI slop. Dronebogus (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Delete out of scope JaydenChao (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep - Why isn't an example of how AI generated cartoon faces in 2024 not important? Surely it will be different in the future. Nesnad (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per Nesnad. The image is of very good quality in terms of anime images and illustrates how AI tools can be used for such images. It's not a "cartoon" face but an anime face. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Delete OOS glurge -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

File:It's Dark, It's Cold, It's Winter Canal Town (Seedream 4.0).webp

Unused AI slop. Dronebogus (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep not "slop" but of good quality. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep - what's with your vendetta against AI images? I think they have a place on Commons too, why not? Nesnad (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:AI panda Chinese text.jpg

Unused AI slop. Dronebogus (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Have you seen the previous DR and discussion? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Closed as “weak keep”. With the advance of AI in just the year or so since the last DR we no longer need to keep everything by AI to illustrate every little error and quirk it produces. Dronebogus (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

A counter-argument would be: Especially with the advance of AI (and its better ability to generate text, for example), a small selection of images that show the earlier stages of AI generated images and gibberish text is of historical value, and Category:AI-generated gibberish is of modest size (especially, this image seems to be still the only Chinese example). Now I would feel even more inclined to keep this image than at the time of my last decision. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

This image is basically identical to File:AI tanuki Japanese text.jpg. Do we really need two images of nearly the same thing? Even if you’re in the whole “AI art is the best thing since humans started drawing on cave walls” camp, AI is a ticking time bomb of possible copyright infringement— it’s quite simply pragmatic to avoid hosting AI media that isn’t strictly necessary, per COM:PRP Dronebogus (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The fact that you think Chinese and Japanese is "basically the same" is quite close minded. Nothing of the sort, they are linguistically quite different even if in your mind all Asian countries are the same? And as the other user said, as time marches on, these incorrectly generated examples are of greater value. I see nothing wrong with this one. Nesnad (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep - what's with your vendetta against AI images? I think they have a place on Commons too, why not? It was already voted as a keep above. Besides, this shows AI still at the gibberish stage of text generation which will be historically important in the future, too. Nesnad (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep - nothing has changed since my vote in the previous nom — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Fantasy village by AI; 'Along the Way'.jpg

AI slop. Dronebogus (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep it's of high quality and useful. It's not "slop" and a subjective absurd mere insult of the work is not a valid deletion rationale; it's false anyway. On flickr the image got 31 faves and a user commented "Amazing, hyperdetailed work of digital art!". There is no need to delete this and no good reason to do so. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Weak delete No education value, but quality is not bad. JaydenChao (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

One of its educational values becomes clear by its former use: as an illustration for the concept 'Fictional village' fictional village (Q82551957). Villages are a common trope of fantasy fiction even when not recognized as such an the image helps illustrate it. It could also be used in various articles within and outside Wikipedia or say some educational video on the subject of fantasy or villages in fiction. It's not optimal because while it's fictional, it's not part of a fictional story, especially no popular one – it's nevertheless useful with there being no need to delete this 1 file from the many millions of files on Commons. You don't need to use it; let things be and let users decide what they want to use instead of deciding for them what one thinks is best for them. There is barely any modern digital high-res art in Category:Villages in art and maybe none at all and also no fantasy villages. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep - what's with your vendetta against AI images? I think they have a place on Commons too, why not? Nesnad (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Delete per JaydenChao -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

File:The fortress city (modern digital fantasy art).png

Unused AI image Dronebogus (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep of high quality. It looks great and visualizes a fantasy city where the whole city is like a fortress castle. It also illustrates how modern digital art commonly looks like of which there is nearly no free-licensed image. No good reason to delete it. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Info: the file is used now; I found the other examples of low quality and this to be one of the best-quality files on Commons. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep - what's with your vendetta against AI images? I think they have a place on Commons too, why not? Agree with other user, no reason to delete this, Dronebogus you are being way too aggressive about the AI thing. Nesnad (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment the image is now legitimately in an article about AI. On that basis it can now be kept per COM:INUSE --Dronebogus (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

File:A Krygier-Stojalowska 1994 fot Andrzej Kurnatowski.jpg

OTRS needed. No permission from "Andrzej Kurnatowski". MariuszRokin (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Autor tego zdjęcia Prof. Andrzej Kurnatowski nie żyje. Gdyby żył, na pewno wyraziłby zgodę na wysłanie wymaganego formularza zgody. Pozdrawiam wszystkich wątpiących Wikipedystów Ledowiczka (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

In that case, the heirs must consent. There's no such thing as "if he were alive, he would have given his consent." Please stop stealing other people's intellectual property. MariuszRokin (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Abchanchu.png

Unused AI slop Dronebogus (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep useful. And also it was in use earlier and is better than the file currently in use in place of it so is quite valuable and useful to have. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep - what's with your vendetta against AI images? I think they have a place on Commons too, why not? Are you even looking carefully? This one is indeed in use by signpost, too. Nesnad (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Dvanadtsat divok.jpg

AI slop. Dronebogus (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This is an illustration from a Ukrainian folk tale. I restored it. Krutyvuss (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep the user continues the personal vendetta to right great wrongs against AI images and still has not understood COM:INUSE. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep - what's with your vendetta against AI images? I think they have a place on Commons too, why not? And this one is in use. Nesnad (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

2D works in Tseng Kuo-fan's Former Residence

• File:Tseng Kuo-fan's Former Residence 083.JPG
• File:Tseng Kuo-fan's Former Residence 084.JPG

No FoP for 2D works in China. This is a noticeboard in Chinese, using photos and encyclopedic entries to introduce the lives of Zeng Guofan's descendants, including: Zeng Baosun (曾宝荪; 1893–1978), Zeng Yuenong (曾约农; 1893–1986). The textual and graphical content presented on information noticeboards in the museum is not in the public domain and is protected by copyright law. See also: Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Noticeboards and signs: "As a rule of thumb, detailed informational and educational noticeboards/signs, such as the ones that are often found at historical or tourist sites, are almost always copyright-protected and photographs of them cannot usually be accepted. Noticeboards may include graphic images or extended textual matter, or both, and copyright is likely to subsist in both. 2D-artwork is included in the FoP copyright-exception in most FoP-countries, but not in: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Brunei, Canada, China." --Huangdan2060 (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:"Hydra de Lerna".jpg

Not public domain in the U.S. (URAA); uploaded after 2012. JaydenChao (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Euchloe guaymasensis.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Yann as no license (No license since) The source says "no rights reserved". Yann (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:42nd St 6th Av td 74 - R30 Subway Car.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment probably going to come down to whether someone can show that the picture within the picture is PD, which is going to depend on its own origin and publication history. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  • The caption said it was taken in 2014, so I don't think this is in PD. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
•  Comment if we have to blur or cover that picture within the picture, would the rest of this be worth keeping? - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Almost nothing, I would say. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Jmabel, can you blur the photo within this photo, but keep all the text about the subway car history, please. I think the value is as a good example of blurring to save a file. Also, the text and car details are of value. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  • @Ooligan: Followed through on that. The text itself may be above TOO, though. - Jmabel ! talk 21:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

    Thank you for the great work @Jmabel. -- Ooligan (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

     Keep Text is below the Commons:Threshold of originality. -- Ooligan (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Association of Writers of Serbia logo.png

This file was initially tagged by Ђидо as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1: Clear copyright violation.
I  Support deletion, but as the logo has been 13 years in Commons, I create a regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I have two questions:

1. Does this logo below COM:TOO?

2. How old is this logo? SomeFancyUsername (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The logo is complex, but as the association was founded in 1905, the logo can be old. Taivo (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Logo in current form exists since 1990. I am not sure what was logo in 1905, even if existed. I am going my to try to find out. ~2026-16883-89 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Current name of the association is used since 1945. It is very likely that logo was created after 1945. If it is created before 1966, then it would fall under {{PD-Yugoslavia}}. Ђидо (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Pohto Hietasaari Oulu 20241020 10.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Finland A1Cafel (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

IMO the graffitis are not the main subject of the picture so could it be that adding "De minimis"-template would be enough? Estormiz (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Beware of dog sign - Tokyo Japan area Nov 18 2018 03-08-40 PM.jpeg

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The Toys aren't the main focus of that image, but even on your link it says "Indeed, some countries, such as Japan, generally consider toys to be utilitarian objects and therefore ineligible for copyright." This was in Japan, so shouldn't you withdraw this deletion request by your own logic? But beyond that, if they really bother you we can add a mosaic or something to them, they weren't the point of the image. Nesnad (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Urinationprohibited-japan-july2007.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

If the photo in this photo bothers you in regards to copyright, we can add blurring or something to it, not the only focus of this upload. The text is just utilitarian printed text and too minimal to be copyrighted. Nesnad (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep - Digitally removed the small photo that seemed to trigger A1cafel's fear this was a violation of FoP. Nesnad (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep - Based on Art. 30-2 of the Copyright Act (2020 amendment) of Japan, the small photo in the original image is acceptable as de minimis. In addition, if the photo comes from the security camera (I'm not sure but the text says that a security camera is behind), it is not eligible for copyright protection. --Mzaki (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, I will revert my edit I mention above then unless someone says you are wrong about that amendment. It does seem you are right from my research so far though, I didn't know about that amendment! And the point of it being not eligible if a security camera (it was I believe) is a good point too. Nesnad (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Graffiti Papiniidu silla all, Pärnus.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Estonia A1Cafel (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The graffiti under Papiniidu bridge should not create a Freedom of Panorama problem.

First, the subject of the image is graffiti, not the architectural design of the bridge itself. The bridge is merely the location where the graffiti appears and functions as background context rather than the creative focus of the image. Second, graffiti of this type is typically anonymous and ephemeral. Commons has long accepted that such works generally lack an identifiable author and are not realistically enforceable as copyrighted works. Many images of street graffiti are already hosted for this reason. Third, the architectural elements of the bridge visible in the image are standard infrastructure components (concrete supports, underside of the bridge deck) and do not represent a creative architectural work being reproduced in a way that substitutes for the original design. Finally, photographs of incidental architecture are generally accepted where the building is not the primary subject of the image. In this case, the photograph documents street art/graffiti rather than the bridge itself. Therefore Freedom of Panorama is not applicable here and the file should be kept. --LeeMarx (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. Clearly COM:DW of copyrightable artwork; photo clearly focused on the artwork, not a general view of the bridge nor architectural elements thereof. -- 21:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Translations:Commons:De minimis/41/qqq

meaningless page SomeFancyUsername (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:잠실 - Flickr - ○□○.jpg

COM:FOP South Korea SomeFancyUsername (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Musea Brugge, HUB, 2014 GRO0523 III.jpg

wrongful upload Joeri.Steegmans (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Ramon Magsaysay guerilla.jpg

LIFE magazine issues from 1951 were definitely renewed. If this was not published in a contemperaneous issue, then it still fails {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Based5290 (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Lainingthou Sanamahi mounting on his Divine Tiger to circumambulate the world 7 times as asked by Salailen, the Supreme Being — Classical Meitei mythology & traditional Meitei religion (Sanamahism alias Lainingthouism) of Kangleipak.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Dronebogus as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Unused (outside of incubator) AI slop Nesnad (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

You shouldn't use speedy delete for images you don't like Dronebogus. Speedydelete is for copyvios etc. You just seem to hate AI for some reason. Nesnad (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I tagged it by accident. I meant to just tag it for regular deletion and my hand must’ve slipped. I was doing a lot of nominations last night. Don’t assume bad faith just because, yes, I generally do hate AI slop. Dronebogus (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.jpg

This portrait of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appears to be AI-enhanced (look at her right ear) Walter H. White (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Foto kang Jojo close up.jpg

The file upload by LTA Badak Jawa (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:D.D PNATION.png

Orphaned, opaque, superior version File:P Nation logo.png has existed years before this was uploaded. ✗plicit 14:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Davidbt2000 (talk · contribs)

copyrighted signs

• File:R-138 Est.svg
• File:Hydro‑Québec shocking hazard sign.svg
• File:I-90 (Version 1).svg
• File:A-15 Sortie 63-E (Flèche).svg
• File:A-440 Sortie 12 (Flèche).svg
• File:A-5 Sortie 2 (Km) (Version 3).svg
• File:A-5 Sortie 2 (Km) (Version 2).svg
• File:Central Maine & Québec Railway Logo.svg
• File:A-5 Sortie 2 (Km).svg
• File:I-320-1 (Arrow) (Rimouski).svg
• File:I-320-1 (Km) (Rimouski).svg

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:B-1115 Landed in SHA.jpg

Screenshot from flight simulator software; likely copyright violation as derivative work 4300streetcar (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo Telecom Italia San Marino.png

This was not the TISM logo, but rather the store sign. TISM has always used the same logo as its parent company Telecom Italia/TIM. Furthermore, the file is not in use and was published by an LTA evading the block. ~2026-16844-11 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Walking Winnie The Pooh

Violation of COM:TOYS, copyrighted version of character.

• File:Walking Winnie The Pooh-5077.jpg
• File:Walking Winnie The Pooh-5078.jpg

(Oinkers42) (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo TIM San Marino (2016).png

The logo is not used by the company except for the website. It is not used in any Wiki since the TIM logo is used (which is identical except for the San Marino writing at the bottom). The file was also published by an LTA evading Block. ~2026-16844-11 (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Janikowo Centrum Promocji.jpg

Not own work (https://audiovis.nac.gov.pl/obraz/103450/), unclear whether it was ever published with a copyright notice. Belbury (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Ascend Logo.png

Duplicate of File:Ascend Communications logo.svg. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: Please make a decision. Either tag a file as a duplicate or start a normal deletion discussion, but then please do so without the {{Duplicate}} template. That's just unnecessary administrative overhead. Thank you. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry, wasn't aware, I thought I should use the {{Duplicate}} template to make my reason clear. To be clear, should I express this in natural language instead when starting a deletion discussion and make a link to the bitmap file? PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ziv Can you delete the file then? PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: We usually keep old logos, even if they have different file formats. However, this is a very small file that is only used on a discussion page in the English Wikipedia. Deleting it or redirecting to the SVG version would therefore be a good solution. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 10:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on the redirect. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

So, can you then do that? PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ziv Ping. PhotographyEdits (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Tiddey.jpg

possible copyvio - © Sumanity Agency - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Blatant copyvio], we have speedy tags for this - Jcb (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Ticket:2026031810004524 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 09:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Flagship boutique NinaSarkisyants, Voronezh, Russia.jpg

Per uploader request. Sarkartur (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

[also requested 08:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)]

Given the pending renaming request: If the reason for your request is the file name, a deletion is not the right way and the name should instead be changed. wuppertaler _Post um 17:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Pause per Der-wuppertaler.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

DearJulian, could you please tell me how to change the file name? I submitted a request and was told I was engaging in vandalism. Ideally, this photo should be deleted as it's no longer relevant. Sarkartur (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Wieralee as declining renamer.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• Files nominated for deletion can't be renamed. @Sarkartur: you have a decision to make: either you want this file to be deleted or you want it to be renamed. You can't request both at the same time. Wieralee (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Dear Wierlaee, I would like this file to be deleted due to the information being outdated. Sarkartur (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Profilna slika kraca.png

This file was initially tagged by Smooth O as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 but is in use be srwp. DaB. (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Jimbo-cohen-fashion-model-portrait-headshoot(1).jpg

Duplicate upload Deanlewis1989b (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Grafen v Rothenburg Wappenschild.jpg

Wurde der Urheber (Fotograf) gefragt? Wo ist das Ticket? GerritR (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Auf der Herkunftsseite des Bildes gibt der Urheber selbst, dessen Name bei der Herkunftsangabe zum Bild genannt ist, unter Angabe der auch hier ordentlich eingetragenen Lizenz das Bild zur Weitergabe etc ohne weitere Einholung einer Erlaubnis frei. Warum stellen Sie einen Löschantrag, obwohl seit drei Jahren, das Bild anstandslos Bestandteil der Wikimedia ist, sein Ursprung, sein Urheber und die Lizenz, unter der der Urheber das Bild freigab seit Datum des Hochladens für alle ersichtlich sind? Ingolf63 (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Weil normalerweise in solchen Fällen ein entsprechendes VRT-Ticket vorliegt. Das Argument mit den drei Jahren zieht übrigens nicht. GerritR (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

User:2000chevymontecarlo/Gallery/Apple iPhone 15 Plus and KODAK PIXPRO FZ45

Because it's No longer in use 2000chevymontecarlo (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

User:2000chevymontecarlo/Gallery/KODAK PIXPRO FZ45

Because it's No longer in use 2000chevymontecarlo (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

User:2000chevymontecarlo/Gallery/KODAK PIXPRO FZ45

Because it's no loner being used 2000chevymontecarlo (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Ioannis Kouimoutzoglou.png

Many similarities with this one. Probably (?) a movie screenshot. In any case, as long as it's not really own work, this file can't stay, unfortunately, on Commons. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 21:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

PS. Upon further research, it looks like this screenshot comes from the 2014 movie "The Imitation Game". 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 21:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Inuit Kunik.jpg

Photo is not in the Public Domain. Found at Library and Archives Canada, the photo was created circa 1949-1950, and the photographer died in 2005. 70 years have not yet passed for it to fall into Public Domain. No evidence this was a Crown work either. Does not qualify for {{PD-Canada}}. PascalHD (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Martha Nulukie and daughter Louisa - Inuit - Inukjuak Quebec 1947.jpg

Although the image is Public Domain in its source country of Canada; , it is not PD in the USA, due to URAA copyright restoration (it was not PD on Jan 1 1996). The cutoff for use of the {{PD-1996}} template in Canada is 1945. Works 1946 and later are likely still under copyright in the USA. Commons requires photos to be PD in both US and source country to host. PascalHD (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Grippa jullet 1943.png

Image was still copyrighted on 1996, thus it had its copyright restored in the US per COM:URAA. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 22:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:С. А. Есенин и С. А. Толстая-Есенина.jpg

This image is a fragment of a photograph taken at the Sakharov and Orlov Artel («Артель Сахарова и Орлова») photo studio. The full version of the photograph can be seen here. The studio's co-owner, photographer Mikhail Alekseevich Sakharov (Михаил Алексеевич Сахаров), died in 1961 (prooflink). According to the source, he continued to work almost until his death, which likely means he worked during the Great Patriotic War. Therefore, this photograph is protected by copyright in Russia until at least 1961+74+1=2036, assuming his co-author, Pavel Vasilyevich Orlov (Павел Васильевич Орлов), did not outlive Sakharov. Yellow Horror (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• The same for the File:С. А. Есенин и С. А. Толстая-Есенина (cropped).jpg.--Yellow Horror (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)