Data:Valley Metro Rail.map

This map file is unused after having it get replaced by Data:Valley Metro Rail & Streetcar.map. Sorry for doing it this way, Commons doesn't let me place an SD G7 template and follow the normal procedure on map files like these, so I'm hoping that I can manually post it here. Thanks! OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy delete per above, Special:Diff/1250859707, and COM:CSD#G7. The talk page Data talk:Valley Metro Rail.map, too.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by SimplyLouis27 (talk · contribs)

Possibly above COM:TOO UK. The thingy to the left is not simple.

• File:Jaecoo Premiership Women's Rugby Logo.svg
• File:Premiership Women's Rugby Logo (Sponsorless).svg

Jonteemil (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by SconGolf (talk · contribs)

Above COM:TOO Australia which is very low.

• File:PGA 2026 BMW PGA Champs 600x600px.jpg
• File:PGA 2026 BMW PGA Champs Sydney 200x200px.jpg

Jonteemil (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep The BMW logo is not an Australian creation, and is widely available at Category:BMW roundel logos. That's the only copyrightable element here, so I don't see how COM:TOO Australia applies. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  Eventhough the BMW logo isn't copyrightable in its country of origin, it likely is in Australia. And since this seems to be an Australian logo I assume it must be above TOO in this logo's country of origin, Australia. I'm no expert but isn't that how it would work? Jonteemil (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  The BMW roundel logo was created in 1917. Even if Australia were to consider an uncopyrightable foreign work as copyrightable in Australia (which would be extremely unusual), that copyright would have expired in 1967. Omphalographer (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, good. Then this can be closed. Jonteemil (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Canadian Pacific Railroad 1.jpg

1955 Canadian photograph. After 1949, so not automatically PD in Canada, and since it is post-1946, copyrighted in the US restored by URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I am reviewing the source of this file (https://bcrdh.ca/bcrdh/revelstokerail/792020) and find no verification that this photo has a known author. As I have removed the mention of author "Peter Cox" from the file, may the deletion tag be removed as well? Thank you. MarcoD99 (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

if this is an anonymous photograph that was published before 1970, it would be public domain in Canada. The earliest this would have been public domain would have been 2006, which is after 1996, so it would still be under copyright in the United States (believe me I hate this too) and therefore would not be free until 2051. Abzeronow (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi again,

This photo was actually originally published in 1964 in a railway preservation advertisement. As this appearance was before 1970, wouldn't {{PD-Canada-anon}} apply? Thanks again. MarcoD99 (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but URAA would also still apply (and 2060 would be the undeletion date). Abzeronow (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Girrish.8001 (talk · contribs)

These don't seem to be own works imo. Proof of permission needed.

• File:कवर पेज - जीवन पथ के पदचिन्ह - डॉ. दिगम्बर सिंह (The Cover Page of “Jeevan Path ke Pathchinh - Dr. Digamber Singh).jpg
• File:The Emissary Chairman, Atharv Singh, during a World Economic Forum Conference, in New Delhi.jpg
• File:Bharatiya Janata Party Leaders, Rajendra Rathore and Shubhash Maharia, greet Dr. Digamber Singh on his 65th birthday.jpg
• File:Dr. Digamber Singh’s family garlands his statue at Dr. Digamber Singh ‘Samadhi’ in Bharatpur, Rajasthan.jpg
• File:People visit the Dr. Digamber Singh ‘Samadhi’ in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, on his second birth anniversary, 1 October 2019.jpg
• File:The 2017, Inaugural Logo of the Dr. Digamber Singh Pro Kabaddi Tournament.jpg
• File:Inaugural Logo of Dr. Digamber Singh Pro Kabaddi Tournament - 2017.jpg
• File:The Chairman of Twenty Point Program, Dr. Digamber Singh, inspects a government exhibition in Bharatpur, Rajasthan.jpg
• File:Senior BJP Leader, Dr. Digamber Singh, addressing a public rally in Laxmangarh, Rajasthan.jpg
• File:Rajasthan Chief Minister, Vasundhara Raje, ties ‘rakhi’ to Senior Minister, Dr. Digamber Singh, in Jaipur.jpg
• File:Senior BJP Legislators, Dr. Digamber Singh and Rajendra Rathore, call on the wife of Mahipal Maderna, Leela Maderna.jpg
• File:Former Rajasthan Chief Minister, Ashok Gehlot, calls on BJP leader and Cabinet Minister, Dr. Digamber Singh, at the latter’s residence in Jaipur, Rajasthan.jpg
• File:Dr. Digamber Singh, Industries Minister, addresses a press conference after the Indo-Arab Investment Summit in New Delhi.jpg
• File:राजस्थान के मंत्री डॉ. दिगम्बर सिंह की जीवनी - जीवन पथ के पथचिन का कवर पेज।.jpg
• File:मंत्री, डॉ. दिगम्बर सिंह, सरकारी कार्यक्रम को संबोधित करते हुए, नवंबर 2006.jpg
• File:माननीय मंत्री श्री डॉ. दिगम्बर सिंह जी.jpg

Jonteemil (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Xobj (talk · contribs)

Unlikely to be own works.

• File:John Lloyd at Niagara Falls.png
• File:TournamentLogo v19.png
• File:Nick Bunker.jpg

Jonteemil (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:FirstFlagsGouine.jpg

Low quality unused and unsourced diagram Dronebogus (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Desconforto.jpg

Out of scope Dronebogus (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Felminho (talk · contribs)

Low quality image of unclear subject, OOS

• File:Vigia abr 30.jpg
• File:Rastros abr 30.jpg
• File:Quem vai.jpg
• File:Por mim.jpg
• File:Olhar abr 30.jpg
• File:Jaula abr 30.jpg
• File:Ainda não.jpg
• File:Alicerce.jpg

Dronebogus (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Garotas se entendem.jpg

Low quality image of unclear subject, OOS Dronebogus (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep In use on pt.wikipedia. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:HK WC 灣仔 Wan Chai 軒尼詩道 Hennessy Road 皇崗口岸 Huanggang Border 跨境巴士車站 shuttle bus stop n visitors June 2024 R12S.jpg

Too blurry image. Benteds (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:SZ 福田 Futian 深圳 Shenzhen 皇崗口岸 Huanggang Checkpoint 天橋 footbridge passover night August 2018 SSG.jpg

Low-quality and meaningless image. Benteds (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:SZ Shenzhen Futian 皇崗口岸站 Huanggang Checkpoint Station night August 2024 R12S 03.jpg

Blurry image, and can be replaced by File:SZ Shenzhen Futian 皇崗口岸站 Huanggang Checkpoint Station night August 2024 R12S 04.jpg. Benteds (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Muhammad_Sabarudi.png

No metadata, unlikely to be own creation. · · · 🌸 Rachmat04 · 🍵 03:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:A School Chemistry (1924).pdf

Not PD in UK, Oriel Joyce Flecker married in 1926 (https://www.freebmd2.org.uk/6a62d8d88655740df4b771f2/entry-information/155897470/oriel-j-flecker-marriage-surrey-croydon-v2a-p704?record_hash=o56IoD21mwaJgNZ%2BIcCiDg&search_entry=155897470) and a search by the post marrige name: ( https://www.freebmd2.org.uk/6a62d8738655740df4b771f0/entry-information/261545862/oriel-joyce-bolton-death-warwickshire-bromsgrove-v29-p93?record_hash=TCNY1wyi%2FGdJPqA%2FrVezcw&search_entry=261545862) says she died in 1978 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

See also : Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:A School Chemistry ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Weak keep The work was also published in the United States in 1924, as indicated by doi:10.1086/438035. According to the citation at the bottom of the first page, the work was also published in the United States: "O. J. Flecker, A School Chemistry. New York: Oxford University Press, American Branch, 1924." According to Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Five-point test, the five points could be answered as follows:

1. Is the source country a WTO member or a party to the Berne Convention? Yes.
2. Is the work copyrightable in the United States? Yes.
3. Was the work published on or after January 1, 1931? YesNo.
4. Was the work published in the United States within 30 days after its first publication in the source country? Unknown; the works were published in the same year but it is unclear what month or day they were published on between the United Kingdom and the United States.Not applicable, but I will still search for more specific publication dates

I will try to find the exact publication dates of the books if possible. If they were published within 30 days of each other, the file would still be public domain in the United States and (according to {{Simultaneous US publication}}) can remain on Commons. ForeverFlying (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the work is listed as public domain (at least in the United States) in Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/Public Domain Day 2020, as well as by MIT Libraries (the institution that uploaded the work to Internet Archive, linked here). ForeverFlying (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I didn't realize there was a nearly identical deletion request made in October 2025. To be clear, I am not disputing her death date; she indeed died in 1978, so her copyright would last until 2048 in the United Kingdom. Given my very little expertise on complex international copyrights, I will defer to someone who may have more insight into this particular copyright situation. ForeverFlying (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep The US claims supremacy for simultaneous publication. --RAN (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Les harengs lettons n'aiment plus la Russie.pdf

2023 Material from a training course is unlikley to be out of copyright. More precise sourcing is needed to confimr license for certain. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Robots from the film Chappie, Robotics Creators Bolivia.webm

Derivative of move character design. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Foro de Coproducción y Financiación 2026 - Bernardo Bergeret (1).pdf

A letter is typically (for copyright purposes) copyright to it's writers.. Unless you are the that entity , it's not own work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:THE SACADOS Te Pido Más Respeto.jpg

Magazine promo photo or album cover art ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:REV TV Logo.svg

Not own work, Logo design for brand. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Splash Damage logo 2026.svg

This is above TOO for the UK, The specifc reasoning is the Compass elment top.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment – Conflict-of-interest disclosure: I work for Splash Damage and uploaded this file to replace the outdated, locally hosted logo used on English Wikipedia.

I understand “the compass element” to mean the circular arrow device above the wordmark, rather than the four simple corner marks. For context, Commons already hosts File:Splash Damage (2).svg under {{PD-textlogo}}. That separate Commons file contains substantially the same circular compass-and-arrows device identified in this nomination. The additional corner marks in the nominated file consist only of simple geometric shapes.

I therefore believe the two Commons files should be assessed consistently and that the nominated file remains below the applicable threshold of originality. WasteDog (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you submit a VTRS confirmation? Technically not needed if you (and Splash Damage) think it is below TOO. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Withdrawn from me but I'll let an admin close formally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:DAV Sektion Rheinland-Köln logo.svg

Claimed as below TOO, The concern is the plant/pollen elent top right. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You probably mean the plant/pollen element top left (not top right) ;) That would apply to almost all files under Category:Logos of sections of Deutscher Alpenverein and File:Logo_DAV.svg already used the PD-textlogo license. Nordat (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:SG Stern logo.svg

Not Below TOO in my view. Stylized SG in a circle (left) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I see the stylized SG. Previous version already consisted of this, so I thought it's alright since it's just two letters. Nordat (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Presentation of the Azerbaijan Screenwriters Guild, 24 June 2026.jpg

Claimed author and uploader user names don't match, yet claimed as own work, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Ewiger-Weihnachtsbaum.jpg

A 2D infromation sign is not necessarily own work ( or Freedom of Panorama). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep. Seems to be fine according to COM:FOP Germany. The sign is permanent and in a public place. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  So it is! Learny (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:Street_vendors_in_Mong_Koh

Misspelt. Correct category: Category:Street vendors in Mong Kok. Merge. Jonashtand (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Category redirects are a thing. No need for a DR. DS (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I'm turning this into a cat redirect. The only question remaining should be whether this is a redirect worth keeping (is this a common misspelling?). - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Stephan Boden (2026).png

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) 05:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Nein, dieses Bild ist nicht von einer KI erstellt. Es wurde nicht generiert. Es ist ein Portrait, welches in Photoshop lediglich mit Kontrast versehen wurde, einer Tonwertkorrektur und beschnitten. Bodens Buecher (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Edward Werner (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: as with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Quadrille Table2.png, these images are all AI-generated tables of plain text. Please use MediaWiki markup for tables - these do not need to be images.

• File:Quadrille Table5.png
• File:Quadrille Table4.png
• File:Quadrille Table1.png

Omphalographer (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Test Match U20- Italia vs Inghilterra-521 (cropped).jpg

Already exists under this name (without watermark) : James Pater 2026.jpg Arn6338 (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Onca Ririn (talk · contribs)

COM:DW - Photos of photos.

• File:Poto Poto Kenangan Rumah bagindo Aziz Chan.jpg
• File:Poto Area Rumah Bagindo Aziz Chan 2026.jpg
• File:Poto Tugu Perjuangan Rumah Bagindo Aziz Chan 2026.jpg

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by .a.b.d.d.c. (talk · contribs)

Possible COM:COPYVIO: Images of German Wehrmacht generals copied from Fandom sites. Precise details regarding the authors are missing, and the licenses are incorrect. The images may not free to use, as the copyright has not yet expired and is unclear.

• File:Walter Wenck.png
• File:Otto Moritz Walter Model.jpg ← Image belongs to Heinrich Hoffmann. Can be undeleted in 2028.
• File:Generalfeldmarschall Ferdinand Schörner.png
• File:Günther von Kluge.jpg
• File:General Walther von Brauchitsch.png
• File:Walther von Brauchitsch.jpg
• File:Erich Hoepner.png
• File:Foto von Generaloberst Erich Hoepner.png
• File:Photo of German Colonel General Hermann Hoth.png

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• The USA confiscated all Nazi copyrights during the occupation {{PD-US-alien property}}. They restored copyrights to identified copyright holders that were not accused of crimes, but I cannot find what happened to anonymous works. --RAN (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Nigerian Navy Marines.png

Cropped from https://blueprint.ng/inside-the-new-elite-navy-marines-and-strategic-shift-in-maritime-warfare/, compare stitching faults and brightness patterns around the rim. YuniToumei (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Himanekihachimandaijinja 20240421 (1).jpg

過去の版は失敗作であり、撮影者は過去の版（old version of this file）の削除を希望します。 CT-May (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:75 years of Notre Dame College, Dhaka.jpg

I didn't take the photo personally. It is anothers work Tanvir Siddique (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Cerebrating 75 years of Notre Dame College, Dhaka.jpg

I didn't take the photo personally. It is anothers work Tanvir Siddique (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Julius Streicher.jpg

Possible COM:COPYVIO: The image of Julius Streicher was copied from britannica.com. But precise details regarding the author are missing, and the license is incorrect. The image may not free to use, as the copyright has not yet expired and is unclear. Additional note: Not the same picture as in the other deletion discussions. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 13:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Checking the file history, the image with this name previously deleted by me (uploaded in 2017) was a different photo. I don't know who the photographer of this one is. There's some likelihood that it was also Heinrich Hoffmann, and in that case, it would only enter the public domain in Germany in 2028. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Orekhovo-Borisovo Severnoye District, Moscow, Russia - panoramio (357).jpg

Low quality image, all blurred Юрий Д.К. 13:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Fresco de Filosofía en la Biblioteca.jpg

I forgot to remove my metadata, which shows my name. Tiramisu de Agráz (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:M.Seyidbəyli. Sertifikat.jpg

Out of scope. Yousiphh (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Elsevər Səmədov (alim).jpg

Out of scope. Yousiphh (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Tex Randall Statue, Canyon, Texas.jpg

No FoP for 3D works in the United States. Nv8200pa (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:B-18916 (aircraft)

These images were produced in Australia. Australia has a low COM:TOO Australia, by that the flowery logo is problematic. On the other hand, logos are maybe encompassed under the guideline COM:FOP Australia as works of artistic craftmanship, but that view may be contradicted by the sentence from that section "In order to ensure compliance, two-dimensional artistic works in Australia should not be uploaded to Commons."

A logo is, by design, meant to identify a something, so I fear that COM:DM can't be a saving grace, and hiding it with a censor bar may reduce the usability of the file too much. I could envision a well-made blur or, on File:China Airlines (B-18916) Airbus A350-941 landing Sydney Airport (3).jpg, a crop to remove the logo-ed tail.

• File:China Airlines (B-18916) Airbus A350-941 landing Sydney Airport (1).jpg
• File:China Airlines (B-18916) Airbus A350-941 landing Sydney Airport (3).jpg
• File:China Airlines (B-18916) Airbus A350-941 taxiing at SYD, Jan 2026.jpg

Grand-Duc (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep These are photographs of entire aircraft taken from a long way away, not photos mainly of logos. Australia also has good freedom of panorama protections which explicitly cover 2D "works of artistic craftmanship" - see COM:FOP Australia. The definition for this is unclear, but commercial logos taken from a distance as part of a much broader scene seem unproblematic. The guidance noted in the nomination statement applies to photos taken of murals and other artworks, not images where a logo is a small part of the scene. We would need to delete many thousands of images (virtually every image of street scenes in the centres of towns and cities, commercial vehicles of all types, etc) if the logic in this deletion nomination held up. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
•  Keep per Nick-D and Commons:De minimis absolutely applies, case would be different if the photograph was entirely just a logo. Bidgee (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Nick-D: That logos could be seen as artistic craftmanship is something I was already aware of while writing the DR. If a consensus can be reached that it is sensible to do so, all the better, then the DR has served a good purpose. But please do not try to be dramatic ("We would need to delete many thousands of images [virtually every image of street scenes in the centres of towns and cities, commercial vehicles of all types, etc] if the logic in this deletion nomination held up."), if thousands of images are problematic, then thousands need deletion, so be it. Please bear this in mind: COM:Derivative works#But how can we illustrate topics like Star Wars or Pokémon without pictures?, if a street scene contains copyrighted material which inclusion can't be excused, then this image is simply not fit for Commons.

  On the other hand, I consistently get the feeling that De minimis gets overextended in its meaning. The plum blossom is in my opinion too prominent to fit among the examples in Commons:De minimis#Guidelines, at least among the "1. yes" to "4. very likely".

  I would not rely upon COM:DM for these images, COM:FOP Australia should be a more solid defence / excuse. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that is a "dramatic" comment. An obvious issue to note here is that companies in Australia are not demanding that images that include their logos, etc, be deleted from the internet as copyright violations. Street scenes including logos are common photos in online news stories, photos in books, images on Flikr, etc. I have never seen a single report about this occurring, so it seems very unlikely that this is considered a copyright violation. When companies take action for copyright violations of their logos, it is due to images that comprise only the logo, especially where it has been defaced in some way or another company is using an logo that is very similar to an existing one, etc. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Per File:Celtic Class.jpg which have de minimis template, the Troll face is more focused than the aircraft whth plum blossom logo on tail, so I think it meet COM:DM. KMB1933 (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The troll face on the apparel is quite irrelevant to the image of the person; it could be virtually any other dark shirt. The troll graphic could be removed without changing much about the expression, the content, the depiction of the person. That's truly De minimis. BUT: a tailplane logo on an aircraft is an identifying feature (to recognise the operating airline), so it can't be removed without changing the meaning of the picture. The contextual relationship between logo and photo as a whole is much deeper than some random shirt worn by a person. This is not encompassed within the usual De minimis meaning. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Seriously? The tail logo is a small part and doesn’t necessarily used for recognising the airline for your average person. The issue you have isn’t even the main focus of all three photographs. Nick is correct, if these are deleted, it would mean hundreds of thousands of Australian photographs of transport and streetscape related photographs would be deleted. Bidgee (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

And what about File:Olympic Bridge seen from Gangbyeon Techno Mart.jpg? it included the copyrighted fire-shaped sculpture on top and it counted COM:DM while an aircraft with copyrighted tail logo don't even count COM:DM and unlike the Pokemon Jet which cover full of aircraft, it can recognise that aircraft by dark blue, light blue and white livery and "CHINA AIRLINES" text which below TOO. Example: File:HL7646_-_Boeing_747-409F_-_Asiana_Airlines_STN_180725_-_54665557343.jpg (although this aircraft are sold to Asiana Airlines and again Air Incheon and than later AirZeta, it can still recognise this aircraft are from China Airlines by looking the livery on front of aircraft. KMB1933 (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

More example: File:Game Boy Color Pikachu.jpg KMB1933 (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

About hundreds of thousands of Australian photographs of transport and streetscape related photographs would be deleted: no, that’s not the case, see Commons:De minimis#An example. Usually, street scenes are similar. On the other hand, I deem it weird to try to intellectually separate vehicle decors and liveries from the vehicle itself, when said vehicle sports an advertisement or artistic livery. That should in my opinion always be considered as integral, so De minimis can't be applied to views where the copyrighted art is visible in high quality. Illustrating vehicles are easily possible anyway with e.g. 3/4 profiles, you don't need side views, and such angled views discard the notion of having copied the livery, emphasising the alleged purpose of illustrating the vehicle. De minimis is most likely always a weak defence for vehicle spotters (which objective is often to capture interesting motifs, meaning: vehicles and their fancy liveries). Furthermore, even if one would deem taking and hosting spotter imagery for the sake of exhibiting one's photographic skills and results legitimate, that would not inherently mean that it's up to the vehicle spotter to grant a free license. Only showing photos (online) is more limited in encroaching upon third-party IP rights than granting free licenses and having them hosted here.

This is actually a fundamental policy here: COM:Licensing prominently shows File:Licensing tutorial en.svg which unmistakably states "By default, you can't upload someone else's work". To go beyond that default, we would need solid excuses, and as written before, COM:DM is no such excuse if the copyrighted work is more prominent than the film poster in File:A Porsche 997 GT2 in front of Boutique de parfumerie Guerlain, 356 rue Saint-Honoré.jpg.

About the examples given: File:Olympic Bridge seen from Gangbyeon Techno Mart.jpg should be skirting around the fuzzy borderline of acceptable COM:DM, File:Game Boy Color Pikachu.jpg also, but I would really prefer a blurring of the 2 Pokémon. It feels like that the Game Boy is tending more towards a copyvio than the bridge. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Example of similar case of China Airlines aircraft tail, and what about File:BP Gas Station in Tokai, Cape Town.jpg? It have BP logo which above TOO in USA and UK and South Africa don’t have FOP. KMB1933 (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep To put it bluntly, I find this to be at best a stretch and at worst a form of copyright paranoia. As far as I'm concerned, for standard vehicle liveries (let's disregard special liveries for the moment), we treat them as a COM:UA as part of a vehicle. This was confirmed by Jmabel in a comment on VPC a few months ago.

Furthermore, this nomination potentially opens a giant can of worms with regards to vehicle liveries and logos. If, by the nominator's arguments, a logo or livery is sufficient as an identifier to violate the copyright of the company, then should all photos of vehicles uploaded be blanked out to remove any traces of identification like Getty Images?

Taking an Australian example, this bus in New South Wales carries the Hillsbus logo prominently at the front. It is one of the first things a passenger will notice when they wave down a bus and it is an instrument for making complaints to the relevant bus company (so that they don't complain to Keolis Downer Northern Beaches for example). Based on the nominator's logic, does this qualify for deletion as well?

Actually, this even applies to regular vehicles without additional markings as well. The main function of all car manufacturer logos on cars is to identify the manufacturer. This photo shows a Toyota Prius in South Korea, a country without commercial FOP for 3D works (since the logo is arguably 3D). The logo prominently identifies the vehicle as a Toyota. The current Toyota logo was adopted in 1989, so it's not out of copyright in most regions yet. Should this be deleted as well?

These are not questions that should be answered here, a DR with low visibility and potentially low participation (which is usually the norm, although this particular one seems to have gotten a decent amount of attention). Opening a DR in order to set a dangerous precedent on such an untested topic is honestly poorly thought out.

I strongly urge the nominator to hold off any future nominations and start a discussion on COM:VPC in order to gain more insight into this topic. S5A-0043🚎 12:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The more I think of it, the more wide-reaching and harmful this case becomes. This nomination, particularly the sentence A logo is, by design, meant to identify a something, so I fear that COM:DM can't be a saving grace, asserts that basically any item with a logo cannot be uploaded. A few examples: A photo of a 7-Eleven in Singapore would not be permissible because COM:TOO Singapore is very low and, according to this nomination, the existence of the 2D 7-Eleven logo, as an item identifying the brand of convenience store, would make this photograph a copyright violation. A photo of a metro station exit would not be permissible because the presence of the system logo in the picture identifies it as a metro station and COM:FOP Japan doesn't allow that. This photograph would not be permissible because the badge on the sleeve identifies the person pictured as a police officer, and COM:FOP South Korea is not suitable. Far stretched, right? S5A-0043🚎 14:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@S5A-0043: Using the copyright Village Pump? That was already done: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/07#Pokemon Jets deletion requests, with a participation that was similar to several DR about plane liveries. And anyway, I do not have copyright paranoia at all, I've just embodied COM:PRP and COM:CARES.

Furthermore, I still maintain that there's sufficient difference in creativity between a whole plum blossom and the two circles from Toyota, the stylised plane propeller from BMW, the star from Mercedes, or the Kangaroo from Qantas, the globe from United Airlines or Pan Am to skirt around TOO issues. And there was much hubbub about logos in countries with a low TOO or a sweat-of-the-brow doctrine (see COM:TOO UK), where lots of file were actually deleted. It's not something new.

Your Getty example is not so much about copyrights and more about personal data protection, I think. Getty sells its media worldwide, and in countries with high standards for privacy (the European Union being a prime example with its en:General Data Protection Regulation), there are voices among legal scholars which deem the contents of licence plates as protectable private data. So, I assume that to avoid any liabilities, Getty is blanking out anything that could be protected by law, not only on copyright grounds, but also trademarks and private data. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Now I'm replying on your second post that I only saw just now. I get the feeling that you're overgeneralising. By A logo is, by design, meant to identify a something, so I fear that COM:DM can't be a saving grace, I meant to express that DM can't be overtaxed, it's a somewhat weak defence. It has its limits close to the example. Sometimes, one must rely upon other arguments. The logos of 7 Eleven and the metro M are basically typefonts, especially the former, the police badges are official insignia - and thus likely (I didn't check) not protected in South Korea, as it is a widespread standard for state insignia. Do not forget, please, that De minimis is only one kind of (reach limited) excuse for unauthorised usage of copyrighted material, local laws often describe other limits (FOP, incidental uses à la Ets-Hokin for the US) and permissions (definitions of unprotected works, TOO). Only if nothing is applicable, then the conclusion "copyvio" is imposing itself. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

What about the BP Gas Station that I said above? KMB1933 (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't comment well on that BP gas station image. Personally, I'd prefer a crop of the top to remove the right logo (the left one should be OK by virtue of the angled side view, but it'll get removed by such a crop too), but there's some antecedent against this intellectual property: Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices/2019#BP logo (an actual DMCA takedown for an iteration of it) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:BP logos. And anyway, I'm a bit puzzled about COM:FOP South Africa: I do not understand why someone wrote in there that there's a difference between a "cinematograph film" and still photography. Technically, there is no such differentiation, films / moving images are only a sequence of stills. I'll try to get more knowledge... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, the South African copyright law apparently makes a divide based upon the "moving image" characteristic; from the definitions section of said law:

• "'cinematograph film' means any fixation or storage by any means whatsoever on film or any other material of

data, signals or a sequence of images capable, when used in conjunction with any other mechanical, electronic or other

device, of being seen as a moving picture and of reproduction, and includes the sounds embodied in a sound-track

associated with the film, but shall not include a computer program;"

• "photograph' means any product of photography or of any process analogous to photography, but does not include

any part of a cinematograph film;"

Interesting legislative choice. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

And what about File:SZ 深圳 Shenzhen 福田 Futian 彩田路 Caitian Road 深業上城 SHUM YIP UpperHills LOFT UN 聯合書店 Bookstore mall November 2023 R12S 07.jpg? It have copyrighted artwork on book spines and having de minimis template. KMB1933 (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@KMB1933: these sequential questions / problems seem to begin to derail the DR about the files in Category:B-18916 (aircraft). It could be possible that you're building up some references for better assess De minimis cases, but please use COM:VPC for that purpose, it's too much off-topic for this DR.

I thought that we had a guideline somewhere that dealt with bookshelves and book stacks, but I wasn't able to find it on COM:CSM or in COM:DW. IIRC, such a stack of books with no clear sight upon their covers is acceptable. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

COM:PRP requires a threshold of "significant doubt". I'm not seeing that demonstrated here. We have treated ordinary aircraft liveries as utilitarian for a very long period of time. One needs to make an extraordinary case in order to argue that "significant doubt" exists, and this nomination is far from it. The previous VPC discussion only concerns special liveries, so I can understand (although I continue to disagree with this stance) that some people have "significant doubt" regarding their suitability. A livery present on the large majority of the fleet is not the same as a "special" livery. "There is a logo identifying the company, therefore this must be a copyright violation" is not a strong argument.

there's sufficient difference in creativity between a whole plum blossom and the two circles from Toyota, the stylised plane propeller from BMW, the star from Mercedes, or the Kangaroo from Qantas, the globe from United Airlines or Pan Am to skirt around TOO issues - If you're going to nominate files for deletion using the TOO of the location where the photo is taken as reason (I see that you differentiated the TOO/FOP for the two B-18007 DRs by region), a low TOO is going to prevent most of the examples you picked from being uploaded. And the United and Qantas logos are, in fact, currently uploaded locally under fair use to enwiki, meaning they pass the threshold for the even more lenient COM:TOO US. According to your logic, all United and Qantas plane files should be deleted as well, right?

Sometimes, one must rely upon other arguments - I noticed as I read on that you didn't really address the main point of my concern (meant to identify a something means copyright violation), but rather responded on the suitability of my examples. So do you believe that, if I had picked examples with more complex logos, they should be deleted as well? Also, the 7-Eleven example would not meet the TOO of the place where the photo was taken (Singapore), which goes back to the above paragraph. What difference is there between a logo on a convenience store and that on an airplane? Both are corporate brandings after all. S5A-0043🚎 07:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Does the person who started the nomination forget the Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PT-MUA (aircraft) in Stormtroopers livery (which have similar case of this deletion request and kept for de minimi)? KMB1933 (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Mothe Front 1.jpg

Seems to be rotated and cropped from File:Mothe Front.jpg, resulting in a lower-quality image that does not show the full instrument. Not used anywhere (as far as I can tell) OwlsTalon (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Ursus arctos stikeenensis range.png

It is my old file, which is inaccurate. I've replaced it with File:Ursus Arctos Stikeenensis modern and historical range cropped.jpg on every use. Tomas Guus (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Nawab Faizunnesa Government College Logo.png

This file contains a spelling error in the logo text and needs to be removed. ImZayd (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you be specific about what the spelling error is? Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Politician Gonda.jpg

i was not able to upload properly Guddusinghparas (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

delete it Guddusinghparas (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Starship - Flight 13 (Sunset).jpg

No evidence of Creative Commons license. No copyright info in EXIF. Ultimograph5 (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

SpaceX said all images they release are Creative Commons: https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/22/8272153/elon-musk-spacex-photos-public-domain Cube1ber (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:China Airlines MD-11 (N489GX) departing Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport.jpg

Possible copyright violation.
The plum blossom logo was first used in 1995: en:China Airlines#Livery and uniforms.
The COM:TOO Taiwan is low, so we're certainly speaking about a work that is protected under Taiwanese law.
A vehicle livery is inherently part of a photograph of that vehicle, so it's not a background feature or similar. The excuse of COM:DM Taiwan would thus likely not be applicable.
By all appearances, the logo is also not a copy of some old artwork that could be PD-Old. There are to the extent of my knowledge (courtesy of Tvpuppy per Special:PermaLink/1251527104#China Airlines logo) no logo artists known. Taiwanese law shows for something akin to corporate copyright ending after 50 years after publication, so this image could likely be hosted for sure from 2046 onwards (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan#General).

I am really unsure if a gaussian blur of the logo, which would fake the plane appearance quite a lot, is wise in the light of the need to keep enough educational usability (depicting a complete sideview of a China Airlines plane without the tail logo is IMHO not founded in reality). Grand-Duc (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment see Tvpuppy comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:B-18916.jpg. KMB1933 (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

and  Keep because per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Social distancing sign during the COVID-19 pandemic in IKEA Restaurant in Taipei, Taiwan.jpg, the Blåhaj image is more focused than the aircraft whth plum blossom logo on tail, so I think it meet COM:DM Taiwan from email excerpt from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) that can be seen at COM:DM Taiwan page. KMB1933 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per my comment here. S5A-0043🚎 12:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

File:B-18007@PEK (20200403123859).jpg

I would like to have a debate about this image and the plum blossom logo of the Taiwanese en:China Airlines depicted. The plane was imaged in Beijing.

• COM:FOP China could perhaps allow this work, despite our guideline cautioning against 2D works.
• COM:TOO China is really low per our references, so a copyright protection (if Taiwanese works get protection in the PRC at all...) is to be expected.
• COM:DM China could provide sufficient excuse to host this image.

This DR shall mainly serve to document a quality assurance process, I am not necessarily expecting a deletion. Grand-Duc (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Per File:Celtic Class.jpg which have de minimis template, the Troll face is more focused than the aircraft whth plum blossom logo on tail, so I think it meet COM:DM. And also, the Boeing livery are below TOO. KMB1933 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per my comment here. S5A-0043🚎 12:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Yeni Parti (Türkiye, 2026) logo compress transparan.jpg

Yanlış dosya uzantısı Earslaner2001 (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:B-18007 (aircraft) / FOP and TOO Taiwan

Possible copyright violation.
The plum blossom logo was first used in 1995: en:China Airlines#Livery and uniforms.
The COM:TOO Taiwan is low, so we're certainly speaking about a work that is protected under Taiwanese law.
A vehicle livery is inherently part of a photograph of that vehicle, so it's not a background feature or similar. The excuse of COM:DM Taiwan would thus likely not be applicable.
By all appearances, the logo is also not a copy of some old artwork that could be PD-Old. There are to the extent of my knowledge (courtesy of Tvpuppy per Special:PermaLink/1251527104#China Airlines logo) no logo artists known. Taiwanese law shows for something akin to corporate copyright ending after 50 years after publication, so this image could likely be hosted for sure from 2046 onwards (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan#General).

I am really unsure if a gaussian blur of the logo, which would fake the plane appearance quite a lot, is wise in the light of the need to keep enough educational usability (depicting a complete sideview of a China Airlines plane without the tail logo is IMHO not founded in reality).

There is no loss in deleting these images, we already have assuredly good images of this actual B777-300 from China airlines: File:China Airlines (Boeing Livery), B-18007, Boeing 777-309 ER (29447146497).jpg and File:China Airlines (Boeing livery) Boeing 777-300ER (B-18007) at Frankfurt Airport.jpg as those were taken in Germany (-> COM:FOP Germany#Permanent actually also deals with vehicle liveries).

• File:China Airlines (Boeing livery), Boeing 777-300ER, B-18007 - TPE (36322954606).jpg
• File:China Airlines (Boeing livery), Boeing 777-300ER, B-18007 - TPE (36358197250).jpg
• File:China Airlines (Boeing livery), Boeing 777-300ER, B-18007 - TPE (36585059102).jpg
• File:China Airlines (Boeing livery), Boeing 777-300ER, B-18007 - TPE (36585061602).jpg
• File:China Airlines (Boeing livery), Boeing 777-300ER, B-18007 - TPE (36707818316).jpg
• File:China Airlines (Boeing livery), Boeing 777-300ER, B-18007 - TPE (36707820956).jpg
• File:China Airlines B777-309ER (B-18007) in Boeing Livery departing Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport.jpg
• File:China Airlines B777-309ER (B-18007) landing at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport.jpg
• File:China Airlines, Boeing 777-309(ER), B-18007 (29834097335).jpg

Grand-Duc (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Social distancing sign during the COVID-19 pandemic in IKEA Restaurant in Taipei, Taiwan.jpg, the Blåhaj image is more focused than the aircraft whth plum blossom logo on tail, so I think it meet COM:DM Taiwan from email excerpt from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) that can be seen at COM:DM Taiwan page. And also, the Boeing livery are below TOO. KMB1933 (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per my comment here. S5A-0043🚎 12:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@KMB1933: the plush blue shark from IKEA does not bear much contextual relationship to the sign. It could be replaced or omitted without changing much from the illustrative value of the picture - it's basically only meant to be cute, and that could also have been fulfilled with a smiley or another unicode symbol. That's why the idea of applying a De minimis defence is valid, it's basically its definition, also by COM:DM Taiwan (the shark is "attached" to the sign). On the other hand, this is not the case for a tailplane logo with has much more intrinsic contentwise relation with the plane as a whole. Please remember also COM:PRP and COM:CARES. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Sourcelc XTE J1819-254.gif

This image is very likely not his own and came from one of the astronomy research papers and thus it's copyright status is unknown. Abdullah1099 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know but it is a common problem with new editors like they put them as the copyright holders and give what ever licence they want when in reality, the copyright holder and license are completely different. Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)