Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 April 3

File:JoJo Dreamcast.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: Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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)
Delete as nominated. The Japanese cover adds little value, and there's no reason to highlight Dreamcast over the other platforms. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 05:39, 18 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Iron Gargoyle's argument as to Leicester wins the day here. While it's not impossible that folks have identified a novel issue in the copyright laws (I note that the building in Leicester was built in 1991), such that decorations in pre-1990 buildings are treated differently, that doesn't appear to have been actually resolved or even raised elsewhere. Bottom line: not appropriate on Commons, but it doesn't need to be made non-free. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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:Facade of Panda Hotel.JPG

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This file is a derivative work incorporating another work or works. While information has been provided on the copyright status of this image, there is no information on the status of the incorporated work(s). — Ирука¹³ 07:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep and close per Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama.–DMartin (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
~~Keep per c:COM:FOP China. There are also several images of this mural on Commons already. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 23:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)~~
Before this nomination, I read the rules you mentioned and found nothing there that would allow us to use the two-dimensional work depicted in this photograph (mural) under a free license. Please copy here the part of the text that you believe would allow us to do so. — Ирука¹³ 10:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment: early, INVOLVED non-admin FfD close reverted per WP:REOPEN; see discussion at WP:Deletion review/Log/2026 January 16. Owen× ☎ 14:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep per COM:FOP Hong Kong
- "According to Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528) (consolidated version of May 27, 2016), it is not a copyright infringement to make graphic representations, take photographs, or broadcast the images of buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public."
- Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
  Before this nomination, I read the rules you mentioned and found nothing there that would allow us to use the two-dimensional work depicted in this photograph (mural) under a free license. Please copy here the part of the text that you believe would allow us to do so. — Ирука¹³ 10:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
  @Iruka13. Please explain what you don't understand in "it is not a copyright infringement to [...] take photographs, or broadcast the images of [...] works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  Underwaterbuffalo works of artistic craftsmanship are things like sculptures, murals such as this are graphic works which are not covered by freedom of panorama in Hong Kong, although we are only concerned with US copyright law for this image as its hosted on ENWP. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  Thank you for the clarification. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
  
  @Iruka13 Is it a good idea to argue this while you are indefinitely blocked from editing filespace? Your block is precisely due to exactly this behavior by you.
  
  I think your requests of other editors to quote the rules to you, and to apparently "prove to your satisfaction" that what they are doing is OK, is a very bad idea. The ANI thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Concern_regarding_Iruka13 and the block indicate that you just might be wrong and you might be misinterpreting the rules. You should stop trying to patrol copyright and stop badgering other editors about copyright issues. David10244 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
  
  Note: @Iruka13 might be technically allowed to comment here, but in my opinion her comment (and any !votes by her) should not be counted as votes while she is banned for this behavior. See the ANI in my previous reply. David10244 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Note: Nominator is currently banned from the file namespace for wikilawyering, nominating in bad faith, and other disruptive activities.–DMartin (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Delete there is no freedom of panorama in the US for 2d artworks, while yes images of this building appear on Commons they are on Commons per WP:DEMINIMIS, this image however does not meet that standard in my opinion as the angle primarily covers the artwork and not the building. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep but only because it has correct tags currently. De minimis would not apply here - the very title of the image states its focus on the mural. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The US does not have freedom of panorama for artistic works. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- GFD. Delete. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- The image was taken in Hong Kong. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  For locally hosted images we are only concerned with US copyright, for Commons an image needs to be free in the US and the home country, regardless this image is free in neither. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Freedom of panorama exception doesn't apply to 2D works. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per US and HK (via UK) FOP laws. WidgetKid ^Converse 04:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete – No freedom of panorama for billboards and murals, especially in the US and per c:COM:FOP HK. Will nominate other similar images hosted on Commons for deletion after this discussion. —George Ho (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Reiterating my keep and close per Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. This was nominated in bad faith by a disruptive now-banned user. No consensus after two months? Time to close. –DMartin (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Did you not read the above two latest votes, including mine? George Ho (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Not suitable for Wikimedia Commons because Hongkongese FoP does not apply to 2D flat arts. Not suitable on enWiki because US FoP does not cover non-architecture. I'd bet this mural wasn't painted as part of the original building plan, but a later addition. Not eligible for the spirit of Leicester v. Warner US FoP ruling. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Wikileaks homepage screenshot March 2025.png

The result of the discussion was: Keep, mark as freely licensed, do not migrate. This screenshot contains no non-free content. No revisions need to be unhidden as the current revision is at the highest available resolution, but a higher-resolution screenshot may be taken. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

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

The five cartoons on the thumbnails are by Carlos Latuff. Latuff has released the copyright to his cartoons per here.
The WikiLeaks logo was released under a free license per here.
The map screenshot is from OpenStreetMap, which is freely licensed per here.
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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Contains PD photo File:Don McLean 1976.JPG plus some simple graphic elements, so it too should be PD. Jay Cubby 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:Muhammad Usman Malik.jpeg

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Claim of own work is dubious. This clearly a photo studio image. All of the other uploader's images had claims of "I own this file" or similar and have been deleted as copyright violations. Whpq (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hm. Well, couldn't find a match with google lens, and there is meta data. For some reason, date is different in summary and meta data. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Publicnote, could you weigh in? Jay Cubby 02:21, 18 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)

Delete PublicNote has been banned as a sockpuppet of a globally banned user. Assume good faith does not extend to malicious actors. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Speedy delete uploaded by blocked sock account and no longer used in any article. Even if owned by the user, does not help with building an encyclopedia. WidgetKid ^Converse 04:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Trans Soyjak.png

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I really dont see how this bizarre image substantially helps the readers understanding of the topic it's used on--Trade (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Pbrks, Pppery, and Widgetkid:--Trade (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFCC#3a, as the written description does a fine job and there are other non-free files used in article already. WidgetKid ^Converse 04:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Two Soyjaks Pointing.png

The result of the discussion was: Delete "This image is already too iconic to be left out" does not refute the arguments for deletion at all and hence is being discounted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFCC#3a --Trade (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFCC#3a WidgetKid ^Converse 04:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep This image is already too iconic to be left out. -TalkTuahLunchly — Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:UEFA Champions League.svg

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2026 May 30. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Barrowblitz2.jpg

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

File:Barrowblitz.jpg

The result of the discussion was: Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Keep as is. The historical licensing looks appropriate for the non-free use. WidgetKid ^Converse 05:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep with updated rationale. Probably the most directly relevant image in the article, and better than File:Barrowblitz2.jpg. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Cowboy Xbox.webp

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Ixfd64 (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated image with no obvious use. Copied from https://disneyfanon.fandom.com/wiki/Cowboy_Xbox. Article this was related to, Cowboy Xbox, was deleted under WP:G3. -- Recon rabbit 20:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy delete as it doesn't contribute to building encyclopedia, nor likely ever would be. I was surprised there was no AI-generated tag in Twinkle for this. WidgetKid ^Converse 05:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Speedy delete per G3. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 April 3

April 3

File:JoJo Dreamcast.jpg

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

File:Facade of Panda Hotel.JPG

File:Wikileaks homepage screenshot March 2025.png

File:Don McLean - Favorites and Rarities Coverart.png

File:Muhammad Usman Malik.jpeg

File:Trans Soyjak.png

File:Two Soyjaks Pointing.png

File:UEFA Champions League.svg

File:Barrowblitz2.jpg

File:Barrowblitz.jpg

File:Cowboy Xbox.webp

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks