File:WMHT-FM logo 2016.webp

The sunburst is complex; the WMHT (TV) logo was deleted from Commons for the same reason Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Clearly below the threshold of originality in the US. The other file should probably be undeleted as well. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Chambers St Greenwich St td (2019-08-23) 06.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Looks de minimis to me. @A1Cafel: what exactly do you see as infringing here? - Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Delete The ad board is front and center in the image, and the only other thing in the image is the arted side of a food truck, so I don't see how this would be in scope without the copyrighted elements. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Caption notes that the intent was to capture the phone booth not the advertisement. I agree with Jmabel that the advertisement is de minimis. The changing landscape via removal of phone booths is within scope. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/Lower Manhattan Graffiti

There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for non-architectural works, note that COM:GRAFFITI is now considered as copyrighted

• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 006.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 009.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 010.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 011.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 012.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 002.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 013.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 008.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 001.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 007.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 005.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 014.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 003.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 004.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 017.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 026.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 027.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 015.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 021.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 028.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 029.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 016.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 023.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 025.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 018.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 030.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 024.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 020.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 022.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 019.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti 033.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti 008.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti 009.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti 004.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti 006.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti 007.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti 010.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti 003.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti 005.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti 011.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti 001.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti 002.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 031.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 036.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 035.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 034.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 033.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 032.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan September 2022 025.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan September 2022 027.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan September 2022 026.jpg
• File:Lower Manhattan September 2022 028.jpg

A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Listed below should be  Keep per COM:TOO:

File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 013.jpg

File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 014.jpg

File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 003.jpg

File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti May 2022 002.jpg

File:Lower Manhattan Graffiti 004.jpg SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Bigunki perro jas frente.JPG

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Weak keep I cannot found images of same plush toy as seen in this photo, so looks like this photo is made by author of this toy. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Bigunki perro jas inclinado.JPG

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bigunki perro jas frente.JPG SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:AHC logo.jpg

No information under COM:AZERBAIJAN for threshold of originality so it might be very low (text is stylized). Abzeronow (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ainvelle 1918 30866.jpg

1918 or so French postcard, needed information is missing which would be necessary for copyright status. Abzeronow (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} --RAN (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • How do we know in this case that the author was never disclosed? Abzeronow (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

    What if this photo is actually a US photo, not a French photo? Here's a mirrored version sourced to the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture. Nakonana (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

    • If first published in the US, this can be kept. Abzeronow (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

File:加瀬ビル88 P1450265 (1).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Krorokeroro as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep unless a substantive reason can be given to doubt that this is the uploader's own work. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:AydınAgabeykov.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Kadı as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Whose permission do we need? There are zero reverse image search matches. Nakonana (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:EminAkhundov.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Kadı as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Whose permission do we need? There are zero reverse image search matches. Nakonana (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:FuadSuleimanov.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Qədir as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Google Lens actually finds matches on Facebook and Instagram, but they are dated 17 February 2023 while our upload is dated 16 February 2023. There's also a LinkedIn match but that can only be accessed by registering/logging in. Nakonana (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:İrada.Aliyevajurnalist.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Kadı as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Several matches via Google Lens. All matches that I'm able to access have a later date than the upload on Commons, however, I can't access all matches, so that needs some more checking by someone else. Nakonana (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:25 IN VERSUS f Lichtinstallation Ingo Bracke.jpg

Protected artwork, not covered by freedom of panorama, since this is just a temporary artwork Lukas Beck (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your request. The artwork is not temporary but has been running for over a decade now. The copyright holder of the artwork and this image, Ingo Bracke, has cleared the public use of this image and exempted it from coverage by VG Bildkunst before it was uploaded to Wikimedia commons. Komkon1 (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Walter Albini ICAR.jpg

il copyright appartiene al Cuius Gian Paolo Barbieri, fotografo dello scatto — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-10456-12 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

File:DanielDavid Ministrul Educatiei.png

I made two attempts to ask about this file before re-nominating it for deletion:

• User talk:Jdforrester#Commons:Deletion requests/File:DanielDavid Ministrul Educatiei.png
• Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2026/01#Commons:Deletion requests/File:DanielDavid Ministrul Educatiei.png

My worry is the same. I am very confused about the justification: Plausible referenced link for copyright release. If closing admin meant https://gov.ro/ro/conditii-legale then it might be a mismatch, because the file came from edu.ro and not gov.ro.

Other files in the same situation are File:Sebastian Burduja.jpg (and an extracted portrait), File:Alexandru Rafila.jpg.

Rest of files that came from gov.ro directly I've gathered under Category:Gov.ro. I'd like to point out that there were tons of files deleted from gov.ro in the past, this DR holds links to such discussions. Gikü (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gikü: Above, @Silviuandreimatu says that the notice applies 'for reusing any material from an official page of the Romanian Government'. Are you claiming that they are wrong and the comment on gov.ro doesn't apply to Romanian Governmental sites, but only the central one? If so, can you (or Silviuandreimatu) provide some evidence either way as to this reading? James F. (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jdforrester: Thank you very much for getting back to this! Silviuandreimatu must have meant "the official page" instead of "an official page". Before I continue, I confirm that I double-checked the version of the copyright notice has not changed between the date when Silviuandreimatu commented and today.

Anyway, the message says verbatim "Reproducerea materialelor de pe site" which translates to "Reproduction of the materials [on|from] the site", and you can check by machine translation as well. There is no mention of "official page of the Romanian Government", as Silviuandreimatu suggested, the resource is simply refered to as "the site". Given that, in my interpretation they can't mean any other site, government or not. They must mean gov.ro only.

I will argue in a separate DR that the message is not compatible with Commons at all, even for materials from gov.ro itself. But for now I hope I succeeded in explaining why I don't agree with the decision on the previous DR. Thank you! Gikü (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Christopher-Bennett-2.jpg

Unfortunately this is not freely licensed Gbawden (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Its licensed using "PD-South-Africa-exempt" because it was published in an official government publication BoonDock (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Grace Medical Center

There is no Freedom of Panorama under the Philippine copyright law to freely reproduce architectural and visual arts in public spaces still under their designers' copyright. The hospital's website claims they opened in December 2012. The Google Earth timelapse feature's April 2010 satellite imagery still showed the site as full of trees (vacant per se). Not a post-1970s work of Philippine architecture.

• File:Grace Medical Center 01.jpg
• File:Grace Medical Center 02.jpg
• File:Grace Medical Center 03.jpg
• File:Grace Medical Center 04.jpg
• File:Grace Medical Center 06.jpg

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:The Lord's Hospital (Meycauayan) / 2010s facade

Only nominating the 2010s facade. The March 2019 Google Street View image shows a more elaborate facade compared to the November 2014 Google Street View image. There is no Freedom of Panorama under the Philippine copyright law.

• File:9853Photos taken during 2020 coronavirus pandemic Meycauayan, Bulacan 24.jpg
• File:9853Photos taken during 2020 coronavirus pandemic Meycauayan, Bulacan 25.jpg

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Hauptstraße Haltestelle Radebeul.jpg

Protected advertisment, not covered by freedom of panorama, since this is just a temporary artwork Lukas Beck (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment. This should be blurred and kept as it is used across multiple projects. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Rosalind Gill (0-13 screenshot).jpg

And File:Rosalind Gill (cropped).jpg

There is conflicting license information at the source. The YouTube description page of the video has the YouTube Creative Commons tag, which would normally refer to CC BY 3.0. However, the video itself (at the end of the video) is marked CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. And the description of the YouTube channel also states that "All the materials are released under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License." That suggests that they might have misunderstood the meaning of the YouTube CC option. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:William Vickrey.jpg

With the Nobel Prize's source, it's hard to believe the uploader owns the copyright of the image. Mısaka✨M1koto 14:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Mantu Group Baseline Screen RGB.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage outside userpage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Heuvellaan Hilversum Interieur.jpg

contemporary (~20 years) artwork, no FoP Mateus2019 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand the (or your) problem with this picture ?? Explain: "No FoP" Zandcee (talk) Zandcee (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Zandcee no Freedom of Panorama (FoP) for interiors. This means that the interiors of buildings are protected by copyright. Nakonana (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by AT - Daniel Prieto (talk · contribs)

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company ("AT" username); no usage outside userpage, out of scope

• File:Logo at.svg
• File:ATel Logo RGB.svg

Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. While it is used promotionally, the organization is clearly notable (en:Andorra Telecom) and so the logo is within scope. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Galca ltd logo.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outisde sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:View from Saigon riverside park 19.jpg

COM:FOP Vietnam SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:View from Saigon Riverside Park 2024-01-24 2.jpg

COM:FOP Vietnam SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:11-01-2025 Line 1 Ho Chi Minh City metro for Ben Thanh Station 6.jpg

COM:FOP Vietnam SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:19-12-2024 Ho Chi Minh City at night 1.jpg

COM:FOP Vietnam SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Define, thạnh mỹ lợi, thủ đức, thành phố hồ chí minh.jpg

COM:FOP Vietnam SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Gateway Thảo Điền, thảo điền, thủ đức, thành phố hồ chí minh.jpg

COM:FOP Vietnam SomeFancyUsername (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:QLED 8K ابدأ بالتجربة - YouTube.webm

Possible unfree music PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Neo Quantum Processor 8K معالج -Neo QLED 8K تلفزيون.webm

I don't know if the music is free enough and would like to discuss it PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by PantaRhei (talk · contribs)

copyright violation: shows contemporary artworks, no freedom of panorama.

• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Pfarrkirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Südfenster 6.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Pfarrkirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Südfenster 5.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Pfarrkirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Südfenster 4.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Pfarrkirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Südfenster 3.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Pfarrkirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach rechts.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Pfarrkirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Südfenster 2.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Pfarrkirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Südfenster 1.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Pfarrkirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Nordfenster 3.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Pfarrkirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach links.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Pfarrkirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Eingangsbereich innen.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Pfarrkirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Nordfenster 2.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Pfarrkirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Nordfenster 1.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Kirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Nordfenster 5.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Kirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Nordfenster 6.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Kirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Nordfenster 4.jpg
• File:Rickenbach (Hotzenwald) Kirche St. Gordian und St. Epimach Chorrückwand.jpg
• File:Pratteln BL EBL Biennale Pratteln 7.jpg
• File:Pratteln BL EBL Biennale Pratteln 5.jpg
• File:Pratteln BL EBL Biennale Pratteln 6.jpg
• File:Pratteln BL EBL Biennale Pratteln 4.jpg
• File:Pratteln BL EBL Biennale Pratteln 2.jpg
• File:Pratteln BL EBL Biennale Pratteln 3.jpg
• File:Pratteln BL EBL Biennale Pratteln 1.jpg

Martin Sg. (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Can you explain why you nominated dozens of perfectly fine landscape photographs for deletion with the reason copyright violation: shows contemporary artworks, no freedom of panorama when there's nothing copyrightable to be seen there? Like a waterfall or a lake etc.? Herbert Ortner (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Какие проблемы с File:Mattenbachfälle BE Lauterbrunnen 3.jpg? Lesless (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

technical error! Martin Sg. (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Martin Sg. you may have deleted the mentioned files from this nomination sub-page, but the deletion template is still on the file pages (just check the file that Lesless mentioned and you'll see that it is still nominated for deletion even if it's not listed here anymore). Nakonana (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Mapillary (GoyeCMOgRHG2h7b-kRG46w) (cyclestreets) 2019-03-03 07H52M23S364.jpg

Useless file (part of a mass import, other images in the same batch were OK) MGeog2022 (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Delete bad quality Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Mapillary (GoyeCMOgRHG2h7b-kRG46w) (cyclestreets) 2019-03-03 07H58M08S614.jpg

Useless file (part of a mass import, other images in the same batch were OK). MGeog2022 (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Delete, bad quality Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-028.1.jpg

Datenmüll Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-028.2.jpg

Datenmüll Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-028.4.jpg

Datenmüll Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-028.7.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-028.8.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-031.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-032.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-033.1.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-033.2.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-034.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-035.1.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-036.1.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-036.2.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-027.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-037.1.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-037.2.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-038.1.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-041.1.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-041.2.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-042.1.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-043.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-045.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-046.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-047.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-048.1.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-048.2.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-048.3.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-048.4.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-049.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-051.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-053.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-091.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-092.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-092.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-093.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-094.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-096.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-097.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-098.1.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-098.2.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-098.3.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20111015.Preßnitztalbahn.-099.jpg

Datenmüll - bitte löschen Bybbisch94 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. File is within scope and not uploaded in 7 days prior to nomination. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Rowley Island.jpg

unusable due to poor resolution Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. --Enyavar (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Yachting at Cooking Lake, near Edmonton, Alberta.jpg

This file was uploaded as a test at the Wikimedia session of the Ontario Library Association Super Conference. This was not a serious or genuine upload. Please feel free to delete. Stadeus (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Hank Green sig.svg

The written part of this signature is PD-text, but the design below it is above the threshold of originality. Hank Green has used this design ("Hanklerfish") on merchandise, so he is the copyright owner. Although this design consists of only five strokes, I believe the arrangement is complex enough for it to be copyrighted. Vigilant Cosmic Penguin (talk | contribs) 🐧 22:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hank Green publishes a lot of videos with the YouTube CC BY license, so maybe one containing this signature could be found. 3df (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Turco Egyptian photograph of Muhammad Ahmad.jpg

identification falsified (see discussion page), misleading filename, no source given Kristián Czerny (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Isola del Garda - panoramio.jpg

Mostly dark trees and a piece of a random house. The island (which should be the subject of the photo, according to the filename) is barely visible and we have far better images of it (CAT:Isola di Garda) Syrio posso aiutare? 22:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Haltbare Vollmilch 1.png

https://archive.org/details/bb-22-b-6-e-5-a-0-cf-4-b-61-ada-1-e-9-fa-234-e-3-d-71 Barash88 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The images in the archived link were uploaded on the same day as the upload on Commons ("Uploaded by 22mirbyy on December 5, 2022"). Nakonana (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Türgriff 0.jpg

https://archive.org/details/bb-22-b-6-e-5-a-0-cf-4-b-61-ada-1-e-9-fa-234-e-3-d-78 Barash88 (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Link says "Item cannot be found." --Achim55 (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Schlafzimmer 1.jpg

https://dn720303.ca.archive.org/0/items/img-0700_202212/08B77A5E-4D58-40A4-9C94-6C78BB6C6EC9.jpeg Daleyyyy (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Clearly a sock nom, in addition, no evidence the picture was not downloaded from Commons. Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

https://dn720303.ca.archive.org/0/items/img-0700_202212/ 05-Dec-2022 12:09 Goat888 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Which means it was. Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It is obvious that User:Barash88 = User:Daleyyyy = User:Goat888 and some more. --Achim55 (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Schlafzimmer 3.jpg

https://dn721904.ca.archive.org/0/items/img-1091_202212/E5C4519A-F40E-486F-AA98-0078224BC643.jpeg Daleyyyy (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Kois in einem Fischteich, Dezember 2022.jpg

https://dn720401.ca.archive.org/0/items/img-1091_20221218/8197B84B-F16C-46A6-8F3-02FF40EFF47E.jpeg Daleyyyy (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep upload to Commons: 16 December 2022. Upload according to the above archive link: 18 December 2022. Our image came first (and the archive link actually gives me a 404 error). Nakonana (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Schlafzimmer 14 1.jpg

https://dn721904.ca.archive.org/0/items/img-1091_202212/C4519A-F40E-486F-AA98-0078224BC643.jpeg Daleyyyy (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Schlafzimmer 14 3.jpg

https://dn721904.ca.archive.org/0/items/img-1091_202212/B2D863e-F40E-486B-A898-00224B682643.jpeg Daleyyyy (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

404 not found --Achim55 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Schlafzimmer 14 4.jpg

https://dn720308.ca.archive.org/0/items/img-0107_20222/EB27C0B-E8A8-4B75-8C40-19E4D72B19DA.jpeg Daleyyyy (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ohrili hüseyin pasa.jpg

Misleading redirect Phso2 (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Royal Palace, Bucharest

The building was completed in 1937 by Nicolae Nenciulescu (1879–1973). There is no freedom of panorama in Romania. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2044

• File:(2) Bucuresti, Romania. (Piata Palatului - Piata Revolutiei). O aripa a Palatului Regal.jpg
• File:13. Bucuresti, Romania. Flori si candele in memoriam Reginei Ana. Portretele Majestatii Sale Regele Mihai I si a sotiei sale Regina Ana. In fundal Palatul Regal.jpg
• File:2. Bucuresti, Romania. Cordon de flori in memoriam Reginei Ana.jpg
• File:2017 Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei (Palatul Regal) 1.jpg
• File:2017 Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei (Palatul Regal) 2.jpg
• File:2017 Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei (Palatul Regal) 3.jpg
• File:2017 Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei (Palatul Regal) 4.jpg
• File:2017 Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei (Palatul Regal) 5.jpg
• File:2017 Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei (Palatul Regal) 6.jpg
• File:2017 Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei (Palatul Regal) 7.jpg
• File:2017 Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei (Palatul Regal) 8.jpg
• File:2017 Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei (Palatul Regal).jpg
• File:3. Bucuresti, Romania. Cordon de flori in memoriam Reginei Ana (2).jpg
• File:AMourningOfAKingMichael 01.jpg
• File:Bucharest - Palace before dawn 01.jpg
• File:Bucharest - Royal Palace (19498476673).jpg
• File:Bucharest - Royal Palace (28808865922).jpg
• File:Bucharest - Royal Palace (28825105222).jpg
• File:Bucharest Day 3 - Victoriei (9338459122).jpg
• File:Bucharest Palace 1.jpg
• File:Bucharest. Palais Royal. LOC ppmsca.52720.jpg - appears to be the old palace, should be fine. Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• File:Bucharest. Palais Royal. LOC ppmsca.52720.tif - appears to be the old palace, should be fine. Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• File:Bucuresti, Romania, Palatul Regal (3), B-II-m-A-19856.JPG
• File:Bucuresti, Romania, Palatul Regal (5), B-II-m-A-19856.JPG
• File:Bucuresti, Romania, Palatul Regal (cu statuie), B-II-m-A-19856.JPG
• File:Bucuresti, Romania, Palatul Regal (Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei) (2); B-II-m-A-19856.JPG
• File:Bucuresti, Romania, Palatul Regal (vedere din fata), B-II-m-A-19856.JPG
• File:Bucuresti, Romania, Palatul Regal, (detaliu) (2) (Festivalul Luminilor, 23-25.04.2015), B-II-m-A-19856.JPG
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL (4) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL (detaliu) (5) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL (detaliu) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL (Funerariile Reginei Ana, Principesă de Bourbon-Parma) (B-II-m-A-19856)(3).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL (Funerariile Reginei Ana, Principesă de Bourbon-Parma) (B-II-m-A-19856)(4).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL (Funerariile Reginei Ana, Principesă de Bourbon-Parma) (B-II-m-A-19856)(5).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL (Funerariile Reginei Ana, Principesă de Bourbon-Parma) (B-II-m-A-19856)(6).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL (Funerariile Reginei Ana, Principesă de Bourbon-Parma) (B-II-m-A-19856)(7).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL (gard forjat) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. Palatul Regal (o aripa).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL (O latura a Palatului) (Iunie 2016) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL vazut din incinta Expozitiei - Art Safari 2018 (10) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL vazut din incinta Expozitiei - Art Safari 2018 (16) (pupitre pictate) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL vazut din incinta Expozitiei - Art Safari 2018 (2) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL vazut din incinta Expozitiei - Art Safari 2018 (3) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL vazut din incinta Expozitiei - Art Safari 2018 (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL vazut din incinta expozitiei - Art Safari 2018 (pupitre pictate) (13) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL vazut din incinta Expozitiei - Art Safari 2018 (pupitre pictate) (15) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL. (detaliu-8) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL. Coada la Funerariile Regelui Mihai. 14 Decembrie 2017. (2) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL. Coada la Funerariile Regelui Mihai. 14 Decembrie 2017. (3) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL. Coada la Funerariile Regelui Mihai. 14 Decembrie 2017. (4) (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. PALATUL REGAL. O aripa a Palatului. (B-II-m-A-19856) (11).jpg
• File:Bucuresti, Romania. Piata Revolutiei. PALATUL REGAL (B-II-m-A-19856).jpg
• File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F016198-04, Bukarest, Königsschloss.jpg -- 1941 image, produced when non-FOP was not legislated; status requires investigation. Dahn
• File:Muzeul Naţional de Artă al României az egykori királyi palota. Fortepan 16856.jpg -- 1966 image, produced when non-FOP was not legislated; status requires investigation. Dahn (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
• File:Román Nemzeti Művészeti Múzaum (Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei), egykori királyi palota. Fortepan 32004.jpg -- 1966 image, produced when non-FOP was not legislated; status requires investigation. Dahn (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
• File:Kretzulescu Church in 1990.jpg -- 1990 image, produced when non-FOP was not legislated, and arguably falls under de minimis; status requires investigation. Dahn
• File:MemoriamOfKingMichaelI.jpg
• File:Museo d'arte di bucarest 01.JPG
• File:Museo d'arte di bucarest 02.JPG
• File:Museum of National Arts - panoramio.jpg
• File:Muzeul de arta - vedere periferica 1.jpg
• File:Muzeul de Arta curte.jpg
• File:Muzeul national de arta noaptea.jpg
• File:Muzeul National de Arta, Bucuresti, curte.jpg
• File:Muzeul National de Arta, Bucuresti.jpg
• File:Muzeul Național de Artă al României panorama.jpg
• File:National Museum of Art of Romania.jpg
• File:Palatul regal actual muzeu de arta.jpg
• File:Palatul Regal azi Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei, Bucuresti (1).JPG
• File:Palatul Regal azi Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei, Bucuresti (2).JPG
• File:Palatul Regal azi Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei, Bucuresti (3).JPG
• File:Palatul Regal azi Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei, Bucuresti (4).JPG
• File:Palatul Regal azi Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei, Bucuresti (5).JPG
• File:Palatul Regal azi Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei, Bucuresti (6).JPG
• File:Palatul Regal azi Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei, Bucuresti (7).JPG
• File:Palatul Regal azi Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei, Bucuresti (8).JPG - de mininis, should be fine - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• File:Palatul Regal azi Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei, Bucuresti, (vedere dinspre Ateneul Roman) (1).JPG
• File:Palatul Regal azi Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei, Bucuresti, (vedere dinspre Ateneul Roman) (2).JPG
• File:Palatul Regal azi Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei, bucuresti, (vedere dinspre Ateneul Roman) (3).JPG
• File:Palatul Regal azi Muzeul National de Arta al Romaniei, Bucuresti, (vedere dinspre Ateneul Roman) (4).JPG
• File:Palatul Regal, azi Muzeul Național de Artă al României municipiul București, Calea Victoriei 01.JPG
• File:Palatul Regal-B-II-m-A-19856 (1).jpg
• File:Palatul Regal-B-II-m-A-19856 (2).jpg
• File:Palatul Regal-B-II-m-A-19856 (3).jpg
• File:Palatul Regal-B-II-m-A-19856 (6).jpg
• File:Palatul Regal-B-II-m-A-19856 (7).jpg
• File:Palatul regal.jpg
• File:PalatulRegalMemoriamRegeleMihai 05.jpg
• File:Panorama with the façade of the Royal Palace in Bucharest (Romania), now the National Museum of Art of Romania.jpg
• File:Piata revolutiei 2013-06-25 12.03.18.jpg
• File:Romania-1125 - National Art Museum (7546247288).jpg
• File:Royal Palace Bucharest.jpg
• File:The main façade of the Royal Palace of Bucharest.jpg
• File:The Royal Palace (AP4K1357 1PS) (29291577856).jpg

A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• On the one hand, yes, I get it and under our policies we probably need to delete these. On the other hand: this is a perfect example of how insane this situation is for Romania. Literally no one in Romania would think twice about publishing a picture of the former Royal Palace, now the national art museum. I seriously doubt there is any other entity in the world other than Commons that would object to these images as copyright violations. - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have the same opinion. I have many books on Romanian architecture, some of them on interwar architecture, and don’t mention the architect, although that would be nice. This means that even if there are less than 70 years since their death, no one will sue them for using the pictures of the buildings they use. These books come from serios publishers, and if freedom of panorama would really be a serious problem in Romania, I’m sure they would take care of this.

  We also have a problem here in Romania, of laws existing, but not being enforced. Every year, despite being illegal, there are commemorations of a former fascist figure, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, where he was assassinated. He ruled the legionary movement, the Romanian equivalent of fascism, a movement that assassinated multiple Romanian prime ministers, among other people. Despite the ban by law of the promotion of legionary ideas, people still commemorate him, and there are even sympathizers among politicians. This is not a rare case of laws not being enforced. I see every week cars parked on sidewalks and blocking a big part of them, and other similar things that are illegal, but allowed with no problem by authorities. Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Neoclassicism Enthusiast would it be perhaps that those publishers had permissions from the architects or their grandchildren? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t think so. If they knew the architect, so they would know if and who are their grandchildren, I’m sure they would also name them. That’s what I was trying to say. Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Some of the images nominated are of the 19th century palace. A lot of images are obviously de minimis exceptions. A1Cafel, have you even looked at the images? Any due diligence? --Mihai (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  The nomination didn't include those are de minimis. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Mihai, please explicitly cast a {{Vk}} vote with the list of images of the 19th century palace so the closing admin can easily identify them. And a separate list with the de minimis images, to be discussed.--Strainu (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Also, at least one picture is from 1941. How does a 1996 law apply to a 1941 photo? Biruitorul (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Biruitorul hmm, it's interesting what would be the FoP rule of the copyright law that was in effect in Romania in the 1940s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Per COM:Romania, the earliest documented copyright law was the 1923 law (Wayback Machine link, I can access it using VPN [under IP exempt user right now], because Wayback Machine is being blocked by my Philippine-based ISP).

  Romania has been anti-Freedom of Panorama since the beginning 1956. A centuryThree quarters of a century of anti-FoP legal regimes. Per the 1923 1956 act, here are the only allowed limitations/exceptions (in the original Romanian language, with verbatim Google Translate). I added highlighted clauses for emphasis.

  Art. 13. - Sint permise fara consimtamintul autorului, dar cu respectarea tuturor celorlalte drepturi ale acestuia:
  a) inregistrarea mecanica a compozitiilor muzicale sau a lucrarilor artistice, literare ori stiintifice, pe discuri, bande de magnetofon, pelicula si orice alte mijloace, daca aceste compozitii sau lucrari au fost reproduse si difuzate;
  b) transmiterea radiofonica ori prin televiziune sau inregistrarea ori filmarea in vederea retransmisiunii a operelor de orice fel din salile de spectacole sau localurile publice in care acestea sint reprezentate, executate sau expuse;
  c) inserarea in culegeri, albume sau altele de acest gen pentru exemplificarea continutului ori in presa pentru ilustrarea unei teme, a unei opere literare, muzicale sau stiintifice, in fragmente sau integral, ori reproduceri dupa operele de arta plastica;
  d) inregistrarea mecanica a operelor muzicale, literare sau artistice, in fragmente sau integral, in vederea radiodifuzarii, a televizarii sau a folosirii in jurnalele cinematografice.
  Dispozitiile de la lit. c si d se vor aplica numai in privinta operelor anterior aduse la cunostinta publicului prin reproducere si difuzare, reprezentare, executare sau prin expunere.
  
  Art. 14. - Sint permise fara consimtamintul autorului si fara plata vreunei remuneratii respectindu-se insa celelalte drepturi ale acestuia:
  a) reproducerea chiar integrala, in ziare sau in alte publicatii periodice, radiodifuzarea sau prezentarea cinematografica cu titlu de informatie si de actualitate a discursurilor tinute in adunari publice;
  b) reprezentarea, executarea, recitarea sau expunerea operelor dramatice, muzicale, coregrafice, literare sau stiintifice in cadrul activitatii obisnuite a scolilor, organizatiilor de masa, precum si a aceleia a caselor de cultura si a caminelor culturale in cazurile si conditiile prevazute prin Hotarire a Consiliului de Ministri;
  c) publicarea, chiar integrala a operelor literare, muzicale sau stiintifice ori reproducerea operelor de arta plastica in manuale didactice, cursuri universitare, culegeri sau alte asemenea lucrari destinate invatamintului, cu exceptia operelor care au fost comandate special in acest scop si pentru care autorul pastreaza dreptul de remuneratie;
  d) reproducerea si radiodifuzarea articolelor de presa;
  e) extrase de mica intindere din opere literare, muzicale, cinematografice ori stiintifice, sau reproduceri, precum si prezentari cu ajutorul aparatelor optice a unor opere de arta plastica, servind exclusiv ca document explicativ pentru continutul scris sau vorbit in conferinte sau publicatii cu caracter stiintific, in lucrari de critica ori in darile de seama asupra expozitiilor publice, sau pentru popularizarea acestor opere prin radio si televiziune;
  f) transpunerea operelor de pictura, gravura, desen, sau a altor opere de arta plastica prin sculptura, ori a operelor de sculptura prin pictura, gravura, desen si altele de acelasi gen, daca operele rezultate din aceste transpuneri nu se valorifica;
  g) reproducerea in alte dimensiuni a operelor de arta plastica asezate in pietele publice, muzee, pinacoteci sau alte locuri publice cu incuviintarea organelor de conducere ale acestora; este insa interzisa copierea unei sculpturi prin mijloace mecanice, venind in contact direct cu opera.
  Cu toate acestea cel care valorifica aceste reproduceri este obligat sa plateasca autorului remuneratia cuvenita insa numai daca ele au ca obiect principal opera de arta ca atare;
  h) reproducerea operelor de arta plastica in filme, diafilme sau prin televiziune cu titlu de informare sau de prezentare accesorie.
  Daca filmul, diafilmul, sau transmiterea prin televiziune are ca obiect principal reproducerea acestor opere, autorul are dreptul la plata remuneratiei;
  i) expunerea operelor de arta plastica in expozitii publice;
  j) fotografierea, copierea si reproducerea in orice mod a unei opere de arta plastica, daca aceasta nu se valorifica.
  
  Art. 15. - In cazul folosirii operelor conform art. 13 si 14, trebuie sa se indice opera originala, numele autorului acesteia, al traducatorului sau al autorului operei derivate prevazute la art. 10, iar la operele de arta plastica trebuie sa se indice si locul unde se gaseste originalul precum si numele celui care a efectuat copia.
  Aceste mentiuni se vor trece si in afisele, anunturile, publicatiile relative la opera realizata dupa o alta opera literara, artistica sau stiintifica.

Article 14(c) of the repealed 19231956 copyright law of Romania is irrelevant, as it only permits reproduction of visual art in textbooks only for the purpose of education. Perhaps the ancestral FoP rule of Romania is Article 14(g), as it concerns works in public spaces that are not allowed to be freely exploited by anyone (although before, the government officials of local authorities also had rights, in that anyone who wanted to use images of public landmarks required permission from them; the photo owner would then freely use them provided that he/she did not use the image for commercial purposes). Note: Article 9 of the same law explicitly protects "works of architecture." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Please allow me to interrupt this enthusiastic push for deletion, but article 14 clearly indicates that any reproduction of any item, including those specified under article 9, is fully permited, as long as the remaining rights are respected -- this presumably means as long as the author is properly credited (as clarified further in article 15). Nobody is citing article 14(c), btw. Dahn (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Whichever way I read the 1923 and 1952 laws in their Romanian original (and their rather faithful translation), they clearly spell out that any photograph of a landmark that dates from the time when either law was in force is in the public domain, with proper credits, with no exception made for whether the landmark itself was PD or not. So regardless of how enormously stupid the current legislation is, any photograph of any landmark that was taken, or in any case published, before circa 1990 is in the public domain, as long as properly licensed. Dahn (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Dahn the key problem on the relevant clauses of the article of the 1952 law is the restrictions on "valorifica" (exploitation). This restriction was inherited in the current (1996) law under today's Article 33(1)(f) - "în afara cazurilor în care imaginea operei este subiectul principal al unei astfel de reproduceri, distribuiri sau comunicări și dacă este utilizată în scopuri comerciale." {{Cc-by}}, {{Cc-by-sa}}, or public domain licenses do not permit restrictions to commercial uses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

First of, this is not a commercial use. Secondly, even that right has clearly expired for all photographic works of the items that were published up to about 1990 or so, and arguably also for all photographs taken (but not published) in that interval -- since the protection for the photographs was very short, and fully expired even if the photographer or the original artist was alive. I do not see that being addressed. I also see complete silence as to the (arguably even more liberal) status of all such works before 1952 (or 1956, or whenever that law was passed). Dahn (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Dahn: First of[f], this is not a commercial use. The issue isn't that the use here on Commons be commercial; the issue is that Commons only allows hosting files that may be used commercially. It's not a legal issue, it's a policy issue.

And yes, copyright on older photographs from Romania has lapsed, but I don't see how that would make such photographs any less infringing of the copyright of the building. Could you expand on that?- Jmabel ! talk 19:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, the way I read it, the creators of such landmarks only had some rights protected for as long as the photographs themselves were protected, which is about 10 or 20 years after publication (or creation -- this point is unclear to me). There is therefore no reason to assume that any photo published in, say, 1940 of public art whose creator died in, say, 1980, is afforded any copyight protection under the Romanian law; it would be PD, just like any photo of a puppy or a river by the same photographer. I would also like to see what the 1923 law actually said (the above managed to quote a later law); I am willing to bet it is even less stringent in this respect than the 1950s legislation. Dahn (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Concerning your other point: I may be mistaken, but I remember various licenses which Commons uploaders can use for their own work, and which seemingly prohibit commercial use of said work; the same apparently applies for works that were granted usage rights by third-party institutions such as historical archives. If I am right, then it means there is actually no prohibition on files that have restricted commercial usage. At worst, we would need to upload them under a special license detailing that fact. Dahn (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

On the first point: yes, it would be good to have a clearer sense of what the law said when.

On the last point, I think you are simply wrong. A multi-licensed file could have one or more of it's licenses be "NC" (the simplest case I can think of is that it makes sense to offer both CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC-SA; the second license lets someone do an NC derivative work, but the first does not), but it still needs to have at least one license that allows commercial use. If you can find even an apparent exception, I'd be very interested in seeing it. - Jmabel ! talk 07:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Here is the 1923 law under discussion. Biruitorul (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Prima facie, it would indeed seem like the 1923 law barred PD publication of photographs unless their author (or discoverer, or editor, as the case may be) had been dead for 30 years. It also seems to suggest that the author of the original work would be held to the same standard for the reproduction to be made available. Presumably, someone who lived through legislation that extended that right to 50 ot 70 years would benefit from the extension, except that the 1956 law made the reproductions freely available, while extending rights for the original. If I am correct, the reproduction of the work would still be PD in most cases, given the intersection of both laws. Dahn (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This would suggest, for instance, that just about any period reproduction of a work by Nenciulescu is very much PD, provided the photographer (if known) or their publisher (if known) has also been dead for 30 years. If neither is known, btw, then we would move to the EU directive and relevant license, which specify that such cases are PD if publication took place over 70 years ago. Dahn (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

By the way, who owns the supposed copyright to Nenciulescu’s work? Yes, I know this question isn’t particularly relevant in discussions here, but it’s still worth pointing out that there likely is no one who holds the rights to his works, and if there is, that individual is ignorant of the fact. The architect reportedly had a son in 1915, but we have no idea if there are living descendants. — Biruitorul (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I am conceding the second point, mainly because I have very little time, and a crap device, for going over the various licenses, and also because you may indeed be right, as stated from the get-go. On the other point, see my reply to Biruitorul, just above. Dahn (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:Pint Re: who owns the supposed copyright to Nenciulescu’s work? I have no idea. It probably isn't legally possible that no one holds the copyright, but it is possible that they are completely ignorant of it and we have an "orphaned work," which would sadly leave literally no route for Commons to obtain the permission we require. The reason I say "probably isn't legally possible": I have little specific knowledge of Romanian law in this respect, but in most countries when someone dies the residuum of an estate (anything not explicity provided for in a will) goes somewhere, often with the state as a sort of "heir of last resort." - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this concept also exists under Romanian law: “vacant inheritance” (moștenire vacantă). If no heirs exist, the property reverts to the city hall where it is located. So there’s a chance that the copyright on the building is owned by the Bucharest City Hall. Might be worth asking one of their lawyers.

Meanwhile, is anyone interested in trying to change Romanian copyright law so we don’t have to keep going through this process? Perhaps the most effective way to do this is to email the Culture Ministry, which can then draft a law and submit it to parliament. I’ve done so myself, but the more messages they get, the higher the chance they’ll do something.

Biruitorul (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This is getting a bit off topic for this DR, and I'd be very open to someone starting a separate discussion elsewhere (possibly starting by copying a good deal from here).

@Biruitorul (or anyone else): do you know if any of the major organizations of Romanian architects (OAR, UAR, maybe something else I don't know about) have a strong position on this? I know that is an important part of the equation in France. If they are determined to keep this strong protection, I think the chance of changing the law is slim, because they are going to give this more focus than we are liable to be able to bring. The fallback, if the law cannot be changed, miht be to set up an organized registry of people and organizations that hold such rights and are willing to free-license them. I'm sure there are a fair number of architects, heirs, organizations, and even government entities who have no intention of profiting from these rights, and would rather have the work in question be better known. - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Based on the paltry number of hits for “libertatea panoramei / de panoramă”, I think not. So raising awareness would be the preliminary step. Biruitorul (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

So, the Culture Ministry replied: page 1, page 2.

For those who can read Romanian, like @Dahn: , take a look. For those who can’t, the short version is: don’t even think of hoping for a change in the law, at least not from our side. Biruitorul (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

They are obviously incompetent, especially when they imply that the current law reflect an EU standard (rather than Norica Nicolai's even lower bar of incompetence). In any case, the law would still have been the same for images taken during these years. However, the law has ZERO effect on images published or [in many cases] taken before the law was in place, of which several have been nominated here for no reason at all. Dahn (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

And when they so pompously mention that they're seeking to protect the creators... Entire cities were built by socialist architects from a mediocre master plan imposed on them by party officials, using concrete panels as their core material, and these virtual nobodies are now elevated as creators of art. If applied, the law would force a virtual shutdown of all photographic activity in places such as Slobozia and Zimnicea, almost entirely built in that fashion. But of course the ministry gurus have no intention of applying the law, they just take the usual approach: "smart people don't bother with laws being inconsistent, they just break them; you guys are the suckers for even bothering us to be consistent." Have they ever prosecuted anyone for infringing on "creator" rights, from the hundreds of commercial entities making an actual, daily profit from selling images of Nenciulescu's palace or, even more egregiously, of Casa Poporului? Dahn (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Heh. Biruitorul (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait till they get to these works of high art. Dahn (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems that any panel building, including ready-made single-storey homes in the more modern parts of villages, would be protected by this law as artistic creations, and we would have to wait for 70 years until after the last of the participating engineers will have died to take a photo of such a location. The very fact that they conceived of this principle in a country that was basically built-up in this way, and that they don't even seem to realize the ridiculousness, is something that should go down in the annals of legalist idiocy. Dahn (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Just a small correction, the act cited in the link above is the Decree no. 321/18.06.1956 --Nenea hartia (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment If we do need to delete these, it is important that we inform the various Wikipedias so that they have a chance to upload some images locally, if that is within their rules. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

 Wait let's wait to get more voye Mr.Besya (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• vote

Mr.Besya (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Nenea hartia: I corrected my comment above. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Luckily, the Romanian Wikipedia article on the Romanian copyright law contains a link to the 1923 (again on Wayback Machine, and I had to use VPN since WM is still blocked by my Philippine ISP). The 1923 law appeared somewhat permissive:

ART. 27
Din contra, nu constituie o atingere a dreptului de proprietate artistică:
1. Reproducerea picturilor, sculpturilor şi oricărui alt obiect de arta, aflate în muzeele şi pinacotecele publice sau ale Statului, precum şi a statuelor şi monumentelor aşezate în grădinile, pieţele sau drumurile publice, afară de cazul când artiştii-autori şi-au rezervat în mod expres şi exclusiv dreptul de reproducere asupra acestor opere publice de arta;
2. Reproducerile izolate de opere deja publicate sau expuse, precum şi grupe sau porţiuni din acele opere făcute în scopul explicarii textului unei lucrări de critica sau analiza artistică, a unei istorii sau dictionar al artelor, în cărţile didactice sau publicaţiuni pentru cultura scolarilor, atunci când aceste din urma lucrări constitue partea principala a publicatiei, iar reproducerile partea accesorie, cu obligaţiunea indicarii numelui autorului şi a operei după care se face reproducerea;
3. Reproducerea prin ziare, reviste, anuare, almanahuri sau calendare, a operelor artistice expuse în public, în dările de seama sau criticile de arta ce se fac în aceste publicaţii periodice, cu obligaţia pentru reproducator de a indica numele autorului artist;
4. Reproducerile prin orice mijloace tehnice a serbarilor naţionale, oficiale sau populare, cortegii, etc.

Under 1923 law, paintings, sculptures, and other works of art whether located in public outdoors or even those inside country-owned or managed museums could be reproduced by anyone, with the only restriction if the artists reserved that reproduction privilege to themselves.

@Dahn: assuming both the 1956 and current (1996-present) laws are not retroactive, it is likely that pre-1956 images may be OK, provided that the architects or sculptors in their lifetimes did not express the reservation of reproduction rights to themselves. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Please see point 3, which indicates that all such images that were published when the 1923 law was in place can be assumed to be PD -- unless anybody can come up with proof that the original artist protested their publication, we can safely assume that the publication itself means PD. Moreover, as mentioned above: the photographers themselves were only protected for 30 years after publication by the 1923 law, and in fact the 1956 reduced that drastically (to 5 or so years, I believe). So by all accounts, it appears that all photographs of landmarks that were published at any point until circa 1990 are PD. I am estimating "1990" because the 1996 extended the rights for published images where the rights had not expired. Dahn (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)