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 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 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.
Duplicate of Commons file Bremps... 04:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi Bremps – thanks for helping me, I object nothing because I thought all mug shots in the US were fair use. Thanks for the license fixing. CoryGlee 05:04, 9 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 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 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.
Could this fall under {{PD-text}}? Ixfd64 (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
That's what I said/asked, things like IP addresses, links, and company names aren't copyrightable; if this does violate code, the middle text could just be blurred out: "rooting your systems since 19;)" to "12 May 2026 before everything is leaked." Other than the text I just stated, I personally believe everything else constitutes {{PD-text}. Prost, A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
It's trivial to transcribe the malware note, but why should we when we have ransom notes on Wikipedia‽ PD-text is appropriate. kencf0618 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
I believe so, typeface and text effects isn't copyrightable and the word count (excluding common and short phrases) barely meets the requirements for a short online literary work per the Copyright Office. It also probably doesn't meet the fixation requirement. Kibblebrain (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Probably just looping the broken record here, but I think this falls under WP:PD#Non-creative works and TOO. It consists of nothing but words and a border using basic HTML and CSS elements anyone could use. It is informational, too, given it covers something important now. I know this isn't an AfD, but keep under WP:PD#Non-creative works and TOO. MutantSackboy4 (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not going to give an official opinion on whether or not this file should be deleted. But I do think it is likely PD as it falls below the threshold of originality. It's just text. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
It's just text. So is a poem. Or a novel. -- Veggies (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The word "literature" or "literary" is used in copyright law to refer to more than just artistic writings.
https://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-type.html: "Literary Works include a wide variety of works such as fiction, nonfiction, poetry, textbooks, reference works, directories, catalogs, advertising copy, compilations of information, computer programs and databases."
The depicted text is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it is not a “literary work” or other protected type in sense of the local copyright law. Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright. This tag does not generally apply to all images of texts. Particular countries can have different legal definition of the “literary work” as the subject of copyright and different courts' interpretation practices. Some countries protect almost every written work, while other countries protect distinctively artistic or scientific texts and databases only. Extent of creativeness, function and length of the text can be relevant. The copyright protection can be limited to the literary form – the included information itself can be excluded from protection. — {{PD-text}} on Wikimedia Commons
I think keeping it as fair use is a safer bet, as we need to consider copyright laws in the country of creation. While this was 'published' on the Instructure website, an American company, the work may have been created outside the United States where different copyright laws apply, I think some countries do not have Threshold of originality in their copyright laws. Standard disclaimer: I am not an expert by any means on copyright law, take my judgement with a grain of salt. Mitchsavl-on-public-wifi (main|talk) 00:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Note that even if it’s copyrighted in the country of origin, we can still keep it as is under {{PD-USonly}}.
Don't move I'm pretty sure this would be considered a literary work. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
It most certainly is not a piece of literature. It's akin to a social media post, which there is no copyright there. Not to mention, if it was copyrighted, then it would belong to the hackers, who are not going to take Wikipedia to court. MountainJew6150 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
I disagree with the text being a literary work, but this argument is invalid per c:COM:CARESNutella lover • [chat│supervise] 13:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Move — not only does this text only have four sentences, it's not a literary work. It just informs the visitors of the Web site about the situation similarly to how any other hacker would do. It isn't written with any charm, interesting language, originality or uniqueness and isn't the product of creativity. Nutella lover • [chat│supervise] 14:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
I see what you mean, @MountainJew6150. However, this is a matter of principle. Obviously, ShinyHunters is not going to drag the Wikimedia Foundation to court. But just because there will not be legal reprecussions for this, does no mean we should ignore the rules.
There is also a commons dr being discussed in [1]. I've seen a one file "Shinyhunterscanvashackmay7.png" deleted that I listed at deletion requests. IMO, I would say Keep in Wikipedia as a fair use. Artemhao (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
It should at least be fair use:
It falls squarely within the enumerated purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" (17 U.S.C.§ 107).
As for the four factors, #3 goes against this because we're reproducing the whole thing, and #4 is unclear (is there a black market for defacement/ransom note templates, if that would even be recognized in court?), but #1 and #2 are presumably in favor of this.
Also, given that the authors are undercover criminals:
Would they even want to try to sue, given that doing so would probably lead to at least some of them getting caught? (Though I guess they could try to hide behind a lawyer?)
FWIW, since the formatting involved is minimal but it has multiple sentences of language, I think we should evaluate this as a textual/literary work rather than a graphical/artistic one.
If no author can be proven or wants to claim the text, I believe this text becomes an orphan work. Though as far as I know, there isn't any provision for such works in the United States besides 17 U.S.C. § 108(h). Kibblebrain (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep the file, don't delete it. Otherwise, I worry that ShinyHunters will come after Wikipedia next. UWMKEgypt (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The precautionary principle states that "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to" is not a valid reason for keeping copyright violations. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm not sure to why it would also be up for deletion even if it is copyrighted as it would be under fair use. If music albums can have their detailed artworks images up for WP:NFCC#8, this HTML page with CSS should stay at its page. The image is also the popular one in discussing the hack throughout media as well.
More on that copyright via reiterating the other folks, I don't think they would try actions against WMF because it would lead to them getting recognized in court and because of that anonymity, it might just be an orphan work. Gemdation (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
lean non-free use{{PD-Text}} clearly states individual words, slogans, which this is not. As GreenLipstickLesbian states on the commons discussionThere's sarcasm, there's language designed to illicit an emotional response, and longer than many poems; this is well into creative territory. While I would drop the well in that, I agree it is in the creative territory well above PD-Text. The fact that this is not just a couple of words, or a slogan, or just simple facts but two sentences with elements of design choice makes me lean that this is not PD so should remain as non-free use in reduced size. If it was just the text an augment could be made for not enough to pass the threshold of originality, but the non trivial text along with design elements makes this a copyrighted screenshot to me. KylieTastic (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
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 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.
As original uploader I agree that it can be replaced with the first photo but you can't really see their faces in the washing cars one. – MW(t•c) 03:39, 13 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.
Fails WP:NFCC#8: this is a movie poster for The Amazing Digital Circus: The Last Act. Non-free movie posters are generally allowed for primary identification purpose in articles about the movie itself, but the article The Amazing Digital Circus is not specifically about this movie. Wcam (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFCC#8; if an article is created for The Last Act this can always be recreated to be used there. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 31. Whpq (talk) 12:21, 31 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: delete. Whpq (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Uploader is not the copyright holder as the image was copied from Facebook. No known original source, date or creator. Might be {{PD-India-photo-1958}} but no indication of US copyright or claim of fair use made. Nthep (talk) 12:18, 15 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.
Fails WP:NFCCP#4 as a sample of an unreleased, leaked song. TeoTB (talk) 14:05, 16 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Image says it's public domain, but a picture of Peter Pan who is not public domain from a Disney film, is seen in the photo. ~2026-29165-71 (talk) 16:54, 16 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.
Replaceable by a free image, namely File:Firemen and police walk through Dublin bombing aftermath.jpg. Even though the replacement may be of lower quality, it is still high quality enough to show the aftermath of the Dublin bombing. Free media is almost always used in place of non-free media when the free media serves the an equivalent encyclopedic function. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:09, 17 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: Move to Commons* Pppery *in solidarity 01:35, 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: Wrong forum. No file exists by this name, but a local image description page does exist. If you are trying to nominate this description page for deletion, use {{db-imagepage}} if possible; if that is not possible, list it at WP:MFD. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
There is no file for this image, and it is possible that the page was created as possible vandalism and is not used in articles. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 20:14, 17 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: Move to Commons* Pppery *in solidarity 01:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Well below American ToO and can be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons, simple text on a monochrome background. Hardly original... -Samoht27 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
May 18
WDFX-TV logos
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 01:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
These two files are similar in design and layout to Commons:File:WPGX - 2019x.svg and Commons:File:Wpgx bounce.png, both of which are logos for WPGX, which is licensed to Panama City, Florida, just south of Dothan. Additionally, both WPGX and WDFX-TV are owned by Lockwood Broadcast Group, and all 4 of both station's subchannels are affiliated with the exact same 4 networks. Given all this, I see no reason as to why the WDFX logos shouldn't join their WPGX counterparts over at Commons. JHD0919 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons for both. The first one is just basic text effects slapped on top of a basic gradient. The second one modifies the O in "bounce", but that and the border around bounce do not make this logo copyrightable. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:42, 19 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: delete. Whpq (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Excessive use of non-free media? This gets a three sentence mention in a giant section dedicated the legacy of the OJ Simpson chase in popular media. Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep brief, low quality depiction of arguably the most famous pop cultural reference to the chase. Videos have been established to be able to be NFC, see Dennō Senshi Porygon as an example. — Knightoftheswords 03:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
The example you give is very different; an entire article is dedicated to discussion of the episode, and there is a specific effect that can only be conveyed via the use of a video and said effect has significant commentary by secondary sources in the article (and may even be the reason the episode has a Wikipedia article at all). Shrek 2 has three sentences summarizing the content of the non-free clip in a much larger section about the pop culture impact of the chase; the fact that I, as a reader who has never seen Shrek 2, can understand the humor derived from the White Bronco gag purely from the textual description, indicates that the clip is unnecessary. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/california-highway-patrol-chase-al-cowlings-driving-and-o-j-news-photo/1244613892, WP:GETTY applies. Even though it was added to Getty retroactively, it still demonstrates that the LAT maintains a strong commercial interest in this image. The uploader argues the mug shots of Simpson and Cowling being hosted on Getty nullifies this argument, but that is irrelevant since the mug shots are public domain. Dash cam footage by OCSD, which is public domain, is enough to replace this image in the article, even though it is low quality. Based5290 :3 (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep, WP:GETTY states that images derived from Getty Images aren't to be used. The aforementioned photo was taken before Getty images existed and was directly sourced from the LA Times. Bear in mind again that many images are often found on Getty even if they themselves don't own the copyright (see examples such as the Boy from the Warsaw Ghetto in our own article). Additionally, the dashcam footage never shows the actual police cars, since its dashcam footage from a/the lead car in the chase; there is dashcam footage from the original source that do show the police cars, but its a car that's several spots behind on the one laned road Simpson lived at, and as such doesn't show the White Bronco. Lead images are supposed to create a quick, easy to understand visual for the reader, and so the dashcam footage don't fit that not only due to their low quality, but the aforementioned reasons above. — Knightoftheswords 03:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
The fact that Getty hosts public domain images is irrelevant when a) the image being discussed is not public domain and b) the linked Getty image page for the image of the chase shows that the photo was added to Getty by the author of the image or his employer, clearly showing that either has a strong direct commercial interest in the work.
The dashcam footage indeed never shows the White Bronco and the cop cars giving chase in the same frame, but a single caption such as "dashcam footage from a California Highway Patrol car..." under a frame in File:White Bronco chase dash cam 1.webm could easily remediate this. Therefore, the frame would serve the same encyclopedic image as the nominated image of visually identifying the chase (the article name is White Bronco chase, after all), making the nominated image fail NFCC #1. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep, just because something is on Getty doesn't mean it is from Getty, as WP:GETTY says ("A photo from a press agency or photo agency", emphasis mine). PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
This is a blatant duplicate of Commons:File:WPGX - 2019x.svg. I nominated this for F8 speedy deletion on that basis, but it was rejected on the grounds that they are different file formats (png vs svg), so I'm nominating this for deletion here instead. JHD0919 (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Paging @Magog the Ogre (the person who removed the F8 tag) for their thoughts. JHD0919 (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - effectively duplicate. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:55, 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: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 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 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.
Derivative of copyrighted work (aerial mapping/GUI). MIDI (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - clearly a derivative work with no indication on the copyright status of the original work. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 01:34, 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.
This is a declined speedy deletion. Currently licensed as non-free. The image is an Associated Press photo from 1963. Per c:Category:Photographs distributed by Associated Press, if this image was published in 1963, then it would be public domain due to lack of proper copyright notice. Whpq (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Oh? Pleased I didn't just delete the file myself, then. DS (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete When the image was published it was cropped smaller than shown in this file see here only the portion that was published at the time is public domain 999REAL💬⬆ 18:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Copyright is weird. File:Doc Edgerton 1963.jpg is much higher-res than the one whose deletion was being discussed here, but because the cropping is different...
*shakes head*.
Okay, well. No point in keeping the smaller version, then, especially if there's dispute over the copyright. Gone. DS (talk) 14:06, 23 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 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 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--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Given the presence of other freely licensed reconstructions, this isn't irreplaceable. JayCubby 00:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFG. No commentary on this particular reconstruction is made, and there is no compelling need for another reconstruction. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:35, 23 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: delete. Whpq (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
If the caption in the article is to be believed (the fair use rationale seems completely disconnected from how it is actually used in the article), then the image is solely being used for textual content. If the price list is really that important, it should be brought into the article both to comply with NFCC and for accessibility. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete a barely-legible screenshot of prices is not encyclopedically useful; I agree that if the information about pricing is due, it should be sourced and incorporated in text. If not, then this fails WP:NFCC5 06:22, 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: delete. Whpq (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Tenuous at best link to prose. "Kristen" is the primary model discussed in the article, not "Samantha". Additionally, I think most people can get the sexual nature of Emperors Club VIP from the text alone. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete This is purely decorative, I agree that there's no real connection between the image subject and the article. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:22, 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: delete. Whpq (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Barely related to the text. There is no discussion of how Emperors Club VIP advertised in the text, nor does this image depict the primary prostitute discussed in the article. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete While not as obviously decorative as the other two non-free images in this article, it doesn't illustrate anybody actually involved in the scandal, and the site's operation really is not discussed apart from a brief background section, which I believe is all that is DUE GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:22, 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: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Suggesting Delete. This is a logo that has been identified as being in the public domain as it "consists only of simple geometric shapes or text". Looking at the logo, I am not sure this argument is sound. McPhail (talk) 09:35, 25 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.
Move to Commons per given copyright expiry date on the file page. Crown copyright expires after 50 years and applies world wide. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
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--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC#8, per MOS:FILMMUSIC: "having cover images in the film article's album infoboxes is considered extraneous" Wcam (talk) 18:21, 25 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.
Wikipedia already has better version of the image, not to note this is also orphaned non-free use image. - Heaven is heaven btw (talk) 11:48, 26 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.
I uploaded a cropped version which is better for fair use purposes. Jahaza (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Weak move to Commons for both This photo has unambiguously fallen into the public domain in Canada as it was created before 1949. The American copyright status is technically up in the air, but I would presume that it was published in some yearbook of some kind before 1931, leading to it falling into the American public domain. While the online University of West Toronto archives don't seem to go back far enough for their own works, another image of Hadley Williams marked as under copyright was published in 1928, supporting this idea. Based5290 :3 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, @Crisco 1492 updated the cropped version's tagging. Copyright is hard! Jahaza (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons for both. This definitely seems like the sort of image that likely had publication, though narrowing it down may be frustrating. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:22, 26 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: speedy delete. Creator tagged with WP:U1, interpreting that as a WP:G7 request. ASUKITE 01:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Invalid purpose of use. I don't see how this meets WP:NFCC#8. WP:NFCC#3 is clearly not met, if the purpose is to illustrate the licensing dispute with Euro-Office. Janhrach (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
I have to post it here to prevent ascendio from doing a rug pull Exed1960 (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
It's not Wikipedia's purpose to archive nonfree documents. But anyway, I requested this PDF to be archived on Wayback: [2]. Janhrach (talk) 21:32, 26 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.
This can surely be replaced with a free alternative. This is used to illustrate granular synthesis (a way of editing sound), but not any particular work. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 02:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
A free alternative is already in the granular synthesis page. (File:Granulizer.ogg) - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 02:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
This fails the irreplaceability requirement of NFCC#1. The "look and feel of the animation effects" can be replicated by any animator and then licensed freely. There is no reason that the visual effects that are discussed must be exemplified by an actual lootbox game, instead of a free-licensed imitation thereof. Rose Abrams (TCL) 08:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Free content exemplifying a smilar videogame mechanic As an example, consider this imitation of a videogame's battlepass, made entirely from free content. Similarly, a free-content imitation of lootbox's visual effects could be created. Rose Abrams (TCL) 08:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep There is sourced discussion of how the look and feel of opening a loot box affects the psychology of wanting to play more to earn more loot boxes. While one could create a free image of a loot box opening, using an example of one specifically developed and noted as an example where the design has been significantly refined is meant to draw the player to buy more is not going to be easily replicated in a free replacement, in contrast to the battle pass concept where the draw is of showing the two tiers and the rewards being missed out on by not buying the premium tier path. Masem (t) 11:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
I kind of see what you mean, but I don't think difficulty to replicate is covered under NFCC#1, because "not going to be easily replicated in a free replacement" is not the same as "no free equivalent [...] could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". My reading of NFCC#1 is that of impossibility for a free alternative. Rose Abrams (TCL) 07:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Masem. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
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.
Image is claimed to be public domain due publication before Jan 1, 1931, but there is no publication information to show this is actually the case. Whpq (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom; the Facebook source doesn't appear to claim this photo was taken pre-1931 either. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:14, 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.
This statue was installed in 1962. In general, permanent public display with no attempt to stop photography before 1978 in the United States constitutes publication. Therefore, this would have required renewal around 1990 to retain copyright protection, but no such renewal occured. Therefore a free use picture of this statue is entirely possible to create. The photo itself is non-free and should be deleted. Note that even if this statue is still copyrighted somehow, a WP:FREER version could be created (a freely licensed photograph). Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NFCC#1; a free picture of this 3d statue can absolutely be created, even if the statue is under copyright. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
This can be moved to Commons. In general, permanent public display of a work of art prior to 1977 where no attempt to stop copying through photography or some other means is made constitutes publication. This would have required renewal around 1967 or 1969 to retain copyright protection, but no such renewal occured. The statue is public domain, so this can be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
This photo is copyrighted, and, per WP:FREER, we ought to use a freely licensed photo, even if the underlying work of art is still copyrighted.
The file page states that the bust copyrighted, but I have reason to believe otherwise. The linked Flickr account shows several angles which seem to indicate there is not a visually apparent copyright notice on the statue. In general, permanent public display of an artwork before 1978 constitutes publication, so the lack of notice would inject this artwork into the public domain. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NFCC#1; a free picture of this 3d statue can absolutely be created, even if the statue is under copyright. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
The image says it was sourced from Instagram - no indication if this was an official artist or label source etc. The listening at retailers uses the album cover as it was released/promoted as part of the album's presale, as opposed to a separate listing at digital retailers. >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 23:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep: As the image is from official Mariah Carey account, and it does not even fail ANY non-free content criteria. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete - This is claimed to be the cover for the single, but I really see no evidence for this. The source link is dead. References to this song, as noted by the nominator are in relation to the album and use the album cover art work. Assuming this image really was posted from an official account, it does not appear to be in use for identifying the song in any marketing for it. As such, it really does not fulfill the purpose of visual identification even if this was from an official Instagram account. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Whpq Not sure why Carey removed her post, but I convince that it is from her official account since I uploaded this image. I found her tweet for this, and also I assume that naming it "Promotional graphic" would be enough for keeping it. What's your think? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete Best I can tell, this was one promotional image posted by Carey (https://www.instagram.com/p/DMhFlPlIobH/) and Shenseea, but there's no single art; on streaming platforms + Instagram, the album cover is used instead, which explains Whpq's findings. Describing it as the single cover appears to be OR. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
GreenLipstickLesbian Please see my reply above. Do you think labelling it as "Promotional graphic" would not appear to be OR then? I've seen various articles using "promotional graphic" for the "visual identification", which made me believe it was fair for "Sugar Sweet" either. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't believe that a run of the mill promotional image or graphic like this one fulfills the role of visual identification, given that it was only used a few times and there's no evidence that the subject is actually identified by that graphic apart from two instagram posts. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of making up the image; I have seen the same picture on her Instagram. I'm just saying that there's no evidence that it's anything more than just a promotional picture. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
@GreenLipstickLesbian I wanna ask, "why not promotional graphic"? As I know, it's much better when the music articles contain their artworks (or visual identifications) in their infobox than having nothing. I remember I opened this kind of discussion a year ago for Billie Eilish's songs cover artworks. @Infsai: taught me that "covers used in infoboxes should visualize the single, and if there is one specific image tied to a song, it should be used"; I also followed this rule as well. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 22:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Also I do believe it belongs to "promotional graphic", since Carey used the image for the song's promotion although it's less frequent. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 22:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
While the statue is quite likely in the public domain due to age, a free picture of this statue can be produced; it's a public piece of art in a public location. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The original video in question is not released under a free license on either the primary Japanese nor American official Youtube channels. For further arguments, please see [5] I am not comfortable of using those images that have copyright issues. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
What frame in these videos are you suggesting would be a viable free use alternative? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep @User:TheSilksongPikmin I feel this ongoing discussion here (seriously how to commons discussions keep going THIS long for AfD's?) highlights that there's still some argument against the commons upload of that material, and still no official word from Capcom whether or not they intended to release the copyright on this material.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep: I have considered this for a while, but as far as I can tell everything points to the Capcom France not having legitimately released the videos. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:39, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Dozens of fair-use Capcom video game images that can be replaced with free images
All of these images are fair-use Capcom video game screenshots, fair use image is not needed as Capcom France has released multiple game content trailers under Creative Commons, we can simply use frames from them instead of these fair use images.
c:Category:Videos by Capcom France is the category in question.
The large amount of retro game screenshots listed here can be replaced with frames of collection trailers.
Note that I do not really have the time to scour every single collection trailer, especially for games like Capcom Arcade Stadium, so this list is actually incomplete. In general though, this should be kept in mind for those arcade games as we do have free CC licensed Capcom Arcade Stadium & 2nd Stadium trailers.
I also understand that it will take a lot of time to scour Capcom France's videos to find good replacement frames, but under Wikipedia rules it is worth it as fair-use should only be used if there are no free alternatives. Do not worry however, I did make sure that all the files listed here realistically can be replaced via a trailer frame, based off their titles and the contents of complilations.
Based on the precedent set by the deletion of Woody (Toy Story)'s fair-use image, I could also see us replacing many Capcom character infobox images with trailer frames, but this is beyond the scope here.
TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 20:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
While the replacement makes sense, I would not use the normal FFD process for these becuase of the scale being asked for here. Its not a simple one-to-one swap in most cases, so this needs to be handled with some care. They should be flagged that they are replaceable, and I would give a reasonable deadline, like 3 months, to complete that before deletion. Masem (t) 02:02, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The original video that was tagged at Capcom France is not released under a free license on either the primary Japanese nor American official Youtube channels. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep Per my argument at the Leon S. Kennedy entry; it's up for question and not been confirmed if Capcom France's youtube channel had any authority to release those videos without a copyright license, and the material is already under an existing AfD.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment Going a bit further over the Woody discussion Silksong mentioned above, I'm rather confused that was even allowed to pass: a similar statue for Vault Boy was deleted per discussion here, and the license even states it may not be valid in the United States, due to the status of it being a copyrighted character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment, This scenario previously occured with Xbox Mexico videos, and consensus was that they were freely licensed. I don't see how this is different? TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 10:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment Because there have been other instances with cases like Vogue Taiwan where they haven't been. There's still a whole ongoing discussion, and that's going to lead to a massive problem if we wholesale replace images.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep There is reasonable doubt Capcom meant to release the videos as Creative Commons, given they were released under a copyright in America and Japan. People at Commons don't seem to be following the precautionary principle despite this, claiming that the Creative Commons selector was not possible to press by accident. This has since been disproven. I believe this is a violation of the rules and following the precautionary principle, express permission from Capcom needs to be gained. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep: per above. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Fair use rationale is wrong, as the infobox uses the new logo. I don't think there's much value in retaining this historical logo. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:56, 30 May 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.
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)
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
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)
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[6] 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.[7] 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:LogosMany 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 [8] 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. WidgetKidConverse 05:59, 26 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 bothChurch (building) and Church (congregation) articles, I think individual church inboxes/articles need photos of church buildings and logos that represent church organisations.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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"??
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 [9]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [10]). 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)
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)
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)
No objection to this, as long as the Commons file persists and will not be deleted in the future. My recollection is that the Commons upload was either not possible, or less likely to be accepted, back when I uploaded this image over 18 years ago. See also what I said here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Well 18 years ago where did you get the idea that UPI or AP renewed any copyrights? REAL💬⬆ 14:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
A few different fonts should not put this above TOO JayCubby 01:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
This is the UK cover, so UK ToO should be applied. This quote feels a bit too...flowery (?) to not qualify for copyright protection in the UK, and I suspect even US copyright would agree. However, the American cover has a much stronger case for being a PD, with the two quotes being trivial in terms of creativity and the geometry being simple. Therefore, Delete and replace with the PD US cover. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Re-license as PD-USonly – The way the author's name and the book title have been used may make the book cover original enough for UK copyright. Not just these, the way the quote is emphasized would also raise the cover's originality scale. Doubtful that the US law would give the cover some leeway or something like that. —George Ho (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
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)
Unsure about licensing. Part of the footer reads, "Content is available under CC-BY-SA-4.0 unless otherwise noted." thejiujiangdragon🔥🐉 23:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Some of the images appear to be in that "otherwise noted" category. In particular:
These probably need to be removed or censored before being moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragontalk 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
Likely PD in the US, maybe not in Canada, but should be converted. JayCubby 01:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep on enwiki; convert to PD; CCTV footage is public domain in the US per c:Template:PD-automated. No clue about Canada so should not be moved to Commons. ―Howard • 🌽33 14:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Why does the file description say it's under Crown copyright? That makes no sense. By the way, CCTV footage is considered a "cinematographic work" in Canada, so it would not be public domain here. MediaKyle (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
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)
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). WidgetKidConverse 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. WidgetKidConverse 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)
Should be well below TOO JayCubby 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)
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)
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)
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. Bailmoney27talk 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)
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)
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)
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.
A photo of the exact plane involved could be replaced by a similar-looking Seneca. Philippines gov't works are not protected by copyright, so if there is a government photo of this plane, that could be used I suppose. JayCubby 23:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragonT/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. [11] 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 [12]. This is, again, and NFCC#1 issue. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 00:44, 31 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.
I nominate this logo as the original uploader. I consider that it fails NFCC policy #8 since the current logo is displayed on the infobox. No contextual significance that justifies its presence. This logo does not add any relevant info to readers' understanding of the article topic, . Fma12 (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The image is placed in the Chrysler (brand) article adjacent to text that is about this logo specifically, so it does not violate NFCC #8. --Sable232 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Sable. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment a text that only reads "In 2011, the brand's winged emblem was modified, eliminating the historic blue ribbon center..." does not seem to comply with nfcc #8 ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"). The adjacent text does not have historical relevance in this case, at least IMO. Fma12 (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Human spaceflight: Same issue as above; free alternatives are readily available to illustrate this broad topic. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8.
Alexei Leonov: A free portrait already exists. This image appears in a gallery, which WP:NFG explicitly disallows for non-free content. Fails WP:NFCC#1.
Voskhod 2: Image is used decoratively rather than as the subject of sourced commentary, likely failing WP:NFCC#8. Wcam (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not willing to assume there's no creativity in the placement of the camera to take this image, so I'm not going to assume that it's public domain. With that out the way:Remove from Extravehicular activity and Human spaceflight as obviously decorative, hence failing NFCC#1 and 8. Remove from Alexei Leonov as we have other images illustrating him. Keep in Voskhod 2, as a picture of a historic event for which no free alternative can be created, and for which our current non-free photos ( a stamp and a picture of a museum exhibit) don't provide an adequate educational substitute. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 17:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)crossed out a word at 00:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Per above, Remove from Extravehicular activity, Human spaceflight, and Alexei Leonov; Keep in Voskhod 2. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
As an image by a commericial photography studio being sold on Reuters, I believe this fails WP:NFCC#2 as, ultimately, we're using the image for the exact same thing that a photo agency/commercial photo website is selling the image for. (See WP:PRESSPHOTO ). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 17:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep: The original credit line states "Rosalie O'Connor Photography/Handout via REUTERS". That means it's a handout photo by Rosalie O'Connor Photography and given to Reuters, who then subsequently published it. The photo isn't by Reuters staff and isn't available for licensing their website. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake on the currently being sold via Reuters thing. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
@Howardcorn33 Was going to do a slightly longer response, but then I got side tracked and realized - I don't think I can find a copyright notice/registration for the Apr 9th 1987 edition of The Beaumont Enterprise , which has a photo of Burmann, has a copyright notice, and I'm not seeing renewal within 5 years. The copy I'm working from is looks like it was scanned with a potato, but it's looking like we can deal with this now under the much easier WP:NFCC#1. Which, tbh, we know that anybody active in the public sphere in the US during the 1970s/1980s probably has a free photo availible of them, just not available easily to Wikipedians on the internet. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
@GreenLipstickLesbian: you'll have to upload it to Commons first for the current img to be replaced. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:06, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
To be replaced, yes, but I'd like to find a better quality scan. Until then, at least this conversation has been simplified to "Given that we know there's a public domain image of this person published, is WP:NFCC#1 met?" GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Probably, although I prefer to have the file available first, even if it's a low quality scan. At least you can overwrite the file later when you do find a better scan.
Weak delete for now. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
@Michael0986: the fair use justification states "A free contemporary image would not convey the same information." Why do you believe this to be the case? ―Howard • 🌽33 20:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
David Roback passing away in 2020 is the primary reason for a "contemporary image" not conveying the same information. The image I uploaded isn't that great quality-wise, a bit too grainy really. But at least it shows Mazzy Star as the public recognizes them I guess. Michael0986 (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but their faces are not clear in any of those photos. When people think of Mazzy Star it's of Hope and David. Michael0986 (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but their faces are not clear in any of those photos. When people think of Mazzy Star it's of Hope and David. Michael0986 (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Fails nfcc #1 - Fma12 (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Mugshot was published at least by 1934, as seen on this wanted poster: c:File:Dutch_Schultz_Wanted_Poster.jpg. Therefore it would've needed copyright renewal (assuming it was even published with valid copyright notice). As far as I can tell the NYPD does not appear to have renewed their copyright for any mugshots. Thus it should be moved to Commons with c:Template:PD-US-not renewed. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:05, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons per nom. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Move to commons per nom, was published without notice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. ―Howard • 🌽33 17:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't quarrel with the reason given here to delete the original file (lack of inline commentary, assuming someone can't find any and add it). But the purported replacement cannot qualify as a free image. Yes, it has tags that might lead a casual reviewer to believe that is an acceptable free image, but it isn't. Frankly, it should be deleted from Commons (along with those two tags).
The first tag explicitly cautions us that "[w]hile this file is under a free license, re-use of this file may be subject to legal constraints, depending on jurisdiction and independent from its copyright status." Indeed. As I have noted in other nominations here at the moment, the photographer's decision to license this freely cannot have any impact on the copyright status of the costume depicted.
And really?: "Even if the photo contains a copyrighted content. the owner of the rights released it under a Creative Commons license." We have deleted way too many Commons uploads than we can count where the uploader naively insisted that "But it was under CC so it's OK!" No, it's not. I note that it is noted that this image came from Flickr which (as much as we love it, I love it and it (lately) loves me) has a well-earned reputation for not enforcing third-party copyright unless the rightsholder complains, much less educating their users the way we do about copyright (which is to say, educating them at all). We even have a warning about this on Commons (yes, I know it discusses mainly people uploading images from elsewhere, but to me that applies with equal force to Flickrites taking their own pictures of things they cannot claim copyright on).
Note also that the
The image also fails the de minimis test — without Vader, all you have is a green background and smoke.
It might be objected that since the Flickr stream in question is the official Star Wars feed, that it's OK since they chose that licensing for the image. But two things present themselves in complication. First, I see no sign that whoever was at the time operating the feed was authorized to waive all copyrights associated with the images they posted. Second, there is no statement to that effect associated with the account — not on the image page, not on the "About" page. In fact, the comments on the page, old though they are, suggest that downstream reusers are aware that the content of the image is not free whatever the outward license.
Lastly the Commons page on "copyright by subject matter is pretty clear about this without ever saying so directly: costumes depicted as the primary subject of images must not be under copyright if the image is to be considered free (It makes no difference if someone created the costume themselves — it is still a derivative work). Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
This is an overly broad application of the FoP claimed by the tag. Yes, FoP applies ... to the actual figure and likeness when depicted in 3-D in a public place, or one generally open to the paying public as Madame Tussaud's is. It cannot apply to the costume and prop depicted. The first is not something widely worn enough to qualify as a useful article and the second does not exist in the real world. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Nothing wrong with the free photo, but the non-free photo is better. PeteStacman24 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Neither of these images is free, for the reasons outlined above. Nor can they ever be, unless Disney decides to renounce all copyrights related to the Star Wars franchise. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't think so. The image is of Schwarzenegger in Terminator 2; the wax figure represents him in the first film. In addition, the latter depicts the character with his face showing damage that reveals the metal body underneath. This is enough to put it under the copyright of whoever owns the franchise now, so it can't be a free image. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Though there is some source information, it's very vague, sourced only to the entire Huffinton Post website. I can't find out what article this was sourced from, who the Huffingtonpost credits as the image, when this was even published, ect. Not quite WP:F4 , I don't believe, but without a source to verify this was previously published, this fails WP:NFCC#4. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
This is an associated press photo (visible on old archives of this NYT stories and in older publications like this[13], though why its mirrored is beyond me...) As such, this is in WP:F7 territory. However, given that this was published in 1966, there's a very real chance that this is public domain, iff we can show that AP sent this photo to newspapers sans copyright notice. So I'm sending it to FFD: if anybody finds evidence that it's public domain: yay! If not: then we can F7, and refund later as needed. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
However, the US doesn't have FoP for sculptures, so we need to also consider the copyright on the Marilyn Monroe figure. It seems press photography in the 60s and 70s was allowed in the Hollywood Wax Museum (see [14][15][16][17]), so it is likely that the figure would be considered "published" upon exhibition per wikisource:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago. The question is then whether the figure had a proper copyright notice affixed to it. I'd probably say no? This brochure from the museum lacks notice, and I can't find a single photo showing a copyright notice in the museum.
If the Marilyn Monroe figure is found to be copyrighted, crop to just show Singh and move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
No, LAECN isn't the originator. Inspired by your search, I've found an earlier version.[18]... though this one is credited to UPI. Fun. Love 1960s newspapers. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
There's still no copyright notice on it ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
If the wire agency sent this out with a valid copyright notice, then it's not PD, even if the newspaper didn't include it. Which, given wire agency's trend of not putting copyright notices on their images from this period.... it's unlikely. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
How, then, can we determine whether it was sent out without a valid copyright notice after more than 50 years, at a time when wire stories went out on teletype and were often sent straight to the composing room after a cursory readthrough by the copy desk? Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Respectfully, @Daniel Case, I don't particularly want to be accused by you of "copyrightsplaining" for having what I mistakenly believed to be a good-faith conversation about the non-free content policy, not realizing that because you had "actually" been around in the early 2000s, you knew better.[19] AGF, you arriving on this FFD page so soon after I tagged a file you uploaded for speedy deletion is not WP:FOLLOWING, it's just a coincidence. I've already said I believe this is more likely than not going to be in the public domain, we just have to prove it. That's where I'm at. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
I had already been contributing to the discussions of other images above when I noticed this going on, before I got notice that you had tagged that file. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons. If every newspaper that initially published this image neglected to include a notice that would count as distribution without a notice. If one or two failed to do so despite, no, but we have quite a few examples that evidence this was not the case. But every single newspaper I am seeing that included this neglected to include a notice, that would count. Also, according to the LOC UPI and AP virtually never copyrighted their images. Sometimes both would have distribution rights. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Though, if we need another free one, the Los Angeles Evening Citizen News published another photo of him marked as a Staff Photo, so it is definitely theirs and is free because no notice [20]PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
This is not what Commons says. The LOC's statement, quoted and linked there, about absence of a copyright notice on AP-distributed content applies only to images produced between 1931 and 1963. The earliest version of this one we have found, per GLL above, dates to 1966.
As for post-1963 AP images, it is clearly stated at Commons that "If the original Wirephoto contained a valid copyright notice (Such as this one) it is still copyrighted even if it was later published or reprinted without Copyright." This is, frankly, just how copyright works generally, even today—a downstream reuser's failure to include notice, or erroneous claim that the image is public domain (remember, many people still believe that if it's on the Internet and you can download it it's PD) or otherwise freely licensed cannot have any impact on the original work's copyright. We have deleted, and continue to, many images from Commons that came from Flickr for this reason.
So, this image cannot be on Commons. Unless it can be demonstrated that it carried no notice on its original publication. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
That commons category is not reflective of the commons consensus [21], which did in fact conclude that "images published between 1963 and 1978 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain." And yes, copyright notice being present on only a minority of copies of the initial would invalidate a notice[22] per the copyright office ("The notice was omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies"). If one private copy was sent to a guy with a notice and 20,000 copies were sent through a medium without a notice, per the copyright office, that counted as lacking a notice. Additionally, if a copyright was on the wire card, the newspaper included it on the newspage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
Unnecessary fair use image, adds nothing to the subject's article. There is already a freely licensed image of the subject in the article with the same mask. Skyshiftertalk 23:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per above ―Howard • 🌽33 08:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
These two files do not meet the WP:THRESHOLD required to be non-free, and should therefore be moved to Commons. JHD0919 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Bounce TV logos such as these are nothing more than text with simple designs. The "O" in the logo being elongated is not enough for it to pass the WP:THRESHOLD, and I therefore request that these 4 logos be moved to Commons. JHD0919 (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep: Why is the logo considered below the TOO for Brazil? c:COM:BRAZIL notes that "the concept of creativity in Brazil is way more strict and exigent than in the United States, and consequently the threshold of originality is considerably higher than the United States". ―Howard • 🌽33 08:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
@Howardcorn33 It's not about the TOO in this case, rather the fact that I would want to delete the file's local wikipedia version in favour of the one featured on global commons. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
If the logo is above the Brazilian TOO then its not suitable for Commons in the first place; images there have to be public domain in the US and the source country. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
This is literally just white (albeit metallic) text on a yellow background. It does not meet the WP:THRESHOLD required to be non-free, and should therefore be moved to Commons. JHD0919 (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
This is just a screencap of a video recording. That alone makes it not copyrightable, and it should therefore be moved to Commons. JHD0919 (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep / Change License - This image is a screenshot from Zoom Earth, but the underlying base data consists of public domain satellite imagery from NASA EOSDIS / GIBS. I mistakenly labeled it as "own work" under CC-BY-SA 4.0 during the upload process. I am ready to fix the licensing template on the file page to {{PD-USGov-NASA}} to comply with Wikipedia policies. Please allow me to update the file page accordingly. ~~~~
Delete Excessive fair use images. A textual description of the same sequence combined with the public domain images are more than enough. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Nobody has ever captured, before or since, any similar dam collapse. It's unique. The sequence has now become lost media, as the original source URL has suffered bit rot. The photo sequence meets the criteria for irreplaceable media now as it has for over ten years. I like to saw logs! (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Uploaded this screenshot, hoping for a better shot of a fictional character. However, unsure anymore whether it's NFCC-compliant. No objections to deleting this file. George Ho (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
This plaster-cast still exists, and, while it is not on public display, the access rights statement at https://collections.countway.harvard.edu/onview/items/show/18191 does suggest that if a request is submitted, a person could access the cast and take a photo of it. Therefore, a free replacement is possible to create and this should be deleted. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The nomination rationale, that it is possible to access and photograph the cast, is based upon an error. As noted, the statement at [23] states that "Accessing collections in the Warren Anatomical Museum and the Warren Anatomical Museum archive requires advanced notice." Thus, it is true that there is the possibility of accessing the cast. However, the file page for the image, [24], states that: "The Warren Anatomical Museum, which holds the plaster cast, does not permit photography." Looking at the Reproduction & Use Policy of the Museum, [25], photography "for personal research purposes" is permitted under certain conditions, but publication of such personal photographs is not permitted (although they choose not to assert copyright, and there can sometimes be exceptions when the photograph is taken by a member of the staff of the center, as a work-for-hire). Thus, a photo taken by a Wikipedia editor would not be eligible for publication here, and it is unclear that a free replacement could be obtained any other way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Actually, if an editor took a photo of the cast and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography suggests that Commons would gladly keep such a photo, even if publication violated a contract between the museum and the editor. We would then be able to use said photo here on Wikipedia. The fact that this is a possibility means that this image fails WP:NFCC #1. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Nominator apparently did not read the non-free use rationale, which specifically states that "it is the stated policy of the Museum (https://www.countway.harvard.edu/chom/photography-and-reproductions) not to invoke copyright on 'digital reproductions made openly available on Harvard Library or Center web pages, digital content platforms (such as OnView), blogs, and social media.'" Softlavender (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Read https://countway.harvard.edu/center-history-medicine/policies/reproduction again: "For digital surrogates provided by the center or Harvard Library via electronic resources or public services staff, the Center generally does not assert copyright on such reproductions" and "For works in the public domain, works for which copyright is held by a third-party, or works with known Harvard Medical Library rights that will not be invoked, the Center will assert no copyright, will charge no publication or usage fees, and will not grant or deny permission to publish. This policy similarly applies to digital reproductions made openly available on Harvard Library or Center web pages, digital content platforms (such as OnView), blogs, and social media." Read https://library.harvard.edu/about/policies/policy-access-digital-reproductions-works-public-domain again: "Under this policy, Harvard Library is committing not to assert copyright in certain digital reproductions". Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Appears to have been published on or by 1946 per this copy of the photo on eBay. I do not see a copyright notice on the ebay copy and furthermore found no records of copyright renewal by "Wain & Baruch, Inc." I believe this file should be moved to Commons as PD-US-no notice . ―Howard • 🌽33 10:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
June 7
Draft Guidelines for Frequent Image FFDs
Based on previous discussions, the general consensus of the
Album/Single Covers
Articles about albums and singles normally contain the cover art of that work for purposes of identification which is usually copyrighted. If more than one such image is desired (differing designs in different countries, a deluxe cover that is substantively different, etc), then the article must contain at least one substantial sentence about each of the displayed album covers. This content must reflect significant, third-party commentary about each cover's appearance. "Substantial" generally means at least 20 words per album cover and that the content is more than a simple description of the album's appearance (e.g., "In 2010, the lead singer said the all-blue color scheme is meant to evoke feelings of 'both literal and figurative coolness' and clearly evokes that with it's soaring chorus...", not "The cover shows a blue guitar on a blue background"). More than one cover that is not substantially different is prohibited. If an article discusses more than one version of a single song, it may be appropriate to include the single's cover art in each instance if a separate article is not warranted; additional commentary is not needed if separate articles do not exist. Each instance of a copyrighted work must include a fair use rationale. Criteria that meet the above description are presumed to meet the qualifications specified in WP:NFCC#3a and 8. This guidance applies separately to each version about which there is sufficient content for a stand-alone article (regardless of how many articles there are in practice).
logic
Image does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject and there is no there is significant commentary about more than one cover. A single image of the most prominent cover is sufficient. Anything more than that fails WP:NFCC#3a and 8. ~~~~
License Plates
In general, license plates may be freely used across Wikipedia if they are either plain text and contain only elements in the public domain. Such license plates would have no expectation of copyright protections as their function is purely functional and no other copyrighted elements could be infringed. License plates with artwork that is of a creative nature and/or copyrighted works would not generally be permitted unless they are in a limited capacity as the subject of significant commentary themselves in an article. Note, trademarked images are not necessarily protected as copyrighted works (though they may be copyrightable/copyrighted independent of the trademark).
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Canvas_Hack_Screenshot_2026-05-07_18-20-00.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+May+21%23File%3ABlack+Panther+Party+%28emblem%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+May+28%23File%3ABust+of+Henry+F.+Shricker%2C+full+front+%28263x350%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CrackerCountrymap.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+May+29%23File%3ACoal+Miner+%28Szaton%29.JPG%5D%5D){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_screenshot.png){kind=link}
_screenshot.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+May+29%23File%3AStreet+Fighter+II+%28arcade%29+screenshot.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
_screenshot.png){kind=link}
_screenshot.png&action=history){kind=link}
_screenshot.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+May+29%23File%3ANS+Ghosts+%26%2339%3Bn+Goblins+Resurrection+%28Kaettekita+Makaimura%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+May+30%23File%3AThe+Plastic+Man+Comedy-Adventure+Show+%28logo%29.svg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=history){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
.webp&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+May+1%23File%3AThe+Physical+Revue+%281952%29.webp%5D%5D){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
.webp&action=history){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+April+17%23File%3ANouvelle+Action+Royaliste+%28emblem%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+March+10%23File%3ACongress+of+Industrial+Organizations+%28logo%29.gif%5D%5D){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=history){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+April+10%23File%3AAwakenings+%28Oliver+Sacks+book%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+May+31%23File%3AMazzy+Star+-+L.A.+Times+%281990%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Brett_Cantor.jpg#c-Daniel_Case-20260603021300-GreenLipstickLesbian-20260603014400){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+June+4%23File%3ALogo+of+the+Democratic+Labour+Party+%28Brazil%29.svg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=history){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PhineasGage_LifeMask.jpg){kind=link}
