Likely copyright violation. Screenshot from a TV news broadcast (CNC Noticias) sourced from YouTube, with no evidence of a free license. GoksuEditor (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Album cover of 1981 album True Colours by New Zealand band Split Enz. Per COM:TOO New Zealand, the “threshold test for originality is not high”. One can make the argument that "sufficient time, skill, labour, or judgment has been expended in producing the work". "The Court has also reiterated the axiom, or principle, that copyright is not concerned with the originality of ideas but with the form of their expression." The shapes that were chosen, the way they are arranged, colours that are used, and its unique form of expression, could push it above as its not a simple geometric or purely trivial design.
The cover was designed by Mick Haggerty, who was from England. The UK historically had a very low threshold of originality, but recently got bumped. I still think it would be above COM:TOO UK as it can be considred the "...author’s own intellectual creation."
Not sure about the USA TOO, it might be above. We could host a high res copy locally on en.wiki if it is below.
(...and incase anyone asks, there is a copyright notice on the back of the album ) PascalHD (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Out of scope: this image of a person was generated or modified using AI. AI images of identifiable people are generally not permitted on Commons. If this image was generated based on a freely licensed photograph of a notable individual, please upload the original. Omphalographer (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 05:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Wann ist das Gemälde, das fotografiert wurde, entstanden? GerritR (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Keep plausible own work, no hits with Google Lens. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 22:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
"No hits with Google Lens" is no evidence for "own work". Com:PRP. Kunstwerke im Privatbereich und sonstwo gibt es vermutlich zuhauf, ohne dass sie jemals von Google Lens oder anderen Apps gesehen wurden. GerritR (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Of course your point is correct, but I think that for a picture uploaded in 2006, plausible own work, no hits with Google Lens should be sufficient not to delete, especially as the file is COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Stated as own work, but user page of the uploader has no indication that they are affiliated with book publisher. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
The publisher of this book is Createspace Independent Publishing Platform according to this website:. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
The file seems to have been processed in order to increase the quality compared to the original YouTube video's frames. Wayne Rooney's face has become more sharper, but as a result it seems that some "ghost faces" in the background have been created on top of people in the background. E.g. top left, bottom right and just to the right of Rooney's face. ~2026-18028-27 (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new version that has the statue censored so there is now no reason to delete this file, just the original upload. Discott (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Screenshots of spam social media posts cited in a 2017 paper, but the authors of the paper don't own the copyright to the images. (The spammers may not have owned the copyright either, and just used pictures from other websites.)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
KeepFile:Cartoon murial Montrèal 2017 small.jpg is oviously not a derivative work, but an original piece of art, citing popocultural elements. a) within scope b) FOP c) ><(((> Sargoth (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
More Keep as it was made by the Artist Benny Wilding during the Festival Mural 2015! Sargoth (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Sargoth: and did Artist Benny Wilding release his work with a free license? You've just provided another reason for deletion. And COM:FoP#Canada doesn't cover murals. - Alexis Jazzping plz 06:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Panoramafreiheit. Die folgende Graffiti ist lediglich eine abgeleitete Zeichnung der Comicfigur durch den Künstler Patrik Wolters alias BeneR1 (siehe die Künstlersignatur). Die Graffiti im öffentlichen Raum installiert und unterliegen damit der Panoramafreiheit:
Spray paint Donald Duck on the wall of a police station. (why a police station? German jails are fun I hear)
Take photo.
Upload photo to Commons.
OMG I can't believe we never thought of this before! We'll never need fair use rationales on English Wikipedia again as long as we have Wikipedians with spray paint in Germany! (sorry for the sarcasm, but Panoramafreiheit really doesn't cover works that were never licensed in the first place) - Alexis Jazzping plz 06:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I uploaded a new file if you think it's better, Keep it. The filename says Mr. D, because i'm unsure if it is lawful to name the character.--Sargoth (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"The Public Domain film The Spirit of '43, which is in public domain due the fact that was created for the US Government."
But Donald Duck and probably even this exact screen were created before '43. It is dubious anyway. Sesame Street isn't public domain either as far as I know.
Keep Files of The Spirit of '43 has been nominated more than once for deletion, but requests had been declined, because there is no evidence of copyright renewal. See former discussions at:
"Donald Duck is still copyrighted -- he first appeared in The Wise Little Hen (1934), which was successfully renewed in 1961. Every single appearance of Donald Duck after The Wise Little Hen would be considered a derivative work from the first cartoon, hence copyrighted. Yes, the copyright on The Spirit of '43 wasn't renewed, and a part of the cartoon fall in the public domain, but parts of it with Donald Duck are still copyrighted as a DW from the previous works. See the long discussion cited by the nominator for details."
I can't explain it any better, so I won't. I will add this: can you prove The Spirit of '43 was the first cartoon to feature this title card? I can't say for sure because title cards may have been swapped, but Donald's Nephews from 1938 seems to have the same title card. At the same time, if title cards were swapped (like they appear to have been for Don Donald), that would also put the title card of The Spirit of '43 into question. - Alexis Jazzping plz 11:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Discussion about the The Spirit of '43 is feared to be unfairly lost in this sea of requests. First it was made for the US Government, including its first scene. Second, there is no evidence of copyright renewal.--Maher27777 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I was talking about the title card. Was The Spirit of '43 really the first Donald Duck cartoon to feature that title card? And even if it was (it doesn't look like it), Donald Duck wasn't created for The Spirit of '43. If I draw Donald Duck, all by myself, I still wouldn't be allowed to upload it here. - Alexis Jazzping plz 06:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Whether the title card was used before, with, of after The Spirit of '43, the cartoon as a whole is in public domain, including its title card, and it's easy to prove it is a part of The Spirit of '43. Why should we have to wait unnecessarily to 2039?--Maher27777 (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete as still copyrighted per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment@Ruthven: Please address this section, too. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete as still copyrighted per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven(msg) 15:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Albi d'oro 22 - Paperino e la pietra filosofale.jpg (1938) Keep Under Legge 18 marzo 1926, n. 562; valid copyright in Italy at the time, anonymous-corporate works copyright lasts for 50 years (actually, 56 years because of the WW2 clause). Then 1938+56=1994. The file was PD in home country before URAA, so Keep
File:Sign of Donald Duck on strike at Disney film studios.jpg (1941) (Template says: published without a notice: if true, then, it's PD).
File:Topolino presenta i due fannulloni.jpg (1935) Keep same as Paperino, but here it falls in PD by 1992, which is three years before the previous work. PD in home country by 1996, Keep
File:Yugoslavia - Микијеве новине - 002.jpg (1936) Keep same reasoning, but under 1929 Yugoslav copyright law (the first one in the country). 50 years from the date of publication: PD since 1st January 1987, almost twenty years before Serbia applied for URAA. Keep
File:Yugoslavia - Микијеве новине - 003.jpg (1936) Keep same case as before: under 1929 Yugoslav law (and the 1978 one, the last in the country) it felt PD before the country's break up. The very Commons template says it: an anonymous work and it was published before January 1, 1941. Keep
All the comic scans do include a link to Inducks to check the actual publication date (according to this database) and the status of anonymous author (unidentified by the people who curate the best database of Disney comics). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
TaronjaSatsuma, thanks, that means that (apart from the sign which is uncertain) all can probably be undeleted when the character becomes public domain. (around 2030) This is assuming the drawings are original for those countries and not first published in the US. See this discussion about character copyright. - Alexis Jazzping plz 16:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
The drawings are all original to those countries as can be checked out at their Inducks database.
And Donald Duck is indeed Public Domain: it is in Italy, UK, Yugoslavia, and any country with a 50 year term after publication between the 1930s and the 1980s. Spirit of '43 is irrelevant to this case: that cartoon was American made, so the character is still copyrighted for 4 years.
That's the catch: those are official licensed illustrations of the characters, published by their official editor, but the only difference is these were first published (made) outside the US. And in those countries, Paolino Paperino, Paja Patak or whatever the name is already PD. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
@Clindberg, this is confusing me. There's character copyright that won't expire for a few more years, yet at the same time we have officially licensed foreign Donald Duck illustrations that have entered the public domain in the US as {{PD-1996}}? - Alexis Jazzping plz 17:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Alexis, the US is not the center of the world (and I don't want sound harsh or as being a jerk, forgive me if it sounds "bad").
If your point is "derivative works of Donald Duck IN COMMONS should be locked to the original character copyright in the US, because of the servers being the US and etc... then, that's a point (you have a point).
But the answer to your question is: of course. Since 1988/1989 there has been official derivative works of early Disney characters (Snow White, Mickey, Donald) under PD in countries where copyright back then was +50 after publication. So, answering your question, yes, there has been for about 35 years, official works made in foreign countries, that fell into PD because of the laws of foreign countries, and URAA did not restore anything because those works were already in PD in the original country.
My point: Donald Duck is copyrighted IN THE US (which happens to be its original country). If an official Donald Duck (or else) work was made in Belgium, Yugoslavia, UK, Mexico in the 1930s before those countries introduced +70 terms, then that work is PD in the home country. My calculations say that Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi and Fantasia have been PD in half of Europe for 30 years now.
How does it affect to the US, where the character is still copyrighted? well, maybe we should wait for 2030. But this has nothing do to with the drawings not being PD in their home country (the Paperino anonymous work is indeed a cover of a comic strip by a man who died in 1945). Either if we consider the comic strip to be an anonymous (it was unsigned) corporate work or an authored "personal" work, the full comic strip is PD in Italy (and in countries with the lesser term clause, which not all countries in the world have). -The cover itself is not only unsigned but, the researchers in inDucks were unable to find who the author was, so doble anonymous.
Sorry if I sounded bad at any point of the conversation, but here the question is not if there are American-made works PD overseas (in Iran, any movie officialy released before of 1995 is now PD; and they don't have copyright agreements with the US), but how does it marry with Commons/US based laws.
And thanks, dear @Alexis Jazz: for the opportunity of having this consersation. You can see I'm enjoying finding the details of each copyright term length. Maybe Clindberg can help us to check how Commons bylaws "marries" the PD works from outside US, when those are based on US-made properties. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
These are derivative works of the character, which complicates things greatly. That means there is an underlying copyright, and additional expression added on the derivative work. In most of these cases, maybe all, the additional expression has expired in the country of origin and the U.S., but the underlying copyright has not. With derivative works, you need the permission of the underlying copyright owner for distribution, even if the copyright on the additional expression has expired -- that is generally true no matter the country. While the U.S. is not the center of the universe, it is the country where Wikimedia exists and the servers are. Commons policy is that works need to be free in both the U.S. and the country of origin. The Donald Duck character was at least partially created by Walt Disney who died in 1966, so I'm not sure these are even free in Italy (70pma has not passed). It sounds like Dick Huemer (died 1979) and Art Babbitt (died 1992) animated the original version, and Dick Lundy (died 1990) developed him further, so may be the primary author of the more modern designs. I don't think the character necessarily counts as an anonymous work, though it would be a corporate work. Italy and much of the former Yugoslavia (being EU members) does not have a different copyright for corporate works, at least if the author was named initially (and usually even that is not a requirement) -- it's either anonymous or 70pma in those countries. Yugoslav works would probably be considered simultaneously published in all successor nations of Yugoslavia; copyright in each of those countries would depend on its own current laws, which (due to the EU) may involve retroactive restoration. The character copyright does not expire all at once, either -- each addition to the character (maybe a different way of drawing them) as films or comics are released basically creates incremental derivative works, which expire slowly based on each publication. But it's quite likely the character copyright is not PD in any of these countries. It's actually more likely to expire in the U.S. first. The 1935 one seems to be Donald's original appearance, that's likely fine in 2030. The rest may take a little longer. So, Delete for me on the derivative aspect. I'd probably undelete based on the U.S. expiration of the character (which is slow and piecemeal). The former Yugoslav countries would not have a treaty with the U.S. preventing use of the rule of the shorter term; unsure about Italy but in the end the country of origin for the character copyright is the U.S. alone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
With derivative works, you need the permission of the underlying copyright owner for distribution, even if the copyright on the additional expression has expired -- that is generally true no matter the country.
In this case, being official works (at least the Italian one was 100% official, I assume the Mickey's published in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were also licensed) I guess it adds a layer of difficulty. Although, in the end, it's probably true the US copyright of the character prevails (still not so slow: all of the depictions except for File:Albi d'oro 22 - Paperino e la pietra filosofale.jpg are based on the original design of 1934. (The one with the current beack seems to be from 1937, en:Don Donald).
About the original Donald design, I'm pretty sure Italy and Yugolsavia had +50 after publication (56 in Italy because of the war extension) just as the UK and Belgium had prior to 1996-ish reforms, so no life of author there, the original Donald design, probably as its first publication in the country as comic-strips, has been PD since the late 80s, and in the Italian case, the 1937 design has been also PD since probably 1994 (because of the 1938 publication of official comic strips with the "newer" design on it) or perhaps 1993, if the original cartoon film Don Donald premiered in Italy the same year it did in the US.
Yugoslav works would probably be considered simultaneously published in all successor nations of Yugoslavia; copyright in each of those countries would depend on its own current laws, which (due to the EU) may involve retroactive restoration
Unless it completely expired (in this case, the original Paja Patak design) before the country splitted, which is very likely what happened if the 1929 Yugoslav law had +50 after publication for films (and even more assumptions: if the comic strips arrived to Yugoslavia before the cartoon films, then the "first Donald" in Yugoslavia would be The one published 1st March, 1936 under the Gottfredson daily strips, not the one in cartoons).
But it's quite likely the character copyright is not PD in any of these countries. It's actually more likely to expire in the U.S. first
I disagree, but still, if we must follow US copyright for Commons purposes, my disagreement does not change anything.
I'd probably undelete based on the U.S. expiration of the character (which is slow and piecemeal)
In this case is:
File:Albi d'oro 22 - Paperino e la pietra filosofale.jpg (2033 -after Don Donald)
File:Sign of Donald Duck on strike at Disney film studios.jpg (2037 -US works, clearly needs 95 years)
File:Topolino presenta i due fannulloni.jpg (1930 - after original appearence in Wise Little Hen)
File:Yugoslavia - Микијеве новине - 002.jpg (1930 - after original appearence in Wise Little Hen)
File:Yugoslavia - Микијеве новине - 003.jpg (1930 - after original appearence in Wise Little Hen)
Thanks for your insights, although I'd prefer more opinions before deleting (at least, some feedback about the proposed undelete dates). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
In this case, being official works (at least the Italian one was 100% official, I assume the Mickey's published in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were also licensed) I guess it adds a layer of difficulty. The official part doesn't really change anything. In that case the entity which had a license to publish that in the first place still has that right (presuming the license was perpetual), so they can continue to distribute the work same as they always have. Anyone else who does not have the underlying license cannot distribute the work, even if much of the other expression has expired. If you remove the parts containing the underlying expression, then it's fine. That is, presuming that the underlying copyright (of the character) is still valid in the country in question -- its status in the U.S. has little bearing on that. But that would seem to be a 70pma copyright in this case for the EU.
Unless it completely expired before the country splitted -- not really. Copyright today is governed solely by the laws inside the current countries. If there was a clause in those laws which did not restore expired works, or explicitly excluded works that expired before Yugoslavia split up, then sure. Otherwise, the current laws can decide to restore works (going forward) if they want to. Most countries do not, but the EU did, so most of the old laws are now completely irrelevant (unless they had even longer terms than the current laws have). Italy did restore all works to 70pma (or 70pd if anonymous) regardless if they had earlier expired, along with the rest of the EU. Not all former Yugoslav countries are EU members, so they may well remain PD in those countries (and that could qualify them as being the country of origin, actually). The U.S. is the country of origin for the character copyright though and that one is hard to get around. The situation inside Italy or Yugoslav successor nations depends on how they each treat the character copyright, basically. For the U.S., the character copyright is still valid, meaning any derivative work needs a license we don't have.
One example of this situation is the movie It's a Wonderful Life. Someone forgot to renew the film, so it lapsed into the public domain 28 years after it was published. As a result, it became cheap filler for many TV stations, and a previously obscure film then became a big favorite over the years. Then someone else remembered while the film was public domain, the booklet it was based on had been renewed, meaning only people with a license from the booklet's copyright owner could distribute the film, and as such were able to start charging royalties again. (The soundtrack had also been renewed.). The booklet in question was published in 1943, so that company will be able to collect royalties on the move until 2039. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Copyright today is governed solely by the laws inside the current countries. If there was a clause in those laws which did not restore expired works, or explicitly excluded works that expired before Yugoslavia split up, then sure. Otherwise, the current laws can decide to restore works (going forward) if they want to. Most countries do not, but the EU did, so most of the old laws are now completely irrelevant (unless they had even longer terms than the current laws have).
Now this is completely news for me. Where can I learn more about the restoration of expired copyrights? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
It happened due to the Copyright Duration Directive. The various EU countries changed their laws to conform to that at various times in the mid-1990s. Some countries were already pretty much conformant, but many had to increase their terms, and also restore any work protected in at least one member state on July 1, 1995 (which as far as we have been able to tell, basically means all works). Countries which joined the EU later had to do something similar, to protect any work from an EU country at least as long as those terms (which can involve restoring copyright to works which had expired in that country). They can still use the rule of the shorter term for non-EU countries. (For the U.S. specifically, many countries had a direct treaty with the U.S. to respect each others' copyrights dating from the late 1800s or early 1900s; these may still be in effect. In Germany a court case ruled that it was there, such that Germany must protect U.S. works for the full 70pma there even if expired in the U.S.). Some countries did not implement the directive until after the URAA date, so in those countries the old laws may still matter to determine URAA restoration (where the US was forced to restore foreign copyrights due to the Berne Convention). Italy is one of those, and of course any country which joined the EU later on would also have done that after the URAA date. The UK implemented the directive on the URAA date itself (January 1, 1996) which had the effect of restoring a bunch of their works in both the UK and the US on the same day -- many of their photographs had previously been 50 years from creation, and they changed to 70pma on that day, and so in the US got restored to the full 95 years from publication as well. France's implementation came in 1997; you can see that law here -- it's usually in the "transitional provisions" at the end where they get into the details of revived rights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the text, Clindberg. With this law it seems clear Donald Duck itself, as a character, is not PD in Europe, even if some works did fall into PD under older laws.
Now, asking the AI about this issue, it pointed me a new nuance: it talks about the Directive 93/98/EEC (which I guess it's the same text you linked, because the AI quoted something very close to Title III, Art 16. III- copyright restored unless PD in all the members.
Now the nuance: Montis v. Goossens (Case C-169/15) states copyright can't be restored if PD in every EU state.
Albi d'Oro 22 was only published in Italy (and only reissued in 2024, far after original copyright expired)
And File:Topolino presenta i due fannulloni.jpg is trickier but is the same case: only published in Italy prior to 1996 (so, reissues outside of Italy happen when the original Italian copyright was expired, before harmonization and before URAA).
My new point: If a work was published in a single European country, and remain unpublished in any other European country until it fell into PD, then... the copyright is expired in the whole of the EU, isn't it? Copyright is territorial, just because a work was published in Italy does not automatically mean it was protected elsewhere.
In order to be protected outside of Italy, it would need either to be registered elsewhere, or published in 30-days terms or at least to be published in a different country before the original copyright term expired. And this is not the case for these files which were only published (therefore protected for copyright) in one single country. Those files neved had any copyright in any country outside of Italy (and Yugoslavia), so no copyright to "expire" elsewhere. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Couple of notes -- publication doesn't change much under the Berne Convention -- unpublished works are protected just as much as published ones. It does set the country of origin, but that mainly matters when using the rule of the shorter term, which EU countries do not do inside the EU. If work *was* PD in all EU countries as of July 1995, correct, it was not restored -- but we have not identified any such work to exist that was not already beyond the new EU norms of 70pma. The Montis vs. Goosens case was a technicality -- the parties threw away that particular argument with an offhand answer, even though it was likely the winning argument, as they had brought the case on other, far more dubious grounds. That was discussed at length at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Austria-1932. There is no registration etc. necessary under the Berne Convention; works are automatically protected from creation, unless first published in a non-Berne country, of which there are very few today. There really isn't a way around the minimum EU copyright terms, other than simple photos and things that may not qualify as "works". Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
OK. That means those (unsigned anonymous) works are PD in Europe by 70 years after publication (1938+70 = 1st January 2009 the lastest).
As I assume under US law those were URAA restored, then it's 95 years after publication.
About the Yugoslav files I'm unsure, because they fell PD by 1987, so before any of the successor states joined Berne or URAA happened to them, so I'd say they are acceptable once the original Donald Duck design falls into PD. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Ok. "Donald and Pluto" was outside my radar, so I assumed Don Donald was the first one with the 1936 design. I guess I have now an excuse to come back to the classic filmography. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
The drawing was not made by actual copyright holder of depicted characters. Freedom of panorama there is meaningless. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Some background: I took the photo from the public footpath next to the basement window, where it had been put up to cover the dilapidated houses. It was part of a school project in which many schools in the city took part, with the aim of decorating the windows of the empty houses until they could eventually be renovated. However, it is now impossible to find out which child or young person painted it back then. I do not know whether the picture is still there today, or whether the house has since been renovated and the picture disposed of. The design was intended to be permanent until renovation or demolition, and the pictures were only meant to exist until then (most have since been destroyed and disposed of). For me, it was part of the ‘cityscape’ and the freedom of panorama. However, as I am not a lawyer, I cannot answer this with 100% certainty. Dirk Liesch (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted characters. Freedom of panorama there is meaningless. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
I just wanted to take picture of the building as a part of railway infrastructure, it is not picture of the drawing. Cmelak770 (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Well in this case just censor the drawing and photo will not be deleted. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Do we have any rules, how to censor it? Cmelak770 (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
just make the drawing fully black SomeFancyUsername (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Unclear why this is considered to have been published in the United States between 1931 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice. From the story around it, it purports to be a photograph taken in Britain in the 1940s, possibly by local police, although the actual source of the photo isn't clear. The Atlas Obscura blog it's taken from merely asserts "(Public Domain)" in its caption. Belbury (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
At the bottom of the Wayback machine, it says All Rights Reserved without saying who reserves those rights. It uses an at sign rather than a Copyright symbol. This work predates the Berne Convention. Is this the equivalent of a Facebook privacy and copyright hoax or is this image copyrighted? Mpen320 (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
The author of this file has listed the file as "Own work" though this is doubtfull, especially without any evidence. LillaRis87 (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
You are welcome to delete the file. Keep in mind that this will leave the Wikidata element of Bloodstain (and subsequently their article) without logo. This needs to be fixed by whoever deletes this file. --Drahnreb (talk) Drahnreb (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
The logo for Bloodstain would be fair use on their own Wikipedia article. This would be a better solution than keeping a file that goes against copyright. LillaRis87 (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Source doesn't specify whether the image was drawn from life, it may be a more recent illustration. Belbury (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
The image is not an "illustration" (i.e. painting); it is a digital modification and upscaling of a pre-existing photograph from the 1860s, with the aim to better show the conformation and color of the horse. The original photograph is currently held in a private collection, and it was not digitized properly by the Danish uploader, so a digital rendition was created by the two Redditors noted in the description to improve the image quality (with permission). See earlier file uploaded separately here for a side-by-side comparison: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heimdal.jpgCorrelance (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi, it's the earlier file that I'm concerned about here. How do we know that it's an 1860s photograph rather than a drawing or painting that was made much later? Belbury (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Is there a reason to not trust the source, which states it is a photo taken between 1860 and 1870 on Gunderslevholm? Tcr25 (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination, I'd overlooked that statement when autotranslating the page from Danish. Thanks for pointing it out. Belbury (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
1931 U.S. film. No indication of loss of copyright. Barring that someone can show either lack of notice or lack of renewal, it should be deleted now and undeleted on or after 1 January 2027. Jmabel! talk 17:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, how do I undelete a file on New Year's 2027? Mojo72400 (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
@Mojo72400 Assuming the file will be deleted: This page is categorized in "Undelete in 2027", which means an administrator would undelete it in 2027:) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Copyright issues, doesn't look like a selfie Elfabso (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Don't think so..the account name is the same as the person on the picture. Seems that he asked someone to take a picture of him and then uploaded it on his account. Fluteceleste (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
L'article per al qual es va pujar la imatge (SES) ja no existeix. Com que Commons és un repositori per a projectes Wikimedia, si la imatge no té cap ús enciclopèdic previst, perd tot el sentit Xavicervera (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you @TadejM for making me aware of this issue. I understand the concern about Slovenian freedom of panorama for this bust. If the file is not compatible with Commons licensing, I do not object to deletion.
Abstain It seems to me that the claim that the image is not useful is a subjective impression. The range of Wikimedia projects is so vast that it is difficult to make a judgment. In any case, the claim that it is not useful should be better substantiated. -- XRay💬 19:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Ok: it's just blurry lines. You should substantiate that it's useful if you think so. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
I won't deny that I have my reservations about this photo. Abstract photography has many facets, but this one looks more like a random, unintentional snapshot. -- XRay💬 19:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Before we reverse the burden of proof here. I don’t see it as my responsibility to explain why the photo is useful. It is clearly the responsibility of the person who filed the deletion request—the one who claimed it wasn’t useful. A deletion request should always be well-considered and well-reasoned. So why shouldn’t the reasons be stated as well? -- XRay💬 20:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep After careful consideration and a look at the author’s Flickr account, I have come to the conclusion that the photo is not a fluke. Of course, it would be nice to hear from the photographer, but that seems unlikely. I am therefore changing my vote to “keep.” -- XRay💬 19:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Please look at this photo and tell what the realistic educational use of it is per COM:SCOPE. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
The term “educational” is intentionally very broad. That is how I understood it, and that is also how it is defined in the scope; the photo is, at the very least, informative—even if there are certainly differing opinions on this. Given the multitude of Wikimedia projects, it is hard to imagine all the ways it could be used. However, “educational” certainly does not mean that it is only suitable for Wikipedia. That would also be very restrictive. But even in Wikipedia, there are pages like de:Verwackeln, even if you don’t need a large number of photos for that. I would find it very difficult to make a quick judgment and claim that it isn’t useful. But that’s my view. Otherwise, I also tend to avoid discussions here, as they take up too much time. Deletion discussions, in particular, too often fizzle out after a few days, and the deletion request then remains pending for far too long. It’s more important to me to pursue other activities. -- XRay💬 10:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes it would be good to pursue other activities if you can't make a point. Particularly describing how the file is useful. And so you know: lots of useful files get deleted; this one here clearly is not useful and so far no use case has been described. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
It’s nice that people here usually speak politely.;-) However, I’d ask you to refrain from making insinuations. -- XRay💬 12:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Count of points/arguments you made for why to keep the file so far: 0. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep No valid reason given. --Smial (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete I see no serious sense in which this is educational. It is hard to imagine what would be less educational. I'm not saying it isn't somewhat aesthetically pleasing, but we also do not keep random abstract paintings by non notable artists. - Jmabel! talk 19:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Abstain It seems to me that the claim that the image is not useful is a subjective impression. The range of Wikimedia projects is so vast that it is difficult to make a judgment. In any case, the claim that it is not useful should be better substantiated. -- XRay💬 19:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps I should add my personal opinion about the photo. Abstract photography is a broad field, but you can often tell what the artist intended. In this case, however, I can’t make out the intention; the description offers no clues, and the PNG format is confusing. Still, I feel uneasy about deleting it. -- XRay💬 20:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep After careful consideration and a look at the author’s Flickr account, I have come to the conclusion that the photo is not a fluke. Of course, it would be nice to hear from the photographer, but that seems unlikely. I am therefore changing my vote to “keep.” -- XRay💬 19:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
After careful consideration so what's the realistic educational use for it per COM:SCOPE? Prototyperspective (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
The term “educational” is intentionally very broad. That is how I understood it, and that is also how it is defined in the scope; the photo is, at the very least, informative—even if there are certainly differing opinions on this. Given the multitude of Wikimedia projects, it is hard to imagine all the ways it could be used. However, “educational” certainly does not mean that it is only suitable for Wikipedia. That would also be very restrictive. But even in Wikipedia, there are pages like de:Verwackeln, even if you don’t need a large number of photos for that. I would find it very difficult to make a quick judgment and claim that it isn’t useful. But that’s my view. Otherwise, I also tend to avoid discussions here, as they take up too much time. Deletion discussions, in particular, too often fizzle out after a few days, and the deletion request then remains pending for far too long. It’s more important to me to pursue other activities. -- XRay💬 10:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes it would be good to pursue other activities if you can't make a point. Particularly describing how the file is useful. And so you know: lots of useful files get deleted; this one here clearly is not useful unlike those other ones of mine and of others that keep getting crushed. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep No valid reason given. --Smial (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
This is not true. See COM:EDUSE where realistic educational use is required. Maybe this has a realistic educational usefulness. But the point missing is how it would be useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
URAA does not apply to pre 1931 works. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh, missed that one. We still don’t know if the copyright has expired in Italy though. IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
I see the photo is credited to "Abeni and Company" which I take is a studio. Is the actual photographer's name known? If not, then I tend to believe this image is public domain. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 09:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
I cannot find a specific name, which means you might be right. However, just out of preciseness, let me remind that Italian law disciplines this based on the publication date rather than strictly the creation date (https://www.dirittodautore.it/legge-22-aprile-1941-n-633-legge-sul-diritto-dautore/), so we would have to assume the image was first published at least 70 years ago. IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Speedy keep: Bogus central claim; see source of picture Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep plausible own work, no hits with Google Lens. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 22:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment Deletion was requested by the uploader shortly after upload but file is COM:INUSE at en.wp. --Rosenzweig τ 11:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
I will add this: can you prove The Spirit of '43 was the first cartoon to feature this title card? I can't say for sure because title cards may have been swapped, but Donald's Nephews from 1938 seems to have the same title card. At the same time, if title cards were swapped (like they appear to have been for Don Donald), that would also put the title card of The Spirit of '43 into question. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete as still copyrighted per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Abstain It seems to me that the claim that the image is not useful is a subjective impression. The range of Wikimedia projects is so vast that it is difficult to make a judgment. In any case, the claim that it is not useful should be better substantiated.
.png)
.png){kind=link}
![File:"Pioneertown, USA".jpg](./File:"Pioneertown,_USA".jpg){kind=link}
_-_Everton_Football_Club.png){kind=link}
on_the_tram_in_Copenhagen_1960.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![File:Alaska Airlines "Were Going to Disneyland" - N318AS (8352644088).jpg](./File:Alaska_Airlines_"Were_Going_to_Disneyland"_-_N318AS_(8352644088).jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Purim_in_Tel_Aviv's_Luna_Park.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_numero_178_de_Diciembre_de_1947_donde_hace_su_primera_aparición_el_Tio_Gilito.JPG?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_1919_(ChatGPT_enhanced).png){kind=link}
)_600dpi.jpg){kind=link}
![File:Lambert "Pat" Acker.jpg](./File:Lambert_"Pat"_Acker.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
