Commons:Deletion requests/2026/02/18

February 18

File:Larisa Kliushkina at Symposium Bali 2025.jpg

there is no permission from the artist to use her painting Lesless (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  • VRTS Ticket:2026022110004609 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 19:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
    This is permission from the photographer, but permission from the artist is needed. Lesless (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
    for use her painting Lesless (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • VRTS I have just accepted permission for “File:Larisa Kliushkina at Symposium Bali 2025.jpg” under ticket:2026022410010731. --Анастасия Львоваru/en 19:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • So we had a permission from a painter, a permission from a photographer, and this nomination as a whole is very questionnable because the painting has an angle and it's impossible to restote the full image from it. Анастасия Львоваru/en 19:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

File:IMG-20201122-WA0025.jpg

Possible copyvio / bogus authorship claim, unsuitable per COM:PRP and the procedures outlined in COM:THIRD. The current filename and the lack of EXIF hint at that image having been sent through WhatsApp, which would be unnecessary for a true "own work" but quite likely it the uploaded is not the actual photographer. Grand-Duc (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I noted that the file had been marked using {{WhatsApp|rename}}. It might be worth searching for files with this template and similar file names IMG-date-WA*****, please, which also have to be categorized. NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
@Grand-Duc: You should also add the cropped version File:Torre Torre Huancayo Rocks.jpg, to the discussion. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, it's added. I missed it at first on my smaller tablet screen. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:シティライト岡山 丸山高明.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Yann as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be a professional shot, no EXIF data. Other files by this user were deleted as copyvios. Yann (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Panasonic sunrise rasarit w hybiscus contrails incalea Vitan 4 Oct 2017 (26) - Flickr - M. Cristian-Ioan.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Red panda bot as no license (No license since) Krd 06:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

What's wrong with the public domain license here?  Keep unless there's actual evidence of there not being a real license. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Таллер Євген Вікторович.jpg

Відсутня ліцензія на використання світлини Олег Нікітюк (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Лист з дозволом надісланий! Kuzialook (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Hannah Spencer trafford.jpg

The link given in the permissions field () seems to refer only to the datasets given on that page (You are free to use these datasets, and the data we publish on data.gov.uk, in accordance with the Open Government Licence v3.0.). Searching around I'm unable to find any deceleration on either trafford.gov.uk for anything other than datasets. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Also Nominating crop:

I'm somewhat rusty on licensing, but this doesn't look to meet any of the exceptions to the OGL for things published by UK government bodies.
Oldelpaso (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
@Oldelpaso, This isn't a "UK government body", its a local council. Some local councils (e.g. manchester) independently have decided to use an OGL licence for all there website content, but that doesn't seem to be the case with trafford. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete, the page that states OGL3 talks about datasets, and then gives a list, which seems to suggest only structured datasets given there are OGL3. Absent a clear declaration that all website content is available under OGL3, like Manchester City Council provides , we must assume that it is under full copyright DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete I will be sad to see the article lose the image, but the logic given appears correct. Bondegezou (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per nom and others above, this photo is unlikely released under OGL3. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Culturacolchagua (talk · contribs)

Very low quality, no exif, unlikely to be own work

Gbawden (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Prof. Dr. Dierk Herzer.jpg

Copyvio (declared as own work) Martin (Mpns/BD) 08:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Sry - URV. "Urheber" kann nicht die abgebildete Person sein. Urheber-Freigabe fehlt. Martin (Mpns/BD) 08:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Das schaut nach nehm Selfie aus - die abgebildete Person kann sehrwohl der Urheber sein. Adtonko (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

File:The Children's Museum of Indianapolis - January 2012.jpg

No freeom of panorama for sculptures in the US. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Brontosaurus at TCMI by Volkan Yuksel 7-11-09 DSC02702 PN 24387230 cs.jpg

No freeom of panorama for sculptures in the US. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Monument to Carol I, Bucharest

The statue was completed in 2010 by Florin Codre (1943–). There is no freedom of panorama in Romania, permission from the sculptor is required

A1Cafel (talk) 09:15, 18 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 18:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Monument to Petro Kalnyshevskyi in Pustoviitivka

The monument was completed in 1991 by Vasyl Borodai (1917–2010) and Rostyslav Sinko (1933–2010). There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2081

A1Cafel (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


@A1CafelНова редакці закону України про Про авторське право і суміжні права передбачає випадки використання свободи панорами. Зверніть увагу на статтю 22 цього закону.
The new edition of the Law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related Rights provides for cases of using the freedom of panorama. Pay attention to Article 22 of this law. Berser25 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
You can raise this as COM:VPC to clarify whether Ukraine has Commons-acceptable freedom of panorama. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
 Delete all. Berser25, Ukrainian FoP that the 2022 law introduced disallows media that have independent economic value. In effect, no commercial use is allowed. Commons only accepts licenses that do not allow restrictions to commercial reuses. For example, {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} is a commercial-type license. Ukrainian law is not suitable for Wikimedia Commons, just like those of around 3 dozen (~33) non-commercial FoP countries like France, Romania, Lithuania, and Mali. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Monument to Petro Kalnyshevskyi in Pustoviitivka

The monument was completed in 1991 by Vasyl Borodai (1917–2010) and Rostyslav Sinko (1933–2010). There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2081

A1Cafel (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Monument to Alexander Matrosov in Velikiye Luki

The monument was completed in 1948 by Yevgeny Vuchetich (1908–1974). There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2045

A1Cafel (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:אדמו"ר מהרי"ד מלעלוב זצוק"ל.jpg

Tanana looks suspicious. Without proper license. Without permission from the owners of the image. It is noted that it was taken from the "Urdu Rooms" website. נהג (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:אדמו"ר מהרי"ד מלעלוב עם אחיו האדמו"ר מלעלוב ניקשלבורג.jpg

Tanana looks suspicious. Without proper license. Without permission from the owners of the image. It is noted that it was taken from the "Urdu Rooms" website. נהג (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ampe-kim.jpg

This file was initially tagged by MinhVN1863 as Copyvio (db-copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: help=off Thibaut (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094: I suspect that the uploader takes the file from somewhere then upload it or it's just use for advert, you can see it in the file metadata (the keyword part means: "Clamp meter, genuine clamp meter, clamp meter at good price"). MinhVN1863 (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Esther Mwimba.jpg

It was posted without my consent Emwimba (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Dear Miss Mwimba, it was in good faith that I uploaded as part of efforts to bridge the gap on information about African Women making impact across the globe. This is to help identify and archive African women to inspire the next generation for greater exploits.
African knowledge on Wikipedia is very low and even more surprising is the decline in the editing of English Wikipedia and its administrators. You would notice that this is not a paid edit but a conscious effort to make Wikipedia inclusive and accessible to everyone.
Nonetheless, if you want this to be deleted, then I will not contest it. Thank you. Uprising Man (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Tinkers Construct smeltery.png

the concrete textures are from vanilla minecraft ( see https://minecraft.wiki/w/Concrete ) Anonymsiy (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep. The texture in question is a solid color, which is not copyrightable. Omphalographer (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
no, it is not. if you look closely in the texture, there are slight color changes which are noticeable even in the image. Anonymsiy (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
I removed the concrete pixels. Only TC pixels ought be left, now. Arlo James Barnes 03:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
ok, thanks. would like it if there was a background though. (also remove previous revisions) Anonymsiy (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
mw:help:extended image syntax#Class and mw:help:TemplateStyles/examples might help add a background again with CSS. Arlo James Barnes 08:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Are we sure that the block in the image is Concrete? The first full version in which Concrete was added (per Concrete§History) was 1.12 released June 7, 2017; while this image is from 27 April 2017. Granted it was in snapshots as early as February 8, 2017, but it's not normal that a mod like Tinkers would be updated to snapshot versions. Could it not be possible that Tinkers already had a similar looking block predating concrete. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'd be fine with reverting my edit. Arlo James Barnes 20:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    According to the mod's version history on Curseforge, the earliest build of the mod for 1.12 was released on July 18, 2017. The screenshot was taken over a month earlier, which leads me to believe that the green block is a part of the mod. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep and undo the revision. Even if the concrete textures are copyrightable, they're clearly not the focus of the image and are therefore de minimis. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per Arlo James Barnes edits and investigation by Cakelot1. I'm neutral on undoing the revision. IntensionalLogican (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Syria- two years of tragedy (8642756918).jpg

Photo is not original work of the UK govt as the Flickr description credits "Basma" for the photo – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Lean Keep & Comment "Basma" very likely refers to the BASMA Association, a Tunisian-based nonprofit which has done considerable work in Syria. I say !keep though because this image has a Volunteer Response Team ticket, meaning its been reviewed and verified for re-use via email from the copyright holder (more than most images get). Also, and this might be pedantic, the FCDO template states "content provided by the FCDO" (which this is) is eligible for re-use, not necessarily content made by them. Whatever the outcome of this discussion is, the same ruling should also be applied to File:Syria- two years of tragedy (8557586198).jpg, which was published and VRT-verified the same way. Pinging @Howardcorn33. Cheers! Johnson524 (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
The template explicitly says: "does not include third-party content". – Howardcorn33 (💬) 11:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
And to be clear, these files were not VRT confirmed individually. The {{FCDO}} template by itself contains a VRT confirmation which is subsequently applied to all photos it is applied to. Individual verification of the photos is necessary to determine if the FCDO actually produced them or is sourcing them from third party content, which it is in this case. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 11:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Audre Lorde und May Ayim.jpg

Copyright infringement. Download is not permitted unter the provides source link nor does the uploader hold the rights. ~2026-10947-30 (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC) This is for a draft in microwiki JadenGotLost (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Stgonia Map.png

personal fiction, out of scope Hinnerk11 (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Nature's Beckon Camp Kaziranga.jpg

copyright violation, cf. watermark Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Isaias e Esposa.jpg

This file was initially tagged by ChrisiPK as Dw no source since (dw no source since). However, the photo shows , born on October 10, 1950, in the District of Morrumbene, Locality of Chiacho, Inhambane Province, Mozambique. The uploader, Victor Sinai Ernesto, has the same surname. Thus, I conclude that it is a relative, who publishes photos from a Family album. Please keep NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:WGW elftalfoto (1949).jpg

Bogus license. Highly unlikely to be anonymous work. Way too recent for {{PD-old-assumed}}. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  • The photo appears twice in different forms on the club's website. In both cases, no author is known, neither mentioned. The only source we have is that the team was active in season 1949/50. That was more than 70 years ago. You can also see on the page that our work on Wikipedia is really appreciated, because they just copy our research (see: a form of appreciation for us). FabioDekker (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    In the Netherlands, copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author. If we cannot figure out when the author died, but we have no evidence that the author published the picture anonymously, we use 120 years as the safe line. 120 years have not passed since 1949, so this will be a delete. Jcb (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)


Thank you for your information stating that 120 years (?) is apparently the cut-off point. I am not familiar with that date. However, I base my knowledge upon the following page: Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands. I am therefore basing my position on two points of Article 38 of Chapter III:
  • 1. The copyright in a work of which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt expires 70 years after 1 January of the year following that in which the work was first lawfully communicated to the public.[1912-2017 Art. 38(1)]
  • 2. This also applies to the works of a public institution, association, foundation or corporation that is regarded as the creator, unless the natural person who created the work is indicated as such on or in copies of the work which are made public.[1912-2017 Art. 38(2)]
The authorship is not indicated, but is used, linked, and published by a public institution, association, foundation or corporation. Perhaps you can provide me with information regarding the 120 years in the Netherlands, but I think this work from 1949 can be used by law on Commons with the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} license. Best regards, FabioDekker (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC).
For this to be applicable, you will have to show evidence that the photographer did not disclose their identity back in 1949. Without such evidence, the regular 70 years after the death of the photographer applies. The 120 years we agreed upon at Wikimedia Commons, makes it very unlikely that the photographer was still alive 70 years ago, although not impossible. For this specific situation, where we have no indication at all that this would be anonymous work, which is even highly unlikely given the nature of the picture, but where we don't know who the photographer is, we have {{PD-old-assumed}}. This can be used for pre-1906 pictures, which this one isn't. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

File:וילהם ואלטיה לייחסמה.jpg

Badly oriented and badly cropped, better version at File:וילהם ואלטיה לייחסמה (cropped).jpg Poliocretes (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The image is from a book I received that allows me to download an image and I have permission from the family to use it. I don't have a better quality image, but I think it's better to use this image than to download it completely. Rutituti (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
The nomination is for the uncropped version, we do have this File:וילהם ואלטיה לייחסמה (cropped).jpg

File:Higgidy Logo.png

It is an out of date, incorrect logo Louise higigdy (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

It is an out of date, incorrect logo Louise higigdy (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep per COM:INUSE. "Old" is no deletion reason. Feel free to edit the file description, request COM:File renaming and upload a new logo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:CNESST Logo.svg

This logo is the property of the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) and is protected by copyright under canadian law. It is strickly forbidden to reproduce or share it without authorisation. PI-CNESST (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep obvious {{PD-textlogo}}. PI-CNESST, your logo is not eligible for copyright. You may have trademark protection (assuming you registered it), but that doesn't prohibit parties from reproducing or sharing it. We are not pretending to be CNESST or endorsed by CNESST, so we're fine.
Even if your logo was eligible for copyright protection (which it most definitely is not!), that wouldn't stop most third parties from using it under the w:fair use doctrine. So please consult with a legal expert before demanding anyone else take down your logo. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you @Alexis Jazz. You are absolutely right. We did register the logo as our trademark. We seek to limit the number of sources where people can download the logo without having access to the brand guidelines. I'll take your suggestion and send this to our legal team. Thank you, PI-CNESST (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
PI-CNESST, as you can see, the file page now links to your press room page. So this presumably alleviates your concern of inaccessible brand guidelines. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Cosmeticvalley (talk · contribs)

Suspected CopyVios: 1 and 2, both from Dubuisson website of Chartres. If uploader holds the copyright which seems not unlikely, that needs validation via VRT.

Enyavar (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Florence-Chancery Office Building-1970.jpg

Perché non sono sicuro di poterlo condividere il file in questione Guetta191 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Tehillim in Ramat Gan, May 2024 07.jpg

As far as I am aware, book covers are not free of copyrights. פעמי-עליון (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You're right, but is this cover over COM:TOO Israel? I'm thinking probably not. Therefore, it is probably fine to  Keep this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Cosplay of Master Roshi and Android 18 from Dragon Ball at Brussels Comic Con 2019 (47253510232).jpg

Duplicate of File:Cosplay of Master Roshi and Android 18 from Dragon Ball at Brussels Comic Con 2019 (32535140627).jpg Mikirito 07 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2019-03-03 16-26-31 ILCE-6500 DSC02288 (47306088311).jpg

Duplicate of File:2019-03-03 16-26-31 ILCE-6500 DSC02288 DxO (47424184372).jpg Mikirito 07 (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:NGC 0457 DSS.jpg

DSS is copyrightː https://gsss.stsci.edu/Acknowledgements/DSSCopyrights.htm Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)


 Delete per nomination. C messier (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Cosplay of Goku, Android 17 and Android 18 from Dragon Ball at Brussels Comic Con 2019(46390981835).jpg

Duplicate of File:Cosplay of Goku, Android 17 and Android 18 from Dragon Ball at Brussels Comic Con 2019(40510913783).jpg Mikirito 07 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Alice H. Parker.png

The Images shows Marie Van Brittan Brown, not Alice Parker.

File:Sharon Tate in Eye Magazine, 1969 (cropped).jpg

PD-US-no notice is invalid. There is clearly a copyright notice at lower left of the following source: https://www.gettyimages.ch/detail/nachrichtenfoto/sharon-tate-publicity-portrait-from-the-film-the-nachrichtenfoto/134193909 IronGargoyle (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

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

File talk:Alleged flag of the Rhine Confederation 1806-13.svg

(As explained by bjh21 below, this deletion request is misplaced, but also futile, so please just close it...)

Last time I nominated this for deletion I wrote:

While marked as "Alleged", unlike "Flag of the Confederation of the Rhine.svg" (deleted three times), it is not clear what purpose this file serves. There is AFAIK no evidence the Confederation had a flag, let alone that this might be it. As far as I can make out, therefore, the effect of this file existing is that it is linked by well-meaning people on various languages' Wikipedias in a way that is at best useless (a fictitious flag is presented to the reader, marked as fictitious) and at worst, the normal state of affairs, actively misleading (the flag is presented as if it were real).

This was turned down with a reply to the effect that it is "still heavily in use". That's kind of the point. This flag is entirely fictitious. Where it is in use, it is being presented to readers as if it is bona fide. The use is part of the reason why it is not harmless, and why it should be deleted. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: You appear to have nominated the file's talk page for deletion. I suspect that's not quite what you intended. As for the file itself, Commons has a policy, COM:INUSE, that files that are used by other Wikimedia projects should be treated as being useful for an educational purpose. The point of this policy is that the question of whether a Wikipedia should use a file is best answered by that Wikipedia and not be a top-down imposition from Commons. It's possible that all of the uses of the file, from af:Napoleontiese Oorloë to zh:各国傀儡政权元首列表, are indeed useless or harmful, but if you're in a position to confirm that then you're probably also in a position to correct those pages so that they don't use the file any more. And once the file is unused, it can be deleted. --bjh21 (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not what I intended but I think in view of your explanation there is no point in correcting it. Thanks. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

File talk:Alleged flag of the Rhine Confederation 1806-13.svg

Unfactual flag and is UNSOURCED also has no uses on here. Kreamymate (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Why delete the file's discussion page? Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Because, it is fictitious and was at one point posted there as a fact. Plus, it's not really being used or anything. Kreamymate (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you're saying. The file discussion page shouldn't be used for anything; it's meant for discussing the file. Also, what exactly was posted as fact on the discussion page? Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
I thought that was how deletion worked here. Kreamymate (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ritz1897.jpg

Original photo is public domain, but colorization is modern and sourced from a 2018 publication and so would still be protected by copyright. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 19:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Cosplay of Android 17 and Android 18 from Dragon Ball at Brussels Comic Con 2019 (32364166277).jpg

Diplicate of File:Cosplay of Android 17 and Android 18 from Dragon Ball at Brussels Comic Con 2019 (40510912663).jpg Mikirito 07 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ledro Land Art 13.jpg

Ledro Land is an art park in Italy, where there is no freedom of panorama for three-dimensional artworks permanently on display in a public place. (Also, I'm not sure how "permanent" some of this stuff is, which presumably makes a difference.) DS (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Also - File:Ledro Land Art 16.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 21.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 24.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 25.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 26.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 27.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 13.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 3.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 30.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 33.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 36.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 37.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 39.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 4.jpg,File:Ledro Land Art 41.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 42.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 45.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 5.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 7.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 8.jpg, File:Ledro Land Art 9.jpg, File:Ledrolandart.jpg, File:Ledrolandart2.jpg, File:Ledrolandart3.jpg, File:Ledrolandart4.jpg, and File:LEDROLANDART6.jpg. Other images in the Ledro Land category appear to not be artworks, as best I can tell. DS (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Not permanent, they're donated to the municipality (including any rights) and then left to weathering. Some are already lost. What difference does it make? --Bultro (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
The question of "what difference does it make" is equivalent to "do we have to comply with the law even when it's inconvenient". The answer is "yes".
There was a discussion on the Village Pump in 2023 that addressed the question of "works owned by a municipality in Italy"; the detail you provided about 'donated to the municipality' will probably be relevant, but I can't grasp the finer points of the discussion and will leave that to whichever admin closes this DR.
[As for "not permanent",that actually makes things worse, not better. Most jurisdictions that permit freedom of panorama for photos of 3-dimensional works of art specify that they must be permanently located in a public place.] DS (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
My question was about being permanent, and for jurisdictions it's "permanent" when it's not meant to be moved. It does not include being destroyed by age (in that sense, nothing is permanent on Earth) --Bultro (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
That... is an excellent point. Does it matter if the artwork is intended to decay and disintegrate - if it has no specific fixed form? DS (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Land art Ravenna.jpg

Italy has no freedom of panorama for photos of three-dimensional works on display in a public place DS (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven, it's arguably a utilitarian fence. But I don't feel strongly about it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Don't dirty the estate.png

Singapore government works aren't PD, right? Based5290 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

 Delete Yeah they aren't and COM:FOP Singapore is not applicable to 2D graphic works too. S5A-0043🚎 06:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
(Creator) Sorry, I didn't realise - feel free to delete if not PD. Thanks! Helpful Cat (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gutachten von Magnus Hirschfeld für Gerd Katter, © Archiv der Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft.png

Copyright laut Dateiname mit © Archiv der Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft.png AxelHH (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Simple, formulaic text, below COM:TOO Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 07:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep +1; furthermore: author died in 1935, so PD-old-70. The owner of the original document is not the copyright holder. There is no vald reason for deleting. --Jossi (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
The owner of the original document has never given any permission to use this document in the public domain. Thus this case is about theft! Philip Bengler (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Die hat kein Copyright. Einerseits, weil es das im kontinentalen Europa nicht gibt, sondern das Urheberrecht, welches Hirschfeld hatte und das dann auf dessen Erben über gegangen ist. Wenn diese Personen das nicht ausdrücklich dem Archiv der Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft übertragen haben, haben die ohnehin gar keine Rechte daran, als das reine Besitzrecht (und ein museales Reproduktionsrecht).Aber selbst wenn, wären diese Rechte 2006 ausgelaufen. Und auch das nur, wenn man hier überhaupt eine Schöpfungshöhe an diesem Standardtext erkennen möchte. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep societies can't hold copyright according to German law. Only real persons can be copyright holders. Furthermore, the copyright appears to have expired, and the text is formulaic anyway. Nakonana (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Societies in Germany can hold the exclusive rights of use ("ausschliessliche Nutzungsrechte") if they were transferred to them by the copyright holder which isn't exactly the same as holding the copyright, but amounts to about the same in practice, see de:Nutzungsrecht; so, it's possible that the Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft was the holder of the rights of use of Hirschfeld's works until 2005 (70 years after Hirschfeld's death), but these would have then expired with the expiration of copyright, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Bitte löschen! Die Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft in Berlin hat der Verwendung dieses Dokuments in der Public domain nie freigegeben. Das Bild ist nicht das Werk von theirstory historian! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Bengler (talk • contribs) 06:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Im Übrigen ist die Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft nicht nur Eigentümer des Originaldokuments, sondern hat auch die Reproduktion angefertigt, nicht aber zum öffentlichen Gebrauch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Bengler (talk • contribs) 06:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Das ist doch irrelevant. Hirschfeld starb 1935. Seine Arbeiten sind demnach seit 2006 in der Gemeinfreiheit. Wobei hier sogar hinterfragbar wäre, ob es eine Schöpfungshöhe gibt. Ein Scan kann man schwerlich als schützenswerte Reproduktion betrachten. Auch die Person um die es geht dürfte lange genug verstorben sein, dass es keinen Einfluss mehr auf das Leben nehmen kann. Es gibt gar keinen Ansatz, gar keine Rechtfertigung für eine Löschung. Ich finde den Versuch schon überaus irritierend. Das ist eine Form des Elfenbeinturms, von dem ich dachte, er sei überwunden. Das Archiv der Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft mag das Originaldokument besitzen. Das schließt aber nicht das Eigentum am Inhalt ein. Denn das ist seit 2006 hinfällig. Vielleicht sollten sich die zuständigen Personen auch einmal mit der Rechtslage beschäftigen. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Es ist m.E. möglich, dass die Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft Rechte an diesem Gutachten für sich beanspruchen kann, aber nur unter folgenden Umständen: Erstens, der Text ist überhaupt schutzfähig (hat Schöpfungshöhe), was zumindest Rosenzweig hier verneint. Zweitens, das Gutachten wurde nie veröffentlicht, solange es noch urheberrechtlich geschützt war (70 Jahre nach Hirschfelds Tod, also bis und mit 2005). Drittens, die Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft hat das gemeinfreie Werk danach veröffentlicht. Dadurch könnte sie dann den Schutz der Editio princeps für sich in Anspruch nehmen, der für 25 Jahre nach der Erstveröffentlichung bei eigentlich gemeinfreien Werken praktisch einem urheberrechtlichen Schutz entspricht. D.h. angenommen, die Gesellschaft hat das Gutachten 2010 veröffentlicht, wäre sie m.E. noch bis 2035 Rechteinhaber. Aber das wäre belegt darzustellen. Unklar ist mir, wie die Lage ist, wenn die Erstveröffentlichung erst hier durch den Upload durch den User "Theirstory historian" erfolgt ist, d.h. wenn dieser User die Datei von der Gesellschaft erhalten hat, aber "nicht zum öffentlichen Gebrauch". Ist dann Theirstory historian durch den Akt der Erstveröffentlichung Inhaber des Rechts der Editio princeps geworden, obwohl dies unautorisiert erfolgte...? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
@ Editio princeps
Hirschfeld stellte die Bescheinigung am 23. November 1932 aus, Katter legte sie wahrscheinlich der Polizei vor, damit war die Bescheinigung öffentlich. Sie war wahrscheinlich eine Grundlage für den am 6. Dezember 1932 vom Polizeipräsidenten ausgefertigten polizeilichen Ausweis mit Passfoto und Stempel, der ist per se öffentlich und hat auch keine Schöpfungshöhe, da hier ein behördlicher Standardtext mit Personenangaben vorliegt. Ein Passfoto hingegen ist wiederum so ein urheberrechtlich eigen Ding...
--Goesseln (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Eine Vorlage an die Polizei ist m.E. keine Veröffentlichung. Wenn jedes Werk, das einmal einem begrenzten Personenkreis zugänglich gemacht wurde, veröffentlicht wäre, dann wäre alles veröffentlicht, was nicht gerade von niemandem sonst betrachtet in der Schublade des Autors liegt. Dass eh keine Schöpfungshöhe vorliegt, halte ich aber auch für wahrscheinlich, womit sich die Editio-princeps-Diskussion dann auch erledigt hätte. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

 Info Bitte diese Diskussion beachten. -- Chaddy (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Bitte jetzt dann mal langsam diese LD entscheiden. Dieser Fall ist wirklich sehr einfach zu entscheiden, da die Datei bereits seit 2 Jahrzehnten gemeinfrei ist (falls das überhaupt jemals schutzfähig war). -- Chaddy (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Didym (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Gutachten von Magnus Hirschfeld für Gerd Katter, © Archiv der Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft.png

No permission or wrong license. --Krd 08:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep, as before, and change the license template to {{PD-text}}. --Rosenzweig τ 12:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
 Info the actual deletion rationale is a different one: (although I don't think this changes much). Nakonana (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Again? This was extensively discussed before. Didym didn't elaborate on what argument convinced him to keep the file, but I think that the general tendency was that this is below the threshold of originality, so {{PD-text}}, as Rosenzweig suggests, and so there could be no rights holder. As I described in my 13 February 2026 contribution in German in the previous discussion, it is possible that, under very specific circumstances (editio princeps / publication right), the Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft is able to claim rights, but for this to apply we would have to agree first that the text is, in fact, above the threshold of originality. - But I agree that the currently used CC-BY-SA license is wrong. If this were still copyrighted by the Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft (again, only if it's above TOO and if there is a previous edition creating publication right for an unpublished work with already expired copyright term), we would have to delete it, as they apperently didn't grant a license, and if it's not, then it's PD-text. If the file is kept (again), I would also suggest to remove "© Archiv der Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft" from the file name to avoid further confusion. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
 Keep I am not seeing the creativity required to be copyrightable. --RAN (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)