Commons:Deletion requests/2026/02/08

February 8

File:Sharon Tate in 1967.jpg

No evidence this photo was published prior to 1978 without a copyright notice. The image is widely circulated online, but I cannot find any examples of actual pre-1978 publication. We need to see a scan of a publicity print (example ), or a newspaper, or magazine without notice to show it was actually distributed at the time, not just scanned later for the internet. Many old photos from the 50s-80s, were taken but left unpublished until the internet era, where they now end up on Getty Images, which would mean they were never published prior to meet these templates. Delete per COM:PRP PascalHD (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

These links 1 2 3 indicate that the photo is a publicity still for Valley of the Dolls (1967). Publicity stills are taken and publicly distributed to promote the subject or a work relating to the subject, so the photo had to be published in 1967 to promote the film, because in the contrary it wouldn't be a publicity still. The photo I posted is cropped and colored, but is the same that appears in the links. The original photo does not contain the copyright symbol ©, the word "Copyright", or the abbreviation "Copr.", as then required for copyright (photos taken between 1931-1977). By publishing a photograph without such a notice, under the terms of the 1909 Copyright Act (which was law until 1978) the image went into the public domain. Publicity stills also may have no copyright:

English: This is a publicity still taken and publicly distributed to promote the subject or a work relating to the subject.
  • As stated by film production expert Eve Light Honthaner in The Complete Film Production Handbook (Focal Press, 2001, p. 211.):
    "Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary."
  • Nancy Wolff, in The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook (Allworth Communications, 2007, p. 55.), notes:
    "There is a vast body of photographs, including but not limited to publicity stills, that have no notice as to who may have created them."
  • Film industry author Gerald Mast, in Film Study and the Copyright Law (1989, p. 87), writes:
    "According to the old copyright act, such production stills were not automatically copyrighted as part of the film and required separate copyrights as photographic stills. The new copyright act similarly excludes the production still from automatic copyright but gives the film's copyright owner a five-year period in which to copyright the stills. Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible."
  • Kristin Thompson, committee chairperson of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies writes in the conclusion of a 1993 conference of cinema scholars and editors, that:
    "[The conference] expressed the opinion that it is not necessary for authors to request permission to reproduce frame enlargements... [and] some trade presses that publish educational and scholarly film books also take the position that permission is not necessary for reproducing frame enlargements and publicity photographs."Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
@Enciclopedia1993 Just because it is a publicity still doesn’t mean it’s automatically public domain. Many publicity stills of the time did carry notices contrary to popular belief. The sources you shared are just scans of the photo, they do not demonstrate publication or show lack of notice. The copyright notice was rarely on the photo itself, but to the side or on the back. Commons has strict licensing requirements, assumptions aren’t enough. Here’s an example of a film still of the time and what to look for (File:Rock Hudson and Dorothy Malone in Written on the Wind.jpeg). In the source, you can see the full scan. There is text with a notice, which is below the photo. In that case it was not renewed which is common for publicity photos before 1964. We just need to see more than the photo scan itself. Many photos from the past were only put online recently, which means they were never published before 1978 and not public domain. That is the main concern. PascalHD (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded from JAXA P-Tree

Reasons for deletion request -- ToS change email from the JAXA P-Tree team explicitly says data before February 2026 is "limited to non-profit purposes, such as research and education", which is not allowed on Commons. 👦 03:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Can an image taken from an automated camera on a satellite be copyrighted? A copyright requires human creativity. --RAN (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Yes, since the image came from a company that handles them, which then means they hold the rights to it. A similar example is how EUMETSAT data is copyrighted. 👦 09:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Terms of Service (ToS) are different from copyrights. Automated cameras have no human creator to assign a copyright to. A Monkey is not eligible for a copyright, so, an automated camera should not be either. .--RAN (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I don't see how that applies here. The request is all about the source which these images came from explicitly said the data THEY processed aren't eligible for Commons, at least until February 2026 when they allowed it. 👦 13:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Again that sounds like Terms of Service (ToS), courts have sided with automated cameras not being eligible for copyrights. "Handles them" is not a creative process, just the way and editor of a book, or a fact checker, does not get a portion of any copyrights. Claiming an undeserved copyright has been going on for decades: See: Category:Copyfraud. --RAN (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Épreuve Volleyball Assis Jeux Paralympiques 2024 Arena Paris Nord - Villepinte (FR93) - 2024-09-04 - 14.jpg

Per COM:COSTUME A1Cafel (talk) 03:25, 8 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:First United Building Community Museum

These images are derivative works as containing underlying photographic works that are possibly post-1970s. Photos of private (familial) or business nature. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:33, 8 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:First United Building Community Museum / Pages from Fil-Chi/Chinoy newsmagazine Tulay

COM:Derivative work copyright infringements. These images show newsmagazine pages from Tulay. Photographing these and uploading here under commercial CC-zero or public domain licensing is no different from ripping off a newspaper page, scanning it, and distributing it on sites where anyone can freely access and exploit, to the harm of the economic rights of the publisher of Tulay Filipino-Chinese/Chinoy newsmagazine.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Surveillance of Smoke Shop promotional fliers targeting youth.jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted advertising materials. JJPMaster (she/they) 04:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep. Here's why. The fliers shown in the image contain only very minimal creative expression. They consist primarily of plain text, simple discount information, and generic promotional language such as "Back to School." There are no logos, no identifiable branding, no distinctive artwork, and no stylized design elements that would indicate substantial creative authorship. The layout is basic and utilitarian, reflecting a functional purpose rather than expressive design.

While advertising materials are generally copyrighted by default, copyright protects only the original creative elements of a work. In this case, the expressive content is extremely limited. The fliers present straightforward factual information about product categories and sale prices, arranged in a simple format that does not rise to the level of protectable creative expression. Because the design is so generic and lacks distinctive artistic choices, the photograph does not reproduce any substantial copyrighted material.

For these reasons, the fliers do not contain enough protectable expression to make the photograph a derivative work of copyrighted advertising content. The image captures only unadorned factual information presented in a minimal, non‑creative manner, which is not subject to copyright protection. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Update. The copyrighted artwork, including the cartoon depictions of drug paraphernalia, has been removed. See for yourself. QuackGuru (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
The graphical design on the right (the "backpack" layout) is still well above the threshold of originality. The image is also no longer an accurate reflection of the source material. Omphalographer (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The flier on the right has in fact been removed from the current version. What remains has been edited specifically to remove the copyrighted cartoon artwork. With those elements taken out, the image still reflects the underlying source material in terms of the information that actually matters. Moving forward, just the edit history needs to be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
 Delete. No idea where the uploader the above user got the idea that there is "no distinctive artwork" on these fliers; the left one, for instance, contains clearly visible cartoons of various drug paraphernalia like a hash pipe, rolling papers, and bong (and, for some reason, a gorilla). Omphalographer (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Honored Representative of the Arts of the RSFSR.png

No source provided, no evidence the photogrpapher released this photo of a 3D-object under a free license (COM:COIN). Komarof (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Why do you assume that the photo was not taken by the uploader? Nakonana (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Honored Representative of the Arts (RSFSR).png

No source provided, no evidence the photogrpapher released this photo of a 3D-object under a free license (COM:COIN). Komarof (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Why do you assume that the photo was not taken by the uploader? Nakonana (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Patronangels

Not own works (book cover and two other peoples' photos), uploaded for some patriotic project in ruwiki (ru:Участник:Patronangels/Черновик, deleted now). MBH 08:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Nuova strada ANAS 148 ex SS 131 (variante Località Fangario).jpg

incorrect spelling to redirect (148 instead of 48) AutobahnSpeedChaser (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:ІмГ 9216.webp

This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Олег Нікітюк (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:BSicon utABZg+23.svg

Incorrectly named duplicate of File:BSicon utABZg23.svg Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Front view of Ministry of Education.jpg

COM:FOP Botswana SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Bracken... Lodge - panoramio.jpg

COM:FOP Botswana SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Gaborone Airport.jpg

COM:FOP Botswana SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Botswana Parliament Annexe.jpg

COM:FOP Botswana SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Verrocchio Andrea - inv 130 E.jpg

Very bad quality, water marks, better File:Testa di fanciullo che guarda verso il basso (1470-1475 circa).jpg, File:Andrea del verrocchio, testa d'angelo, 1472-76 ca. (gdsu).jpg File:Andrea del Verrocchio7.jpg Oursana (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Verrocchio Andrea - inv 212 E.jpg

very bad quality water marks better File:Verrocchio Venere e Amore (1473-1475 circa) Uffizi.jpg Oursana (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:J.McGarrity.jpg

Unused. Per COM:PCP. Source and author are unknown. Nv8200pa (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep This is one of three versions we host. There is no demand that it be used for us to host. The license recognizes that the creator is unknown.
Those licenses were not on the page when I nominated for deletion. Nv8200pa (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:BFDIE.jpg

this is not your own work Finnfrog99 (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

How am I able to delete this? Matchacloudss (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
2 days late but this image does not violate copyright on Commons? Not only does this not illegible for copyright, the image doesn’t meet the threshold of originality , and if it does, the image has an inclusion in a Wikipedia list and is low-quality enough to warrant no further discussion. On another note, your rationale is vague, you should consider approaching to adding more information than saying "this is not your own work". RaveCrowny (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete copyright logo ~2025-40355-43 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
 Speedy delete The wooden arrow clearly passes COM:TOO. ~2026-19067 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
is that supposed to be a joke? Wikiman2230 (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
someone should make a vector version fr Anonymsiy (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
It is NOT a joke. ~2026-19067 (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Keep, The wooden arrow would not count towards threshold of originality per the GIMP image linked on Commons:TOO. ConeKota (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
that gimp image is only free because it is free software and has a free license. The arrow definitely counts toward the threshold of originality. The arrow is complicated enough Finnfrog99 (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
gradients are different to a design Finnfrog99 (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Software rights ≠ Logo rights? ConeKota (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete, the detail on the arrow should definitley pass threshold of originality, but it should be stored on wikipedia. Anonymsiy (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Agreeing with ConeKota--Trade (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete The sign does meet the threshold of originality; the nails, wood layer shading, and one of its edges being chipped demonstrates original authorship. RaveCrowny's arguments are nonsense; whether Wikipedia is using it or not and whether it's fair use or not does not change the fact that fair use images are not allowed on Commons. Even if it were, the use on Wikipedia isn't even actually allowed anyway; they had an image at w:BFDIE.webp with actually proper attribution (it is not, in fact, Matchacloudss' own work) that wasn't an exceedingly low-quality JPEG (the Wikipedia requirement that non-free images be downscaled does not mean the image should be crusty and filled with compression artefacts), which was deleted because it being part of a collage of season logos meant the image was not critical to the article and it fails WP:NFCC#8. This file's continued existence seems solely to bypass that decision; if you still want the logo included in the article, what you should be doing is to ask jacknjellify to release it under a free licence. ~2026-21011-98 (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, this does seem to be a valid point here. Besides i agree as well Wikiman2230 (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
 Delete above TOO Dronebogus (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Corbach (2018) Air Strategy in Asia Poplar Unpopular Books.pdf

Already deleted at Wikisource as likely copyvio. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Rationale there is as follows. Source info given:

Translated from the Berliner Tageblatt, Berlin National-Socialist Daily

First published: The Living Age, 1 July, 1935, pp.397-398

Republished: Corbach (2018) Air Strategy in Asia Poplar: Unpopular Books

The rationale:

The Living Age translation may be in the public domain (didn't check), but the original is suspect. Corbach died in 1938, so 1938+70=2008, after 1996, so this was likely URAA'd. [...] The scan file on Commons only includes a PD-70-pma template which is insufficient for the US (as that template states).

SnowyCinema (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

See also similar discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Corbach (2018) Japan and Siam Poplar- Unpopular Books.pdf. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Corbach (2018) Japan and Siam Poplar- Unpopular Books.pdf

Already deleted at Wikisource as likely copyvio. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Rationale there is as follows. Source info given:

Translated from the Berliner Tageblatt, Berlin Coordinated Daily

First published: The Living Age, 1 April, 1936, pp. 128–129 Republished: Corbach (2018) Japan and Siam Poplar: Unpopular Books

Rationale:

The Living Age translation may be in the public domain (didn't check), but the original is suspect. Corbach died in 1938, so 1938+70=2008, after 1996, so this was likely URAA'd. [...] The scan file on Commons uses an incorrect CC-BY-SA 4.0 license.

SnowyCinema (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

See also similar discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Corbach (2018) Air Strategy in Asia Poplar Unpopular Books.pdf. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Banlamgu-pl.svg

Wrong Attribution Licence FussyFossaLemon (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Camilleri recita Tiresia.jpg

Per COM:DW, the uploader likely took the photo, but he is no the author of the Camilleri's photo that is projected. Günther Frager (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Günther Frager the subject of picture isn't the pic of Camilleri, but the man on the centre. This picture come from a show of the writer. Codas (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
@Codas: in that case you can remove from the image the Camilleri's photo that occupies most of it. The closing admin will without any issue will hide the original photo and keep the crop. Günther Frager (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
@Günther Frager check now. Codas (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
@Codas: the crop looks fine. Günther Frager (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:President Adly Mansour.jpg

There is no evidence that this file is an official documents of Egypt A1Cafel (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:President Adly Mansour (cropped).jpg

There is no evidence that this file is an official documents of Egypt A1Cafel (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Already deleted at Wikisource as likely copyvios. The rationale there:

No license given on Wikisource, and the source of the scan is suspect. Obviously the original version of this law (presumably in Albanian) would be in the public domain, but who created the translation? The scan header mentions the Collection of Laws for Electronic Access which appears to be a Greek (not Albanian) database. The Commons file uses their c:Template:Attribution with no parameters to justify the file's copyright, and that template in those conditions says:

The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.

Is this correct or inadequate?

Note: An archive version exists of the original link to the source PDF (of 8594).

SnowyCinema (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Bel Ombre monument files

Already deleted at Wikisource as likely copyvio. The rationale there:

Monument in Mauritius, dedicated to some events of the year 1923. But was it erected in 1923, which is what we'd need to know for copyright purposes? If it was erected after 1931, our keeping of it would depend on whether it met the requirements mentioned at c:Template:PD-Mauritius by 1996, for {{PD/1996}} to apply.

SnowyCinema (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Shakhtar Donetsk vs. Celta de Vigo

These images are attributed to FC Shakhtar Donetsk (ФК Шахтер) and not to Football.ua, its photographers or employees. The VRT permission applies only to images from photogalleries except images gathered from news agencies or image services like Getty Images. From this point of view, FC Shakhtar Donetsk should qualify as an agency and thus is not covered by VRT permission. These photos also were not first published on Football.ua, FC Shakhtar Donetsk also distributed them to multiple copyrighted media including ZN.ua

NickK (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Eleanor Elizabeth Bourne Papers

Already deleted at Wikisource as likely copyvio. The rationale there:

These papers are presumably unpublished. Eleanor Elizabeth Bourne died in 1957, so the generous assumption is that these would go in the public domain in 2028, per {{PD-US-unpublished}}.

SnowyCinema (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Schlick - Gesammelte Aufsätze (1926 - 1936), 1938.djvu

Already deleted at Wikisource as likely copyvio. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The rationale there:

This work was published in Wien (Vienna), Austria, in 1938. So, this most definitely got URAA'd.

The scan's Commons file includes the pma 70 license template, but does not include a US license. "s:A New Philosophy of Experience" [used] {{PD-US-no-renewal}}, but since this was published in a foreign country I don't think that applies. The rest are unlicensed. s:Author:Moritz Schlick lists all of these essays without years.

SnowyCinema (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Neurath O. (1942) International Planning for Freedom.pdf

Already deleted at Wikisource as likely copyvio. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Rationale there was:

The header says:

Published in The New Commonwealth Quarterly, April 1942, 281-292; July 1942, 23-28. Oxford, B. Blackwell, 1942

Again, the Commons file only specifies 70 pma, but does not give a US template. As TNCQ is a British magazine, I don't see how this couldn't have been URAA'd.

SnowyCinema (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:St Athanasius the Apostolic.jpg

Undated portrait; time of publication, creation, creator all unknown. could be modern. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Dolabani visiting the Azakh (Idil) community, 1946.png

Not in the public domain in USA (January 1, 1931) : 1946 is a 15 years gap until it is PD in USA Wlaak (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) 2010 version.png

Ripped off from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pwersa_ng_Masang_Pilipino_(PMP).svg Howard the Duck (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Partido Lakas ng Tao logo.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Koalisyon ng Daang Matuwid logo.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Simple text logo and a horizontal line. Does not even meet the sweat-of-the-brow threshold of the Philippines. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Gloria Arroyo 2004.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Simple text logo. Does not even meet the sweat-of-the-brow threshold of the Philippines. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Fernando Poe Jr. 2004 presidential campaign logo.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Simple text logo. Does not even meet the sweat-of-the-brow threshold of the Philippines. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Mar Roxas 2010 campaign.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Partido Galing at Puso.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The logo is clearly below the threshold of originality. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per Поль Крол Злой Диктатор Walter H. White (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Yorme's Choice.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Lakas Laban.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Lakas logo in 1992.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Nacionalista Party 1987 logo.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Nacionalista Party 1949 logo.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The logo is clearly below the threshold of originality. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
This does involve some thought/design (the actual design of the Philippine flag LOL), and is not just a text logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
It's still very simple. In most cases, such logos are preserved. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
"Very simple" means it's just text and lines and such. This actually involves actual creative effort/thought, such as removing the sun and stars from the Philippine flag. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
This is not a detailed image. Images are clearly considered copyrightable only when they are detailed. Also, simply deleting elements from a flag does not make it copyrighted, quite the opposite (do you think this file should be deleted too?) Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Alyansa para sa Bagong PIlipinas logo.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

i support this, this is an organization! Walter H. White (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Wildcat Rollercoaster 1964.jpg

NewsPlusNotes is not public domain Garuda3 (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) (1988) logo used.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Giting ng Pasig.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Noynoy Aquino 2010.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep {{PD-textlogo}}. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 14:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
It isn't. Kpubkalanami (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ping Lacson font 2004 calligraphy in posters.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Nacionalista Party logo used in 1965.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The logo is clearly below the threshold of originality. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
This does involve some thought/design, and is not just a text logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
It's still very simple. In most cases, such logos are preserved. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
"Very simple" means it's just text and lines and such. This actually involves actual creative effort/thought. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
This is not a detailed image. Images are clearly considered copyrightable only when they are detailed. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Leni pink rose.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Gilbert Teodoro for President 2010.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep {{PD-textlogo}}. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 14:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Aksyon Demokratiko logo 2024.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The logo is clearly below the threshold of originality. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
This does involve some thought/design, and is not just a text logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
It's still very simple. In most cases, such logos are preserved. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
"Very simple" means it's just text and lines and such. This actually involves actual creative effort/thought, such as adding three vertical lines to the "A" in "Aksyon".
This is not a detailed image. Images are clearly considered copyrightable only when they are detailed. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Nacionalista Party logo in 1965.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Lakas–Laban Coalition logo.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep as {{PD-textlogo}} --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 11:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino LDP logo in 2000s.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Partido ng Masang Pilipino logo.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The logo is clearly below the threshold of originality. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
This does involve some thought/design, and is not just a text logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
It's still very simple. In most cases, such logos are preserved. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
"Very simple" means it's just text and lines and such. This actually involves actual creative effort/thought, such as what is presumably a thunderbolt and a square box. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
This is not a detailed image. Images are clearly considered copyrightable only when they are detailed. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:United Opposition.png

Quite obviously a copyrighted logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The logo is clearly below the threshold of originality. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
This does involve some thought/design, and is not just a text logo. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
It's still very simple. In most cases, such logos are preserved. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
"Very simple" means it's just text and lines and such. This actually involves actual creative effort/thought, such superimposing "1" into UNO (UNO meaning "first"). There's a thought process in all of this. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
This is not a detailed image. Images are clearly considered copyrightable only when they are detailed. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo Santa Vittoria Festival.jpg

Zugehöriger Beitrag wurde gelöscht. Viarosa (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Santa Vittoria Festival.jpg

Zugehöriger Beitrag wurde gelöscht. Viarosa (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:ENVIRONS DE LA FERTÉ-MILON, RUE DU FOUR, MARIZY-SAINTE-GENEVIÈVE (AISNE).png

Still under a copyright in USA due to URAA. See ownership history. Yann (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:John Cage in Harvard University's Anechoic Chamber.jpg

Original publication information is necessary to determine the public domain status of the image. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 19:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Probably not the original publication, but the photo appears in Far Out Magazine and is labeled as "Public domain". Sparafucil (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
I believe that Far Out is most likely claiming this due to Wikimedia Commons claiming this. Per w:WP:FAROUT, the outlet regularly engages in circular reporting and should not be trusted as a source. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 01:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Disc dur - Esquèma generau.png

Likely copyvio of (from doi:10.1109/ACC.2008.4587187, which is not freely licensed) or a similar illustration. Contested speedy deletion; the uploader claims to have drawn this themselves based on "a photograph of a 2TB 2.5" Toshiba hard drive" (cf. File talk:Disc dur - Esquèma generau.png), but this seems improbable given that the drawing is clearly of a 3.5" IDE hard drive. Moreover, the diagram is far too similar to the source to be coincidence - e.g. both images depict the pivot as four concentric ovals, and depict identical nonessential features like notches and indentations along the right side of the drive. Omphalographer (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Copy of first answer to Omphalographer:
Hello, the two images are similar because, in both cases, they depict a hard disk viewed from approximately the same angle, with the read head positioned on the disk. However, this is not a derivative work of the image mentioned by Omphalographer. Three arguments support this point:
  • I took a photograph of a 2TB 2.5" Toshiba hard drive. I no longer have the model shown in the photo, but I found another hard drive of this type on E-bay ("Toshiba 2TB 2.5" Internal HDD Hard Disk Drive 9.5mm SATA 6GB 128MB Cache PS4 PC" [1]). The product specifications indicate a production date of January 26, 2020 (in the photo showing the label affixed to the back of the product), which is hardly compatible with an imitation of a 2008 diagram.
  • the version of the disk shown in the allegedly copied image and in the contested image is not exactly the same. A difference can be seen at the level of the drive spindle. Some differences can also be observed in the upper part: straight lines in the contested image, and a series of small dots in the allegedly copied image.
  • the allegedly copied image and the contested image do not share the same shadow patterns. This is explained by the fact that the contested image is the result of a photograph I took. I had to deal with shadowed areas, an issue that does not arise in the allegedly copied image, which is a diagram.

In my view, the image allegedly copied is a generic “Winchester” hard drive diagram, not an actual model. Consequently, in accordance with the “Contestation” section, I will withdraw the request for speedy deletion, but I remain open to any discussion should further clarification be needed. Best regards, --Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

As noted above, this explanation does not hold water. The illustration unambiguously depicts a 3.5" IDE hard disk; there is no way that you could have ended up with this image by working from a photo of a 2.5" SATA hard disk. (It's not just a matter of scale; the power and data connectors in the image are unique to 3.5" IDE drives.) Omphalographer (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep A search shows many similar results. This way of presenting a hard drive is nothing original and a non-original image is not protected. (). --Toku (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

That isn't how copyright works. The fact that a copyrighted work has been infringed upon by others does not make it "fair game" for Commons to infringe upon as well. Omphalographer (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
You mention a fundamental principle (just because someone doesn't respect something doesn't mean everyone else can), but you don't address my point. The image you present as copied lacks originality (and doesn't even appear to have a copyright). The research I suggest you do demonstrates this: this type of representation is common, and your certainty in linking the two images seems poorly supported (you focus on certain points but omit others). Sincerely, Toku (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Andriy Shevchenko 2017.jpg

This image is provided by the press service of the Ukraine national football team (Фото пресс-служба сборной Украины). The VRT permission applies only to images from photogalleries except images gathered from news agencies or image services like Getty Images. From this point of view, press service of the Ukraine national football team should qualify as an agency and thus is not covered by VRT permission NickK (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Postcard of Celje 1966.jpg

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: non-free image of a monument. TadejM (t/p) 21:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Also File:Postcard of Celje 1969.jpg. --TadejM (t/p) 21:24, 8 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:International Pokémon logo.svg

Previous deletion request and village pump discussion did not take into account that the border of the letters had 3D shading. This may make it copyrightable. Note that in order to be hosted on Commons, this image would have to be below the TOO of both the United States and Japan. SVG-image-maker (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Following the Cyberpunk 2077 logo decision this is not copyrightable in the US. Neither adding a drop shadow, shading or gradients to a typeface or parts of it make it protectable. All of the reasons mentioned apply here, too:
  • "the Office does not register typeface, 'regardless of how novel and creative the shape and form of the typeface characters may be.' [...] Although some graphical works largely comprised of lettering may be copyrightable, those 'very limited cases' are when such characters include original pictorial art that forms the entire shape of typeface characters, such as, where the work is 'an add-on to the beginning and/or ending of the [typeface] characters.'[...] But the 'mere use of text effects (including chalk, popup papercraft, neon, beer glass, spooky-fog, and weathered-and worn [effects]), while potentially separable, is de minimis and not sufficient to support a registration.'"
  • "In fact, a complete 'Cyberpunk' typeface that shares the Work’s aesthetic is currently available online for others to use. The Work’s use of serifs, blurring/smearing, or other minor aesthetic flourishes reflect only 'mere variations of uncopyrightable letters or words, which in turn are the building blocks of expression.'" A quick web search gives you plenty of options to download plenty of similar free fonts.
I do not know anything about copyright and TOO regarding Japan. Emberwit (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

File:International Pokémon logo.svg

The idea that the Pokemon logo somehow does not meet the threshold of originality boggles the mind. It has many design elements that elevate it above mere fonts like the "Asahi" logo, such as a 3D text effect, several highly-recognizable colors that represent the brand nearly as much as the text itself does, and custom-designed letters.

While it was compared to the Cyberpunk 2077 logo in a previous discussion, I must note that said logo has been displayed in numerous colors, and in fact the color of the logo doesn't matter in the slightest. The fact that the Pokemon logo is recognizable even if heavily blurred out lends credence to the argument that it is more like artwork. Zxcvbnm (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep The image is not meaningfully unique, nor is the recognizability of the logo relevant. Using the court case cited in the previous discussion, the Cup Noodles logo is recognizable even when blurred, and does not use a standard font either (notably the C and O's are unusual). Despite that, the logo was deemed to not be copyrightable. The Pokémon logo is simply too simple to be copyrightable. Nintendo can't claim that the combination of askew letters in this order with two colors and a drop shadow is something they can claim to own. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
'The safest way to apply international copyright law is to consider the laws of all the relevant jurisdictions and then use the most restrictive combination of laws to determine whether something is copyrighted or not. The jurisdictions that might need to be considered are:
The place where the work was created;
The place where the work is being uploaded from;
The place that any web server the work has been downloaded from physically is;
The United States.
A work is only allowed on Commons if it is either public domain in all relevant jurisdictions or if there is a free licence which applies to the work in all relevant jurisdictions.'
In the case of the Pokémon logo, it was obviously created in Japan. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list J under Japan says: 'Japanese courts have decided that to be copyrightable, a text logo needs to have artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation. Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts are also not copyrightable in general.'
I am 99.9% sure everything in Pokémon is trademarked, however copyright is separate to that. It makes sense why @Zxcvbnm makes this specific argument. If the logo is copyrighted in Japan, it means it cannot be recreated legally, and can only be used by Pokémon (so Nintendo, The Pokémon Company, Game Freak, and anyone they give permission to). This doesn't include The Wikimedia Foundation, so it would by definition fall under fair use, which means as a non-free image it would need to be uploaded to the English Wikipedia directly.
Unfortunately, I am not certain enough of this to actually !vote. This could cause disruption for other similar logos in the future, and it would not be great to start a chain reaction from here. 11WB (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. Regardless of all this brouhaha about laws and who owns what on the internet... is there any *good* reason for deleting logos?? - Manifestation (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Manifestation: Only if it’s copyrighted (e.g. File:1936 Summer Olympics logo.svg), which this file probably isn’t.
    ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 00:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
    I have two questions. Q1: Can't there be a 'second Commons' for non-free stuff? Q2: Is there an automated script for transwiki movings of files that are deleted from Commons? That way, you don't have to manually re-upload this file to 116 different wikis (see here). - Manifestation (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Manifestation: A1: Given that the amount of libre free stuff on the internet is negligible compared to the non‐free stuff, there is no need for a non‐free Commons. Of course, you might be looking for NC Commons.
    A2: Due to the varying regulations of allowed non‐free media on different wikis, it would be near impossible to create an automated script, as what is allowed on one wiki might be disallowed on others.
    ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 22:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per the rationales provided by Oinkers and Cukie Gherkin. I believe their basis is sound by linking to the Nissin Cup Noodle logos case. Additionally, I would also suggest a keep based on the analysis made by Emberwit in the previous discussion. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Postcard of Celje 1979.jpg

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: modern architecture. TadejM (t/p) 21:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Digital Library of Slovenia claims the image is free of copyright. Same for other DRs of images from the same source. --Sporti (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor (2).jpg

This 1931 painting by Philip de László (d.1937) was still under copyright in the UK (life+70 years) on 1 January 1996, so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it remains under copyright in the United States until 1 January 2027. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd George of Dwyfor.jpg

This 1931 painting by Philip de László (d.1937) was still under copyright in the UK (life+70 years) on 1 January 1996, so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it remains under copyright in the United States until 1 January 2027. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:William Palmer 2nd Earl of Selbourne, by Laszlo.jpg

This 1931 painting by Philip de László (d.1937) was still under copyright in the UK (life+70 years) on 1 January 1996, so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it remains under copyright in the United States until 1 January 2027. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Helen Percy, Dowager Duchess of Northumberland by Laszlo.jpg

This 1937 painting by Philip de László (d. 1937) was still under copyright in the UK (life+70 term) on 1 January 1996, so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it remains under U.S. copyright until 1 January 2033. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep. The work was simoultaneously published in the United States on 5 December 1937, less than 30 days after its first known publication in the country of origin on 27 November, so, in fact it was treated as an US work. US works had to have their copyright renewed sometime in the 28th year for continouing being copyrighted. If the copyright was not renewed the work is in the public domain. No copyright renewal entries were found at the Stanford Copyright renewal database 1, 2, 3, 4 for any work created by a "Philip Alexius de Laszlo" or by a "Philip de Laszlo" (or any variant of his name) nor any work referred to "Helen Percy" or "Duchess of Northumberland" during the period from 1923-1963, so it appears the copyright was not renewed. ~2026-15276-36 (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Setsuko, Princess Chichibu by László.jpg

This 1937 painting by Philip de László (d. 1937) was still under copyright in the UK (life+70 term) on 1 January 1996, so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it remains under U.S. copyright until 1 January 2033. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Yasuhito, Prince Chichibu by László.jpg

This 1937 painting by Philip de László (d. 1937) was still under copyright in the UK (life+70 term) on 1 January 1996, so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it remains under U.S. copyright until 1 January 2033. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)


Jonatan Svensson Glad This painting and that of his wife have both been destroyed. So clarify for me how any of these two can still be under copyright when the originals do not even exist. Keivan.fTalk 21:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The physical destruction of an artwork does not affect its copyright status. Copyright protects the intellectual creation, not the physical object. As long as the artist's term of protection has not expired, the work remains under copyright regardless of whether the original painting still exists. Copies, photographs, or reproductions of the work are still subject to that copyright. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll take that into consideration for any future uploads. Cheers. Keivan.fTalk 21:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Prince Nicholas of Greece and Denmark by Laszlo.jpg

This 1934 painting by Philip de László (d. 1937) was still under copyright in the UK (life+70 term) on 1 January 1996, so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it remains under U.S. copyright until 1 January 2030. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Duke of Kent 1935.jpg

This 1935 painting by Philip de László (d. 1937) was still under copyright in the UK (life+70 term) on 1 January 1996, so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it remains under U.S. copyright until 1 January 2031. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:David Bowes-Lyon.jpg

This 1931 painting by Philip de László (d. 1937) was still under copyright in the UK (life+70 term) on 1 January 1996, so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it remains under U.S. copyright until 1 January 2027. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo BHTF.webp

je me suis trompé lors du téléversement Pascal pichot (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Cosmo Gordon Lang portrait.jpg

This 1936-37 painting by Philip de László (d. 1937) was still under copyright in the UK (life+70 term) on 1 January 1996, so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it remains under U.S. copyright until 1 January 2033. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Helen Beatrice Myfanwy Hughes.jpg

This 1931 painting by Philip de László (d. 1937) was still under copyright in the UK (life+70 term) on 1 January 1996, so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it remains under U.S. copyright until 1 January 2027. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Maribor train station2.jpg

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: 1950s architecture by M. Černigoj and D. Črnič. TadejM (t/p) 21:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Soglašam k izbrisu datoteke, ki po prenovi železniške postaje ni več aktualna! Shabicht (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:A Ceia dos Cardeais, 1950 - Alberto de Souza.png

Portuguese illustration by Alberto de Souza (d.1961), published 1950, was still under copyright in Portugal (life+50) on 1 Jan 1996, so U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA; Portugal later extended its term to life+70 in 1997, making the work public domain there only on 1 Jan 2032—same as in the U.S. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Elseid Hysaj

These images are attributed to FC Shakhtar Donetsk (ФК Шахтрер [sic]) and not to Football.ua, its photographers or employees. The VRT permission applies only to images from photogalleries except images gathered from news agencies or image services like Getty Images. From this point of view, FC Shakhtar Donetsk should qualify as an agency and thus is not covered by VRT permission

NickK (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Maria Cristina Bezzi-Scali.jpg

The author (Philip de László, d. 1937) died in 1937 and the work was still under copyright in the United Kingdom (country of origin) on 1 January 1996 (life+70 term), so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it will not enter the U.S. public domain until 1 January 2028. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Virágzó gyümölcsöskert.jpg

Sándor Szolnay died in 1950, and because the 1941 painting was still under copyright in Hungary (life + 50) on 1 Jan 1996, U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and will expire 95 years after publication, on 1 January 2037. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Public Domain. 1950 + 70 yers: in 2020 copyright expired. Elekes Andor (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
@Elekes Andor: While the work is now public domain in Hungary, U.S. law restored copyright under the COM:URAA because it was still under copyright in its source country on 1 January 1996. U.S. copyright expires 95 years after publication, on 1 January 2037. Until then, it is not PD in the U.S., so Commons cannot host it as a free-use file. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Szolnay Sándor (author) is hungarian, citizen of Hungary. At the time - when he painted the painting - he resided in the Székely Land, part of Hungary (Székelykeresztur). So the author was at that time and is now under hungarian iurisdiction. US civil law is not valid in Hungary. Wipipedia might be under US legislation, but thats an other question. Elekes Andor (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Sure, you're free to go ahead and use it all you want in Hungary, but we at Wikimedia Commons has decided as a policy that files need to be free in both source country and in the US in order to be hosted here. See COM:L. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
US copyright is n o t in force in Hungary. And it can not be related to a hungarian author and work in Hungary, so according to US law, t h i s work is n o t protected by US law. Your opinion is false according to US law. Elekes Andor (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I understand your point, and yes, you're correct that U.S. copyright law does not directly apply or enforce itself in Hungary. The work has been public domain in Hungary since 2020 (1950 + 70 years, per the current Hungarian term).
However, according to our policies we must follow U.S. law in addition to the source country's law. Under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (a U.S. law implementing international treaties like TRIPS/Berne), copyrights were restored in the U.S. for many foreign works that were still protected in their country of origin on January 1, 1996.
In this case:
  • Hungary had a life + 50 years term in 1996 (it only extended to +70 later).
  • Sándor Szolnay died in 1950 → copyright in Hungary expired in 2001 (but crucially, it was still protected on Jan 1, 1996, as 1950 + 50 = 2000).
  • Therefore, U.S. copyright was restored for this 1941 painting.
  • The U.S. term for such restored works is 95 years from publication → expires January 1, 2037.
This is not my personal opinion; it's established Commons policy. See COM:Licensing (must be PD/free in both the U.S. and source country), COM:URAA-restored copyrights, and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Hungary (which notes URAA date 1 Jan 1996 and that files must be free in both jurisdictions).
Until 2037, the file cannot be hosted on Commons as a freely licensed or PD file, even though it's PD in Hungary now. If you'd like, you can perhaps upload it locally on Hungarian Wikipedia's or other projects not bound by U.S. jurisdiction, but here the deletion nomination stands based on policy. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Cráneos de los presos de Lecumberrí usados para estudios de frenología.jpg

collage of photos, I do not believe the originals all taken by the uploader. The uploader seems to have continued problems with giving sources for their uploads. Unless this can be acurately sourced and the originals shown to be out of copyright, needs to be deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Supongo que pueden checar los metadatos de las imágenes para corroborar las fotografías. Saludos! Mario Yaír TS (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Mira Ud Commons:Obras derivadas. Gracias. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Geslacht V L Familietakken Hohenlimburg & Styrum.png

I made a Type error in teh Date: 1304 shoud be 1308.The version with the same filename but .jpg version is Correct ! VanlmugH (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Stanislawa de Karlowska Berkeley Square ca.1935.jpg

Stanisława de Karłowska (d.1952)’s painting, created c.1935, was under copyright in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1996 (life+70 term in force), therefore its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it remains protected for 95 years from publication (until 1 January 2031). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Felix Araújo Neto (talk · contribs)

These newspaper clippings are almost certainly copyrighted. In the unlikely event that they really are "own work", this needs to go through COM:VRT to clarify permission. Based on account name, these may have been uploaded by the subject of the photo, who of course would not own the copyrights.

Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:G D H Cole by Stella Bowen.jpg

The portrait painting by Stella Bowen (died 1947), assumed published in the United Kingdom (or Australia) in 1945, would have been still under copyright in the both these countries on 1 January 1996, resulting in URAA restoration in the US with a term of 95 years from publication, making it public domain on 1 January 2041. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This portrait of an English political theorist was painted and published by an Australian artist in the UK, and it is in a British museum. The painting will be of interest mainly to users from Europe and Australia, where it is public domain. It has no connection with the USA. Keep. -- Entopos (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
@Entopos: while the image may be of primary interest to users in Europe and Australia where it's public domain, Wikimedia Commons policy requires that all hosted files be free (public domain or freely licensed) in both the source country and the United States, regardless of the work's connections or audience. As outlined in the nomination, URAA restoration means this isn't PD in the US until 2041. See Commons:Licensing for details. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Spanberger first 12 EOs.pdf

File is superseded by the EOs in Category:Executive Orders of Virginia Packer1028 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Enzo Avitabile La gente di Napoli - Humans of Naples 2021.png

File vecchio di anni.va aggiornato con una nuova e recente fotografia Ioleblond (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

La richiesta di cancellazione File vecchio di anni.va aggiornato con una nuova e recente fotografia a mio parere non è un motivo sufficiente per la richiesta. Chiedo all'utente Arrow303 una conferma, grazie. Freddiev600 Freddiev600 (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
@Freddiev600 Infatti non lo è.
  •  Speedy keep, no valid reason for deleting, LicenseReview passed and also COM:INUSE
Arrow303 (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

l autore vorrebbe inserire una foto piu recente Ioleblond (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Non c'è nessun problema. Questo però non significa che tutte le foto "vecchie" debbano essere cancellate. Semplicemente basta che l'autore (o chiunque ne abbia i diritti) inserisca una foto aggiornata. Freddiev600 (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Ciao @Ioleblond, due cose: in linea di massima va bene aggiornare una foto su Wikipedia con una più recente del soggetto ma in assoluto non esiste un diritto dei biografati a scegliere le fotografie usate sulle pagine, né in generale a far cancellare fotografie se hanno una licenza valida, trattandosi di personaggi dello spettacolo. Detto questo, rispetto a File:Avitabile Enzo 2026.jpg, visto che si tratta di fotografia professionale con watermark, occorre inviare una mail di autorizzazione a permissions-it@wikimedia.org per confermare che il tuo caricamento è riconducibile allo studio fotografico. Da ultimo, se hai ricevuto commissioni devi seguire it:WP:CSC e it:WP:COI, grazie. --Arrow303 (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:1942 William Temple Philip De Laszlo.jpg

This 1934 painting by Philip de László (d. 1937) was still under copyright in the UK (life+70 term) on 1 January 1996, so its U.S. copyright was restored under the URAA and it remains under U.S. copyright until 1 January 2030. Keivan.fTalk 21:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The file was uploaded pre-2012, hence falls under {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} (i.e. Commons looks the other way...). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Oops. My bad. I just noticed it in the list of deletion requests and it was missing a nomination page which is why I went ahead and created it. I'd have no problem if it were to be closed now. Keivan.fTalk 22:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Category:Commons pages with broken file links