Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 June 2

File:Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back.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: Remove from John Mollo, no consensus on replacement. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Replaceable in John Mollo with c:File:Darth Vader - 2007 Disney Weekends.jpg (already in use at Darth Vader) per WP:NFCC#1 (no free equivalent). Purely decorative use at Darth Vader#Original trilogy in violation of WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) as this specific depiction is not accompanied by sufficient critical commentary. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete: per nom. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't quarrel with the reason given here to delete the original file (lack of inline commentary, assuming someone can't find any and add it). But the purported replacement cannot qualify as a free image. Yes, it has tags that might lead a casual reviewer to believe that is an acceptable free image, but it isn't. Frankly, it should be deleted from Commons (along with those two tags).

The first tag explicitly cautions us that "[w]hile this file is under a free license, re-use of this file may be subject to legal constraints, depending on jurisdiction and independent from its copyright status." Indeed. As I have noted in other nominations here at the moment, the photographer's decision to license this freely cannot have any impact on the copyright status of the costume depicted.

And really?: "Even if the photo contains a copyrighted content. the owner of the rights released it under a Creative Commons license." We have deleted way too many Commons uploads than we can count where the uploader naively insisted that "But it was under CC so it's OK!" No, it's not. I note that it is noted that this image came from Flickr which (as much as we love it, I love it and it (lately) loves me) has a well-earned reputation for not enforcing third-party copyright unless the rightsholder complains, much less educating their users the way we do about copyright (which is to say, educating them at all). We even have a warning about this on Commons (yes, I know it discusses mainly people uploading images from elsewhere, but to me that applies with equal force to Flickrites taking their own pictures of things they cannot claim copyright on).

Note also that the

The image also fails the de minimis test — without Vader, all you have is a green background and smoke.

It might be objected that since the Flickr stream in question is the official Star Wars feed, that it's OK since they chose that licensing for the image. But two things present themselves in complication. First, I see no sign that whoever was at the time operating the feed was authorized to waive all copyrights associated with the images they posted. Second, there is no statement to that effect associated with the account — not on the image page, not on the "About" page. In fact, the comments on the page, old though they are, suggest that downstream reusers are aware that the content of the image is not free whatever the outward license.

Lastly the Commons page on "copyright by subject matter is pretty clear about this without ever saying so directly: costumes depicted as the primary subject of images must not be under copyright if the image is to be considered free (It makes no difference if someone created the costume themselves — it is still a derivative work). Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I have nominated the file for deletion on Commons for that reason. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 21:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think we should be using that image on enwiki, it is not free in the US. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete In John Mollo, it fails WP:NFG. In Darth Vader, we can't skate around the question of the copyright of the free Darth Vader photo here. Contrary to Case's argument, I think the photo is perfectly fine. This is a far cry from the cases of foreign subsidiaries releasing works under free licenses when they may or may not have the ability to do that. That is the official Star Wars Flickr stream. The photographer worked for Disney. The copyright of the costume is owned by Disney. Therefore c:Commons:Free depictions of non-free works can be invoked here; Disney need not cede its exclusive rights over the design of the Vader costume for the photo to be free enough for Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Based5290 The United States does not have statue Freedom of Panorama so whether the photograph is free or not the statue is not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 12 June 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:Anakin Skywalker ROTS.webp

The result of the discussion was: keep. Sennecaster (Chat) 06:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Replaceable with c:File:Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker.jpg per WP:NFCC#1, similar to the result of an FFD for James Bond (Daniel Craig). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC) (edited 04:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC))

This is an overly broad application of the FoP claimed by the tag. Yes, FoP applies ... to the actual figure and likeness when depicted in 3-D in a public place, or one generally open to the paying public as Madame Tussaud's is. It cannot apply to the costume and prop depicted. The first is not something widely worn enough to qualify as a useful article and the second does not exist in the real world. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Nothing wrong with the free photo, but the non-free photo is better. PeteStacman24 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Neither of these images is free, for the reasons outlined above. Nor can they ever be, unless Disney decides to renounce all copyrights related to the Star Wars franchise. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think we should be using that image on enwiki, it is not free in the US. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Terminator-2-judgement-day.jpg

The result of the discussion was: keep. Folks pointed out that it wasn't actually replaceable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Replaceable with c:File:Arnold Schwarzenegger as Terminator figure at Madame Tussauds London (31103391906).jpg per WP:NFCC#1, similar to the result of an FFD for James Bond (Daniel Craig). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so. The image is of Schwarzenegger in Terminator 2; the wax figure represents him in the first film. In addition, the latter depicts the character with his face showing damage that reveals the metal body underneath. This is enough to put it under the copyright of whoever owns the franchise now, so it can't be a free image. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think we should be using that image on enwiki, it is not free in the US. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Rey with lightsaber.jpeg

The result of the discussion was: keep. Clearly there are some cases where the Tussauds photos work, but this isn't one of them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Replaceable with c:File:Rey Palpatine at Madame Tussauds London.jpg per WP:NFCC#1, similar to the result of an FFD for James Bond (Daniel Craig). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe the costume design is covered under the franchise's copyrights. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, in this case, I feel like the costume is so simple as to be uncopyrightable. But is there a copyright on a photorealistic statue of someone? Maybe? The copyright could be there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Is that something you would commonly wear to go out to the supermarket? While, yes, clothing in the real world is ineligible for copyright as a useful article, fictional outfits worn by fictional characters, especially in imaginary universes, is a different story. Put it this way: a picture of people cosplaying as characters in any iteration of The Office (which I've seen) would not implicate any costume copyrights because those outfits are clothes that can be, and are, bought anywhere and worn to work. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Not in the west, but it's effectively just robes. You can't copyright robes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep I don't think that photo is free in the US and we shouldn't use it on enwiki. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the wax sculpture looks enough like Daisy Ridley to justify its use. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Richard Jeni.jpg

The result of the discussion was: delete. Sennecaster (Chat) 06:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Though there is some source information, it's very vague, sourced only to the entire Huffinton Post website. I can't find out what article this was sourced from, who the Huffingtonpost credits as the image, when this was even published, ect. Not quite WP:F4 , I don't believe, but without a source to verify this was previously published, this fails WP:NFCC#4. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete couldn't find it. It probably was in HuffPost but they rearranged their URLs and stylings a bunch. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Spoonysingh.jpg

This is an associated press photo (visible on old archives of this NYT stories and in older publications like this, though why its mirrored is beyond me...) As such, this is in WP:F7 territory. However, given that this was published in 1966, there's a very real chance that this is public domain, iff we can show that AP sent this photo to newspapers sans copyright notice. So I'm sending it to FFD: if anybody finds evidence that it's public domain: yay! If not: then we can F7, and refund later as needed. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Weak move to Commons The flip seems to come from https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/detail?itemid=945cd22c17384fa3913d9e6854a7c48d&mediatype=photo. However, Los Angeles Evening Citizen News looks to be the actual originator of the photo, preceding the April publications by the AP by several months. This newspaper seems to have lacked notice, so the photo itself is PD.

However, the US doesn't have FoP for sculptures, so we need to also consider the copyright on the Marilyn Monroe figure. It seems press photography in the 60s and 70s was allowed in the Hollywood Wax Museum (see ), so it is likely that the figure would be considered "published" upon exhibition per wikisource:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago. The question is then whether the figure had a proper copyright notice affixed to it. I'd probably say no? This brochure from the museum lacks notice, and I can't find a single photo showing a copyright notice in the museum.

If the Marilyn Monroe figure is found to be copyrighted, crop to just show Singh and move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

No, LAECN isn't the originator. Inspired by your search, I've found an earlier version.... though this one is credited to UPI. Fun. Love 1960s newspapers. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 23:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

There's still no copyright notice on it ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If the wire agency sent this out with a valid copyright notice, then it's not PD, even if the newspaper didn't include it. Which, given wire agency's trend of not putting copyright notices on their images from this period.... it's unlikely. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 04:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

How, then, can we determine whether it was sent out without a valid copyright notice after more than 50 years, at a time when wire stories went out on teletype and were often sent straight to the composing room after a cursory readthrough by the copy desk? Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, @Daniel Case, I don't particularly want to be accused by you of "copyrightsplaining" for having what I mistakenly believed to be a good-faith conversation about the non-free content policy, not realizing that because you had "actually" been around in the early 2000s, you knew better. AGF, you arriving on this FFD page so soon after I tagged a file you uploaded for speedy deletion is not WP:FOLLOWING, it's just a coincidence. I've already said I believe this is more likely than not going to be in the public domain, we just have to prove it. That's where I'm at. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 05:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I had already been contributing to the discussions of other images above when I noticed this going on, before I got notice that you had tagged that file. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons. If every newspaper that initially published this image neglected to include a notice that would count as distribution without a notice. If one or two failed to do so despite, no, but we have quite a few examples that evidence this was not the case. But every single newspaper I am seeing that included this neglected to include a notice, that would count. Also, according to the LOC UPI and AP virtually never copyrighted their images. Sometimes both would have distribution rights. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Though, if we need another free one, the Los Angeles Evening Citizen News published another photo of him marked as a Staff Photo, so it is definitely theirs and is free because no notice PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Also an interesting advertisement that is free by virtue of having no notice for it [https://www.newspapers.com/image/382105267/?match=1&terms=%22spoony%20singh%22/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not what Commons says. The LOC's statement, quoted and linked there, about absence of a copyright notice on AP-distributed content applies only to images produced between 1931 and 1963. The earliest version of this one we have found, per GLL above, dates to 1966.

As for post-1963 AP images, it is clearly stated at Commons that "If the original Wirephoto contained a valid copyright notice (Such as this one) it is still copyrighted even if it was later published or reprinted without Copyright." This is, frankly, just how copyright works generally, even today—a downstream reuser's failure to include notice, or erroneous claim that the image is public domain (remember, many people still believe that if it's on the Internet and you can download it it's PD) or otherwise freely licensed cannot have any impact on the original work's copyright. We have deleted, and continue to, many images from Commons that came from Flickr for this reason.

So, this image cannot be on Commons. Unless it can be demonstrated that it carried no notice on its original publication. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That commons category is not reflective of the commons consensus , which did in fact conclude that "images published between 1963 and 1978 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain." And yes, copyright notice being present on only a minority of copies of the initial would invalidate a notice per the copyright office ("The notice was omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies"). If one private copy was sent to a guy with a notice and 20,000 copies were sent through a medium without a notice, per the copyright office, that counted as lacking a notice. Additionally, if a copyright was on the wire card, the newspaper included it on the newspage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

If consensus was reached in that discussion, I can't find it, and no one seems to have indicated what it was in the usual box at the top. Someone did] explicitly ask that, then took it upon themselves to add that confusing sentence to the category without bothering to see how it fit with anything else around it. And frankly I don't see how Commons consensus overrides blackletter law of the time. Just because the AP at the time didn't build their business model around copyright does not mean it didn't exist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, it existed, no one is disputing that, but you had to register it and do proper notice, which according to the Library of Congress and evidence of practice, most press agencies did not bother to do. We and commons are abiding by blackletter law of copyright, which at the time included notice requirements. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Notwithstanding what I wrote below, in the case of wire service photos we cannot, we ought not, to assume that if there was notice it was included upon republication. Only if there was no copyright notice with the wire card can we say authoritatively there was never any notice. I have enough experience in newspapering to know that copyright notice is not and never has been a priority when using third-party photos. In the absence of proof there was no notice upon original publication of a pre-1978 US image, our policy requires that we assume there was notice. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not agree, every time I have seen a notice on the card it was present in the newspaper. Also, I question whether a notice on the wire card would count either way, as does that count as distribution to the public (when notice was considered); if it the notice was not included on the card, but was included in the newspaper (as I have seen) that would count for copyright, to be sure. Especially given the fact that according to the LoC, UPI and AP virtually never registered copyright. For every single photo there's theoretically a possibility that every single source about its origin was wrong and it was theoretically first published in a source in the UK and so is copyrighted until 2099 or something - but we only take into account realistic possibilities. There is technically no way to be absolutely certain about any photograph copyright unless you took it yourself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The Commons category is mostly correct, but it is clearly intended to deal with things like File:Kent State massacre.jpg where only some republications in newspapers had proper notice. In that case, the strong possibility of a contract, implicit or explicit, requiring that reusers had to reproduce an already present copyright notice, prevents the photo from passing the precautionary principle at Commons. A situation where the wirephoto has a valid copyright notice and every single newspaper downstream does not reproduce the same copyright notice is unheard of. If several newspapers can be located that lack an individualized notice for the photo and not a single newspaper with an individualized notice for the photo can be found, then any doubt about the copyright status of the photo falls well below "significant". If this was hypothetically transferred to Commons and then nominated for deletion, the burden of proof would lie on the nominator to prove that the cited republications were unauthorized. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no position on whether the nominated file should be moved or not but I will say I did find a PD photo of Singh and upload it here. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This is probably the best resolution. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 June 2

June 2

File:Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back.jpg

File:Anakin Skywalker ROTS.webp

File:Terminator-2-judgement-day.jpg

File:Rey with lightsaber.jpeg

File:Richard Jeni.jpg

File:Spoonysingh.jpg

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks