Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information V, Feb ...
XFD backlog
V Feb Mar Apr May Total
CfD 0 29 130 0 159
TfD 0 0 4 0 4
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 2 24 39 0 65
RfD 0 0 2 0 2
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

What not to list here

  1. For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
  2. For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
  3. Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
    1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
    2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
    3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
    6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
  4. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
    2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
    1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
    2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
    4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  9. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions

To list files for discussion, use Twinkle. If Twinkle isn't working, you can read its documentation or follow these steps to do it manually:

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

  • Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1933, not 1927.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
  • Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Close

Instructions for discussion participation

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussions

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

April 29

File:Birmingham campaign water hoses.jpg

[edit]

File:Birmingham campaign water hoses.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carcharoth (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Note: I am only disputing this image's use in Birmingham campaign.

This photo is only discussed in the caption rather than the body of the article. c:Category:Birmingham campaign shows several high quality PD images of the Birmingham campaign, including an image also showing a group of protesters being hosed at close range. I think a much stronger reason (for example, an entire paragraph dedicated to the fair use image which is DUE and secondarily sourced in the body) is needed to continue using the nominated image on the article for the Birmingham campaign. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk/contribs 00:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Secondary structural probability map of the flavodoxin protein.png

[edit]

File:Secondary structural probability map of the flavodoxin protein.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ericasherman39 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unsure whether this image is PD or freely licensed or not and/or whether any free alternatives exist. thejiujiangdragon talk/contribs 00:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Remain as non-free. The journal article says Copyright © 1993 The Protein Society, and the figure/diagram has been part of it. Also, the diagram looks complicated and might be original enough for copyright protection under the US law, even if the idea of the diagram may be "unoriginal". --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

April 28

File:Gemini Home Entertainment logo.png

[edit]

File:Gemini Home Entertainment logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Beodizia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per the talk page, this logo is text on top of File:Neptune (False Color of Haze).jpg. The Neptune photo is PD, and the addition of the text can't lead to copyright in the United States. The YouTuber who presumably made the edit is Canadian, so I'm not sure if we need to consider Canadian copyright as well. This can be reclassified as PD in the United States and shown at full resolution, but I'm not sure about a move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Export to Commons with a note about the PD status of the image of Neptune. The TOO in Canada is similar to the US rather than the low threshold in other common law British countries like UK, NZ, and AU. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Arch Wolfe.png

[edit]

File:Arch Wolfe.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BeanieFan11 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is an Associated Press photo for which I declined the F7. The given Alamy source indicates this AP photo is from 1950. Per c:Category:Photographs distributed by Associated Press, AP photos from this year that were distributed to news organisations without a copyright notice and did not have their copyrights renewed. If it can be established that this image was distributed, it would be public domain. Whpq (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Export to Commons per contemporary publication in the Green Bay Press-Gazette. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I looked but did not find it in newspapers REAL 💬 14:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

File:WXVO Ocean 11 TV 2026.jpeg

[edit]

File:WXVO Ocean 11 TV 2026.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by OWaunTon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

May be AI-generated (not copyrightable?); with Wikipedia cracking down on AI content, does this logo belong here? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r, it was from the official Facebook page. I don't even have the software it makes it even make an AI logo, like I don't even know why this is even up for discussion to be honest. OWaunTon (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete I ran the image through several AI image detection softwares (ex. QuillBot, ZeroGPT, Sightengine, and NoteGPT) and all have a confidence (or close to) 99% made from AI. I don't think the logo belongs here.
Bray0829 (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Or could I just put the image NOT made by AI from the website?
http://www.ocean11tv.com/ OWaunTon (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @Mvcg66b3r: What policy do you think this logo violates? Wikipedia does not want AI-generated content from contributors, but this is AI content from the TV station. If the TV station wants to use an AI generated image for there logo, that's their choice and is not subject any AI content restrictions on Wikipedia. As well, AI detectors aren't known for their accuracy, so claiming this is an AI generated image is rather speculative. I see no policy based reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep It's on their website, so it's an official logo. I see no strong reason to believe this is AI-generated, and even if it was, it still accurately represents the branding of the TV station. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment its its AI generated it should be exported to Commons as AI images do not qualify for copyright. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Move to Commons if AI generated. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

April 27

File:Birmingham campaign water hoses.jpg

[edit]

File:Birmingham campaign water hoses.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carcharoth (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable by File:Demonstrators hosed in doorway.jpg (thanks 999real for the upload!) JayCubby 14:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

No objection to this, as long as the Commons file persists and will not be deleted in the future. My recollection is that the Commons upload was either not possible, or less likely to be accepted, back when I uploaded this image over 18 years ago. See also what I said here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Well 18 years ago where did you get the idea that UPI or AP renewed any copyrights? REAL 💬 14:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Milton Margai.png

[edit]

File:Milton Margai.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Acntx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Should be free. Per c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Sierra_Leone, "a photograph is protected until 50 years after the date the work was made" JayCubby 21:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment U.S. copyright status? Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Remain as non-free – No proof yet that the publication in both Sierra Leone and the US was simultaneous for it to be URAA-ineligible. Also, no known date or year of creation yet. Presumably copyrighted still in the US, despite its copyright status in Sierra Leone. George Ho (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

April 25

File:Minecraft game logo 2023.png

[edit]

File:Minecraft game logo 2023.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NegativeMP1 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Probably can be moved to Commons per explicit free licensing at File:Minecraft_Key-art.png. Taking the logo out of the background is almost certainly okay to do under the CC license. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Oppose It has become increasingly common that one-off Youtube videos have been put up as evidence of "apparent authority" in declaring an otherwise copyrighted image to be copyright-free. The problem is that this view has been totally contradicted by evidence in this later discussion, in which people have argued that the release of a video as Creative Commons does not render null and void the copyrights of the characters or logos contained in them. As far as I know there is no proof this was purposefully released under a free license. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 17:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Paraná Clube logo.svg

[edit]

File:Paraná Clube logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Brazil's threshold of originality is very high. I wonder how the US Copyright Office would judge a logo like this. I uploaded locally for precaution, but I want a thorough and proper discussion on this logo. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

April 24

File:Demi Lovato - It's Not That Deep (Unless You Want It to Be).webp

[edit]

File:Demi Lovato - It's Not That Deep (Unless You Want It to Be).webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pandaboy3 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image fails to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC#3a and 8. Its inclusion does not significantly increase readers' understanding (the original image File:It's Not That Deep - Demi Lovato.png does that just fine) and its exclusion would not be a detriment to the understanding of the article. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep - longstanding precedent shows that alternative covers for re-releases/deluxe edition albums are appropriate for inclusion as long as they are substantially different from the originals to the extent that a reader may not be able to infer from the original album cover that the alternative version also belongs to that album. Examples I can think of off the top of my head are Eternal Blue (album), Aftermath (Rolling Stones album), Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses), Robyn (album), Scarlet (Doja Cat album), Tyla (album), Beatles for Sale, etc. RachelTensions (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no such "longstanding precedent" and if there was, it would hold no force as "precedents" cannot override WP:NFCC, a foundation-level policy. This image isn't discussed in the article, and is very clearly decorative and in breach of NFCC3a and 8. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete  Let's be careful of WP:OTHERIMAGE arguments from now then. Perhaps unneeded at this time until enough info about this (deluxe) cover art has been found. George Ho (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

April 17

File:Nouvelle Action Royaliste (emblem).png

[edit]

File:Nouvelle Action Royaliste (emblem).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Soman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

While this is probably above the US TOO, I am not sure if this is above the French TOO. If it is, then this le should be marked as {{PD-USonly}}, and if it isnt, then this should be moved to Commons. Star walker (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Perhaps ineligible for Commons per c:COM:PCP. Standards of c:COM:TOO France can be quite contextually vague, despite lots of words there. As I see, nonetheless, the court found the word paradis with gold lettering above the bathroom door copyrightable. Uncertain about its US copyright, but the bar is high, if not very high, per c:COM:TOO US. George Ho (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

April 16

File:Guatemala National Football team badge.png

[edit]

File:Guatemala National Football team badge.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Maybe this is below the threshold of originality and can be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

April 15

File:Congress of Industrial Organizations (logo).gif

[edit]

File:Congress of Industrial Organizations (logo).gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adam sk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Tagged by Chsdrummajor07 on January 10 with the reason:

This logo appears to consist solely of the text “CIO” and a very simple graphic design, which may fall below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. As such, it may not qualify as non-free content and should be evaluated for deletion or reclassification

but was never properly listed. Procedurally relisting now. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 03:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons A rope style border does not make this text logo copyrightable. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:NMIFA crest.svg

[edit]

File:NMIFA crest.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

I want a discussion about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality and how the US Copyright Office would judge such a logo. Someone also uploaded a raster version of this logo to Wikimedia Commons, which I nominated for deletion as a way to start a discussion about this logo. You can have your opinion. If it's below the threshold of originality, the vector version will be moved to Commons. If it's above, the raster version will be deleted from there, and the vector will be kept locally at English Wikipedia as a fair use logo. You can also join the discussion at Commons here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Sasquatch voted to keep the raster file at Wikimedia Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

April 14

File:X cover.png

[edit]

File:X cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tomica (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Ed Sheeran is British, yes, but the origin of the album cover is probably still the U.S. as the record labels (Asylum and Atlantic) are both American. Nutella lover[ chatsupervise ] 12:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

What's the argument here? It sounds like you're arguing this is copyrighted in the US, which would mean this falls under WP:PD#Fonts. Even if the copyright is held in the UK, this satisfies WP:NFCC. estar8806 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
The argument, I believe, is that the country of origin for this work should be considered the US, so this image should be moved to commons rather than locally hosted. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
I think this file could be suitable with c:COM:TOO US based on who released this album officially. Sinsyuan✍️HBDTRTS 12:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm so sorry for being 11 days late, but yes, that is my argument. Nutella lover[ chatsupervise ] 08:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I thought about (reluctantly) favoring transfer to Commons as "simultaneously published", but it seems hand-painted, and the green background resembles some canvas board or something like that. Perhaps I'm too nitpick-y on this? George Ho (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Breeze Center logo.svg

[edit]

File:Breeze Center logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JaJaWa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I think this file can be moved to Commons for below c:COM:TOO Taiwan. Sinsyuan✍️HBDTRTS 13:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

April 13

File:German Magazine showing famous Blitz Image.JPG

[edit]

File:German Magazine showing famous Blitz Image.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Esemono (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is in a bit of a weird spot. It's a German magazine republishing an image which may be hosted on Commons for the reasons outlined at File:St Paul's Survives.jpg. I'm not sure about German copyright and threshold of originality, but this can certainly be relicensed as PD-US-free if the block of text next to "Die City von London brennt!" is blurred. I'm not sure about a move to Commons, but I personally would not consider this a derivative work of the image in a legal sense. Therefore, we could have something like PD-text for the components of the German magazine (minus that block of text) and PD-US-no renewal for the image for a move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

April 10

File:Awakenings (Oliver Sacks book).jpg

[edit]

File:Awakenings (Oliver Sacks book).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gobonobo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A few different fonts should not put this above TOO JayCubby 01:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This is the UK cover, so UK ToO should be applied. This quote feels a bit too...flowery (?) to not qualify for copyright protection in the UK, and I suspect even US copyright would agree. However, the American cover has a much stronger case for being a PD, with the two quotes being trivial in terms of creativity and the geometry being simple. Therefore, Delete and replace with the PD US cover. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Re-license as PD-USonly – The way the author's name and the book title have been used may make the book cover original enough for UK copyright. Not just these, the way the quote is emphasized would also raise the cover's originality scale. Doubtful that the US law would give the cover some leeway or something like that. —George Ho (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

File:NPC wojak meme.png

[edit]

File:NPC wojak meme.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rose Abrams (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Overall, this is a fairly simple illustration, and may be below the American TOO. JayCubby 13:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment - I didn't consider that when uploading, but you may be right. I personally don't have the knowledge to give an opinion, but if we determine accordingly then I'll happily move it to Commons as PD-TOO. Rose Abrams (T C L) 13:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep as is. The head shape alone probably exceeds American ToO, especially because of the rendition of the neck. Based5290 :3 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
It was made in MS Paint. As a SVG, I think this would be below TOO, and I don't see why the bitmap would be different. JayCubby 15:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Whether a crude piece of software was used to make an image has no bearing on whether said image is copyrightable. As an SVG, I would still say this is copyrightable; the neck is surprisingly well rendered, and the choice to have a well-rendered neck and simplistic face is a creative choice. Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

April 9

File:Tufello Local Market (2025).jpg

[edit]

File:Tufello Local Market (2025).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by VitoxxMass (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unsure whether the object depicted in the image is actually free in the US or not, given freedom of panorama, for which there is none in Italy. Could be relicensed to free in the US only in other words. thejiujiangdragon talk 01:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The file is under Fair Use, not free, check the image's description. VitoxxMass (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Relicense as {{Freedom of panorama (US only)}} only if @VitoxxMass: is willing to freely license the photograph right now instead of upon the expiration date of the copyright of the building itself. Right now, that sentence in other information implies the photo itself is not freely licensed. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Relicense per @Based5290. Soviet Pepega (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Relicense per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

File:United Soccer Association 1967 logo.gif

[edit]

File:United Soccer Association 1967 logo.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Verify if this logo has a copyright notice, as it is from before 1978, and it is a US work. If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it should be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Can someone at least relist this file? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to perform any verification and transferring to Commons for yourself. Unfortunately there's not a lot of volunteers who specialize in this complicated area. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

April 8

File:Appropedia webpage screenshot, March 2026.png

[edit]

File:Appropedia webpage screenshot, March 2026.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Majobselan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unsure about licensing. Part of the footer reads, "Content is available under CC-BY-SA-4.0 unless otherwise noted." thejiujiangdragon 🔥🐉 23:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Some of the images appear to be in that "otherwise noted" category. In particular:
These probably need to be removed or censored before being moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

April 6

File:Alireza Jafari, child soldier.jpg

[edit]

File:Alireza Jafari, child soldier.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by VitoxxMass (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Concerns regarding origin and validity of image: the source listed on the file is an SPS/OR Twitter account which is not a reliable source. The original publication location is listed as Iran Wire, but there is no indication of that in the tweet. I found the image in two other places, Iran HRM (which seems sketchy imo) and The Telegraph, which also does not attribute an original source for the image. Furthermore, when running the image through Google Gemini's SynthID program, the image comes back positive (I tested the version used in the file and from The Telegraph), which adds even more concerns to whether this image is authentic. I am unfamiliar in the FFD area, so apologizes if this is incorrect- also not saying that the image needs to be deleted, but all of these factors combined raise serious concerns on the credibility of the image. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

If the question is the authenticity of the child's appearence then it's simple to prove its him, as his looks have also been confirmed by in-sources within Iran itself, one of the examples being the video in one of the cited sources itself:
This source by TABNAK shows that the visual match, not only that, but offers different photos of the child even with its family. The mother and father are even shown.
Fars News also shows these results, and footages of the funeral too:
An user-published (not fit for wiki publications) example being :

There is no strong evidence the image is fabricated, and it is consistent with independently verified depictions of the same person. VitoxxMass (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Neither of these links load for me, however if they verify the authenticity of the photo then I have no issue WP:AGFing, although I'd still appreciate the opinion of outside editors. Thanks for the additional info. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
You’re welcome. That said, if the image remains a point of concern after further evaluation, I would not oppose replacing it with a still taken directly from the TABNAK footage or other verifiable video sources, as those would have clearer provenance and sourcing. VitoxxMass (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Karel Richard Richter.jpg

[edit]

File:Karel Richard Richter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lightiggy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Would it be safe to assume this is an official UK gov't photo, therefore under Crown copyright and PD? JayCubby 14:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would make that assumption. It's cited as "Karel Richter, Agent of the German Intelligence Service, 1941-1942 (KV 2/31)", and then it links to asset# 43835, which doesn't appear to exist. I wonder if it's not from the archives themselves. –DMartin (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
@Dmartin969, see page 4: https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/file-list-kv-march-2011.pdf
Seemingly a list of official photographs. JayCubby 19:01, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

April 5

File:Gianna Bryant.jpg

[edit]

File:Gianna Bryant.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by U-Mos (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is credited to "Jessica Hill/AP/Shutterstock ". Normally press agency images are subject to speedy deletion WP:F7 item b, but in this case the contested deletion on the file talk page includes the assertion "[t]he image is subject to commentary in the article it appears in". The provided source is this article which is about a viral video of Kobe Bryant chatting with Gianna. Presumably, the editor challenging this speedy deletion is claiming this photo relates to that aspect. However, this is an AP photo and not a screen cap for the viral video, so this image is not the subject of any significant sourced commentary, and fails, WP:NFCC#8. The actual stated purpose is for visual identification, and makes no mention of any other purpose. As an AP photo, this fails WP:NFCC#2. This image also fails WP:NFCC#1 as a free image is available and in fact exists in the article, or another can be chosen from c:Category:Gianna Bryant. Whpq (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep. WP:NFC#UUI does not apply to deceased person and WP:NFCC#1 is met, given only Commons options are of her at age 3. U-Mos, thanks for providing additional rationale & context! WidgetKid Converse 09:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep (uploader): I'm unclear why this nomination almost exclusively discusses one aside in my contesting statement, when as an infobox image other criteria is far more substantially important (and for the record, I maintain this image is fair use regardless of the commentary relating to the image in the article). You don't need to presume why I challenged the speedy deletion; I wrote a full contesting statement at File talk:Gianna Bryant.jpg, and it's disappointing that it's been almost entirely ignored. But to reiterate: I strongly object to the WP:NFCC#1 characterisation above, as I dispute that an image of a child at three years old (prior to any notability, which is derived from her later sports career and death) is reasonably equivalent to her at 13 (during her notability, and shortly before her death) – this in my view is the crux of whether this image is fair use or not, and should surely be the focus of our discussion here. Regarding WP:NFCC#2, the crop (removing Kobe Bryant) and resolution reduction means this does not encroach on the market role of the full original image – I am not sure how else that criteria is meant to be adhered to, but happy to take guidance (are you suggesting above that a video screencap would be more acceptable? Happy to provide if so.). Regarding WP:NFCC#8, I do believe the contextual significance of a sole, identifying image for infobox purposes is valid. It is worth quoting the licensing points at Template:Non-free biog-pic, by which I was guided in deeming this image appropriate under fair use: to provide visual identification of one or more specific individual(s), or an identifiable gathering of them; where the individual(s) concerned are deceased, or where access would for practical purposes be impossible; and for whom there is no known representation under a 'free' license. U-Mos (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
    AP licenses their images. That includes allowing the licensee to crop the images to fit their editorial use. That is the reason why WP:NFCC#2 is not met. There are certainly many photos of Gianna that are not press agency photos so it is not at all difficult to meet WP:NFCC#2 using some other photo. However, for somebody who passed at 13 years of age, I see no reason why a free image of them at 3 years of age is not usable for the infobox so I still maintain that WP:NFCC#1 is not met. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete While I am not entirely opposed to the idea that a fair use image is needed to identify an older Gianna Bryant, WP:GETTY very plainly states that photos taken by press agencies such as the AP are unacceptable as fair use images unless they are the source of commentary themselves. As the nominator notes, this is not a frame from said viral video and therefore does not meet that exception. Weak keep, as my concerns over WP:GETTY have been addressed and a photo of her at 3 years of age cannot reasonably be used to identify her at 13 years of age; children age a whole lot over ten years. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for indicating WP:GETTY - unfortunately I can no longer access the source used for the commentary around the image, so can't check if it's the photo specifically that's being discussed as being circulated after the deaths. Would it therefore be acceptable to update the file to a screenshot from the opening of this video? U-Mos (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Image updated to resolve breach of WP:GETTY as identified by Based5290. I acknowledge that Whpq's argument that WP:NFCC#1 is not met remains a matter to be resolved; my disagreement is recorded above. U-Mos (talk)

Two logos of the Football Association of Yugoslavia

[edit]

File:Yugoslav Football Federation 1990.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kaloqer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Yugoslav Football Federation 1991.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Candidyeoman55 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Verify if they are above or below Serbia's threshold of originality. I think they should be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Could this file be at least relisted? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Duane Slick Oval and Deluge 1993 Acrylic on linen 11 x 14 inches (27.9 × 35.6cm).jpg

[edit]

File:Duane Slick Oval and Deluge 1993 Acrylic on linen 11 x 14 inches (27.9 × 35.6cm).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pixelated Glitch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file summary states that this image was taken from this source: http://www.albertmerolagallery.com/duane-slick.html, however it is not located on that site (it was taken by an iPhone on April 4, 2026), therefore the source is incorrect. Additionally, it is not at all indicative of the artist's work who is well known for their imagery of coyotes and other Native American themes, therefore it is NOT indicative of the artist's work; And there is no discussion whatsoever in the article about the image (no contextual significance). It does not contribute to the readership's understanding of the subject. Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep for now. Rationale is valid, and I believe the implication from the uploader is that they took the photo when it was publicly displayed? But It doesn't seem overly clear, it would be nice if @Pixelated Glitch: could clarify. If there are better examples of the artist's work then you can upload it and replace it. –DMartin (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

April 4

File:1962 Daytona 500 program cover and logo.jpg

[edit]

File:1962 Daytona 500 program cover and logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nascar9919 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No relevant renewals related to the 1962 Daytona 500, NASCAR, or any other plausible search term, meaning this can be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon T/C 20:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:The Times Union 11-22-1963.jpg

[edit]

File:The Times Union 11-22-1963.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stalmannen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The Times-Union did not receive copyright renewals. The photos on the page are likely AP photos, which also did not receive renewals. This can therefore be moved to commons as a PD-scan of a public domain work. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon T/C 20:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  • That doesn't need to be agreed here, just do it. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Robredo's Piper Seneca.jpg

[edit]

File:Robredo's Piper Seneca.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Raigeiki55 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A photo of the exact plane involved could be replaced by a similar-looking Seneca.
Philippines gov't works are not protected by copyright, so if there is a government photo of this plane, that could be used I suppose. JayCubby 23:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon T/C 20:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

April 3

File:JoJo Dreamcast.jpg

[edit]

File:JoJo Dreamcast.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SkalgarXLR (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per WP:NFCC#3a, [m]ultiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information, where File:JoJo's Venture sales flyer.png suffices. Also fails WP:NFCC#8, as the latter file already significantly enhances readers' understanding of the game whereas omitting a video game cover would not be detrimental to [readers'] understanding [of the topic]. thejiujiangdragon T/C 00:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep, as the general expectation is to put the official US cover in the infobox. I don't see how the Japanese cover art contributes to readers' understanding more than the US cover. WidgetKid Converse 04:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete either this or File:JoJo's Venture sales flyer.png; I don't really mind which one. But we can't keep both. Stifle (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

File:0411jfNational Shrine Our Lady Holy Rosary La Naval de Manila Santo Domingofvf 10.jpg

[edit]

File:0411jfNational Shrine Our Lady Holy Rosary La Naval de Manila Santo Domingofvf 10.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IronGargoyle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unlikely to be free under US law after all. Based on Clindberg's insight at c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-01#File:The Good Shepherd Stained Glass Window Salem Baptist Church Logansport KY.jpg, older protections for architectural components might still exist (pre-AWCPA-era components or pre-1990). Since the artist of this work died in 1985, it is very unlikely to be a post-1990 work. Leicester v. Warner ruling only applies to post-1990 architectural elements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. I'm trying to understand the mental gymnastics you are going through to justify deleting this and I'm having a really hard time. Leicester v. Warner Bros. clearly established that architectural details (which stained glass windows obviously are) are allowable under US freedom of panorama. You seem to agree with that. OK so far. But you think because pre-1990 buildings in the US had NO copyright protections that the windows (which we agree are an integral component of the building) somehow magically gain stricter copyright protections and lack the freedom of panorama than they would have had if they had been created if they were built post-1990 because of Leicester v. Warner Bros.? There is no case law, statute, or legal principle which would suggest such a thing. It defies all common sense. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
    @IronGargoyle that is per Clindberg's insights on the undeletion request. But do note that this is not a US work. It is a foreign work made before AWCPA (AWCPA is not retroactive) and there is no immediate evidence that images of this stained glass were also published in the US within 30 days after it was unveiled (I assume it was in 1954, the same time the church was completed). Thus, its US copyright was restored through Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Do note the Leicester ruling relied on AWCPA, which is not retroactive. Pre-1990 buildings are PD under US law, yes, but any associated architectural art embedded within (stained glass for example) are bound for the pre-1990 rules. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
    And again, US FoP only applies to post-1990 US buildings. All pre-1990 buildings are public domain. Concerning the attached artworks, only post-1990 architectural art elements can be freely reproduced through Leicester ruling, citing AWCPA. AWCPA does not cover pre-1990 ones, and therefore common pre-1990 US copyright rules cover those architectural elements. Foreign elements, like this Philippine stained glass, are unfree courtesy of URAA. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I can see you are extrapolating this bizarre theory from an offhand comment by Clindberg which does not have any supportive evidence behind it. I am well aware that it is not a US work, but we are following US law on English Wikipedia. You bring up URAA, but URAA does not restore copyright on this building (as buildings were not copyrightable in the US in 1954) and this window is an integral part of said building. Of course AWCPA is not retroactive. AWCPA is what gives post 1990 buildings their copyright protection. If AWCPA was retroactive, US buildings prior to 1990 would have copyright. The main finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. involved AWCPA but it did not rely on AWCPA. The main finding was that architectural elements which are integrated with the overall work have the same level of protection as the overall work and that is retroactive to a time when architectural works were not copyrightable works. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per discussion. Thanks for the nomination, I've never seen this beautiful artwork and appreciate the chance. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Re-license as non-free by default, especially if "no consensus" at the end – Without clearer and consistent interpretation, hard to tell whether the depicted subject is free to use at this time, despite the photo's copyright status (as the photo itself, not the building or stained window). The "Keep" votes probably assumed this is a deletion discussion somehow... right? George Ho (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
    You can't just take a wacky legal theory and say that because a couple people believe it that this is evidence of a lack of consensus. If this was a real thing there would certainly be supportive case law, and there's just not. The straightforward and logical interpretation of Leicester v. Warner Bros. holds here. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
    The nominator said this:

    do note that this is not a US work. It is a foreign work made before AWCPA (AWCPA is not retroactive) and there is no immediate evidence that images of this stained glass were also published in the US within 30 days after it was unveiled (I assume it was in 1954, the same time the church was completed).

    Even if there's hesitancy to enforce URAA, being a non-US work plays a factor here. However, the stained windows have been still part of the building made before 1990. Perhaps an international law also plays factor in this. Oh... Realized just now that it's part of a Philippine church. In the Philippines, buildings may lack freedom of panorama (c:COM:FOP Philippines).
    Unsure why you're citing the case, which the nom said:

    The main finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. involved AWCPA but it did not rely on AWCPA. The main finding was that architectural elements which are integrated with the overall work have the same level of protection as the overall work and that is retroactive to a time when architectural works were not copyrightable works.

    George Ho (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
    @George Ho I base this on the non-applicability of the Leicester ruling for the pre-1990 artworks that are components of the pre-1990 buildings. @IronGargoyle again, Leicester is based on the spirit of AWCPA, which is not applicable for pre-1990 works. As such, pre-1990 architectural elements can be protected, either through registration for pre-1990 architectural elements in the US or URAA for foreign architectural elements. I'm still convinced of @Clindberg:'s reasoning at c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-01#File:The Good Shepherd Stained Glass Window Salem Baptist Church Logansport KY.jpg. To quote from Carl, "The ruling was that the architectural copyright -- which only applies to buildings completed since 1990 -- overrides the previous situation, where buildings themselves had no protection but "conceptually separable" works attached to them could. For buildings completed since 1990, attached works are now just part of the architectural copyright. The ruling does mention stained glass windows as being in the same realm, though the ruling wasn't specifically about those. However, for buildings / windows completed before 1990, the older protections may still exist, since they are outside the scope of the new architectural protections." Perhaps not a single Wikimedian has tried to search for possible copyright registration or marks on pre-1990 US architectural elements at SIRIS, to validate the non-applicability of Leicester for pre-1990 elements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
    George Ho's concern about this being a non-US work is completely a non-issue here as per the consensus that formed {{FoP-USonly}}. JWilz12345's point about SIRIS is absurd and simply trying to obfuscate the issue. SIRIS entries indicating registration for a pre-1990 architectural work would be completely meaningless because those registrations would have necessarily occurred before Leicester v. Warner Bros. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
    Even "FOP-USonly" has a warning notice: Do not use this template on copyrighted public artworks (like statues, sculptures, and murals)! If you're gonna treat the stained glass windows like merely part of the building/ architecture, then I can't stop you. Nonetheless, hard to take the view into consideration when the windows have exquisite artwork with enough originality to garner some protection (as an artwork), especially in the Philippines.
    Also, being tagged as "FOP-USonly" shouldn't prevent the file from being (re)licensed as non-free, should it, even when the photographer released the photo into the "public domain"? George Ho (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
    A stained glass window which is part of a building is theoretically protectable in the US, yes, but not protectable from 2D reproduction. I couldn't make a physical replica of the stained glass, but I can take a picture of it. That's what {{FoP-USonly}} and Leicester v. Warner Bros. are about. You ask why it can't be relicensed as non-free? It shouldn't be relicensed as non-free because it is free under US law in its current 2D form. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
    Especially as an admin of this project, you're willing to disregard opinions of Carl and of the OP, right? (Dunno whether your arguments resemble WP:IMRIGHT sentiments, honestly; the essay uses simple examples.) George Ho (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
    What does me being an admin (here and/or on Commons) have to do with anything here? I'm not disregarding the opinion. I read the opinion carefully and found it to be interesting but lacking in logic and evidence. I feel that I have a responsibility to argue vigorously against such arguments because their legal opacity might itself convey a veneer of legitimacy to those who are not well-versed in the minutiae of not just image copyright but also freedom of panorama. It is not like Files for Discussion typically attracts a wide audience and many participants. You mention WP:IMRIGHT, but I think that applies more on the other side. I've repeatedly asked for case law evidence subsequent to Leicester v. Warner Bros. which would have undoubtedly resulted if Clindberg's interpretation was correct. Nothing has been offered in response. As you can see from my talk page, JWilz12345 has nominated a fair number of files I've uploaded to English Wikipedia for deletion. Sometimes I make mistakes, and I've rapidly agreed to deletions in the handful of cases where these mistakes have been pointed out with evidence, but the judgement in these repeated nominations has not always been sound [in my opinion] and so I am not going to give JWilz12345 carte blanche here. The bandwagon fallacy is particularly to be avoided here. Consensus is important, but evidence and legal reasoning is particularly important when it comes to image copyright. I worry that [what I perceive to be] JWilz12345's intense interest in patrolling freedom-of-panorama-relevant images (particularly from the Phillipines) may sometimes cross over into ownership tendencies and produce a tendency to latch onto any novel argument that would seemingly justify further opportunities to delete architectural images. The problem is that the argument here does not actually pass legal muster. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
    @IronGargoyle: "I worry that JWilz12345's intense interest in patrolling freedom-of-panorama-relevant images", is a false accusation against me. As you have seen, my nomination rationale is based on an opinion by a longtime Commons user who is heavily involved in copyright matters. Perhaps Carl's and your opinions diverge into two different perspectives concerning the retroactivity issue of AWCPA's FoP provision, but accusing me of "further opportunities to delete architectural images" is just plain wrong. Of course, I don't have the right to nominate images for deletion due to the enWiki's adherence to the lex loci protectionis principle under the US legal system. False accusations must also be avoided. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
    I felt that I framed the statement as being my interpretation of your behavior and my own personal opinions and worries. Maybe the first part of the statement was framed as being overly a statement of fact as opposed to just representing my opinion. I apologize for not framing it more as a statement of my opinion. To correct that, I have clarified the statement above with brackets. Given George Ho's query about I why I don't believe the opinion of multiple editors (after making clear that I did not disregard it out of hand), I did feel that the scope and history of your nominations of files I have uploaded was important to address, but in retrospect the statements you highlight are probably off-topic enough to not be helpful here. I have struck it. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Just as a background, from the Leicester case text: [The district court] declined to construe the 1990 amendments as Leicester urged, to leave intact the previously authorized protection for sculptural works that were "conceptually separable" from the building of which they are a part, concluding instead that the intent of Congress was to substitute the new protection afforded architectural works for the previous protection sometimes provided under the conceptual separability test for nonutilitarian sculptures (such as gargoyles and stained glass windows) incorporated into a work of architecture. Accordingly, the court entered judgment for Warner Bros. Leicester has timely appealed. Before 1990, architectural works were not given any protection at all. To allow some protection of artistic works attached to buildings, it was generally recognized that "conceptually separable" works did get protection. The 1990 law giving protection to architectural works changed that; Leicester was arguing that the older protections should still exist in addition to the new architectural work protection, but the courts decided that was not the case. However, since pre-1990 buildings are still not protected at all, so that "conceptually separable" logic should still hold for older buildings. That is a bit fuzzier for foreign buildings though -- the window would have been PD immediately due to publication without notice. The URAA could have restored that, but did it restore the architectural work too? The wording of U.S. law however does not seem to apply the architectural copyright to pre-1990 buildings anywhere, but rather gives restored works the protection they would have had in the U.S. had they not fallen into the public domain. For a "conceptually separable" stained glass window (the court even named that specifically as an example of conceptually separable) on a pre-1990 construction, it seems like it would have a U.S. term of 95 years from publication. The text of the court case has a lot of discussion, referencing the House Report on the 1990 law which recognized the previously-available conceptually separable protection -- with somewhat ambiguous discussion there, which the court had to decide. Not sure I can find a copy of that online. Note that there was another case where a mural was added to a building later on; that was not considered as part of the architectural work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
That's an interesting theory, but it has zero case evidence supporting it and it doesn't make any sense. The idea of the central finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. not applying retroactively to works under a more lenient earlier copyright regime has no logic whatsoever. There would need to be evidence and case law to go down such a crazy path, and I am sure that if any such case law existed, JWilz12345 would have found it. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Um... the entire theory of the judicial decision is that the new architectural protection replaced the protection previously available for works incorporated into a building. The new architectural protection only applies to buildings completed after December 1990 -- it's explicitly non-retroactive. Existing buildings did not gain that protection. You are trying to argue that Congress simultaneously denied the new protection to older works, but then also eliminated the existing protection on them too? The original law (section 706) towards the end, says: The amendments made by this title apply to: (1) any architectural work created on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [December 1, 1990]; and (2) any architectural work that, on the date of the enactment of this Act, is unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings, except that protection for such architectural work under title 17, United States Code, by virtue of the amendments made by this title, shall terminate on December 31, 2002, unless the work is constructed by that date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Congress made AWCPA explicitly non-retroactive in 1990, but the main legal principle from Leicester v. Warner Bros. which allowed 2D reproduction of integral building elements is retroactive. It would make no sense if it wasn't. Again, there is no evidence of non-retroactivity presented here besides that of AWCPA. This non-retroactivity theory for the legal principle at play is a legal crystal ball which has no case law behind it. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
The legal principle from Leicester v. Warner Bros was that Congress decided that incorporated pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works (at least when incorporated at the time of construction, and considered "part of" the architectural work) fall under the new protection that Congress gave architecture in 1990, and replaced the older protection they used to have. If you say the ruling was retroactive, and Congress stated that there is no such architecture protection for buildings completed before 1990, what protection for incorporated pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works is there on buildings completed before 1990? The limitations used by the court only exist for works created in 1990 and onwards. The ruling was that copyright protection was replaced, not that the previous protection was incorrect, therefore not overturning previous rulings on such protection. The ruling states: Classification of the Zanja Madre as an architectural work is critical because unlike PGS works, architectural works are afforded a more limited copyright protection. If such architectural protection (and thus classification) did not exist before 1990, then earlier works cannot be protected by it, meaning they must still be protected as PGS works, basically. I'm not sure how such a ruling could be retroactive before 1990 -- that is nonsensical to me. The ruling states: If this interpretation is correct, the former doctrine of "conceptual separability" as it applied to pictorial, graphic or sculptural work embedded as part of a building, has been modified by the 1990 amendments. The court adopts this interpretation of the Act. But since the Act only changes architecture from 1990 going forward, then the previous doctrine cannot be changed for older works -- and nothing in that ruling supports such an interpretation. The House Report on the 1976 law (page 55) mentioned: A special situation is presented by architectural works. An architect's plans and drawings would, of course, be protected by copyright, but the extent to which that protection would extend to the structure depicted would depend on the circumstances. Purely non-functional or monumental structures would be subject to full copyright protection under the bill, and the same would be true of artistic sculpture or decorative ornamentation or embellishment added to a structure. On the other hand, where the only elements of shape in an architectural design are conceptually inseparable from the utilitarian aspects of the structure, copyright protection for the design would not be available. So, those protections clearly existed before (coming with it the gray areas of "conceptually separable", and requirements of copyright notices before 1978). I see nothing which says those don't still exist, in cases when the 1990 protection cannot apply. If they are protected as PGS works, then photos of them would follow the derivative rights rules for photos of normal statues etc. If uses are de minimis or incidental (unavoidable part of photographing a larger subject, like the whole building) photos should be fine -- but photos focusing on the copyrighted work may be an issue. For pre-1978 works in the U.S., the lack of copyright notice in many cases avoids any such problems. URAA-restored works cannot rely on that though. You might make the argument that they were restored as architectural works, but then the protection differs from that of U.S. works, and the URAA pretty much says that restored works get the same protection as U.S. works presuming that notice and renewal requirements had been followed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
The basic intent of Congress with AWCPA was to offer some degree of copyright protection for buildings while still allowing for a robust freedom of panorama. The court interpreted in Leicester v. Warner Bros that the intent of Congress included architecturally integral pictorial, graphical, and sculptural (PGS) works in this freedom of panorama. It is true that the previous protection for PGS works revolved around the issue of conceptual separability, but the intent of Congress found in Leicester was that there should be a robust freedom of panorama for architectural PGS work. It would would logically follow from the case that this intent was for all architectural PGS works. While copyright protection for architectural works didn't exist before 1990, pre-1990-architecturally-integral-PGS works are still a meaningful class of work and are still architectural works because they are integrated into an architectural work. Everything you are saying is just your supposition about what you think might be the consequence of copyright on architecture not existing before 1990. It is not a logical consequence (indeed, it would turn the intent of congress and the court's interpretation on its head) and I will remind whoever is reading this discussion that there is zero demonstrated case law of pre-1990-architecturally-integral PGS being protected in the post-1990 world in the way you suggest. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Congress did not want the new architectural protection to inhibit existing practices of photographing buildings, from when buildings had no protection at all. "Conceptually separable" works were fully blessed by Congress to have protection. They made no pronouncements on freedom of panorama in general; they were more concerned about the new types of works gaining protection. The AWCPA was ambiguous on whether conceptually separable works still get the older PGS protections, or the new ones. Leicester pretty much answered that, in that separable works which are "part of" the architectural works got the architectural protection, and the 17 USC 120(a) limitations that went with them. That cannot have possibly affected anything earlier, as 17 USC 120(a) explicitly can only apply to architecture completed since 1990. Congress did nothing to change the status of existing works. I'm not making this up only by reading the law -- this has been stated by others, though having trouble finding the references at the moment. But it makes sense given that the 17 USC 120(a) is the only section of law limiting photographs of works, and that cannot bee applied to earlier works. Secondly, some other court cases have limited the scope of Leicester a little bit, in that simply being attached to a building does not make it "part of" it. One example isFalkner V. General Motors LLC, which was about a mural painting on an already-completed parking garage. They ruled the mural was not "part of" the architectural work, and is protected as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural. The parties settled after that ruling. So "part of" does mean integrated in some way, particularly at the time of construction. Before 1990, architecture was not protected at all, so photographing them was fine, mostly. You could photograph separable works if you were photographing the whole building, but photos which focused on those separable works were still a problem. Congress was mostly trying to keep that status quo, and presumably has no issue with the Leicester ruling. But they only altered the protection where other works are "part of" the architectural work -- not for works like the above mural, which are not "part of" the architectural work, and not for pre-1990 works, where there is no such thing as an "architectural work" to be "part of" in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
How strange that you can't find these statements by others supposedly supporting your argument. I think that the last statement in your reply perfectly sums up the absurdity of this line of reasoning: "for pre-1990 works, where there is no such thing as an 'architectural work'". In US law these objects were not copyrightable, but they are and were a meaningful class of work and the main finding of Leicester v. Warner Bros. would certainly apply to pre-1990 architecturally-integral PGS works per the common sense interpretation of congressional intent and court findings I outline above. I will finally add that the Falkner V. General Motors LLC citation has zero relevance here. That case is about a mural. No one is arguing that murals are architecturally integral works. Stained glass windows are. The consensus and longstanding practice on Commons is that murals are deleted and architecturally integral elements are kept where US law applies. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep as is or relicense to non-free?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon T/C 00:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. I want to add a couple of points that I think the closer should consider here. I get wanting to avoid closing this wall of text which has lingered for months and I understand that a combination of credo quia absurdum and legal bafflegab can be quite compelling to some. Novel arguments are interesting, but there was never any evidence provided in the discussion that this counterintuitive legal theory is true. We are also not really talking about just an individual file here. We are talking about a legal principle and the seeming lack of consensus between 5 commenters here needs to be weighed against longstanding consensus both in practice and interpretation of Leicester v. Warner Bros. at Commons, where this wholly novel argument has never been tested or discussed before. Also, I just realized (and this is part of the reason I am commenting again) that this file is an absolutely terrible test case of the argument the nominator raises. Realize that there are only two possible statuses of the work: On one side this is an architectural element. If you believe that argument (as I do) then this is allowable on English Wikipedia because of {{FoP-USonly}}. If, on the other hand, you buy the argument that this is not architectural (which I still think is a wholly wrong interpretation) the work would then be best categorized as applied art. The nominator admits earlier in the discussion that this stained glass was most likely created in 1954. Applied art in the Philippines has a 25 year copyright term after creation (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines). This means that it was in the public domain in the Philippines well before the URAA date and thus in the public domain in the US as well. Neither interpretation results in a file which should be deleted (or tagged as non-free). IronGargoyle (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
    @IronGargoyle I don't think the courts here have ruled stained glass as applied art. Without affirmative court decision, it's wise to consider these within the bounds of artistic works. IPOPHL's copyright bulletins implicitly treats buildings (architecture) as fine arts by counting the public domain status based on 50-yr. duration from the year of the architects' deaths, not from the duration used for applied arts. See, for example, page 6 of the IPOPHL Copyright Bulletin issue for Jan.-Jun. 2025 (Vol. 5 No. 1-2). Mentioned there: Pablo Antonio's buildings would fall out of copyright in 2026, including many theaters and school buildings. I am pointing out that not everything that can be treated as "applied art" in the West can also be treated the same here, copyright-wise. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
    Either way it's free in the US. I find it interesting that your standard of evidence changes though. You demand "affirmative court decision[s]" showing that stained glass is applied art (not an extraordinary claim), but you happily accept the extraordinary claim of pre-1990 architecture not being architecture without a shred of legal evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but even a shred of evidence would be nice here. Credo quia absurdum is not actually a sound argument. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Wikileaks homepage screenshot March 2025.png

[edit]

File:Wikileaks homepage screenshot March 2025.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tollens (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is reason to believe this file is actually free, at least in the US.

  1. The five cartoons on the thumbnails are by Carlos Latuff. Latuff has released the copyright to his cartoons per here.
  2. The WikiLeaks logo was released under a free license per here.
  3. The map screenshot is from OpenStreetMap, which is freely licensed per here.
  4. Other than the above, the web design itself consists of simple shapes and short excerpts of text.

Due to a lack of clarity about where the website is currently hosted, the file should not be moved to Commons. Rather, it should be marked as a free file on enwiki and have its file size set to normal rather than minimized. ―Howard🌽33 14:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: the bottom left Wikileaks logo may not be free, as I could not find a free license for it. This may need to be censored if the file is set to free. ―Howard🌽33 14:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Raync (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon T/C 00:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Support relicensing as a free file and unhiding the high res revision. Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment - If we find the file to be non-free, I believe it might fail NFCC#8 since the screenshot doesn't really add much to understanding nor is discussed in the article, and its rationale says it is meant to "illustrate". Rose Abrams (T C L) 12:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Don McLean - Favorites and Rarities Coverart.png

[edit]

File:Don McLean - Favorites and Rarities Coverart.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Salavat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Contains PD photo File:Don McLean 1976.JPG plus some simple graphic elements, so it too should be PD. JayCubby 22:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon T/C 00:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Move to Commons per nom. Logic is solid. WidgetKid Converse 04:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Do not move to Commons, i.e. remain as-is (non-free). Discogs reveals in crisper version use of crooked lines on the background and all in some paint or whatever. Anything but simple, IMO. George Ho (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Added content is above threshold of originality. Stifle (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

File:UEFA Champions League.svg

[edit]

File:UEFA Champions League.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

I would like to find out how high or low Switzerland's threshold of originality is. Whether this can actually be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Remain as-is by default (PD-ineligible-USonly). Per c:COM:PCP, let's assume then that this image is noncompliant with c:COM:TOO Switzerland. I can stand corrected by a convincing opposing argument. (I might rebut, nonetheless.) --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Barrowblitz2.jpg

[edit]

File:Barrowblitz2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stevvvv4444 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is following up from a DMCA takedown of one of the images detailed on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#DMCA_takedown_on_enwiki.

There is no rationale for whether the image is replaceable with a free image, but it could potentially be an implied rationale. In any case, it would be great to double check that indeed the image is non-replaceable and delete otherwise. Aasim (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep as is. The historical licensing looks appropriate for the non-free use. WidgetKid Converse 05:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete Only one fair use image is needed to show the damage, and that is better done with File:Barrowblitz.jpg. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2

File:AsiaBasket Logo.png

[edit]

File:AsiaBasket Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hariboneagle927 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The logo only consists of lines to form a basketball and the letters A and S. I think it is simple enough for it to be moved to Commons due to it being under TOO. MarcusAbacus (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Do not transfer to Commons The Philippines' threshold of originality is presumably very low, and the curving of the letters makes the logo itself less than seemingly simple. Unsure whether the US law would protect it, but let's treat this as non-free by default. --George Ho (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

April 1

File:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill logo, 2025.svg

[edit]

File:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill logo, 2025.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bailmoney27 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

https://www.unc.edu/posts/2025/11/05/the-universitys-new-mark-is-anything-but/ shows several much older public domain designs resembling this logo. The 1930 license plate, in particular, proves to me that even if the logo could have received copyright protection, it no longer has it; derivative works generally have to clear a much higher bar to receive copyright protection independent from the underlying work. Simply curving some lines does not seem to meet that threshold. This should be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Somehow didn't notice on first read, but the 1892 picture shows a logo on a sweater with an even closer design (perhaps even the same design?). Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd also say that 1892 picture shows the exact same design. In that case I'd say you're probably right that the mark falls into the public domain. Bailmoney27 talk 13:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

File:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill seal.svg

[edit]

File:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill seal.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Opertinicy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

According to https://blogs.lib.unc.edu/hill/2016/05/12/the-history-of-the-university-seal/, this seal design was adopted in 1944. Therefore, copyright renewal around 1972 would have been required for continued protection, but no such renewal occurred, meaning the logo is public domain. This can be moved to Commons (unless the vectorization itself is copyrightable, in which case this should be deleted as a free vectorization could be made). Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

March 30

File:Lottie Gilson.jpeg

[edit]

File:Lottie Gilson.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ghmyrtle (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC1 as a non-free file, given the existence of File:Lottie Gilson - DPLA - 77712d7bfe0abad942b2a326914bf703 (page 1).jpg, among others. However, given the fact that this can't have been taken before 1912, and it's a publicity photo, this is quite likely to have fallen into the public domain. Assuming we can track down a non-Find a Grave publication date. this can go to Commons. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

And if we can't, then this can just be deleted as a clear NFCC1 failure, and undeleted via REFUND in the future... GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 22:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

March 29

File:MEX airport logo.png

[edit]

File:MEX airport logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Yahoo screenshot 1994.png

[edit]

File:Yahoo screenshot 1994.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tim42 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Should be well below TOO JayCubby 21:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

March 27

Non-free images of pre-1931 Disney characters

[edit]

File:Minnie Mouse Duckipedia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Pluto (Disney) transparent.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). .
File:Horace Horsecollar Duckipedia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Clarabelle Cow Duckipedia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

These Disney characters pre-date 1931, the cutoff for content to pass into the public domain in the USA. These fair use images are therefore replaceable by free (copyright-expired) images from 1930 and earlier that exist of them, and indeed such images are already present further down the article. Though at point of upload, there may not have been any free images available, there are now, and it is not appropriate to use non-free content decoratively or because it is "better" or "a more modern representation" of the character when free images are available, even if the free images are considered somehow less desirable or representative. See for example Mickey Mouse, where a 1920s image has been used for some time. Also see precedent for replacing non-free images with slightly less desirable free images at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 July 17#File:Sheriff_Woody.png and following.

Uploader improperly removed {{di-replaceable non-free use}} tag so referring to here.

Note: As non-free images, consensus is required to keep these files; see WP:NFCCE. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

It's been a while since I dealt with a nonfree dispute. I'm used to WP:BRD. But, it's better to have this discussion centralized anyway.
Among other reasons, we have fair use content for identification. If a reader is only familiar with modern iterations of Minnie/Pluto/Horace/Clarabelle, would a screenshot from Steamboat Willie allow them to positively confirm they arrived at the right article? I doubt that. If a reader views File:Rover (Pluto), The Picnic 1930.jpg and then encounters an image of modern Pluto "in the wild"—will they be able to identify the cartoon dog as Pluto? I severely doubt it.
When versions of the characters that are much closer to the modern day versions enter the public domain, this evaluation will shift. But today?Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Alexis Jazz raises good points. I think it's likely a case-by-case basis. My $0.02 on the images above:
I also noticed that the Mickey Mouse article still has modern non-free versions, but they're tied directly to a section's discussion, e.g. regarding appearance changes over time. In that case, I think it's totally appropriate to keep the non-free image. I think one way to save the modern images would be to add a section about appearance changes over time (assuming sources exist - I would think they do for Minnie & Pluto, not sure about Horace and Clarabelle). WidgetKid Converse 19:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Album arts of Declaration of Conformity (Wellwater Conspiracy album)

[edit]

File:Declaration of Conformity (Wellwater Conspiracy album - cover art).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by -5- (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:WellwaterConspiracy-DeclarationofConformity2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by -5- (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Either a CD or vinyl edition, both using different artworks, should be used. If no consensus on which one, then let's use the CD edition by default since CD was a popular format in the 1990s. Meanwhile vinyl struggled and floundered (before the vinyl revival), but keeping the edition might appease vinyl seekers amid the current vinyl revival/digital era, IMO. George Ho (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep both to help with identification of the subject, due to being vastly different visually. WidgetKid Converse 19:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    Umm... I'm unconvinced that being vastly different visually is enough for an alternative cover to comply with WP:NFCC#3a... and instructions seen in this one: Template:infobox album/doc#Template:Extra album cover. The vinyl edition apparently wasn't widely released but rather sold in shops that still sold vinyls, probably secondhand ones. George Ho (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    George Ho: Looks like a pass to me: An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion. (my emphasis/underline added) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ WidgetKid Converse 05:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, the text-only album cover with white background replaces the original vinyl cover, which was used for the back cover of the 2023 vinyl reissue. Meanwhile, the original CD cover is still used on Spotify. Will upload that text-only cover art soon... but only as "PD-ineligible-USonly".... George Ho (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
    Or we could include all three. The second replaced the original, and the third replaced the others. I don't see why all three can't be included since visually very different, and any could be key to identification by a reader. WidgetKid Converse 06:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
    Well... Let's await other people's opinions on this then. George Ho (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
    Uploaded File:Declaration of Conformity by Wellwater Conspiracy 2023 reissue.jpg just now as "PD-ineligible-USonly". George Ho (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

March 25

File:RHONY Season8Cover.png

[edit]

File:RHONY Season8Cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kelege (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Derives from the other image seen in Getty Images (link), which violates WP:GETTY and WP:NFCC#2, but with a different background and layout. Default to delete if in doubt about this listed image. George Ho (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. Passes WP:NFCC#2, because it's a low-resolution image. A 300x300 image isn't going to take away any commercial opportunities from Bravo or Getty. Not sure if WP:GETTY applies. Getty distributes lots of photos owned by others. This one is credited to Bravo. Given it's use as the image on Apple, this is similar to an album cover, so fair use in the context of the season (but nowhere else). WidgetKid Converse 04:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

    Getty distributes lots of photos owned by others.

    Nonetheless, other cast photos seen in Getty have been deleted. So was a promo image of Steve Urkel that I uploaded years ago. Of course, I'm using WP:WHATABOUT argument, eh? George Ho (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
    Oh, almost forgot: If a photo belonging to NBCUniversal appears on Getty Images, most likely NBCUniversalwhich currently owns Bravo, NBC, and Telemundohas very deep commercial interersts in that photo. (Not to be confused with Comcast's spun-off company Versant.) George Ho (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
    I don't think Bravo/NBCUniversal's commercial interest in the photo is disputed. Them having a commercial interest is different than us taking away from their commercial opportunities, which I don't think we are by displaying a 300x300 low res pixel version. WidgetKid Converse 17:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
    Even being 300x300 didn't stop such images from being deleted. A use of an image seen on Getty Images should either, in certain circumstances, follow... or fail WP:GETTY. George Ho (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

March 18

File:Raiders of the Lost Ark Theatrical Poster.jpg

[edit]

File:Raiders of the Lost Ark Theatrical Poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Darkwarriorblake (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Has rightly been replaced by File:Raiders of the Lost Ark.jpg in the infobox. What is the significance of the 1982 re-release anyway? Per WP:FILMPOSTER we must use the original theatrical release poster. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Immediate closure of discussion: Image has been put back in place. No discussion was had over changing it while previous discussions have been had and it was kept. Posters are meant to be how it is commonly recognized. Existing image has been in place for years, including through FA, and OP should have opened a discussion on the talk page OR reviewed the previous discussions, instead of replacing it and then immediately opening this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose closure: No opinion on whether this should be deleted, but FFD is an acceptable venue for this discussion. ―Howard🌽33 13:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose closure as well. Though maybe not the best way to resolve it, it's here now. Let's have the discussion. WidgetKid Converse 00:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Replace with original 1981 version (File:Raiders of the Lost Ark.jpg, per WP:FILMPOSTER: "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article." FWIW, even Lucasfilms thinks it's the one fans recognize. WidgetKid Converse 00:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    This was the argument I made in the discussion Kailash linked to below, and I'm not sure why apparently nothing came of it. DonIago (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was previously discussed here but I think it went nowehere. Linking it for reference. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
    Widgetkid, the original poster file was deleted for being orphaned but I re-uploaded it. I only hope other users will respond but Howardcorn33 is on a break. And I do not want to take to canvassing. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Doniago, thank you for your comments. Darkwarriorblake, any further comment? I know "ideally" does not mean "must" as you mentioned here, but the 1981 poster is the best recognised one per Lucasfilm. That's why the Star Wars original trilogy films don't use their re-release posters, even though Lucas may prefer them. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Replace with original theatrical poster. Illini11 (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

March 16

File:Anderson Elevator Fire Reading.jpg

[edit]

File:Anderson Elevator Fire Reading.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ray.lowry (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The copyright statement for this image says it was first published prior to 1931 (1923, according to the uploader) — but the event in reference (according to the caption accompanying this image's only usage, and this source) occurred in 1936. I was unable to find an online source for this image, and the original uploader did not provide one; thus, the file may not be public domain by expiry as asserted on its page. Staraction (talk · contribs) 01:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons per publication in The Worthington Globe Oct 26, 1936 without notice. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

March 11

File:Regan Russell Fearmans Surveillance.jpeg

[edit]

File:Regan Russell Fearmans Surveillance.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheVeganFromNorfolk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Likely PD in the US, maybe not in Canada, but should be converted. JayCubby 01:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep on enwiki; convert to PD; CCTV footage is public domain in the US per c:Template:PD-automated. No clue about Canada so should not be moved to Commons. ―Howard🌽33 14:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Why does the file description say it's under Crown copyright? That makes no sense. By the way, CCTV footage is considered a "cinematographic work" in Canada, so it would not be public domain here. MediaKyle (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

March 10

File:Mohammed al Quahtani.jpg

[edit]

File:Mohammed al Quahtani.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Geo Swan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image at the top of the article is a free replacement. Posing and background suggests this might be a US gov work, but I cannot identify the actual source (the NYT link is wrong). Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
https://monster-island.net/2006_03_01_archive.html
This suggests image has been in circulation since at least early 2006, I am still looking for the origin. Minermatt122514 (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
I haven't figured it out yet, but I did find another mugshot I have never seen before on this document here. https://www.scribd.com/document/13949990/T5-B57-T-Eldrige-Primary-Docs-20th-Hijackers-2-of-4-Fdr-Muahammad-Qahtani-Withdrawal-of-Application-for-Admission-InS-DOJ Minermatt122514 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Never mind, what I just found is not a mugshot. Minermatt122514 (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

John Walmsley book covers

[edit]

File:Neill & Summerhill by John Walmsley Book Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AnnaSoophiia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Café Royal Books Series by John Walmsley.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AnnaSoophiia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free book cover files currently being used in John Walmsley (photographer) whose respective uses fail WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite_note-3), but to perhaps different degrees.

The "Neill & Summerhill by John Walmsley Book Cover" is mentioned twice in the article: once briefly in the lead and once with a little more context in John Walmsley (photographer)#1967 A.S. Neill and Summerhill School, but I'm not quite sure whether this is a enough to meet WP:NFC#CS. Given that Walmsley's Wikipedia notable is based on what he achieved as a photographer, though, it could be argued that this file could be seen as a representative example of his work and just needs to be moved the subsection where the book is discussed. This non-free use might be worth discussing in more detail.

The non-free use of "Café Royal Books Series by John Walmsley.jpg" in John Walmsley (photographer)#Café Royal Books publications, on the other hand, seems to be a clear case of WP:DECORATIVE non-free use which might also have issues per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#3 because it looks like a user-created montage of the covers of the six of that particular series. I can't think of any way this could possibly be justified per NFCC#8 that would allow it to be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

File:The Magnificent Eleven - First Five.jpg

[edit]

File:The Magnificent Eleven - First Five.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Esemono (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

(From top) Frame 1, 3, and 5 are PD, but some are probably not (not published in Life or anywhere else, I think). The PD frames are suitable replacements for the collection as a whole. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 16:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Correction: the bottom frame is copyrighted, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Normandy-June-6th-1944-US-troops-assault-Omaha-Beach-during-the-D-Day-landings-6.jpg. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

March 7

File:A-Trak HWR Remix.jpg

[edit]

File:A-Trak HWR Remix.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DavFaithid (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC 3a and 8. RedShellMomentum 05:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. Remix version was very successful - maybe even more than the original. Given it's called out on the "200 Greatest Dance Songs" in Rolling Stone, I think it's worth keeping. I actually recognized the remix cover from my own spins, but not the original. WidgetKid converse 06:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 21:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Nancy Guthrie Missing Poster.png

[edit]

File:Nancy Guthrie Missing Poster.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DocZach (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCC#3 and possibly WP:NFCC#8. The copyrighted image of Nancy Guthrie is already a separate file in the article, and this reuse is not necessary. The other images are from a PD video in the article, and the info in the text can easily be incorporated in the article if necessary. Sign² (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep. US government works are public domain, so add a warning it has partial copyright, but move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
There's no way the photo of Guthrie is de minimis, so that needs to be taken out or blurred before moving to commons. The other photos fall under PD-automated. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
There is a tag at Commons that says: Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete or convert to fair use. De minimis is not applicable here as removing the copyrighted image would make the poster useless. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The FBI did not create that family photo of Nancy, so that's not in the public domain. I also don't see why someone would upload copyrighted content twice. V. S. Video (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Isn't the portion of the image that is copyright small enough to qualify for fair use even when the FBI image is 1,033 × 804 ?  Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohum (talkcontribs) 16:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Convert back to fair use, soft keep — As the original uploader of this file, I am not convinced that it qualifies as public domain. Simply appearing on an FBI missing-person poster does not automatically place the image in the public domain unless it was originally created by a U.S. federal employee as part of their official duties, or otherwise publicly documented and reported as an exhibit in a criminal case or investigation. For that reason, I believe the file should be reverted back to a fair-use rationale. And honestly, I would not object to removing this file entirely, and I can instead upload the images of the suspect from the doorbell camera separately, which do indeed fall under public domain. DocZach (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus that this isn't in the public domain. But there's been no discussion at all on whether this meets non-free content criteria given that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons copyrighted image has been removed, leaving only PD-USGov and PD-automated works. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
It kinda looks ugly the result. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
You are free to take a crack at removing the copyrighted image yourself or explain why you think it's ugly. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Agree ~2026-18688-27 (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  • The removed image is already in the infobox at the article, so I'm not sure it accomplishes a great deal. I'd revert and retag as partially fair use. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep or convert to fair use. Regarding WP:NFCC#3, the multiple uses in the article serve distinct purposes that convey different information ((a) image of subject, (b) salient information about government attempts to solve the crime) therefore it is not a failure here. Regarding WP:NFCC#8, the poster conveys clear info about the government's response. For fair use, simply use the already existing low-resolution version: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/e9/20260213012522%21Nancy_Guthrie_Missing_Poster.png CosmicDefect (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:EuroLeague.svg

[edit]

File:EuroLeague.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Either Public Domain, or PD-US. I don't think the US Copyright Office would accept this logo. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Relist it or move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
I replaced the file at the page, so delete it now. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
With the same image but under the different filename: File:EuroLeague logo.svg? I have reservations about the logo's copyright in Spain since the logo's author, Euroleague Basketball, is headquartered in Spain, so I nominated the Commons copy you uploaded for deletion (click/tap here). George Ho (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Re-license as PD-ineligible-USonly for now until Commons deems it okay to use in the project. If "kept" there, then this logo should be exported to Commons. George Ho (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
    If there's no response by anyone else until 12 April, you can move it to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
    Why setting up a deadline? Do you plan to move the file yourself? George Ho (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
    I forgot there was a backlog. Sorry. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

File:TNT Tropang 5G logo.png

[edit]

File:TNT Tropang 5G logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hariboneagle927 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The "Tropang 5G" wordmark is just simple text with a few streak lines. In my opinion, this may not reach the TOO and it could belong in Commons. Not sure about the TNT logo, but it already has a Commons file. MarcusAbacus (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Aerial image of a home swept away at EF4 intensity near Enderlin.jpg

[edit]

File:Aerial image of a home swept away at EF4 intensity near Enderlin.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GrenadinesDes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Already one other fair use image in the article (see File:Violent EF5 damage to several full grain train cars near Enderlin.png). I'd argue that train cars being tossed off the tracks is more helpful to the reader as far as illustrating the power of the tornado goes. Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:1990 FIFA World Cup.svg

[edit]

File:1990 FIFA World Cup.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Italy has a high threshold of originality. Move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Relist this file, or move it to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

[edit]

File:John Logie Baird, 1st Image.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cactus.man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:John Logie Baird, Apparatus.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cactus.man (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Baird experimental broadcast.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cloudbound (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I had listed it before, but it was speedy kept because one of these files was in the main page one day. He died in 1946. Verify if these works have other known authors. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Relist this file or close it as move to Commons Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Re-license as non-free if there's no consensus on whether the images listed here are in the public domain. Unsure when the images were first published, honestly. Indeed, there's c:COM:PCP to consider. George Ho (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC); partially struck, 07:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    Any of Baird's works have entered the public domain in the UK as he died in 1946. So I disagree with you. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    Per c:COM:UK, US copyrights of most British works were restored in 1996 by the URAA, one year after their British copyrights were restored. That way, their US copyrights would have 95 years of protection after first publication. In other words, a couple of those images became copyrighted again in the US in 1996. Also, the Wikimedia projects have relied on infrastructure located in the US; c:COM:licensing should tell users that a work must be in the public domain in not just its source country but also the US. George Ho (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    The first two were published before 1931. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    One was verified by a 1926 publication, provided by another editor. The other one... I hope you're right; too bad the source here doesn't detail when the photo was first created or published (https://web.archive.org/web/20110614090114/http://www.kinema.uwaterloo.ca/article.php?id=314&feature). George Ho (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons File:John Logie Baird, 1st Image.jpg can confirm 1926 publication in The Electrician. Also move File:Baird experimental broadcast.jpg as noncreative combination of public domain elements (Union Jack, fleur de lis) and PD-text.
No word on if File:John Logie Baird, Apparatus.jpg is PD. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Clarifying that for UK copyright, File:John Logie Baird, 1st Image.jpg likely falls under PD-scan of a work presumably by Baird, and File:Baird experimental broadcast.jpg is either by Baird or an anonymous author; in either case, it's also PD. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
With all due respect about File:Baird experimental broadcast.jpg, the originality standards is kinda low-ish in the UK (c:COM:TOO UK). The UK law has allowed very, very simple logos. Unfortunately, the screenshot in there might not be. Too bad the Wayback Archive has excluded this source (https://thetvroom.com/bbcuk/bbc-1-01-01.html), so uncertain when the title card first appeared publicly.
Nonetheless, it's not protected as a wireless broadcast made before 1st June 1957. It's not a pre-1957 film exemplifying an "original dramatic work"... is it? If so, then... it might have expired in 2017. Same for anonymous artist works made before 1946 and ones whose authors died in 1946 or before. Speaking of artistic works, dunno exactly who designed and made the title card, but Baird broadcasted the programme.
The US copyright status you may have hit the spot on, especially due to the fleur de lis logo. George Ho (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/invention-television-tv-baird dates File:John Logie Baird, Apparatus.jpg to March 19, 1925, and it's likely a Daily Herald photo, as shown here in a 1946 issue. However, this is the earliest publication I can find; a 1925 photo first published in 1946 would've been subject to URAA restoration. Delete File:John Logie Baird, Apparatus.jpg unless an earlier publication can be found. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete only the Apparatus image due to uncertainty about its first publication. Move "1st image" to Commons per evidence of early publication provided. Leaning toward moving the broadcast image to Commons due to possible un-originality. George Ho (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    Even if the image with an unknown date was published after 1931, I think it may be public domain in the US because it wasn't published in the country, wasn't registered at the US Copyright Office and certainly didn't have a copyright notice. For this reason (and others), move all three to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

    I think it may be public domain in the US because it wasn't published in the country, wasn't registered at the US Copyright Office and certainly didn't have a copyright notice.

    Unfortunately, those reasons aren't enough to make a non-US work exempt from the URAA. To further make it so, that foreign, non-US work should be published in the US either first or within thirty days after its first non-US publication (c:Template:PD-URAA-simultaneous/c:COM:URAA-restored copyrights#Are all foreign works affected?). Otherwise, such work made in 1931 or later will still be copyrighted, especially if partnered with a US ally. The chart from Cornell University should simplify things: click/tap here. George Ho (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    I think it would be strange for URAA to apply to UK works, because I think the UK and the US have very long copyright relations, maybe the UK is one of the oldest copyright relations of the US, if not the oldest. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    "Strange" to you, but the URAA has been effective since the mid-1990s. The Supreme Court upheld the law, so it's been upheld since. If you still have issues with the URAA itself and its application to British works, either WP:MCQ, c:COM:VPCOPY, WT:NFC, or WP:VPP should do. George Ho (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    I guess many British people who published works in America at the time would register their works in America separately. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Lawrence Compton Bush Conant Compton Loomis 83d40m March 1940 meeting UCB.JPG

[edit]

File:Lawrence Compton Bush Conant Compton Loomis 83d40m March 1940 meeting UCB.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 83d40m (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file does not appear to be licensed correctly. Per the source, The University of California, as the Department of Energy contractor managing the historical image scanning project, has asserted a continuing legal interest in the digital versions of the images included in the NARA accession, and, accordingly, has stipulated that anyone intending to use any of these digital images for commercial purposes, including textbooks, commercial materials, and periodicals, must obtain prior permission from the University of California-Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, through photo@lbl.gov.. WidgetKid chat me 15:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh 📖   🎮 22:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
In US; there is no new copyright when making a digital version. The question is, is the original image copyrighted? Christian75 (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • The University of California can go pound sand; there's no new copyright created by a scan or other "slavish reproduction". However, it is insufficiently proven that the photographer was a federal employee, or that the image was taken in the course of their duties. Accordingly, delete. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    Retag and move to Commons per the below analysis. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Move to Commons I worked on identifying these permissions when I uploaded a higher-resolution image, so I will add context. This photograph was taken by Donald Cooksey at the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory on March 29, 1940. It was unpublished at the time and protected by common law copyright under the 1909 Copyright Act.
The photograph was subsequently published in The New World, 1939/1946 (Hewlett & Anderson, 1962), the official history of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (after page 32). The acknowledgments (p.xiv) confirm that Cooksey permitted the authors to select photographs from his collection. As an official AEC publication, The New World was a work of the United States government and carried no copyright notice.
Under the 1909 Copyright Act (Section 10), which governed at the time Hewlett & Anderson published, publication without copyright notice constituted forfeiture of copyright. When Cooksey authorized inclusion of his photograph in a government publication, the photograph was published without notice and entered the public domain. This forfeiture was irreversible under the 1909 Act.
In case the unpublished photograph was voluntarily copyrighted ahead of publication, I have also searched the copyright catalogs made available by Stanford, U Penn, and the US Copyright Office. The University of California regents routinely filed copyright claims for books and manuals. There is no indication they did so for photographs or publications of the Radiation Laboratory. After 1968, options to renew a 1940 photo would have lapsed under the 28-year rule. While there are still some copyright records that lie beyond online search, it would be remarkable if UC filed copyright before 1968 for Rad Lab photographs it archived in 1972. The UC system has since declared a broad copyright policy, that would not restore copyright to this image.
Retagging the basis seems like the right approach to me. Stifle is correct that UC cannot assert copyright through mere scanning, and also correct that Cooksey was not a federal employee (likely a UC employee). So a better retag would be PD-US-no-notice or PD-US-not-renewed. Perhaps we should include further documentation of the PD status in New World. Nickknack00 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons per Nickknack00's excellent research. A note that this was published in New World without notice should be made in the permissions field when the file gets moved. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
'Move to Commons per Nickknoack00's findings. Thanks! WidgetKid Converse 05:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Zapluty karzel.jpg

[edit]

File:Zapluty karzel.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Darwinek (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See Template:PD-Poland. By age, this should be in the public domain. JayCubby 13:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  • Move to Commons per nom. WidgetKid chat me 02:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Move to Commons per nom. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • support per nom --Lenticel (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: The earliest I can see that this was created is 1946 according to Reddit and per commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland, terms run to the end of year meaning that this was copyrighted on the URAA date of January 1, 1996 by a literal goddamn year. The old 50 year term applies since it's not a photograph (and, to be clear, I think the retroactive nature is absolute BS). It's out of copyright in Poland, but not in the US because of blasted URAA. I could very well be missing something as I only checked online sources since I can't read Polish for offline sources, but I'm not confident enough to move this to Commons myself so I reverted my close. I also saw that there's a claim that the artist actually made this poster, but I couldn't find any kind of evidence towards this besides art resellers and those aren't reliable. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Ruzena Levy Return to Solotnva 2013.jpg

[edit]

File:Ruzena Levy Return to Solotnva 2013.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mahtin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a photo of a Holocaust memorial located in the Ukraine taken by the uploader. The licensing for the photo itself is fine, but the copyright status of the memorial isn't clear. After discussing this with the uploader at User talk:Mahtin#File:Ruzena Levy Return to Solotnva 2013.jpg, the uploader added a {{PD-UA-exempt}} license for the monument, but I'm not sure that license applies in this case. There's only limited freedom of panorama in the Ukraine per c:COM:FOP Ukraine, which places restrictions on commerical reuse; so, I don't think this file that can be kept as currently licensed, at least with respect to the monument. Sometimes in cases like this a non-free license can be added for the photographed work, but that can't really be done here because of WP:NFCC#9 (the image is currently being used in a userspace draft). If others can figure out a way to keep this file, then great; othereise, I think it needs to be deleted if the consent of the copyright holder of the monument can't be obtained. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

It's a wall with a few words in two languages on it. Not an architectural work. Probably OK for Commons too. JayCubby 20:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Maxine Carr Soham MurdersA.jpg

[edit]

File:Maxine Carr Soham MurdersA.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kieronoldham (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

As the person is alive, a photo for "visual identification" can be taken. The photo is therefore replaceable, and Wikipedia:NFCC#1 is not met. Schwede66 22:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. With all due respect, Schwede66, if you understand the subject in the image, she is now protected by a lifelong anonymity order, so I fail to see how a more recent/current "photo [of her] for 'visual identification' can be taken" without breaching the law. Therefore, how can anyone legally replace it? This image of her - widely circulated in the media since 2002 and to the present day - was taken upon her arrest and prior to the imposition of said anonymity order.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
You might want to read this story: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/News and notes
As far as I know, that's the current state of affairs: "The Wikimedia Foundation stated in their 2008 resolution on licensing policy that non-free images of living people would almost always not be allowed." Schwede66 00:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Think you may be being a little pedantic here, but we will see how things develop. No freely released image of the individual in question exists, and the image has been - and continues to be - extremely widely circulated in broadcast, printed and online format for over 23 years.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Any free image of this person would be illegal! Not replaceable. Free images of living people are almost always not allowed, but for it to be literally illegal to make a replacement is in that 1% of situations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

file:New Mexico State Defense Force insignia.png

[edit]

File:New Mexico State Defense Force insignia.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Et0048 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

If the deleted revision is undeleted, this can be moved {{to Commons}}. — Arlo James Barnes 19:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

  • Leaning toward moving to Commons – As I see, it was previously considered non-free (old id). Upon evaluation, I can see just plain colors, lines and a circle forming together, and simple(?) shapes. By the way, how about WP:Twinkle software next time for FFD listings? George Ho (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
    Okay, I'll use Twinkle next time. — Arlo James Barnes 13:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh 📖   🎮 22:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Since the deleted revision has been undeleted, I am requesting closure of this ffd since it seems there is agreement that the design currently at the file page is below copyrightability threshold. Discussions about whether the image should be overwritten and with what can happen at Wikimedia Commons just as well as they could here, so that shouldn't be a blocker. Arlo James Barnes 21:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

February 15

File:Boston Uprising logo.svg

[edit] File is available at c:File:Uprising Academy logo.png--Trade (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep .svg file. Delete .png file, per WP:USOP. The logos are also not equivalent. The .svg is correct for it's article usage. WidgetKid converse 06:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
    Saying a file is .png instead of .svg fails NFCC #1. Also ENWP does not have authority to delete files to be removed from Commons based on unrelated ENWP policies Trade (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
    I have nominated the file for deletion on Commons. And keep since this looks above TOO to me too. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • "there is almost certainly no free representation" Yeah that's just a lie --Trade (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    Relicense as free since Commons decided this is free and we don't really have the authority to second-guess them. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

February 1

File:Virtual Library museums pages logo.gif

[edit]

File:Virtual Library museums pages logo.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jpbowen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Should now be OK under the UK's now-lower TOO. JayCubby 19:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  • This logo is by me, and I hereby give permission for its use. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Jpbowen: Could you please specify under what license you are releasing it? Mere permission for Wikipedia to use isn't a factor in Wikipedia's file rules, other than being signified with {{non-free with permission}} * Pppery * it has begun... 22:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Retag as PD-ineligible. Stifle (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

April 30

File:Pilot MITM.png

File:Pilot MITM.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gavetheman555 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file doesn't indicate why it satisfies WP:NFC#8. The article Pilot (Malcolm in the Middle) neither does it. Tbhotch (CC BY-SA 4.0) 04:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete Doesn’t aid in any commentary for the article. I plan on working on it myself soon, and I think an image of Malcolm and Stevie would probably serve as a better illustration for the episode Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 11:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ariana Grande – Christmas Kisses (2014 Japanese special edition).png

File:Ariana Grande – Christmas Kisses (2014 Japanese special edition).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by U990467 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails non-free content criteria Camilasdandelions (✉️) 06:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

File:OfficialFelixLeiters.jpg

File:OfficialFelixLeiters.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by K1Bond007 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Eight-image collage may have exceeded expected "minimality" and shouldn't be used as a whole. Furthermore, not one portrayal has been yet proven more significant than the other. May not contextually signify the whole character. Meanwhile, free images of a few actors were recently added in the article. George Ho (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete Excessive fair use. Additionally, there's a publicity photo of Jack Lord as Felix Leiter which I believe is public domain due to failure to renew. Based5290 :3 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Hmm... That photo listed on eBay may still be copyrighted in the US due to URAA, even when the renewal registration wasn't filled out. Indeed, Dr. No (film) was released in the UK months before its first US release. Perhaps the photo was also first released in the UK by the film production company a while before its US release. (United Artists marketed and distributed the film.) No proof of its simultaneous release at this point. The US (re-)release trailer was deleted per URAA. George Ho (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
I think this photo barely escaped URAA restoration. The earliest publication of this image I can find anywhere is May 1962. The Saint John Times Globe, which delivered to the United States included this photo in May 1962. It's admittedly shaky evidence, but I checked through every hit for the query "dr no" "sean connery" "james bond" on newspapers.com from 1961 to April 1962 and May 1962 is indeed the earliest publication date I can find. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
That's a Canadian newspaper, so... Well, found another earlier Canadian newspaper from May 15, 1962, crediting the photo to "CP Photo". Can't say whether to treat it as exactly a Canadian work, honestly, but I'm starting to do such. George Ho (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
I did come across that one too, but I don't think it stops simultaneous publication. Simultaneous publication (at least as defined for the purposes of URAA) gives 30 days of leeway between first publication anywhere and publication in the United States. Even if we were to depart from consensus on the other side and consider this a Canadian work, we could at least use it here locally. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Or... You can ask further at either WP:MCQ (local) or c:COM:VPCOPY (global). George Ho (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Nekromantix - Curse of the Coffin.ogg

File:Nekromantix - Curse of the Coffin.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IllaZilla (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Current usage in the "psychobilly" article I'm concerned about. Indeed, I couldn't find text reflecting what's heard in the audio sample. Perhaps doesn't contextually signify the genre after all. George Ho (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beland (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

File:EricCartman.png

File:EricCartman.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SoSaysChappy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unusually, a free version exists at File:422 87476250 South Park 1810 - Ron Perry Clip QNN9VAS1.png. It is unfortunate that his eyes are closed, but it could be edited so that his eyes are open (but is that OR or deceptive?). Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The free use file is the key identifier of the character, and an eyes closed version where his whole body isnt even in frame from an oddly free version of a licensed TV screenshot isnt an adequate replacement Crystal Drawers 🎖️ (wanna talk?) 16:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree with Crystal here.
Tbhotch (CC BY-SA 4.0) 17:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Whiskey Glasses.png

File:Whiskey Glasses.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Paul to my Linda (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Single cover art is just the album cover for If I Know Me with the album title replaced with the song title. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#8. pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  • (Weak) keep – I appreciate the concerns about similarities with that of If I Know Me (album), but I'm doubtful that being similar affects the cover art's contextual significance to the song. Rather it's more about its compliance with the "content" criterion. Still, failing contextual significance just because it's derived from or similar to the parent album cover seems... perhaps prejudicial, IMO. (Let's compare American Pie (song) and American Pie (album) if WP:OTHERIMAGE doesn't invalidate this part of the argument.) --George Ho (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Dara.bulgarian.singer.euro.vision.2026.jpg

File:Dara.bulgarian.singer.euro.vision.2026.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Donte789 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It is a screenshot from a TV broadcast of Bulgarian National Television. Szyign (talk 22:23, 30 April 2026 (CET)

File:Steam Controller 2.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT 01:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Steam Controller 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Y8V (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Copied from a news article, who likely copied it from a press release. Doesn’t state a reason why this would be fair use. Incorrectly tagged as CC0. Could reasonably be replaced with a free-to-use image. LivLovisa (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Wrong venue: Commons hosts the listed image, unfortunately. You may wanna nominate there instead. George Ho (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Oops, thank you. Still getting the hang of this whole Wikipedia business!
Looks like someone else already nominated it for deletion there in the meantime though, so it’s being taken care of. LivLovisa (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent nominations

May 1

File:The Physical Revue (1952).webp

File:The Physical Revue (1952).webp (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MateoThorowitz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per https://physicstoday.aip.org/news/tom-lehrers-memorable-revue-session?__cf_chl_tk=rBMq9yinY_H0ps7nU4pdDU0RVEQomixAIe_2jwQPjQY-1777627799-1.0.1.1-6A8_I4vJdiflCUJYVUzQxRo1BkdoleEnlryZMEx.PLA and https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1952/5/27/the-physical-revue-ptom-lehrer-proved/, this photo was published in 1952. There were no renewals for the Harvard Crimson, so this falls under {{PD-US-no renewal}} and can therefore be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Arbor Day Preformance.jpeg

File:Arbor Day Preformance.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MateoThorowitz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Excessive non-free media, as there is already a free photo of The Physical Revue. Note that at https://physicstoday.aip.org/news/tom-lehrers-memorable-revue-session, the apparent source, this photo does not appear, casting doubt on the current source information. There's a non-zero chance this was published contemporaneously, but there is currently no evidence of such publication. Therefore, delete unless PD status is proven. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Youare.jpg

File:Youare.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pepso2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

PD in the US by c:Template:PD-US-no notice-ad and can therefore be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Oaklandtribsun111359.jpg

File:Oaklandtribsun111359.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pepso2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

PD in the US by c:Template:PD-US-no notice-ad and can therefore be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Artofamfantasy.jpg

File:Artofamfantasy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pepso2 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

PD in the US by c:Template:PD-US-no notice-ad and can therefore be moved to Commons. While the uploader has not supplied a publication date, a very similar ad appears in 1954 (see ). Based5290 :3 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Title Card for Citizen Kane.jpg

File:Title Card for Citizen Kane.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Charleshaine (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Obviously PD-text and can be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Bekasi train crash 2026.jpg

File:Bekasi train crash 2026.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ivan530 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:2026 Bekasi Timur train collision, 6024 car wreckage (2).jpg and File:2026 Bekasi Timur train collision, 6024 car wreckage (3).jpg are adequate free replacements. Based5290 :3 (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Neither of the free replacements show the actual impact of the collision - which involved telescoping, and isn't visible in the replacements. CutlassCiera 01:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete WP:NFCC#1 mandates Wikipedia to use free files over fair-use files, whenever they are equivalent. As Indonesian government photos are in the public domain {{PD-IDGov}}, there is a high chance that first responders took images at the scene. An overview of how did the two trains crashed could be identified with an SVG illustration like this or this.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete Changed my stance (I'm uploader of that file) after searching the internet for photograph released by the government and found one, per 廣九直通車 recommendation. I just uploaded it to Commons (File:2026 Bekasi train collision Basarnas and Polri.jpg) and replaced the image in the article. - Ivan530 (Talk) 19:31, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

File:DisneyTreasures02-mickeyb&w.jpg

File:DisneyTreasures02-mickeyb&w.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scarecroe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The public domain status of this file is not correct. While the 1928 Steamboat Willie image is public domain, this is a photo of the 2002 Walt Disney Treasures metal tin. Per WP:TOO, the modern typography, signature reproductions, and graphic layout constitute a new creative work protected by copyright. Per COM:PACKAGING packaging is generally ineligible for Commons. I suggest we either keep this as non-free content on Wikipedia under fair-use rationale or delete it, but it should not be moved to Commons as public domain. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep: While COM:PACKAGING is correct that packaging is generally ineligible for Commons, there are exceptions. In this instance, US copyright law considers most typefaces - including basic ones like these - to be under the threshold of originality. The layout is a basic "title - image - ribbon" design, and the text is all generic statements (hard to read, but "a 2 disc DVD set includes 34 original Mickey Mouse black-and-white cartoons" does not approach the TOO threshold). I don't see the combination crossing the relatively high bar in the United States.   Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
    I might not have been clear. I am not advocating deleting the image. I just think it doesn't meet the bar to be accepted at Commons. Sorry if that was not clear! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
    Fair!   Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm offering this link from the Copyright office, not to weight the discussion to either side, but to help people make up their own minds and weigh in here. What is copyright? I hope it's helpful. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons c:COM:PACKAGING is about the fact that packaging is generally copyrightable, but it is not always copyrightable. Photos of packaging which reside in the public domain may be uploaded to Commons. For example, photos of Campbell Soup cans (such as this one) which use the original design are permitted because this design has been in use long enough to have its copyright protection expire naturally.
In the United States, typography generally does not earn copyright protection, even for fairly complex typography (see for example the Cyberpunk logo, which was repeatedly denied registration). Therefore, neither the typography or signature reproductions are copyrightable elements. As @Crisco 1492 notes, none of the text is anything copyrightable, and the arrangement of text is not even original. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Only reason I didn't move to Commons when I reviewed this a while back was because I couldn't find a source. Would be nice to have it.  Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
I respect the consensus here. However, if this isn't resolved and months from now I come across it again while in the midst of allergies, I might not remember. I will try not to forget, but If I do something that seems to go against consensus here, this would be why. Please just let me know and I'll revert it immediately. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2

File:Nitrosonium hexafluorouranate reaction 1.png

File:Nitrosonium hexafluorouranate reaction 1.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LIteen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unsure whether this image is PD or freely licensed or not and/or whether any free alternatives exist. thejiujiangdragon talk/contribs 00:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons Perhaps the textbook definition of pure data represented in a non-creative way. No copyright can be claimed over a chemical equation. However, I would advise the article be updated to use text/math to represent the equation rather than an image for accessibility reasons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Added text to Nitrosonium hexafluorouranate#Reactions representing the equations Sign² (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I found it here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12442095/
I agree with @Based5290 though. Chemical equations cannot be copyrighted, because they are simply math, which can't be copyrighted. Based's alternative to use text or math is a good idea. Another idea is to use MathJax (how the website displayed it originally). - LIteen (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete or Move to Commons because there is now text representing the equation on the page. It can also be moved to Commons because it's under threshold of originality, and like @LIteen said, "Chemical equations cannot be copyrighted, because they are simply math, which can't be copyrighted." Soviet Pepega (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Leesplankje van Hoogeveen (2).png

File:Leesplankje van Hoogeveen (2).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ruud Koot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Supplanted by File:Leesplankje Aap Noot Mies, vijfde uitgave (cropped).jpg (ineligible for speedy deletion due to file format and a different scan). Magog the Ogre (tc) 14:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

May 3

File:Kim Dae-jung billboard, 1971.jpg

File:Kim Dae-jung billboard, 1971.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fer1997 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The copyright tags here contradict themselves. This is either PD (PD-South Korea) per PD-Because templates, and it should be moved to Commons, or it is not correctly templated, and needs to be fair used or deleted. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The applicable template for the underlying photo is actually c:Template:PD-South Korea-photo-1977. The uploader likely wasn't sure about the threshold for originality for text in Korea and uploaded it here locally. Maybe c:COM:VPC might have some insight. If there's no consensus about ToO for text, Keep as PD in the US. Based5290 :3 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Pedromaríaarsuaga.png

File:Pedromaríaarsuaga.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stebal69 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pedromaríaarsuaga.png Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Anonymous photos are PD in Spain 70 years after publication by current law, but given lack of actual sourcing we can't know for sure whether it's anonymous (risk of license-washing via extraction or transfer from more complete item into archive or file-sharing site). However, given Pedro María Arsuaga has been dead for 13 years, a case could be made for fair-use non-replaceability, retained here on enwiki if it's deleted from commons via c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pedromaríaarsuaga.png. But, I think the lack of sufficient source detail puts out-of-bounds for fair-use. DMacks (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Protection is possibly 80 years if anon-published or author-died prior to 1987. Google image-search found it at . I can't read Spanish, and I don't think that this modern-day publication is sufficient to support that it was published within the 70-year window. But I think that's a sufficient source to make this retainable on enwiki as NFC. Conversely, if it's kept on commons, obviously delete it from enwiki as redundant. DMacks (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

File:1-Diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole.jpeg

File:1-Diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Arònel123 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"The only image found" is not sufficient basis. Given YouTube has many hits of people claiming to make this compound, this video purports to be a non-expert without special access explaining or demonstrating how to make it, and the original journal refs also have synthetic detail, someone could make it and create a free image. Seeing crystals of it is not especially useful for understanding the topic (fairly generic-looking and not specific the topic), whereas the free structure diagrams are specific to the topic and have details that the article helps even lay readers understand.

My {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} was objected, so here we are. DMacks (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

the description no longer says "the only image found" it now says "one of the very few (and the only one of sufficient quality when cropped enough for the focus to be evident) images" Arònel123 (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I stand by my point, because WP:NFC#1 is not "best available" but instead "no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." and I dispute the "could be created" prong as a whole. DMacks (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Mercado Livre logo (Portuguese version).svg

File:Mercado Livre logo (Portuguese version).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Fails NFCC policy #3 & 8. Logo used only in Brazil –the only change is the "livre" word. The original logo is used in the rest of markets including Argentina, the country of origin. Fma12 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Bodybuilding.com logo.png

File:Bodybuilding.com logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Diannaa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There's already a {{Maybe free media}} template on this, and yeah, it definitely doesn't meet the threshold of originality, so, to be clear, this should be moved to Wikimedia Commons and a more appropriate licence template should be used. Nutella lover[ chatsupervise ] 17:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons: below the TOO. Fma12 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

May 4

File:Al Jazeera Turk logo.png

File:Al Jazeera Turk logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mo2010 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fair use rationale is for a now merged article. No strong reason to have the logo in the relevant section in Al Jazeera Media Network. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

File:HauntingOfHillHouse.JPG

File:HauntingOfHillHouse.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GrahamHardy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Published in the United States without a copyright notice before 1989. See https://www.dustjackets.com/pages/books/3995/shirley-jackson/haunting-of-hill-house-the and https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/_shirley-jackson-the-haunting-of-hill-house-first-edition-dust-jacket-d5f4. Therefore, this is public domain and can be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to link c:Template:PD-US-dust-jacket. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

May 5

File:The Sundial.JPG

File:The Sundial.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Casey Abell (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Well below ToO. Additionally, per https://www.dustjackets.com/pages/books/3996/shirley-jackson/sundial-the, this is public domain anyways per c:Template:PD-US-dust-jacket. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Come Along with Me.jpg

File:Come Along with Me.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GrahamHardy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Scan of a work well below American ToO and should be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Energy Transfer LP logo 2024 Update.jpg

File:Energy Transfer LP logo 2024 Update.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lisagranado (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Below American ToO. Similar to the Jamba Juice logo, which was denied copyright registration. This can be moved to Commons, Based5290 :3 (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

May 6

File:Diondre Overton.png

File:Diondre Overton.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WikiOriginal-9 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image fails the free-use criteria in that is replaceable and has been replaced by this public domain photo. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

May 7

File:Miley Cyrus "Jaded".png

File:Miley Cyrus "Jaded".png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Infsai (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image is not a single cover and was not used as cover artwork for any release of the song. It appears only on one Sony Music webpage as a promotional still from the music video. Since it does not serve as the primary visual identification of the single, its non-free use is not justified and the file should be deleted. Sricsi (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

File:National Premier Soccer League logo 2016.svg

File:National Premier Soccer League logo 2016.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

The logo of the National Premier Soccer League is below the threshold of originality and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Katniss Everdeen 01.jpg

File:Katniss Everdeen 01.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TreeElf (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable with c:File:Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) figure at Madame Tussauds London (31139647115).jpg per WP:NFCC#1, similar to the result of an FFD for James Bond (Daniel Craig). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC) (edited 12:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC))

Today is May 7 2026. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 May 7(new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===May 7===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI