File:FOBO (generated by AI).png

Unnecessary AI image of subject we have superior examples of ( File:Red and blue pill.jpg) no longer used in mainspace Dronebogus (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep, image is currently COM:INUSE in pl-wiki. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I replaced it, but it was incorrectly reverted as “also being AI” (it wasn’t) Dronebogus (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep I think with the hands and the gesture the image makes it clearer that a binary choice is offered, almost like an invitation. The suggested replacement above lacks the visual cue. I think the two versions can serve different purposes and neither is inherently superior to the other.

File:Choix de la pillule.jpg has hands, although I'm still not sure if it is better in all aspects, even recognizing that not being AI-generated is a plus. The red pill in that image is harder to recognize at a glance. It is smaller, and less distinct from the hand and its shades. The entire image is a bit blurry.

That said, I believe this is not a very difficult setup to physically reproduce. If a more clearly better replacement is provided and this is no longer in use, I won't object deletion. (But you will need to convice plwiki that it wants the replacement, rather than just replacing by yourself.) whym (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Leo III (Zonaras portrait).png

Unused, redirect to File:Leo III (Mutinensis).png Zoupan (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:ESCUDO DE BELEN DE UMBRIA.jpg

Esta versión ya no esta vigente Kafetero1 (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:ESCUDO DE BELEN DE UMBRIA.jpg

esta version ya no esta vigente Kafetero1 (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:NNacional.png

It is not a simple figure, it is the fusion of two N's with a cross, which makes it inapplicable as a {{PD-shape}}. Taichi (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete goes against {{PD-shape}} Anónime (Talk; they/them) 19:33, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Vibras The Music Company (Vibras TMC) Logo.png

Logo, unsure if it meets threshold of originality. Creator claims own work but that seems unlikely; if it is, they need to declare COI on en.wiki. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Verdugo o Lutador.jpg

Old Portuguese language newspaper clipping, would need more information to determine copyright status. Abzeronow (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Can't date earlier than 1967, based off the "| Telecatch" reference. The | Portuguese Wikipedia version of the article lists a character called "Verdugo" as well. CitationsFreak (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

COM:BRAZIL (assuming that the newspaper was published in Brazil, which is the most-likely country) says that Brazil is a life+70 years country. Since the newspaper mentions the 1960s as the past, the bare minimum it can be published in is in 2041 (1970+70+1). It's likely later, as the article is credited to a "Marlene Galeazzi". CitationsFreak (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Statue of Hachikõ in Woonsocket, RI.jpg

2012 artwork in the US, which does not have freedom of panorama for artworks Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Celeste Donovan MRD.jpg

I am the person featured in the photo. I'd like that copy deleted and replaced please ~2026-30235-66 (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'm the photographer, and I'm happy to have the photo deleted. I'm working with the subject to arrange a better photo for Commons. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Bismillah with kashmiri translation.svg

Mistakenly duplicated the PNG image as svg آیات محراج (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Ergo Kuld (2026 a.).jpg

unnecessary page Kodru (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yobuko (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Greater Minneapolis, January, 1969, Volume 21, Number 1 - DPLA - d5873a2f04df39869eca49a9d76174b6 (page 15).jpg

Copyrighted painting (see copyright notice) uploaded as part of a larger periodical which was uncopyrighted and is likely what the licensing statement is referring to. PD status of this image is therefore highly suspect without evidence that Arnold Friberg or the copyright holder released this painting into the public domain. Based5290 (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Assuming this is sustained, please make sure to add this DR to Category:Undelete in 2065. - Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Памятник в парке Неа Муданья - panoramio.jpg

Way too recent as a work of art in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 10:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Franklin Computer Wordmaster Deluxe 1055.jpg

Image is of low quality, is missing copywrite metadata, has a typo in the name, and is not currently being linked to by any known pages. Maxwell-Fisher (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Oksefontenen.jpg

The sculpture was completed in 1929 by Asbjørg Borgfelt (1900–1976). There is no freedom of panorama in Norway for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2047 A1Cafel (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Projet Borj Attijariwafa Bank.jpg

No FoP in Morocco. This photo focus too much on the modern buildings, the distinctive exterior architecture is protected by copyright A1Cafel (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Per COM:DM and the fact that Morocco has no freedom of panorama exception for architecture, the relevant question is not whether the building can be photographed, but whether the protected architectural work (as designed by architect VIGUIER) is actually depicted in this image. At the time this photograph was taken (April 2023), the tower was still in its raw structural phase: bare concrete frame, rebar, and construction cranes, with no facade, cladding, ornamentation, or other distinctive design elements yet in place. The protectable creative expression of the architect — the stone facade, fenestration pattern, and overall aesthetic treatment that define this building as a recognizable work — did not yet exist at the time of the photograph. What is shown is a generic reinforced-concrete structural skeleton, which is functional/utilitarian in nature and does not embody the architect's distinctive design choices. As the finished building (completed circa 2025) looks markedly different from what is depicted here, this image cannot reasonably be said to reproduce the architect's copyrighted work. --Bertrand SOUBEYRAND (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Potd/2029-10-10

My mistake, sorry. I thought all the series of files on this statue had been featured (like happened for other subjects), and I created this page. However, this picture had never be actually proposed and promoted as featured image. Please, delete also the descriptions in English and Italian: Template:Potd/2029-10-10_(en), Template:Potd/2029-10-10_(it) Harlock81 (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Mapa de situación da parroquia no seu concello cos nomes dos concellos - San Cristovo de Regodeigón, Beade.png

The name is misleading: the territory of the parish San Cristovo de Regodeigón belongs to the municipality of Ribadavia (error in my original data shape file for QGIS). Fixed and uploaded corrected at File:Mapa de situación da parroquia no seu concello cos nomes dos concellos - San Cristovo de Regodeigón, Ribadavia.png. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 11:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:San Cristovo de Regodeigón, Beade

The name is misleading: the territory of the parish San Cristovo de Regodeigón belongs to the municipality of Ribadavia (error in my original data shape file for QGIS). Fixed and uploaded corrected at category:San Cristovo de Regodeigón, Ribadavia

Files in Category:Naspers Centre

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In about half of all countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in South Africa.

• File:Media24-sentrum nuwe vooraansig 2015.jpg
• File:Naspers Building, Cape Town.jpg
• File:Naspers Centre WDC 2014.jpg
• File:Naspers Centre, Cape Town (P1050752).jpg
• File:Naspers Media24 building.jpg

A1Cafel (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/Graffiti Newtown 2011

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In about half of all countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in South Africa.

• File:Graffiti Newtown 2011 07.jpg
• File:Graffiti Newtown 2011 04.jpg
• File:Graffiti Newtown 2011 02.jpg
• File:Graffiti Newtown 2011 08.jpg
• File:Graffiti Newtown 2011 05.jpg
• File:Graffiti Newtown 2011 09.jpg
• File:Graffiti Newtown 2011 11.jpg
• File:Graffiti Newtown 2011 12.jpg
• File:Graffiti Newtown 2011 06.jpg
• File:Graffiti Newtown 2011 10.jpg
• File:Graffiti Newtown 2011 03.jpg

A1Cafel (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Kuleshov-yuri-ivanovich-1970.jpg

Ложное указание PD, в источнике копирайт -- Tomasina (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Illustreret norsk konversations leksikon, volume 5.djvu

I want it deleted becuse the file size is to dam big. Johshh (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:La Tour administrative du plateau.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire) A1Cafel (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete, this building is part of the Administrative City (Abidjan) and none were completed earlier than 1977, so it is unlikely to be public domain until the 2040s. Reconrabbit (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Grand-Bassam-Maison des artistes.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire) A1Cafel (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per A1Cafel. Reconrabbit (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:MUSIC NFT.jpg

Too generic and somewhat unnecessary, unoriginal Imageuploader2614 (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete, nothing at the linked source (https://www.soundoflife.com/blogs/experiences/music-nfts-are-changing-the-music-industry) to suggest that this graphic is public domain. Belbury (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

File:The Light That Shines Through the Universe.jpg

COM:FOP US#Artworks and sculptures DanielPenfield (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I, as the uploader of the image, acknowledge that I was mistaken on the copyright law and submit this image should be removed from Wikimedia as unjustified permission was given. SavageSquad67 (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

File:SuicideMouse.webp

Lacked link to original post where this image was first uploaded and author's nickname. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete - No proof of CC BY license. Although Mickey Mouse is in the public domain, this creepypasta is probably not. Amogus502 (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Red Star Belgrade crest.svg

There is no threshold of originality in Serbia. A similar logo of the Red Star basketball team (it differs only by one letter) was removed after discussion - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:KK Crvena Zvezda (logo).svg GAndy (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Weak keep on COM:Serbia#Threshold of originality marked: " OK for text-only logos,  Unsure for everything else, assume OK" SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Заметка о Меняйлове И А в Колумбийской газете crop.jpg

Подложная лицензия. Как текст статьи из газеты так и фото охраняются авторским правом и не принадлежат загрузившему Трифонов Андрей (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Игорь Александрович на вулкане Галерас.png

Подложная лицензия. Авторство фото не принадлежит загрузившему Трифонов Андрей (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Solidus Leontius Antioch Transparent.png

Derivative work of File "Solidus Leontius Antioch.jpg" without appropriate labeling ~2026-30462-10 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep it is easy to fix appropriate labeling. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

What should be added for it to have the appropriate labeling? Sneakier (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't considered that option. As soon as this deletion request is closed, you should add the following tag between "Summary" and "Licensing":

This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version. Modifications: Transparent background. The original can be viewed here: Solidus Leontius Antioch.jpg: . Modifications made by Sneakier.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-31350-47 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

--~2026-31350-47 (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Done, thanks (sorry for late reply, Wikipedia didn’t show the reply right away). Sneakier (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Bowyer Bible print 5654 Jesus appears to Thomas John 20 26-28 Caspar Luyken (15621).jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Phidev74 (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:SF maig 2026 modified.jpg

AI redundant edit from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SF_maig_2026.jpg Srbuti (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Definitely not redundant: the cranes have been removed. This may have been done by AI or by photoshop, idk, but it's definitely NOT redundant: cranes are ugly and distract from the church itself. Steinbach (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Support The area where the cranes were is blurry, like the trees and vegetation at the bottom of the image, that's why I belive it's AI. It makes no sense to keep a retouched image when the retouched part on the subject is low-quality. Srbuti (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Also on a side note, I would disagree that the cranes 'distract from the church', it's reality, they have always been around the basilica! Srbuti (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose It's not AI. I edited the picture to correct the exposition, so to increase the light of underexposed areas, something that these cameras struggle to show because they don't have high dynamic range, a problem that the human eye doesn't have. I also corrected the perspective, so the vertical lines are properly pictured, also a problem that the human eye doesn't have. Then I deleted the cranes with the clone stamp tool, which is why I inserted the retouched image label in the description. I indicated @Canaan as the author (Attribution), following the terms of the license, which allows derivate works (ShareAlike). I think it might be the user not accepting a derivate work, rather than other thing, although the deletion was requested by @Srbuti, user that I hope it's not the same as @Canaan, because that would emply that the user is doing sockpuppetry. Lojwe (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not Canaan. Also, the perspective is slightly tilted if you notice the left side of the building. As I said upwards, the part where the crane was in front of the building is blurry. As the change is so small and low-quality, I suggested redundancy. Srbuti (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:SF maig 2026 modified (cropped).jpg

AI redundant edit from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SF_maig_2026.jpg Srbuti (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose It's not AI. I edited the picture to correct the exposition, so to increase the light of underexposed areas, something that these cameras struggle to show because they don't have high dynamic range, a problem that the human eye doesn't have. I also corrected the perspective, so the vertical lines are properly pictured, also a problem that the human eye doesn't have. Then I deleted the cranes with the clone stamp tool, which is why I inserted the retouched image label in the description. I indicated @Canaan as the author (Attribution), following the terms of the license, which allows derivate works (ShareAlike). I think it might be the user not accepting a derivate work, rather than other thing, although the deletion was requested by @Srbuti, user that I hope it's not the same as @Canaan, because that would emply that the user is doing sockpuppetry. Lojwe (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not me at all. Furthermore, I have no objection to the existence of this image; its use is another matter, which I've already addressed in the Spanish article about the Sagrada Familia, primarily for aesthetic reasons. I also don't think it's appropriate to remove the cranes, for example, as they distort reality. But otherwise, I have no objection to the retouched photo remaining.--Canaan (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Support The area where the cranes were is blurry, like the trees and vegetation at the bottom of the image, that's why I belive it's AI. I don't know why you say you corrected the perspective when it is slightly tilted to the right (you may notice if you look at the left side of the basilica). It makes no sense to keep a retouched image when the retouched part on the subject is low-quality. Srbuti (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Crystal de seda grabando ya no hay nada.jpg

This file has been tagged as personal by Marbletan. Good view on resort. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

•  Delete. How can you even tell it's a resort? It's a low quality photo of someone's child in an unidentified place with a swimming pool in background. The file name and description don't give even a hint of what the subject or the location of the photo is and therefore this file has no educational value and is outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Sostenica logo marca skincare fresco por diseno cdmx mexico.png

Converted from speedy deletion: this file was tagged under CSD G10 due to promotional wording. The file description has been rewritten as neutral identification metadata; regular discussion is requested instead of speedy deletion. --Nitsmash (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Sh2-131 DSS.png

DSS is copyrightː see https://gsss.stsci.edu/Acknowledgements/DSSCopyrights.htm or the data use policy linked in the image page Lithopsian (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. C messier (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the detection and evaluation of Intracranial tumours Physics, Safety, and clinical applications A Clinical research paper.pdf

Out of scope: plain text. A student report on MRI. (This is simply an overview of the technology, not new research.) Omphalographer (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

As well as File:Research paper final.pdf, which is largely identical. Omphalographer (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Happy anime catgirl.png

Requesting deletion as author/uploader. Gommeh (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep grace period for this is over, and the image is COM:INUSE at enwiki. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete not in use in mainspace. No sense in dogmatically following INUSE to the ends of the Earth here. Dronebogus (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete Looks like the only actual use is the uploader's profile as a Teahouse host, so they should be able to remove that on their own and then no INUSE from there. Sesquilinear (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Image is good quality and a good illustration of "catgirl". ThePaleorganizer (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Which is a common subject we have a lot of better images of that aren’t AI slop Dronebogus (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

For example? ThePaleorganizer (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This one, for instance, is way worse and isn't pending deletion. ThePaleorganizer (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

And how do I make this image a thumbnail size? ThePaleorganizer (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is it “way worse”? It looks absolutely fine to me, and certainly far better than AI slop (which just inherently looks awful IMO) Dronebogus (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

What makes AI look awful? You could say that a Gemoetric Greek statue looks worse. (Subjectively, of course.) ThePaleorganizer (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Just my personal opinion, just like your personal opinion the picture of Ai-chan is bad. Dronebogus (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

If it's just your personal opinion, why are you trying to apply it to Commons? ThePaleorganizer (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m not. My rationale is not “I think it’s ugly” but rather “it is not in use in mainspace and we have numerous images of this that are not AI”. Dronebogus (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

But what does AI have to do with it? ThePaleorganizer (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry; it's just that you seem to limit your deletion requests to AI images. Why? ThePaleorganizer (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I don’t limit my DRs to AI. Dronebogus (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Delete as courtesy Yacàwotçã (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Switch my vote to  Delete as courtesy and common subject. Paleorganizer01 (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Comment I am the uploader and quite honestly do not care what happens to this file. Gommeh (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Then switch my vote back to  Keep Paleorganizer01 (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Monacizzo-Stemma.png

This file was an early, provisional draft of a proposed coat of arms for Monacizzo. It was uploaded under a temporary name and is no longer useful, as it has been replaced by a newer and more refined version. Requesting deletion to avoid confusion and keep the files organized. Gzz29 (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This file shows a non-official and incorrect emblem/flag. It does not correspond to any official or legally recognized symbol. Gzz29 (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

{{speedydelete|This file shows a non-official and incorrect emblem/flag. It does not correspond to any official or legally recognized symbol.}} G12345zz (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1964

This photo does not seem to be by the Nobel foundation, but looks to be made by Bernie Faingold, a studio photographer. Apparently, the original portrait came with a valid copyright notice in the bottom right (see last page here). It's possible that the photo was distributed to newspapers without notice, but it's unclear whether that was authorized by Feingold.

• File:Martin Luther King, Jr transparent bg.png
• File:Martin Luther King, Jr. (3x4 cropped).jpg
• File:Martin Luther King, Jr. (cropped).jpg
• File:Martin Luther King, Jr. (Remini enhanced).jpg
• File:Martin Luther King, Jr. close-up (cropped).jpg
• File:Martin Luther King, Jr..jpg

Based5290 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

•  Delete Amazing research skills by Based5290. It is outside the date where a renewal was needed. If the image was by an AP photographer, I would side with keep, but it looks like a commercial photographer who circulated the image with an intact copyright notice. Any newspapers that cropped it out would have been unauthorized to do so. In my opinion, even if an individual paper did not abide by copyright formalities, the intention of the creator was to include them. --RAN (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Wow, just mind boggling research. In this case, when would copyright lapse? TansoShoshen (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

End of 1964+95=2059, so January 1, 2060. Based5290 (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete - Copyright notice is clearly given. No renewal required. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Bernie Faingold is a Denver-based photographer: https://www.denverpost.com/2006/07/16/photographer-captured-some-of-nations-greats/. The notice "© Bernie Faingold - Denver" does not include a year, but that's not required for photographs (class J): s:en:Page:Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices (1973).pdf/144. I'm finding absolutely nothing when searching the copyright records for "Faingold". No original registrations, no renewals, just nothing at all. But {{PD-US-not renewed}} can't apply because 1964 is after 1963. @Clindberg: is this correct?
The question is, was the photo actually taken in 1964, or do people think that because of us and ? Detective work:

• https://faingoldphoto.com/mlk-portrait-photographer-bernie-faingold-and-wife-gen/ frustratingly states "Bernie Faingold, 88, holds a portrait of Martin Luther King that he shot in the early 1960s". Early 1960s?
• https://www.artworkarchive.com/profile/cpac/artwork/martin-luther-king-jr-colorado-photographic-arts-center also states "Photographed in the early 1960s in Denver, Colorado."
• According to https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/1502289077/1964-vintage-original-silver-gelatin "In 1964 King was staying in Denver Hilton Hotel and one day Faingold's wife Genevieve , quickly slid in to an elevator with Civil Right Leader and asked if her Husband could photographed Him ." The broken English is sus. Also according to that Etsy listing it was used in w:en:Why We Can't Wait from July 1964.
• https://www.denverpost.com/2006/07/16/photographer-captured-some-of-nations-greats/ "Just how he managed to steer all of them in isn't known, his family members said. But one story they all remember. King was staying there in 1964, and one day Faingold's wife, Genevieve, quickly slid into an elevator with the civil rights leader and asked if her husband could photograph him." That's a.. somewhat vague source. Did they remember 1964 specifically? The Denver Post article is from July 16, 2006, so at least they didn't get it from Commons.
• If King was only in Denver in 1964 the case would be settled. https://blog.frontrange.edu/2026/01/15/remembering-dr-kings-visits-to-colorado/ "Having visited in 1956, 1962, 1964 and 1967". So the photo was taken either in 1962 or in 1964 well before July. His 1964 visit was in January. Just 1 month earlier and this would have likely been PD. But could the photo actually be from 1962?
• According to Denver Post, "Faingold set up a studio in Cheyenne and then moved it to Denver in the early 1960s". Erm, "early 1960s"?
• https://feldmanmortuary.com/tribute/details/3974/Genevieve-Faingold/obituary.html "With their young family, the Faingolds moved their business to Denver in 1961." So 1962 is not impossible, and the source for 1964 seems to be "one story they [family members] all remember."
• Guess I should check the book for further clues..

- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 11:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not inside of the book (I checked every page), but early editions feature the photo on the back. I didn't spend $19,500 on this signed copy, but the listing shows the back of the book which is all I cared about.
It's the photo. And the caption says (drumroll, please): "Faingold—Denver-Hilton". Which tells us nothing about the year, but does not include a copyright symbol, (c) or the word "copyright"/"copr.". That looks like a defective notice to me, and you can't blame some random journalist for this one. Clindberg, do you think {{PD-US-defective notice}} would apply here? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The dust jacket photo might be from the same session, but it's definitely not the same as the linked portraits (he's holding a book on the dust jacket, but he's holding a chair on the portrait print). The dust jacket photo is not the originator the crop hosted here (the shadow in the dust jacket photo extends further down the collar than in the portrait print).

On the topic of date of publication, https://www.newspapers.com/image/796419909/?match=1&terms=%22bernie%20faingold%22 repeats the 1964 year, but with the extra detail that King had, at the time of the studio session, recently been named man of the year by Time, which was in 1964. Granted, it's a 2003 article which leaves plenty of time for Faingold's memory to fade, but I can't imagine that the man of the year detail could sneak in like that. Based5290 (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Based5290, human memory is notoriously unreliable so you never know, but that sounds more specific. I can't access the article (I know newspapers.com is in the Wikipedia Library, but it has to be requested), what is the article's source? If it's Bernie himself, that's less of a game of telephone than "family members".
I completely overlooked that the photos are different! Denver Post said "Genevieve, quickly slid into an elevator with the civil rights leader and asked if her husband could photograph him. King agreed and even stayed to visit. King used the photograph on the cover of a book he wrote: “Why We Can’t Wait.” " which is worded like only one photo was taken during that session. Odd. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The article is an interview Bernie and Gen Faingold. The memory of the day of MLK's visit seems to come from Bernie exclusively. Based5290 (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is basically the question -- was it published (not necessarily taken) 1964 or later, or did that happen 1963 or earlier. If 1964, no renewal was required and it would expire in 2060. If 1963 or before, then renewal was required and without that, it became PD in the US by 1992. Some of those sources explicitly state 1964 but not sure I've seen something definitive. I think we'd need to see something that shows it was definitely published before 1964 though, to keep it. Even if PD in the US, it may be PD in other countries -- Germany for example would protect it for 70pma, so it won't expire there until 2077. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Clindberg, does it not matter that the notice on the back cover of the book, which appears to have been the most widely distributed instance of this photo at the time, lacked a copyright word/symbol? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Given that it was part of the collective work that made up the book (not a cover that you could take off), the copyright notice on the book itself probably covers it, to at least preserve the copyright. If the book had no copyright notice at all, it would get more interesting. The original registration for the book (A698890) had a copyright date of June 8, 1964. There is also a copyright (BB26010) of something of the same title published in Life magazine, on May 15, 1964, page 98, but no idea if that also included this photo. The book's text was renewed in 1992 but don't think that would cover the photo. The renewal was technically for BB26356, which was a separate registration for something, of the same title again and probably an excerpt, published in the Detroit News on June 7, 1964. That does mean that mid-1964 is the last possible publication date. Presumably Faingold sold prints shortly after taking it, as that was his business. The question is when did that happen. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Granted, the copyright notice in the book says Copyright © 1963, 1964 by Martin Luther King, Jr. The registration does mention that portions had been previously published. You could argue that means a copyright date of 1963 for the book, if it's not spelled out elsewhere which portions were published earlier and which portions were new, but that would be a bit edgy of an argument. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Clindberg, (not a cover that you could take off),
https://archive.org/details/whywecantwait00king/page/n5/mode/2up is the third print from 1968 and has a notice: "Copyright © 1963, 1964 by Martin Luther King, Jr." and it also says "First Printing, July, 1964". https://archive.org/details/whywecantwait0000king/page/n1/mode/2up has a stamp from 1966 so must be the first or second print. It has the same notice.
Looking at the front and back there, it's plain grey with the logo from the publisher in the corner. No title, no name, no nothing. This makes it look like you could take the cover off. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

If there was no copyright notice on the cover (which would include the inside flaps), it may get more interesting. Well, not if it's not the same photo :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Clindberg Just a note, the Jaws copyright ruling dealt with a paperback cover and held that the cover being attached did not automatically make the copyright notice apply to the cover , as the contents for the literary content did not automatically cover visual content that the claimant (for the written content) did not make. The notice for the cover could be inside the book, however, unlike with dust jackets (but it would have to be separate or I suppose inclusive of the visual contents). PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per discussion and long-term usage as main images of English Wikipedia articles. If you are going to derive commons of these images please move them to English Wikipedia where they are used, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn COM:SCOPE#Must be freely licensed or public domain. We have so many photos of King, there's no reason why we should save a non-free image, especially since Wikipedia requires a non-free rationale for images which are not free. TansoShoshen (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

 Delete had notice. Good research! I couldn't find it in any contemporary newspapers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

•  Delete: copyright appears to have been in order. May be a good idea to convert File:Martin Luther King, Jr..jpg to a redirect to a confirmed free alternative. --– Howardcorn33 (💬) 23:59, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Elis Regina 1969.jpg

Sem fontes Fergundis (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Elis Regina 1969.jpg

The image, besides not having been taken in 1969 given the appearance and age of the person photographed, is not from the National Archives, since it has very low quality compared to the content published there, and the user who uploaded it kept changing to another version and restoring the old one several times, in addition to initially listing the source as IMDB, which does not provide royalty-free images. BrunoGuedes1 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Rahui 27.jpg

No COM:FOP in NZ for 2d works, the map, images of the shellfish, and the text would all qualify for copyright in NZ. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Blank Street - Putney-8.jpg

Image taken from company website (https://www.blankstreet.com/locations/london/171-putney). No evidence of free license release; copyright violation per COM:L. Epicsunwarrior (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:EasternOrthodoxyInEurope.png

The same image as the one mentioned in source field, but slightly edited. Original map is already dubious, but it is used in articles. Qbli2mHd (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Eurp 2025 Kz.jpg

Map claims to represent a "share of European population" in Kazakhstan. It includes a footnote explaining that "European" is to be understood as Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Poles and Germans. It's quite a peculiar definition of "Europeans", which for some reason excludes Tatars and Chechens. The map also has no source. Qbli2mHd (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Европейцы в Казахстане.png

Map claims to represent a "share of European population" in Kazakhstan. It states that "European" is to be understood as Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Poles and Germans. It's quite a peculiar definition of "Europeans", which for some reason excludes Tatars and Chechens. Since it's doubtful that such a definition is used elsewhere, it's hard to think of this map's value. Qbli2mHd (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Sphecidae - Chalybion flebile.JPG

This appears to be essentially a museum forgery. Body color strongly excludes C. flebile as even a remote possibility, and the forewings lack the necessary darkened apices. The museum this appears to have come from (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano) also shows a history of scientific errors (e.g. inventing the fake name "Eumolpus candens", artificial additions to a specimen of Lymnocryptes minimus, and misidentifying Danaus plexippus as D. erippus). If this really is a Chalybion, as suggested by the elongate propodeum, then the color is certainly artificial to the point of not representing a real species. Lhikan634 (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a Museum specimen. May be it is very old. Thank you. Hectonichus (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

That won't explain what's going on here. Old Chalybion specimens that aren't preserved properly may turn a blackish-brown, but that won't cause them to change from blueish to reddish. Lighting also won't simultaneously turn a blue specimen red and turn any background yellow. I've run over hundreds of species trying to find a way to salvage this. The only species that this even gets close to resembling is a reddish Sceliphron fuscum, but (a) the petiole's still much too small in this specimen and (b) they don't overlap in range at all. So the only remaining possibility is that this color is entirely artificial. Again, frankly, this museum has had documented issues, including artificial additions to at least one other specimen. Lhikan634 (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)