Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 May 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 30

File:King Features retro.png

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 August 7. ✗plicit 06:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

File:King Features retro.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.

File:The Plastic Man Comedy-Adventure Show (logo).svg

The result of the discussion was: All issues resolved.. File has been uploaded with an accurate image and underlying revisions deleted. (SVG wrapper and possibly AI generated). Sennecaster (Chat) 06:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be AI-generated. Source appears to be a deleted social media post. SVG wrapper for PNG. Appears to read "PLASTC MAN" instead of "PLASTIC MAN". Perspective of the letters appears off. This page seems to have what the logo should look like. Gert7 (talk · contribs) 11:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Already revert to what it was NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Problem is fixed after revert. --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 18:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I was just trying to improve it. sorry. NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

It's okay, but please note that, in most cases, things like logos, quotations, names, titles, etc. should exactly replicate the original, and not be enhanced or updated unless necessary, in which case the modifications should be explicitly labeled.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Everything's been resolved here, right? The inaccurate LLM version has been reverted, the svg is vector-based again, the public domain status isn't in doubt. —Cryptic 00:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung bilingual.JPG

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It's claimed that there is no free replacement to identify this book, but File:Little Red Book First Edition English Scan.png is such a free replacement (and is arguably better at identifying the subject). Based5290 :3 (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete: afaik common practice is to use the first edition cover for book infoboxes, and this is a 1993 reprint with a new cover. Nevertheless, if we were to follow this practice then File:Cover of Quotations From Chairman Mao (1964, 1st ed. red binding).jpg should be the replacement img as it is a cover of the first edition with red binding (per here, a variant without the red binding was also published, but it's more famous as the "red book"). ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Issue with Commons and several Disney character articles

The result of the discussion was: wrong venue. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC) So recently, the images for Woody (Toy Story), Buzz Lightyear, and Jessie (Toy Story) were all replaced with images from Wikimedia Commons from a Chinese amusement part, cropped down to just the characters. The images are as listed below:

It was argued that these should replace the fair use character renders, as they are a "free" depiction of the character. But I feel there was a significant oversight in this regard: these are not free-use in the United States. More specifically, the US does not have panorama copyright laws that China does, and Wikipedia, especially this branch, operates in the United States. That's why each of those images has template stating such. So while Commons may recognize it as a valid free image under Chinese copyright law, we are currently using it to represent copyrighted characters on an American front owned by an American company to boot.

That's why I wish to propose than the previous deletion was in error in oversight of this. Even per a discussion on Commons, it's addressed that the license may be in question for use here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed one of links for ya. —George Ho (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

If the renders were fair use, I presume these photos would be too, even if they can't be freely licensed? Solomon Ucko (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the issue. But in that case we'd be better off going back to the renders, as they are the best representations of the characters.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Wrong forum – If this is about the copyright status of the images themselves, that should be discussed at c:COM:VPC, not here. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Never mind about whether the venue is wrong or right. Right now, seems that the initiator/OP of this discussion withdrew one's own deletion nominations on these images at Commons. Well, the non-free images of the Toy Story characters were deleted (per individual listings at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 July 17, which I congratulate you for that) and then replaced by the Commons images that the OP took to DR discussion. @Kung Fu Man: Good luck trying to convince a closing admin or others at WP:DRV about how "irreplaceable" the non-free images are. George Ho (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@JohnCWiesenthal This is the right venue. The problem is on Commons they are valid... free use in China, while marked as fair use for America, which the licensing on commons reflects; that's why they can't be removed there. Wikipedia, as you'll see from the discussion, handles things differently. So the question is not how Commons is handling it, but we are and whether the Chinese free-use status supersedes the American fair-use copyright on our end, as a US-based website. Do you follow?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man: Commons actually does not allow fair use images (see c:COM:FAIR USE) and requires images to be free in the US and their country of origin (if different). Rather, the current consensus on Commons (per c:Template:Not-free-US-FOP) is that source country FoP does apply also to the US according to an (untested?) legal theory. If you want to argue that this legal theory is wholly invalid, you would have to litigate this at Commons. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I should note that the whole question of whether source country FoP also applies to the US was the subject of this long RfC. You would probably have to start another RfC on Commons to overturn it. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's a working Wikilink to that RfC: Commons:Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law

Solomon Ucko (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Te Mīhana Māori Logo.png

The result of the discussion was: keep. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The logo of the church is not necessary for identification, and the main image of the church is the building itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep This logo has until recently been included in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Auckland inbox, but recent edits to Template:Infobox church means it was lost. The church became the Auckland Anglican Māori Mission in the 60s and is now known by many as Te Mīhana Māori and the logo is the key identifier on their website and social media channels.

Logos are important references in some church articles, especially as internet church continues to grow and church visual identities become more recognised, prominent and useful encyclopaedic references. St Paul’s Cathedral in London launched a sophisticated new identity last month. That cathedral building is world famous, but their new identity and logo demonstrates churches are more than buildings. And, like St Paul’s, many churches have had multiple main buildings over their histories (plus offices, halls, houses etc). Many church activities happen outside the confines of those buildings (eg arenas, private homes, studios, publishing including online, social media channels). Logos represent all of a church’s locations, activities and history, the same as most other modern institutions: like universities and museums.

Church logos are valuable for people connecting to churches online through their websites or social media by providing additional visual reference, recognition and accessibility to those unfamiliar with buildings alone. As noted at Wikipedia:Logos Many images of logos are used on Wikipedia and long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes. E James Bowman (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It being in the infobox isn't relevant to if it should be accepted as non-free content. The primary means of visual identification for the subject is the building, just like with the example of St Paul's Cathedral.

WP:LOGOS primarily concerns businesses, the part most relevant here is WP:BANDLOGO. If the logo is so important there should be independent secondary sources discussing it, and that could justify its inclusion, but the reason you gave on the NFCC criteria is for visual identification, of which this is wholly unnecessary for such a purpose. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Several editors—including you—have worked on the article since the logo was added to the infobox in 2021 and haven't expressed any concern with it being used as one of two primary means of visual identification. Note, the other Auckland Anglican mission, Auckland City Mission, has a logo and a building as its two primary means of visual identification also.

I can't see anything in Wikipedia:Logos saying it "primarily concerns businesses", as you claim. The licensing for this logo says "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event". Wikipedia:Logos applies to all of those. The 'Band logos' section isn't relevant as the church isn't a band and the church's logo is in the article as a primary means of visual identification. E James Bowman (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I was never aware of it being non-free media until now. Auckland City Mission is not a church, its a trust most well known for charitable efforts.

A logo isn't the primary means of visual identification for a church, much like a band and should only be included based on analysis in secondary sources. Its quite clear that the logo is not the primary means of identification, that belongs to the building. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. The logo is extraneous for a church. If it wasn't, there would likely be an infobox parameter for it. WidgetKid ^Converse 05:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
There has been a church infobox parameter for logos until last week when it was removed as part of a massive cleanup. This is now controversial. The parameter was restored yesterday along with about a hundred non-free church logos that had been orphaned and deleted: User talk:Explicit#Restore deletion of certain non-free logos? The template editor responsible has restored the Te Mīhana Māori Logo to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Auckland inbox. This logo should remain until the discussion at Template talk:Infobox church#Request to reinstate logo parameter comes to a consensus. Traumnovelle please note. E James Bowman (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
The decision on whether an infobox parameter is appropriate isn't relevant to whether this is justifiable non-free content or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep While buildings are more important for churches than many organizations, they're ultimately organizations and are frequently identified by their logos. And, ultimately, much more similar to corporate logos than the logos of musical acts. Just because we have a picture of a museum or a school (communal spaces that are very much defined by their building) doesn't mean we don't have pictures of their logos; they aren't equivalents. This church in particular does seem to be identified by its logo (my google image search results are very different). NFCC3a doesn't apply, given that there's only one non-free file in the article. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 17:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ As I said here, in its truest sense, a church is a living community of people gathered together, not a physical structure.The word "church" originates from the Greek word ekklesia, which translates to "an assembly" or "called-out ones". In this sense, wherever Christians gather—whether in a living room, a park, or online—the church is present. While physical sanctuaries provide an important place for many churches to meet, they are tools to facilitate connection. The heart of the church lies in its relationships, shared faith, and the way it is organised to support the community and serve the wider world.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] In the same way Wikipedia needs both Church (building) and Church (congregation) articles, I think individual church inboxes/articles need photos of church buildings and logos that represent church organisations.

E James Bowman (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

References

File:Black Panther Party (emblem).png

The result of the discussion was: Move to Commons * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 21:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Should be public domain by failure to affix notice. See File:Huey Newton, Black Panther Minister of Defense - Black Panther poster.jpg. The logo was also usually printed in The Black Panther Newspaper; see https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/black-panther/. Some 1968 issues did have a copyright notice, but that seems to be the exception for issues before the 70s. Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, the logo of Clark College from which this was apparently traced is likely public domain for similar reasons. See for example https://radar.auctr.edu/panther-december-1-1965. Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons: and ideally upload a vectorized version too. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons, is PD. I would add a detailed description based on the above, to clarify. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Robert Egerton Swartwout.jpg

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 07:43, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The image entered the public domain this year but can't be moved to Commons because of a hidden file revision. Can an admin move the file or remove the hidden file revision so it can be moved? Streetr4 (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

no ~2026-28448-53 (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The rationale is probably a reason. I'll let the Commons village pump know about this. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just checked and the file was most likely taken in the UK. Don't move AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The ﬁle should not be moved, but the revision should be unhidden as {{PD-USonly}}

Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 01:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC) Wikipedian^{Talk to me!}_{or not…} 01:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons The country of origin for the purposes of Commons is the country of first publication, not the country where the photo is taken. This photo was likely taken within a few days of publication, so it is reasonable to take the US as the country of origin. Additionally, {{PD-UK-anon}} is likely to apply anyways, especially if the photo landed in American newspapers which were unlikely to have individual authorship beyond "AP photo" or similar. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I have unhidden the file as a bare minimum since everyone agrees that should be done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Handling of these cases at Commons seems unclear; On the one hand, users seem to be of the opinion that work is created abroad as in this deletion request, simultaneous publication in the US is insufficient to overturn Commons policy that works should also be in the public domain in the source country, while their own licensing guideline page suggests that simultaneous publication always resolves to the country with the shortest copyright term. If we don't think we have sufficient evidence for {{PD-UK-anon}}, then I think asking at the Commons copyright noticeboard/village pump is the safest bet. Felix QW (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Radio VN Broadcast Hours card.jpg

The result of the discussion was: moved to Commons. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

might fall under c:Template:PD-South VietnamGov, therefore PD? Jay Cubby 23:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons despite the objections of the "copyright holder". URAA wouldn't apply because a) South Vietnam never seems to have signed onto the Berne Convention and b) the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam would deny copyright protection to this work, making it PD in the US as well. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd second the arguments of Based5290, as the Commons discussion around this template suggests that it would certainly have been in the public domain under the 1995 copyright law, with the newer law being non-retroactive. Regarding US copyright, the critical date for URAA restoration was 1998, so in any case during the validity of that law. As far as I can see, the objecting party seems to derive their copyright from the fact that they scanned the cards, so one should also add a PD-Scan template to explain the situation if one were to move it to Commons. Felix QW (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Torrent Project Screenshot.png

While the logo at the top isn't copyrightable (and is already on Commons), the text below is far, far above the threshold of originality. We wouldn't tolerate it being inserted verbatim into an article; it's no better encoded onto an image. —Cryptic 00:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The logo was tagged as being protected protected by copyright and being used under Fair Use for several years until I uploaded it to Commons and nominated the ENWP upload for SD. If anything it shows how ENWP have been slapping Fair Use justifications on virtually any logo with zero regard if the rationale is even valid in the slightest, knowing there is no consequences Trade (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete file and upload it to Commons. The text shown in the screenshot consists of short, generic descriptive phrases with no real originality or creativity. There are tens of thousands of in-arricle quotes on Wikipedia there are far longer and more complicated than what is being shown here meaning the whole argument for Fair Used have no basis in any ENWP policy or copyright law anywhere in the world. In other words, the short phrases depicted are noncopyrightableTrade (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cryptic: How is two sentences and a few short phrases "far, far above the threshold"??

Solomon Ucko (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I can't find the case but I believe a phrase that was something along the lines of '(Organisation) are awarding the player of the year (or something similar) after (team versus another team), so congratulations (person name)' managed to qualify for copyright. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices addresses this in section 308.2 with examples in 313.4. The only example that is even in the same universe as the text on this image is "Catchwords, catchphrases, mottoes, slogans, or other short expressions." in 313.4(C) (and paraphrased in our {{PD-textlogo}} template).

This is not that. There are thousands, likely tens of thousands, of ways this text could have been phrased while still conveying the same uncopyrightable ideas, even before considering which site of the "more than 300 others" to pick as an example.

The in-article quotes Trade refers to are just that: quoted, and attributed, and used under fair use. Were there any possibility that content of similar length was in the public domain, we would be using it for narration. Instead, we block users for copying less text than this into articles all the time. —Cryptic 00:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons. CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc., 888 F. Supp. 192 (D. Me. 1995), "[w]ords and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans" may not be copyrighted. The first sentence is a short slogan, while the second is functional description that is too simple and lacks any creative element to qualify for copyright protection. I suspect nom is not arguing about the other elements of the screenshot, so they don't need addressing. ✗plicit 07:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Kansas City Chiefs logo.svg

The result of the discussion was: Move to Commons * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 22:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe this logo is in the public domain in the United States. It appears in the 1970 and 1971 media guides without a copyright notice, forfeiting copyright protection. If the vectorization is copyrighted and not freely licensed, then this file should be deleted as it is replaceable by a free vectorization. If the vectorization is not copyrightable or is freely licensed, this can be exported to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The source of this file is an official source, which is always preferrable. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Free files are preferable to official non-free ones Traumnovelle (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

But for every logo, an official source is always preferable because it is the branding intended by the entities. Also, I think the logo of the Kansas City Chiefs is below the threshold of originality and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons. However, we must verify whether the team was able to copyright the logo at the US Copyright Office. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Energy Transfer LP logo 2024 Update.jpg

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:HauntingOfHillHouse.JPG

The result of the discussion was: Move to Commons * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 22:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons exactly per Based5290. Felix QW (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Kim Dae-jung billboard, 1971.jpg

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 06:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Based5920; c:Template:PD-South Korea-photo-1977 should apply here, which establishes PD for both South Korea and the US. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Pedromaríaarsuaga.png

The result of the discussion was: convert to fair use. ✗plicit 06:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Anonymous photos are PD in Spain 70 years after publication by current law, but given lack of actual sourcing we can't know for sure whether it's anonymous (risk of license-washing via extraction or transfer from more complete item into archive or file-sharing site). However, given Pedro María Arsuaga has been dead for 13 years, a case could be made for fair-use non-replaceability, retained here on enwiki if it's deleted from commons via c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pedromaríaarsuaga.png. But, I think the lack of sufficient source detail puts out-of-bounds for fair-use. DMacks (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Protection is possibly 80 years if anon-published or author-died prior to 1987. Google image-search found it at . I can't read Spanish, and I don't think that this modern-day publication is sufficient to support that it was published within the 70-year window. But I think that's a sufficient source to make this retainable on enwiki as NFC. Conversely, if it's kept on commons, obviously delete it from enwiki as redundant. DMacks (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:The Physical Revue (1952).webp

The result of the discussion was: Move to Commons * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 22:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons per nomination, whose analysis is very convincing. For completeness, the Harvard Crimson is also not listed at the canonical renewals database for periodicals. Felix QW (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Youare.jpg

The result of the discussion was: Move to Commons * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 22:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons per nom. Felix QW (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Oaklandtribsun111359.jpg

The result of the discussion was: Move to Commons * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 22:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons per nom. Felix QW (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Artofamfantasy.jpg

The result of the discussion was: Move to Commons * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 22:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons per nom. Felix QW (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Title Card for Citizen Kane.jpg

The result of the discussion was: Move to Commons. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons per nom ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons. This certainly isn't justifiable as non-free content, although its below the US TOO. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Whiskey Glasses.png

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 05:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Birmingham campaign water hoses.jpg

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

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

No objection to this, as long as the Commons file persists and will not be deleted in the future. My recollection is that the Commons upload was either not possible, or less likely to be accepted, back when I uploaded this image over 18 years ago. See also what I said here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Well 18 years ago where did you get the idea that UPI or AP renewed any copyrights?

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 14:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep, this is the historic photograph and is not duplicated by the "replaceable by" a different angle, this is not just a photo of a particular moment but a known image. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete I originally nominated this for removal from Birmingham campaign, but I think it probably doesn't meet NFCC even at Charles Moore (photographer). There is already one (public domain!) photo showing that Moore photographed the civil rights movement, and I don't think the photo of protestors getting sprayed with water is given enough attention to warrant the inclusion of the non-free photo. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Milton Margai.png

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 05:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Comment U.S. copyright status? Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Minecraft game logo 2023.png

The result of the discussion was: keep. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. This seems to be a case of "copyright laundering". The uploader apparently assumed that (a) the video being released under a free license wasn't an error, and (b) every copyrighted property depicted in that video must also be considered released under that same free license. Neither assumption is true just because the uploader says it is. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Support ThatAustralianBall (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Paraná Clube logo.svg

The result of the discussion was: convert to fair use. No strong argument to suggest a free license. ✗plicit 06:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

I don't know if the bird representation here is copyrightable. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Nouvelle Action Royaliste (emblem).png

The result of the discussion was: Keep as PD-US-only. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Guatemala National Football team badge.png

The result of the discussion was: delete. Discussion suggests reverting back to non-free status quo, but seeing the file is orphaned, it is eligible for WP:CSD#F5 anyway. ✗plicit 06:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Do not transfer to Commons until c:COM:Guatemala is very clear about Guatemala's threshold of originality. Perhaps re-license as free in only the US since the lines and shapes forming some face or chicken-looking embryo(?) are just very simple, but I could stand corrected about that. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep as is, I'm not sure that the logo would be below TOO in the US - Nvidia's logo for instance is above TOO. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Keep; glancing at the TOO reference list, this looks borderline. It's more complex than some things that were found to be copyrightable, but less complex than some things that were found to be not copyrightable. Erring on the side of caution, I'd say probably best to keep it here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Congress of Industrial Organizations (logo).gif

The result of the discussion was: Move to Commons. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Tagged by Chsdrummajor07 on January 10 with the reason:

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Move to Commons A rope style border does not make this text logo copyrightable. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree, and I noticed that the license tag has already been updated. Suggest closing now. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

File:NMIFA crest.svg

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:X cover.png

The result of the discussion was: no consensus and revert back to status quo. ✗plicit 06:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

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

What's the argument here? It sounds like you're arguing this is copyrighted in the US, which would mean this falls under WP:PD#Fonts. Even if the copyright is held in the UK, this satisfies WP:NFCC. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The argument, I believe, is that the country of origin for this work should be considered the US, so this image should be moved to commons rather than locally hosted. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this file could be suitable with c:COM:TOO US based on who released this album officially. Sinsyuan✍️HBDTRTS 12:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for being 11 days late, but yes, that is my argument. Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 08:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I thought about (reluctantly) favoring transfer to Commons as "simultaneously published", but it seems hand-painted, and the green background resembles some canvas board or something like that. Perhaps I'm too nitpick-y on this? George Ho (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Breeze Center logo.svg

The result of the discussion was: MTC. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Move as {{PD-text}}. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:16, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

File:German Magazine showing famous Blitz Image.JPG

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Awakenings (Oliver Sacks book).jpg

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 07:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

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

This is the UK cover, so UK ToO should be applied. This quote feels a bit too...flowery (?) to not qualify for copyright protection in the UK, and I suspect even US copyright would agree. However, the American cover has a much stronger case for being a PD, with the two quotes being trivial in terms of creativity and the geometry being simple. Therefore, Delete and replace with the PD US cover. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Re-license as PD-USonly – The way the author's name and the book title have been used may make the book cover original enough for UK copyright. Not just these, the way the quote is emphasized would also raise the cover's originality scale. Doubtful that the US law would give the cover some leeway or something like that. —George Ho (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Appropedia webpage screenshot, March 2026.png

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 06:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Some of the images appear to be in that "otherwise noted" category. In particular:

https://www.appropedia.org/File:Brush_byHeatherBrown.jpg has no license and has a "courtesy of" statement which makes me doubt its licensing status.
https://www.appropedia.org/File:Bikepic3.jpg has no license statement
https://www.appropedia.org/File:Bpack_bike_trailer_-_demo_1.jpg has no license statement
https://www.appropedia.org/File:Tibial_Shaft_Transverse_Fracture_Simulator_v5.0.jpg is labelled as CC BY-SA 4.0 but somehow has an unknown author?
https://www.appropedia.org/File:Habitatpark006.jpg says "used with permission", which would be a VRT problem at Commons, perhaps?

These probably need to be removed or censored before being moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:1990 FIFA World Cup.svg

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 06:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Relist this file, or move it to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:EuroLeague.svg

The result of the discussion was: delete. Available on Commons at File:EuroLeague logo.svg. ✗plicit 05:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Relist it or move to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I replaced the file at the page, so delete it now. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

With the same image but under the different filename: File:EuroLeague logo.svg? I have reservations about the logo's copyright in Spain since the logo's author, Euroleague Basketball, is headquartered in Spain, so I nominated the Commons copy you uploaded for deletion (click/tap here). George Ho (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Re-license as PD-ineligible-USonly for now until Commons deems it okay to use in the project. If "kept" there, then this logo should be exported to Commons. George Ho (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
If there's no response by anyone else until 12 April, you can move it to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Why setting up a deadline? Do you plan to move the file yourself? George Ho (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
I forgot there was a backlog. Sorry. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Spain doesn't have the lowest threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

File:The Magnificent Eleven - First Five.jpg

The result of the discussion was: delete. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Correction: the bottom frame is copyrighted, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Normandy-June-6th-1944-US-troops-assault-Omaha-Beach-during-the-D-Day-landings-6.jpg. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I would agree that given that two of the frames are prodigiously in the public domain, the added value of the non-PD frames is insufficient to justify their non-free use. Felix QW (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Regan Russell Fearmans Surveillance.jpeg

The result of the discussion was: Relicensed to free on enwiki only. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Keep on enwiki; convert to PD; CCTV footage is public domain in the US per c:Template:PD-automated. No clue about Canada so should not be moved to Commons. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Why does the file description say it's under Crown copyright? That makes no sense. By the way, CCTV footage is considered a "cinematographic work" in Canada, so it would not be public domain here. MediaKyle (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:RHONY Season8Cover.png

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 05:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Keep. Passes WP:NFCC#2, because it's a low-resolution image. A 300x300 image isn't going to take away any commercial opportunities from Bravo or Getty. Not sure if WP:GETTY applies. Getty distributes lots of photos owned by others. This one is credited to Bravo. Given it's use as the image on Apple, this is similar to an album cover, so fair use in the context of the season (but nowhere else). WidgetKid ^Converse 04:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Getty distributes lots of photos owned by others.
Nonetheless, other cast photos seen in Getty have been deleted. So was a promo image of Steve Urkel that I uploaded years ago. Of course, I'm using WP:WHATABOUT argument, eh? George Ho (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot: If a photo belonging to NBCUniversal appears on Getty Images, most likely NBCUniversal—which currently owns Bravo, NBC, and Telemundo—has very deep commercial interersts in that photo. (Not to be confused with Comcast's spun-off company Versant.) George Ho (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't think Bravo/NBCUniversal's commercial interest in the photo is disputed. Them having a commercial interest is different than us taking away from their commercial opportunities, which I don't think we are by displaying a 300x300 low res pixel version. WidgetKid ^Converse 17:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Even being 300x300 didn't stop such images from being deleted. A use of an image seen on Getty Images should either, in certain circumstances, follow... or fail WP:GETTY. George Ho (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Speedy keep and close. This cover passes WP:NFCC#2. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
What about the possibility of the image being derived from the other image hosted by Getty Images? George Ho (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Yahoo screenshot 1994.png

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:MEX airport logo.png

The result of the discussion was: convert to {{PD-textlogo-USonly|Mexico}}, which nom decided to do anyway. ✗plicit 05:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Somehow didn't notice on first read, but the 1892 picture shows a logo on a sweater with an even closer design (perhaps even the same design?). Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd also say that 1892 picture shows the exact same design. In that case I'd say you're probably right that the mark falls into the public domain. Bailmoney27 ^talk 13:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:AsiaBasket Logo.png

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 07:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:UEFA Champions League.svg

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 07:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Robredo's Piper Seneca.jpg

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by HouseBlaster (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete I agree with the nominator that if a picture of the aircraft is needed, it's served by any one of the many images we have in Commons:Category:Piper PA-34 Seneca. Hence it fails WP:NFCC#1. However, if somebody wants to do the legwork (and lives in the Phillipines), then there appear to be many government-created images of the search and rescue efforts, which include pictures of the plane. has one, credited to the Gazette Facebook page. The Gazette Facebook page also posted an entire series of images of search and rescue efforts; somebody with a Facebook account can probably do better than I can at accessing them . This is, again, and NFCC#1 issue. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 00:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung bilingual.JPG

Issue with Commons and several Disney character articles

File:Title Card for Citizen Kane.jpg

File:Birmingham campaign water hoses.jpg

File:Guatemala National Football team badge.png

File:Congress of Industrial Organizations (logo).gif

File:The Magnificent Eleven - First Five.jpg

File:Robredo's Piper Seneca.jpg

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks