Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 March 7

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⚡ 17:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Churchill adressing Canadian Parliament, 30 December 1941.jpg -- closeup.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Herostratus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete from enwiki; image is actually freely licensed and on Commons here: File:Winston Churchill addressing the Canadian House of Commons 1941.jpg ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:04, 7 March 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.

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⚡ 17:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Churchill adressing Canadian Parliament, 30 December 1941.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Herostratus (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File is and available on Commons here: File:Sir Winston Churchill addressing the House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario.jpg ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:08, 7 March 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.

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: keep. In solidarity, Miniapolis 22:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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.

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: Convert to fair use * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 18:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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.

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: relisted on 2026 May 30. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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.

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: Move to Commons * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

• Move to Commons per TOO. WidgetKid ^converse 00:36, 15 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)

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.

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, as a free alternative is available and is already in the article--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

• Keep, as it helps to illustrate the paragraph next to it. WidgetKid ^{this is the way} 23:36, 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...} 22:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Other image was deleted per F5. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The damage caused by the tornado is adequately depicted by the free image File:EnderlinTreeDamage.png and the non-free image File:2025 Enderlin tornado EF5 damage.jpg. This image breaches WP:NFCC#3a, at a minimum. Stifle (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:46, 27 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.

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: relisted on 2026 May 30. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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.

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 as F8 by David Eppstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Beaune-la-Rolande Transfer List 19 August 1942 ADLoiret 175W34121.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Aeengath (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

France has a reasonable TOO, and this should also fall under PD-anon-70-EU JayCubby 01:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @JayCubby, This was uploaded under non-free use out of caution as the archive does not explicitly state a public-domain licence. I agree it may qualify under PD-anon-70-EU, and I’m fine with it being relicensed and moved to Commons if that’s the consensus. Aeengath (talk) 18:36, 30 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...} 22:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I uploaded the document under non-free use out of caution because the archive page doesn’t explicitly state a public-domain licence. Like I said before if editors think it clearly falls under PD-anon-70-EU or below the threshold of originality under French law, I’m happy for it to be relicensed and moved to Commons. Otherwise I believe the current non-free use in the Beaune-la-Rolande internment camp article meets NFCC as it illustrates a specific historical document. Aeengath (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons definitely PD in the US as a noncreative representation of facts. I doubt French ToO differs for a simplistic listing of individuals deported. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, have moved the file to Commons under PD-anon-70-EU. Aeengath (talk) 20:32, 17 March 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.

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: keep. Reasonable to suggest that no free replacement can be created due to the individual circumstances. Stifle (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

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

This image is of a person still alive. The person is serving a life sentence, still. The source link is dead. It has no fair use rationale and nothing to indicate a fair use license. Babin Mew (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Photos of people who have life sentences are kept because the same rationale applies as to a dead person. Needs to have that added, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok I added one. keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:25, 11 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...} 22:09, 7 March 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.

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. Insufficient evidence that the copyright holder, who is unlikely to be the subject of the photo, has granted a sufficient licence. Can be restored if a VRT ticket makes things clearer. Stifle (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Dr. Tetelbaum.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nheroux (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The statement on the file page "Author: Natalie Heroux. I madet this picture. He belongs to me." may well explain how this picture uploaded here has been made. However artefacts in the upload suggest a scan or other reproduction of an original picture. This casts doubt on the ownership of the copyright which is easy enough to resolve - WP:VRT will work with the uploader to validate copyright ownership. I believe that, without VRT validation, this picture may not remain here, certainly under this licence. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Delete if not confirmed. Clearly a scanned photo. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 16:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, Own work is not implausible given Heroux's edits. JayCubby 18:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

JayCubby Given Nheroux is the subject's daughter, and he's relatively young in this professional photograph, I find it unlikely that she took it (since she would have been a young child). It's certainly possible that she owns the physical copy, but there's no indication that the photographer relinquished their rights. What do you think? WidgetKid ^{this is the way} 16:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-heirs}} could apply. JayCubby 17:27, 14 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...} 22:09, 7 March 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.

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. Replaceable by textual description or potentially a free image that could be created. Stifle (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Baffinland illustrates its plan to feed Capesize freighters, moored offshore, from freighters small enough to ferry ore from Milne Inlet.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Geo Swan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Doesn't meet WP:NFCC1 "no free equivalent" - this image shows a smaller freighter and a larger freighter interacting. I'm sure this happens relatively often in many parts of the world, doesn't require a volunteer chartering a helicopter in a remote part of the world as the justification claims. Additionally, this can be fairly easily described in text - the image isn't crucial for understanding of the subject (WP:NFCC8 "contextual significance"). Consigned (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I couldn't find a Commons image of two ore freighters interacting like this. I can see how this illustrates what's described in the article, but linkage between text and supporting image could be stronger. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 16:50, 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...} 22:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - replaceable with a text description so fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 11 March 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.

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 Apparatus; Move the other two to Commons. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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.

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: keep as fair use. (non-admin closure) thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Star Tours Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elisfkc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I think this should be under c:COM:TOO US. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Arches at the top make it more than simple letters or geometry Elisfkc (talk) 23:52, 27 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...} 22:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as fair use. The lines, designs, and colour gradient in the background take it over the TOO. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 31 March 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.

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: relicense to {{PD-simple}}. (non-admin closure) thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 20:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Spaceship Earth Epcot Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FA Jon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This should be under c:COM:TOO US. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:48, 26 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)

• Retag as public domain. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 25 March 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.

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: Move to Commons * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

The image has not yet been moved, so I have added a permissions statement and updated the Template tag to PD-US-no notice to the Wikipedia image page Nickknack00 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreement, I have migrated the image to Commons and updated the source info, per the original discussion notes. Nickknack00 (talk) 17:49, 21 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.

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: Status Quo. There is sufficient ambiguity as to the copyright status to keep this as non-free. Whpq (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

• Comment: According to the Institute of National Remembrance (Instytut Pamięci Narodowej), this poster was first seen in February 1945, placing it just before the URAA date. However, the artist Włodzimierz Zakrzewski died in 1992, so using the rule of "70 years after the author's death" this would still be in copyright. But there's another question - why wouldn't this be a "public domain Polish government document, material, sign [or] symbol"? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Remain as non-free per findings by Reconrabbit. "Material" is too vague. "Poster" is more like it as it's neither a "document" nor a "sign" nor a "symbol". Also, despite uncertainty, let's assume that the Twin Books court case applies (Cornell chart) if pre-2003 publication didn't feature this poster. George Ho (talk) 17:38, 28 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.

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: Clearly not PD-Trivial, and, since this is a modern monument and there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine, the file has to be deleted due to the precautionary principle.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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.

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: keep and relicense back to non-free. (non-admin closure) thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Paris Handball logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DroopyDoggy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The level of design is above the threshold of originality in France; it is more than simple geometric shapes. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

We would have to find out if this is copyrightable in the US. I think it'll likely be changed to Fair Use. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:39, 20 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...} 22:22, 7 March 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.

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: Keep * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 01:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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.

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 and replace with free image. George Ho, can you take care of the image replacement as the suggestor? I'll delete the image afterwards, or it can be F5'd. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Bomb Iran - Vince Vance & The Valiants.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JGabbard (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Should be PD by way of geometric simplicity. (Also a good song,) JayCubby 14:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• Totally non-free: the shape in silhouette above the "a" is unusual and too complex to be free (discogs). Also, delete this image as replaceable by this other vinyl label (link) George Ho (talk) 09:08, 22 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)

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.

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: relisted on 2026 April 3. (non-admin closure) thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Muhammad Usman Malik.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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: relisted on 2026 April 3. (non-admin closure) thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Don McLean - Favorites and Rarities Coverart.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

File:ICJ RO-UKR demarcation.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) 

Can't we create a replacement map for this? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thats not really a valid reason for deletion Trade (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Candidyeoman55, are you volunteering? I know I couldn't, but I think someone definitely could. WidgetKid ^converse 06:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Seems to fail NFCC #1.--Rockfang (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

What I meant is that we can simply create a free map, an SVG maps specifically, to replace this non-free map. I don't know how to create SVG maps and even if I knew, I wouldn't have time to do so. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete. If push comes to shove I can make truly hideous and sloppy vectorizations of graphics, but someone can do better at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop.

I ask for the deletion to be put On hold until Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#File:ICJ_RO-UKR_demarcation.jpg is answered. JayCubby 17:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Candidyeoman55, @Trade, @Widgetkid, File:Claims.png is a free replacement. What say y'all? JayCubby 18:37, 25 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...} 22:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as replaceable. There is no waiting for a free replacement. If a free map could be created, even if one doesn't currently exist, then it fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 21:58, 9 March 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.

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: relisted on 2026 April 3. (non-admin closure) thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Wikileaks homepage screenshot March 2025.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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: keep with previous revision(s) having already been deleted. (non-admin closure) thejiujiangdragon ^T/_C 00:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Incredibles 2 screenslaver screen.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Qwertyxp2000 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Empirically, the smallest important part of the image (the seizure-light patterns on the small TV screens) is legible at 100K-pixel resolution (about 387x258, or 53% current width). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:04, 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...} 22:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I have cropped and resized this image to better comply with WP:NFCC#3b. tjd (he) ^T/C 01:12, 10 March 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.

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: Move to Commons (already moved). Whpq (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

• Comment: I don't think this is actually the insignia, or if it is, I can't find evidence of it existing. I'm planning to override it with the image depicted at the bottom of the NMSDF page on the state's national guard site, which looks like the official contact point and that is corroborated in file:Gen. Torres speaks during change of command.jpg. — Sennecaster (Chat) 05:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Do you mean the flag of New Mexico patch worn by the general at the lectern in a Universal Camouflage Pattern palette? There's also a variant of the current design at file:New Mexico National Guard patch.jpg, and on the wall in file:New Mexico National Guard (49883878833).jpg, so perhaps it is for the wider NMNG. Also in UCP palette in file:New Mexico National Guard educates Española youth against drugs, gangs 140621-A-LF132-001.jpg. — Arlo James Barnes 09:00, 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...} 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)

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.