Commons:Deletion requests/2026/05/16

May 16

Commons:Deletion requests/File:14h06min de 16 de maio de 2026.jpg

File:Guardia Variaga X secolo alta uniforme.png

COM:AIIP Dronebogus (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Disclosure removed from Italian Wikipedia Dronebogus (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Also, I don’t think AIIP applies but it’s still low quality pseudo-historical slop Dronebogus (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Image of Prophet Mani.jpg

COM:AIIP Dronebogus (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Marius-monnier---a-quatre-vingt-dix-mille-lieues-de-la-terre-1906 (page 44 crop) derived AI.png

AI slop, OOS Dronebogus (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Nine algorithmically-generated anime-style artworks created from a single Stable Diffusion prompt.png

Unused low-ish quality AI image Dronebogus (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep The documentation in the description, complete with justification and methodology, is sufficient to convince me this is educationally useful for experiments with early generative AI tools (2022) — Rhododendrites talk |  21:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Bang Bang logo 2009.png

This file is a duplicate of an existing vector file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bang_Bang_Albania_logo.svg Kj1595 (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:All Quiet on the Western Front.pdf

The novel was published in home country more than 30 days before publication in US (i.e. was not published simultaneously), so we should remove this book and undelete it in 2041. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. This was published in the United States in 1929, and is thus in the public domain. I am not sure on what factual basis you make your claim of prior publication outside the United States. In addition, I don’t know why 2041 is relevant. The copyright in this work was renewed, so it lasted the full 95-year term: the exact same length as if it had been published in another country in 1929. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
    @TE(æ)A,ea. you might incorrect understand me, I re-write about this in more understandable words:
    The novel was published on November 1928 in Germany by a Germany citizen who did not lived in US at that time. In US the book with the novel was published on 29 January 1929 what is more than 30 days after 1st publication in Germany what makes {{Simultaneous US publication}} inelegible for novel in this book. The english translation is PD, but original german text is still not, so the english translation should be uploaded on common only if original text is PD in home country (in this case: after 70 years of author's death).
    If I somewhere wrong, please correct me. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
    • I understand now; but your analysis is incorrect. The German original, having been published in 1928, entered the public domain in 2024; the English translation, published in 1929, in 2025. Simultaneous publication is only relevant to a singular copyright, not different copyrights as in this case (original vs. translation). As I have said, this book was first published in the United States, where it is in the public domain; so it does not fall afoul of any Commons rule, either. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
      Commons requires what media must be PD in home country and in US. Translation of some work can be counted as a derivative work and the novel is still copyrighted in Germany. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Yes, I know that is the rule; but, “as I have said, this book was first published in the United States, where it is in the public domain”—and as it was published in the United States, only U.S. copyright law matters for Commons’ country-of-origin rule. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
        I talking about the novel, not the book, you should understand what book ≠ novel. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
        • The copyright status of the original work in Germany is irrelevant. This book, represented by this PDF file, was published in the United States; thus, only U.S. copyright law matters. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Agon Channel.png

This file is a duplicate of an existing vector file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Agon_Channel.svg Kj1595 (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Tar short logo.png

This file is a duplicate of an existing vector file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Top_Albania_Radio.svg Kj1595 (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:King Charles III.png

It was speedy deleted twice before at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles III.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:King Charles III Coronation Portrait (2023).jpg. Are we now sure that the decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1 HMK seated Throne Room.jpg is superceded by subsequent information? DrKay (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Gov.uk copyright notice: "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". The source page does not state that this image is exempt. If the photographer is not happy about that, he can take it up with gov.uk. Note the OGL3 licence "grants you a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive licence to use the Information subject to the conditions" - once the licence has been granted, it cannot be withdrawn. (We have been there before in 2015 when the MoD 'accidentally' released a photo of Elizabeth II under OGL3.) Firebrace (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete, the same image is credited elsewhere as copyrighted, and not to the government. The Gov.uk website likely forgot, and too weak an argument to resort to the default licence of the whole website when they aren't stated to be holders of the copyright previously. DankJae 01:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
The Crown has previously been stated to be the copyright owner. The two sources linked above merely "credit" the photographer, they are not copyright attribution statements. OGL is the default licence for most Crown Copyright works:

Crown-owned copyright applies where Crown rights have been secured under contractual arrangements in works commissioned by the Crown (PDF, 0.1MB). Copyright can also come into Crown ownership by means of assignment or transfer of the copyright from the legal owner of the copyright to the Crown. Copyright in a work which has been assigned to the Crown lasts 70 years after the death of the person who created it.

The default licence for most Crown copyright and Crown database right information is the Open Government Licence.

Ordinarily, a photograph by Cecil Beaton would not enter the public domain until 2050 - 70 years after his death. We decided to keep his coronation portrait of Elizabeth II on the ground that since it was commissioned by the Crown, copyright belonged wholly and exclusively to the Crown, which (in that case) expired 50 years after the photograph's first publication.
We now have before us a coronation portrait of Charles III, which was commissioned by the Crown. If we are to take a consistent approach and follow same thought process as for Elizabeth II's portrait, this photo is Crown Copyright. UK Government has the authority to licence Crown Copyright works under OGL3. Firebrace (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
As I pointed out in that discussion, the decision there was incorrect. The act of commissioning requires that the photographer is paid. Beaton was not paid and he retained the rights. They were passed on his death to his heir, and on her death to the V&A, which will hold them until 2050. Whether Burnand retains the rights will depend on whether he assigned them, agreed to share them or was paid for them. DrKay (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
So, should this file be kept first? ~2026-31507-81 (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Meeting Report EE4 SSV.pdf

out of scope Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Meetings report final.pdf

out of scope Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Praveensaragadam (talk · contribs)

out of scope.

Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete. Reports from a school project. Minimal educational value. Omphalographer (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

File:A1 Nursing Bureau.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake A1 Nursing Bureau (talk) 07:41, 16 May 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 uploaded by Poprace (talk · contribs)

Low resolution + no EXIF + user has multiple copyvio record, unlikely to be own work.

Tim (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. More concrete evidence is needed to prove that these images have copyright issues, as the lack of EXIF data and low res could be the result of editing and subsequent uploading. Plus, it is irresponsible to trigger extensive article editing alerts due to subjective assumptions, and greater caution is warranted.Infinty 0 (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Jesus christ and this is why every wikimedia page now is spammed with deletion request, because you have a hunch without any proves whatsoever? Are you aware how much spam is triggering it in thousands of wikipedia pages? Deuwberst (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
wrong person to reply? : ) Infinty 0 (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
The alarm was triggered by bot on local wikis, and that in itself should not be the reason to keep copyvios. If you found it annoying, just ask your community to stop the bot.
The files I've listed so far, like the copyvio images they uploaded before, lack EXIFs and blurry, and are clearly different from the photos they took themselves. Based on COM:EVID, the uploader should prove whether the images are not copyvios. Tim (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Also per COM:PCP. And they did not provide proofs or newer versions with EXIFs to indicate these are not copyvios. Tim (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Merely relatively small size and lack of EXIF are not per se deletion reasons. However, previous uploading of stolen images, as you said, is strong reason for suspicion of further uploads that lack good documentation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
 Thank you. And wow they are still uploading copyvios. Tim (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
So no evidence of violating rules and the only reason is "suspicion". Just leave it. Deuwberst (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
No, it should not be deleted, as you have not provided a direct proof. Just drop it, go ahead. Deuwberst (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
@Deuwberst, direct proof is not needed for deletion. Contact the COM:VRT to give them convincing evidence that you did take all these photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Of course something else is needed rather than "please delete the following 3000 pictures mommy please". Deuwberst (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Added:
-- Tim (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
And? Is it some personal vendetta? Deuwberst (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per nom.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence to support a claim that these aren't the uploader's own work? I can see past deletions for failing to apply a licence, but that implies nothing about authorship.
Nor does the claim that these are from elsewhere really stand up. If so many images are from elsewhere, then surely it's possible to link at least one of the original sources?!
Low res / low quality / minimal EXIF are not policy-based reasons for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

 Deleted, some feedback from uploader would be useful, but here's no feedback, so apparently the nomination is correct. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Poprace (talk · contribs)

Named user is currently blocked for copyright violations. See previous mass deletion request, which was started in January; in that time, they managed to upload all these files, all tagged with {{CC0}}. I would not trust the template given their record here.

Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Weak keep for images with complete EXIFs (e.g. File:Jiyue 07 007.jpg and File:XPeng P7 II MY2025 IMG06.jpg), and that’s why I didn’t nominate them in January. Tim (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
 Keep This is an invalid deletion request, a real 'round up the usual suspects' one. Delete because we (incorrectly) deleted a load of their content before? That's no reason. Nor is 'low resolution no EXIF' - especially not when many of them here do have entirely expected EXIF data.
The claim here has been that these are web-sourced images being passed off as Poprace's own work. Which is quite possible, that sort of thing happens a lot. But it's also necessary (per AGF) to demonstrate this. If they're so obviously fraudulent and the work of an unskilled uploader, then Tineye et al. will show where they came from. Until such a thing is done, this DR (and the previous DRs) have no basis at all. Certainly not enough to support the block that was also issued! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per nom and previous section. @Andy Dingley: File:Zeekr 9X MY2025 IMG02.jpg looks like it comes from the same source as https://avatars.dzeninfra.ru/get-zen_doc/271828/pub_68fca06248bb1640a5afa3d9_68fca069554e831ea56d4af1/scale_2400.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Thankyou, finally some actual evidence!
Did anyone ever discuss this with Poprace? Any Chinese-speaking admins? I'm seeing a lot of punitive tagging here, but no effort made to try and explain our (infamously impenetrable) rules on copyright and sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:San Francisco Examiner logo.png

No evidence of permission on the website as far as I'm aware? The first exact rendition of this eagle, as far as I'm aware, appeared on the March 15, 1987 issue of the Examiner. However, that issue was correctly copyrighted. The older versions of the eagle I have found in the Examiner are all substantially different from this variation (see 1976 shirt, version on 1976 front page). It is possible that the uploader has permission to upload and distribute this under the stated license or the logo is PD, but it is on the uploader to prove either. Based5290 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep if no registration can be found although that issue has a notice there are later ones with no notice for example I can't find no issue from Feb 1989 with a notice on it Never mind I missed that it is on a later page and not the front page or "Published daily" masthead that most newspapers put it on 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 19:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Chivabwe basic numerals chart.png

Outdated Duncan342 KM (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep no valid reason to delete, just upload new version of this file with new information SomeFancyUsername (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Chivabwe alphabet (chichebwe) and IPA chart.png

Outdated Duncan342 KM (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Chivabwe alphabet (chichebwe) and IPA chart.png

Incorrect information Duncan342 KM (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Chivabwe alphabet (chichebwe) and IPA chart.png

Incorrect information Duncan342 KM (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep if file has incorrect information you should just upload new version of file with fixed information SomeFancyUsername (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Fan Bingbing in 38th Tokyo International Film Festival.jpg

我是该文件上传者，该文件上传错误，因此提交删除请求。 Zxcvbnm0916 (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Une tour d'immeuble quartier Casa finance à Casablanca au Maroc.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Morocco A1Cafel (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)


This deletion requested by A1Cafel is the second one. It's ridiculous because it is an old building without artisctic quality, just kinky because it is covered by reflecting windows. nobody will claim author rights for that Bertrand SOUBEYRAND (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Lenin Flag.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Belbury as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 10:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Cascais 1968.webm

This file was initially tagged by Renehaas as no license (No license since) Krd 10:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Олена Дмитренко - членкіня групи підтримки Романа Червінського обіймає Романа перед засіданням в Шевченківському суді м.Києва.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Неллі Спіріна as no license (No license since) Krd 10:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Олена Дмитренко - членкіня групи підтримки Романа Червінського обіймає Романа перед засіданням в Шевченківському суді м.Києв

This file was initially tagged by Неллі Спіріна as no license (No license since) Неллі Спіріна (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Amar benjama.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Materialscientist as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Araz məmmədov silahsaz.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Qədir as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Volcán de Fuego - Guatemala.jpg

Original supprimé de flickr pour violation du droit d'auteur. ~2026-29468-99 (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:MarieDurand.jpg

L'auteur du portrait réalisé ici est Paul Goy, décédé en 1964. Il sera dans le domaine public en 2035. En attendant, si vous n'avez pas une déclaration de l'auteur ou de ses ayant-droits autorisant sa publication, le doute demeure... J'en prospose donc la suppression. Jorune (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete This portrait is not yet in the public domain, and there is no evidence that the rights holders have given their consent for its publication. The artist (Paul Goy) died in 1964. Jorune (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Dettol logo.svg

Not PD-simple - Stylized sword is above TOO in UK, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep I think the logo does not appear to exceed the threshold of originality. The sword is very simplistic and consists of basic symmetrical geometric shapes without any complex artistic design. Such simple symbolic shapes are generally considered ineligible for copyright protection.
The rest of the logo consists of plain text and simple digital effects (gradients/glow), which are not sufficiently creative on their own.
Therefore, the file should be acceptable under {{PD-textlogo}} and previous precedents regarding threshold-of-originality.
AST14(talk) 17:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per nom, COM:TOO UK only allows for simple logos. In my opinion, the sword, the shapes and the effects may be simplistic on their own, but the combination of these elements may have caused the logo to be above COM:TOO UK. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
 Delete I withdraw my “keep” opinion after reviewing COM:TOO UK more carefully. Although the logo may fall below the threshold of originality in the United States, the UK threshold is comparatively low, and the combined design elements (particularly the stylized sword and overall composition) are likely sufficient for copyright protection in the country of origin.
Since Commons requires freedom in both the US and the source country, I understand that the file is probably not suitable for Commons. I intend to upload it locally to English Wikipedia under an appropriate non-free logo rationale instead. Thanks.
AST14(talk) 08:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo Caritas 2026.svg

Not PD-simple - Stylized elements in Cross (top). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Definitely PD-simple. Bildersindtoll (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Bust of Thrasybulus, Map of Battle of Cynossema.jpg

I am the uploader/creator of this composite image. Image on left (bust of Thrasybulus) only has PD70 status and I am concerned as to whether that permits me to use it in my composite image as it does not appear to meet US public domain criteria at this time. Please advise. ~2026-29418-29 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of Chesham.svg

Whilst this drawing may be own work, the Chesham flag design is not. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Edited the authorization, does that solve it or is there more I should change? Burjkh (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
The nomination is mixing two concepts. Is this image own work or is it a derivative work? It can't be both. Fry1989 eh? 17:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
I would say derivative? Burjkh (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Chesham Town Flag.png

Flag design is by another author, not listed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Kept for disscusion ~2026-30980-01 (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Certificates available on digilocker website for download.jpg

This Image was uploaded wrongly Mallikarjunasj (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Armando Bó e Isabel Sarli.jpg

Even if copyright isn't restored under URAA, no evidence why this photo is in public domain in the United States. Copyright relations between the United States and Argentina were established in 1950, before date of first publication. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Question I can't understand what you say. JaydenChao (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
This still (or film) was published in 1964. Copyright relations between the United States and Argentina were established by virtue of Buenos Aires Convention in 1950. If the film was published with copyright notice, and still was not published separately before, or was published also with such notice, this still is protected in the United States for 95 years since publication, and expiration of copyright in Argentina not matters. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
In other words, sole possibility for this shot to be in the public domain under the United States copyright is first publication without copyright notice, either in the film in the whole, either separately. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 18:26, 30 June 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:DMTF logo.png

Doubtful CC license , w:File:DMTF logo.png , Graphic element right , tips this over TOO. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Keep It doesn't meet the threshold of originality in the United States. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Kept: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

File:DMTF logo.png

Low quality duplicate of File:Logo of the Distributed Management Task Force.svg. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo Kementerian Dalam Negeri.png

This file may have an invalid license. The uploader does not appear to be the original copyright holder of the logo, nor an official representative of the Malaysian Ministry of Home Affairs (Kementerian Dalam Negeri Malaysia). The source provided is merely another Wikimedia page, which is not itself a valid copyright source. Although the uploader released the file under CC BY 3.0, there is no evidence that the actual copyright holder has agreed to such a free license. In addition, this logo appears to contain sufficient creative elements (colour arrangement, crossed keris design, emblem composition, and stylized layout) that may exceed the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Therefore, the file should be reviewed for possible copyright violation or invalid licensing. ~2026-29101-53 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:GlobalNxt-logo-final-blue.png

This file may have an invalid "own work" claim. The uploader does not appear to be the official copyright holder or representative of GlobalNxt University, yet the logo was released under a free license as "own work". Although the logo may possibly fall below the threshold of originality, the current licensing information and authorship claim are unclear and may require review. ~2026-29101-53 (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Kamaishi Kannon 釜石大観音 Mar 4, 2012.jpg

1970 statue (cf. ja:釜石大観音). Not in PD, thus out of COM:FOP Japan. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kamaishi Daikannon.jpg. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Weak keep possibly de minimis. The detail of the statue is not depicted in this picture. Mzaki (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
As the filename and the description suggest, the main focus of the photo seems to be the statue itself, so IMHO de minimis can hardly be applied here. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Mainland Greece at the time of the Greco-Persian Wars.jpg

File uploader (GreekMaps) requests that Commons review sufficiency of criteria laid out in "description" box in this file (which GreekMaps created by modifying a previously existing file on Commons associated with Flickr as describe) to justify the public domain tag that is posted in it. If justification is not adequate please either proceed with file deletion as appropriate or contact GreeksMap user with any adjustments that can be made to make justification sufficient. Thank you! ~2026-29418-29 (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Symbol oppose vote-tango.png

I accidentally uploaded the PNG version. PlaneSevenCarHouse (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Fo Guang Shan Mabuhay Temple (Malate)

The current temple building was built in 2008. This means it is still under the architectural copyright. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines permitting photographic reproductions of landmarks of the country for any purposes without needing licensing clearances from the architects, sculptors, et cetera. Also included: the statue of Buddha at the front.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Campo de Béisbol de la FBSGalicia en Barro, Pontevedra.jpg

se subió por error MostoRoi (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Innovation kaizen.jpg

There's no license notice in the source (very likely it is not primal) Таёжный лес (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Toydarien.jpg

Fan art of a copyrighted character Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy delete wasn’t this already deleted at least once? Dronebogus (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
It was, COM:Deletion requests/File:Watto.png. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 19:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Кадр заставки Єдини новини (2024).jpg

TV scrreenshot. Таёжный лес (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:ضرغام ماجد.jpg

صورة لها حقوق  Mohammed Qays  🗣 17:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of Aosta Vallley (Lega Nord).svg

Same flag as File:Flag of Aosta Valley (Lega Nord).svg but lower resolution and misspelled (three l's)--Carnby (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Gangle.webp

COM:DW Copyrighted characters Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy delete this is literally just taken from the show, it’s not even a derivative work Dronebogus (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Because the Episode 1 was released on YouTube before the copyright change that put videos under a non-free-use rule, any models, screenshots, or even the full episode, could technically be on here as the pilot wasn't under any copyright at the time. C3PHAL0BR0P0D (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported in specifics if its just a screenshot with the background removed. Other videos featuring copyrighted materials such as File:Hope Café (feat. Hatsune Miku).webm have stayed up because of this rule. Hope this helps. C3PHAL0BR0P0D (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
If that’s actually true and isn’t a f[oin]k up on Glitch’s part, we should absolutely be uploading the sh[oin]t out of Episode 1. Should a VRT be sent to Glitch about this? Dronebogus (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
That would be Template:YouTube CC-BY, I seen these Village pump related discussions that may be helpful. @Dronebogus any further thoughts?
Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Spudsy’s Logo.png

COM:DW Copyrighted logo from show Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep below TOO, just an S, some shapes, and the word “spudsy’s” in a plain font Dronebogus (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
 Delete @Dronebogus, w:The Amazing Digital Circus is Australian: COM:TOO Australia. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
I think the S is technically taken or at least heavily borrowed from the Simpsons, for whatever it’s worth Dronebogus (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Note that w:File:Country Fire Authority Australia logo.svg which seems simpler was deleted on Commons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Neutral: There Spudsy logo. I'm unsure that should be copyright or not. Ranch9613 (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Art the Clown 3D model by TaBByR.jpg

COM:DW Copyrighted characters Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete - Fails COM:FANART. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:13, 27 June 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 uploaded by FrDr (talk · contribs)

Publisher's name or photographer's initials on photos. Please change for the actual date of shooting and explain why images are public domain in Belgium.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@FrDr: Following the brief reply I've already sent to you it seems you don't understand how copyright works (you don't acquire copyright by purchasing a copy of a work). So let's me precise. Each of your upload is at risk of being deleted. First you are not allowed to claim own work: {{Own}} means that "you personally created the entire original image by yourself" so you have to make researchs to find out who was the photographer (many non anonym postcards related to Zottegem have been published by Editions Haegeman at Cousy so it may not be too difficult to find out the photographer's name). Second you have to find out the photographer'ds date of death which is linked to the start of the copyright countdown (photographic works are protected 70 years after the author's death in Belgium). Third (but it's the less urgent) you must change the date 21 May 2020 for the actual date of shooting which gives you a clue if the work is in public domain or not (typically a photo shot 1910 by an up to 30-years old photographer who died at 70 may still be under copyright). At this time I've only submitted to deletion a few files the time for you to make the proper researchs but note that all your uploads share the same problem. Please contact me if you need further explainations. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2021 (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 uploaded by FrDr (talk · contribs)

These information boards clearly aren't the uploaders own work and the only exception for government works in Belgium seems to be "official act of the authorities", which these don't qualify as. And if they were even created by the government to begin with. So the images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  • These are derivative works, but why FoP wouldn't apply? Yann (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Most of them appear to either be on private grounds or it's at least not clear if they are or not. Unfortunately the user has a pretty long history of uploading COPYVIO. So I didn't feel like just giving them the benefit of the doubt about it. At least not without a discussion first. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
"Private grounds"? Sorry, but it doesn't make sense. If you have some real evidence of a copyright violations, then show it. Otherwise withdraw this. Yann (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
What doesn't make sense about that and since when do people have who nominate files for deletion have to show "real" evidence of a copyright violation? You know that's not the standard and it's like I didn't look into this before hand either. Just because you can't be bothered to doesn't mean it's nonsensical. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. FoP apply. Invalid DR. These pictures were obviously taken in public places. If you have evidence of a copyright violation, then show it, otherwise don't open DRs like this. --Yann (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2024 (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.

EU Parliament uploaded by FrDr (talk · contribs)

Copyrighted building that cannot be commercially used, considering France not permitting Freedom of Panorama. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg. Also, as per the architecture firm's email to User:Esby, any lucrative or widespread usage of images of this public landmark must be declared to the anti-FoP group ADAGP.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

More files by the same user

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by FrDr (talk · contribs)

Probably not own work. No camera EXIF, most are downloads from Facebook according to the EXIF. Some of them I could verify as screenshots from Facebook, I tagged those as copyvio. So we have a known copyvio uploader here.

Jcb (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Till now I mistakenly thought that in the specific case of information boards, (traffic) signs,... the copyright laid with the original designer of the signs, not with whoever photographed it (and as these signs are in the public domain I thought there as FoP). As this turns out not to be the case, these files should indeed be deleted FrDr (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Fangamer sticker poster cards collection by KrispyBlueJays.jpg

COM:DW Copyrighted characters Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per nom Dronebogus (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Deltarune characters are not open source as far as I know. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Per nom. I'm sorry, my good friend. TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Icekingnewminiprint.jpg

COM:DW Fan art of copyrighted characters Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per nom Dronebogus (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Too close to the original design. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 19:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:TVS Music.png

Por que tem dois aí, tem que ser só um. Tvsmusicoficial (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Qatar traffic sign 322.svg

To make way for an upload of the historic version of the file to which it currently redirects. EthanL13[please ping me] 19:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Support Fry1989 eh? 16:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Juan Rangel de Peguero, Almendralejo Badajos, Extremadura, España. Fundador de Bajío de San José, jal.png

Out of scope: this image was generated or modified using AI. If this image is of a real work of art, please upload an unmodified version. Omphalographer (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Altosfocusbajio: If you would like to object to this deletion request, please leave a reply with a reason. Do not vandalize the request. Omphalographer (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the observation.
The image was not created by AI from scratch. It is based on an existing historical painting/illustration of the subject, and the AI tools were only used for minor restoration purposes such as improving sharpness, clarity, color balance, and visibility of deteriorated details, similar to a digital restoration process.
The original composition, pose, iconography, and historical reference were preserved and were not newly generated. The intention was solely to provide a clearer visual representation of an already existing historical work.
If Wikimedia Commons policy requires it, I can also upload the original unmodified version alongside the restored version for transparency and comparison. Altosfocusbajio (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

As the original uploaded, I give permission for this to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquadronROE (talk • contribs) 21:44, 22 May 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:Bearki.png

Previously used on abandoned draft page on English Wikipedia: en:Draft:Bearki Btrs (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Bogdana-kosturkova-70-bd.jpg

Out of scope: this image of a person was generated or modified using AI. AI images of identifiable people are generally not permitted on Commons. If this image was generated based on a freely licensed photograph of a notable individual, please upload the original. Omphalographer (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Priongkesh Bhoumik (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: these images were all generated or modified using AI. If some of them were generated based on freely licensed photographs, please upload the originals.

Omphalographer (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Sittingbourne Kent Cinema.jpg

Duplicate of File:Sittingbourne Cinema Kent.jpg No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:BEEAH headquarters.jpg

Bee'ah headquarters in Sharjah, UAE, design by Zaha Hadid (died 2016). No FOP for buildings in UAE COM:FOP UAE, therefore needs to be deleted. Btrs (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:ZAG logo 2009.webp

I uploaded it by mistake Brasil 2021 (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:ZAG logo 2009 (94122).webp

Due to the error in posting the ZAG logo, copying another one Brasil 2021 (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Files from SBS Star Daily

There is a licensing conflict between https://sbsstar.net/pages/license.html and the YouTube source where the former states that "Content for personal, non-commercial use only". I would not call this outright Commons:License laundering, since both were uploaded by the same author.

The same or corresponding slideshow videos also appear to have been published on SBS Star's other social media accounts, including Instagram and X, without an equivalent Creative Commons license notice: . This further suggests that the YouTube Creative Commons setting may be a platform-specific inconsistency rather than clear evidence that the underlying still images were intentionally released under a free license.

The images also appear at , which states "Copyright" and "All Rights Reserved". The website's Term of Use also conflict with their YouTube uploads, repeating the same copyright notice and adding: "You may not reproduce, distribute, modify, transmit, or otherwise use any part of the Content without prior written permission from SBSi". As SBS Star Daily states that their content are "adapted from Korean-language content published by SBS Entertainment News (ent.sbs.co.kr)", the images are also found at on SBS Entertainment News website which also states "Copyright Ⓒ SBS. All rights reserved. 무단 전재, 재배포 및 AI학습 이용 금지" and similarly repeated on their Term of Use as well.

Given these conflicting licensing notices, the YouTube Creative Commons marking is not sufficient by itself to remove significant doubt about whether the still images were validly and intentionally released under a free license. Per COM:PRP, where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file, it should be deleted.— Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 21:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC) edited 12:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC) edited 08:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: I asked about this channel at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2026/04#SBS Star YouTube channel and received a response from User:Jmabel. — Wracking ( talk / contribs / uploads ) 21:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
for completeness, here are other files uploaded from the same channel: — Wracking ( talk / contribs / uploads ) 21:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
 Info: moved from Commons:Deletion requests/File:2026-05-12 Park Eun-bin at The Wonderfools event 03.jpg — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep - The less restrictive license they've specifically released it under on Youtube would override whatever generalized license they state separately on their website. The Creative Commons license is non-revokable, and they continue to upload videos released under the CC license to this day.
The channel is legitimate, and they haven't said it was a mistake (as was what happened in the Vogue Taiwan case), and they continue to release the images under CC license to this day. There's no reason to believe they have any problem with the licensing. RachelTensions (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
 Keep：Please refer to this case Commons:Deletion requests/Files from SBS Radio，The final result was an agreement to retain it. Although the reasons for the two cases are different, I believe the starting point is the same, and it was proposed by the same person. Loveuu23 (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
@Loveuu23 Per COM:NPA, comments should address the content and evidence, not the contributor. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
@Paper9oll：Please do not accuse others of wrongdoing! I am merely providing a precedent for other editors to refer to, and pointing out the connection between the two. If you believe your evidence is sound, you should not regard others' opinions as personal attacks. Loveuu23 (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
@Loveuu23 No accusation was intended. I objected only to the part referring to the nomination being "proposed by the same person", because that comments on the contributor rather than the licensing evidence. The prior SBS Radio discussion may be cited as a precedent if its facts are comparable, but my identity or perceived motive is not relevant to whether these specific files satisfy Commons licensing requirements. Please keep the discussion focused on the files, sources, licensing notices, and COM:PRP. If further comments continue to focus on my motive and/or conduct rather than the licensing issue, I will seek uninvolved administrator input. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
@Paper9oll：Your remarks above already contained accusations and threats, rather than focusing on the facts I was merely providing for reference. However, I do not wish to dwell on this matter and will not respond further to your rash words and actions. Loveuu23 (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
 Info: SBS Star has been notified by email regarding this licensing discussion and asked whether the Creative Commons license on the relevant YouTube upload(s) was applied intentionally to the still images shown in the videos, or whether it was applied in error. Per COM:PRP, where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file, it should be deleted. Given the conflicting licensing notices, I do not think it is responsible or consistent with due care to treat the files as freely licensed unless there is clear confirmation that the still images were intentionally released under a free license. If any editor believes the files should be kept despite this uncertainty, they should be prepared to explain why doing so would not create copyright risk for the Wikimedia Foundation, Commons reusers, or editors. If a response is received from SBS Star during the discussion period, I'll forward it to VRT for verification and handling. I may also consider seeking further guidance from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team if necessary. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
If any editor believes the files should be kept despite this uncertainty, they should be prepared to explain why doing so would not create copyright risk for the Wikimedia Foundation, Commons reusers, or editors.
This has already been explained. The license is legitimate, as Creative Commons license is irrevocable and would override any other more restrictive licenses stated elsewhere. Keeping these files would not create copyright risk because once an image is released under a CC license, it cannot be revoked.
SBS has specifically selected the option to license this content under CC licenses and, absent any indication from SBS that there were hundreds of licensing errors here and all this content, spread over hundreds of videos and several years of uploads, were in fact not meant to be freely licensed, there is no other credible reason to invoke COM:PRP. RachelTensions (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
The repeated assertion that "the license is valid" or that "Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable" does not answer the concern raised here. Irrevocability only matters after a valid license has been granted. It does not prove that the YouTube CC setting was a valid and intentional free-license grant for the underlying still images.
The issue is not whether SBS can later revoke a valid CC license because it changed its mind. The issue is whether the still images were ever validly and intentionally released under that license in the first place, given that the same images appear on SBS Star and SBS Entertainment News under restrictive copyright notices, SBS/SBSi terms restrict reproduction and redistribution without written permission, and corresponding posts on Instagram and X do not carry an equivalent free-license notice.
Simply repeating "the license is valid" assumes the very point in dispute. Under COM:PRP, the question is whether there is significant doubt about the freedom of the files. In my view, these conflicting SBS-controlled sources create that doubt unless SBS confirms that the YouTube CC setting was intended to apply to the still images themselves. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
"f any editor believes the files should be kept despite this uncertainty, they should be prepared to explain why doing so would not create copyright risk for the Wikimedia Foundation, Commons reusers, or editors."
Because the license is valid Trade (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
The repeated assertion that "the license is valid" or that "Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable" does not answer the concern raised here. Irrevocability only matters after a valid license has been granted. It does not prove that the YouTube CC setting was a valid and intentional free-license grant for the underlying still images.
The issue is not whether SBS can later revoke a valid CC license because it changed its mind. The issue is whether the still images were ever validly and intentionally released under that license in the first place, given that the same images appear on SBS Star and SBS Entertainment News under restrictive copyright notices, SBS/SBSi terms restrict reproduction and redistribution without written permission, and corresponding posts on Instagram and X do not carry an equivalent free-license notice.
Simply repeating "the license is valid" assumes the very point in dispute. Under COM:PRP, the question is whether there is significant doubt about the freedom of the files. In my view, these conflicting SBS-controlled sources create that doubt unless SBS confirms that the YouTube CC setting was intended to apply to the still images themselves. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep TheYouTube CCY license is irrevocable. SBS Står Daily will not and absolutely should not under any circumstances get special treatment--Trade (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep They can release their photos however they want; under CC on YouTube, and all rights reserved on their official site.--Namoroka (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2026 BY Geologie des Mühlsteinbruchs Massenricht.jpg

Dewiki doesn’t allow AI images, so INUSE is invalid here Dronebogus (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Realistically useful for an educational purpose:
Gemäß dem Geltungsbereich des Commons-Projekts sollten nur Medien, die realistischerweise für einen Bildungszweck nützlich sind, auf Commons gehostet werden.Grundlage war eine einfache Strichzeichnung ohne hohen Schöpfungswert. Die KI-Hilfestellung wurden wesentlich händisch mit Adobe Photoshop bearbeitet und die Texte ergänzt. Es sind keine Kunstwerke oder schutzbedürftiges Bildmaterial verwendet worden. Die Grafik ist wichtig zur Erklärung des Wikipedia-Artikels.
Deshalb: Nicht löschen! ManfRomeoWohlfahrt (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:DALL-E- Oil painting of Self-portrait of a Mocker by painter Joseph Ducreux, the painting's subject talking to a smartphone.jpg

COM:AIIP Dronebogus (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Contorsioniste Miss Jenny - ALIJN 2007-021-077.tif

No free license at source, the source states that the copyright situation has not been evaluated. Too recent for e.g. {{PD-old-assumed}}. Unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Rebel & Ariel.jpg

COM:PORN LevandeMänniska (talk), 21:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Fjiaospoas (talk · contribs)

COM:NUDE ‒ Commons is no place for exhibitionism

LevandeMänniska (talk), 21:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

These are naturist photos not exhibitionist ones. They are non sexual and in nature. If you look up naturist in commons you will see there are other similar photos uploaded by other users. Fjiaospoas (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
 Speedy delete f10 Dronebogus (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
 Keep - legitimate photos of nudist/naturist lifestyle, interesting outdoor settings, & of decent quality & resolution. ALSO: the nominating user not only FAILED to provide a valid rationale, but "laid bare" their own personal biases in the nom., both in their comment, & in doing this as a "batch" dr. (of literally EVERY FILE uploaded by the user in question) re: 'exhibitionsim'. Lx 121 (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
AND the nominator's "cited quote" - 'COM:NUDE ‒ Commons is no place for exhibitionism' - DOES NOT EXIST in the actual policy text they cited. Lx 121 (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Nude male in seiza position.jpg

Commons is not the place for exhibitionism LevandeMänniska (talk), 22:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Bender Sumo.jpg

I guess COM:FOP Luxembourg comes in to play here, so we can't keep this.. Btrs (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by CastaGymnos (talk · contribs)

Commons is not the place for exhibitionism

LevandeMänniska (talk), 22:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If this were a photo of a woman, the accusation would not be made. There is nothing pornographic here. It is an aesthetic old photograph that was enhanced with AI, especially the face. CastaGymnos (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
File:Nude woman along a river.jpg
Why isn’t this image being deleted? Why is this not considered exhibitionism? CastaGymnos (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
COM:INUSE. ― 解浪(/hɛ.ɾaŋ/) (U/T/C/CA) 07:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of Slovenia (accurate colors).svg

It is not important Dmdjdu (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Slovenia (accurate colors).svg

It is not important Dmdjdu (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

File:South-Korea-Ferry-Sewol-sinking.jpg

This photograph doesn't fall into any of the categories listed under {{PD-KoreaGov}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Replaced with {{KOGL Type 1}}. IShowSammy (discussion | contributions) 14:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
 Comment - The original uploader has provided no proof that this image was taken by the Korean government, nor released under this license. I have blocked the uploader for a week for playing fast and loose with copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Possibly photographed by Korea Coast Guard, but no evidance that this was released under KOGL Type 1.--Namoroka (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
It is a screenshot of the video. See 00m 23s--Namoroka (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
 Keep - According to the South Korean Copyright Act, under Article 24-2, "A work produced on business and already made public by the State or a local government, or a work of which the author's property right is owned in its entirety by the State or a local government under a contract, may be used without permission." This essentially explains that works provided from the Korean Coast Guard, which is a government agency, are free without any permission. Therefore, there should be a broader and clearer consensus to conclude this DR here. IShowSammy (discussion | contributions) 23:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, we already have {{South Korea-Gov}} for Artice 24-2, but there should be an explicit copyright statement from the government. Copyright policy of Korea Coast Guard "단, 자유이용이 가능한 자료는 공공저작물 자유이용허락 표시기준(공공누리,KOGL) 제 1유형으로써, 공공누리 제 1유형 OPEN 표시가 부착된 저작물에 한하여 자유이용이 가능합니다." --Namoroka (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Pinging @Namoroka Okay, I see now. Is {{KOGL Type 1}} aplicable to this? IShowSammy (discussion | contributions) 06:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
I didn't receive the ping properly. The answer is no. They have never released this specific photo/footage under KOGL Type 1.--Namoroka (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)