Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns.
Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.
What not to list here
For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
{{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
{{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license but lacks verification of this (either by a VRT ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
Instructions
To list files for discussion, use Twinkle. If Twinkle isn't working, you can read its documentation or follow these steps to do it manually:
How to list a file for discussion manually
Most of these steps are performed automatically when using Twinkle. To do it manually, follow these steps:
Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}}~~~~
Leave the subject heading blank.
If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.
For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2026 June 27}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3
Give due notice.
Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}
Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}}~~~~ (can handle up to 26)
If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2026 June 27}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:
Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.
Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:
Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.
These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.
If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.
If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.
Instructions for discussion participation
In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format * '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~ where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:
Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, notvoting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.
Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.
Instructions for closing discussions
Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.
Old discussions
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
Arguably public domain per C:TOO. Star Wars logo is already below TOO, text is too short and cut off to be copyrightable. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 19:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
If it is PD under TOO, then I'll happily source a higher resolution version. Sceptre (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Well, this went absolutely nowhere, so I'm setting the license to PD myself. The description said that the third section of the image is a still, but I don't see any elements other than the text with a simple font, so it's surely PD. I frequent Wikimedia Commons, and this definitely looks like something that adheres to its guidelines.
Whoever sees this, feel free to close this discussion. @Sceptre, feel free to upload a higher resolution version, then I'll upload the file to Commons (as if done in reverse order, you would have to request permission to overwrite). Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 08:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC – the primary cover art is sufficient for recognition of the subject. A second non-free image is unnecessary. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC criteria. The primary cover art is sufficient for recognition of the subject, a second non-free image is unnecessary. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC criteria. The primary cover art is sufficient for recognition of the subject, a third non-free image is unnecessary. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Invalid fair use rationale. This image is not discussed in the article so it is not a valid rationale as a "unique historic" image. The purpose as given in the rationale is nonsensical - "There is, or will be, on Murder of Tupac Shakur" - I'm sure. Doesn't show anything that can't be explained in the text. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep It looks like there is some secondary source coverage and usage (), which might just barely support a fair use rationale. However, I'm not sure if this photo should be used instead of, say, one of the police photographs of the car after the shooting (, maybe also in some publicly available court document somewhere). Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I see this photograph as, while not uniquely historic (I put that two or three years ago), a very important image. It is a famous and useful photo that illustrates the scene of the assassination while also being the last to show the subject alive. I would prefer instead adding a part on the Wikipedia page for it, as I think most people who know about Pac’s assassination refer to that photo. I mean it was even recreated in a movie. It shows a scene that no other photograph could show that leads up to the actual assassination, rather than the previous photo showing the broad street in Vegas. Similar to that (though not uploaded) is the film of Biggie Smalls in which he is seen in the car right before shots ring out Wcamp9 (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
How does the image make it any more understandable? Sure, it looks nice, but decoration is not an NFCC rationale. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
The article doesn't discuss this so I don't see how a fair use rationale is justified; in any case, it wouldn't be justifiable at the top of the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Weak delete: although there is secondary source coverage of the photo, I don't see how the photo's omission would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the incident. The only thing the photo displays is that Tupac was sitting in a car beside Suge Knight at the time of the murder, which can easily be described in text. It is not interesting in a compositional sense; the PMA Magazine article linked above describes it as looking "casual, almost mundane". Perhaps such a photo would be more fit for an article about "Last photos of people before they died" but I don't even know if that's a notable concept. ―Howard • 🌽33 08:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
As I recently found an adequate public domain photo of Ross and uploaded it here, I initially removed the non-free photo entirely. But then I realized Ross is actually quite well known for his permed hairstyle, and the article makes mention of this using references. So now I'm not sure if the photo of Ross with a perm should be kept because he's well known for it, or if it should be removed as something easily describable with only text. A precedent could be in the article for Isaac Asimov, which uses a public domain photo of him without side-burns, and a non-free one which does. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Honestly, my preference would be to continue to use the non-free image in the infobox. The image you replaced it with is a significant downgrade in my opinion. No one has sued us yet, so it's probably safe. I think you may have actually created a problem rather than solved one, although I see what you were going for. MediaKyle (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether someone will sue us or not (fair use is probably applicable in any case). Thee issue is Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines are intentionally stricter than the law, and all non-free images have to meet all 10 non-free content criteria. The question is if the non-free image meets all these criteria, which I think it might, but I'm also not sure. Hence why I started this discussion. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm aware of our non-free content guidelines. I'm invoking IAR to say that we should just use the better image anyways -- it's the image our readers expect to see. MediaKyle (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't think IAR is necessary here as there could be a valid NFC claim, but I'm unsure if a photo of Ross's perm "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Do you believe that the photo of the perm at least satisfies this condition? ―Howard • 🌽33 21:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Also if the non-free photo is kept, I'm not opposed to having it as the lead image. I just thought this was the precedent given the Asimov example above (Asimov is also known for his sideburns.) ―Howard • 🌽33 21:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete, the image in question is high quality enough, that one likes the non-free one better is not enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete — It appears there's an argument being made here that respect for copyright isn't as important as making Wikipedia articles look a certain way. That's a dangerous slippery slope. There's already been a history of abuses on Commons that people attempted to justify because it's Bob Ross and somehow he deserves special treatment. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep but it should not be used in the article Bob Ross but instead in the infobox of The Joy of Painting with the caption "Bob Ross promoting the show". It was previously removed from that article after a previous discussion and replaced with the title card of the show but it should not have been. Just because the title card was originally used in the show doesn't mean it is a good representation of it. This photo become iconic and associated with the show, when you search "The Joy of Painting" the first result and more than half include this photo. It is also used by Bob Ross Inc. to promote it today. 999REAL💬⬆ 18:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't think the caption you suggest is necessarily accurate. The publicity photo was used to promote more than the show, such as Bob Ross Inc. painting supplies, instruction books, merch, etc., whereas the title card is specific to the show. ―Howard • 🌽33 23:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
This is not the actual cover (which is public domain by virtue of simplicity). It is just a promotional artwork. Even if the artist gave permission for its use on the article, it still has to meet all NFCC (especially WP:NFCC8). There are no RS provided which discuss this artwork; it is a purely decorative element. ―Howard • 🌽33 00:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Non free file may actually be free. This seal, which was created on January 26, 1972 according to Wall Township's official website, does not appear to have any copyright claims with the U.S. Copyright Office. This file should be transferred to Commons and tagged with {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{Insignia}}. ForeverFlying (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
That template may only be used with images which were published without copyright notice. Do you have evidence that within the original publication of the seal, there was not an associated copyright notice? ―Howard • 🌽33 00:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
I do not have evidence for that. The relevant statute for the specific seal is Township of Wall, NJ Code § 44, first adopted on November 8, 1978. A history for the seal is provided in a 2001 newspaper article that indicates it was modified from a submission for Wall Township's Beautification Committee's contest for creating a seal in January 1972. The seal in the newspaper clipping does not have a copyright statement associated with it. ForeverFlying (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I also found this ordinance from 1998 that references an amendment to "The Revised General Ordinances of the Township of Wall, 1977," § 1-5. I couldn't find the 1977 revised ordinances online. I can try to contact the township and obtain a copy of the 1977 revised general ordinances and anything regarding to the adoption of the township official seal in 1972. ForeverFlying (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
As far as I can see, this should be deleted either way -- if kept at Commons as a duplicate, otherwise as a copyright violation. As an American work, I don't see how this could be within enwiki policy but not Commons policy. Felix QW (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Plausibly public domain as the organization is over 100 years old. Does anyone know if the logo was first published after 1930? Qzekrom (she/her •talk) 03:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons Per trademark registration, this was first used in 1915. While not definitively "publication", trademarks are obviously publicly facing, so publication before 1931 can reasonably be inferred. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Plausibly public domain as the organization was founded in 1903. Does anyone know if the logo was first published after 1930 or if original elements were added after 1930? Qzekrom (she/her •talk) 03:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep as non-freeLogopedia says this iteration of the logo has been in use only since 2009. A trademark registration seems to roughly affirm the timeline given at Logopedia says a B&W version of this logo was in use in 1940 which does raise possible {{PD-US-no renewal}}, but the coloring is probably independently copyrightable. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
According to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Merely adding or changing one or relatively few colors in a work, or combining expected or familiar pairs or sets of colors is not copyrightable.... For example, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a visual art work if the author merely added relatively few colors to a preexisting design or simply created multiple colorized versions of the same basic design. (§ 906.3 "Colors, Coloring, and Coloration") In this case, blue and yellow is a familiar pair of colors and existed in a 1997 logo variant.
However, it looks like the 2009 version changed the appearance of the horses and added some dots in the middle of the wheel; that may or may not be sufficient authorship to be a derivative work. Qzekrom (she/her •talk) 05:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
The Teamsters have a copyright registration (VA0002432103) for one of their logos, though I can't tell which one (the publication date is listed as 2022-05-31, which doesn't correspond to any of the dates on Logopedia). Also, it's possible that they did not submit a copy of the preexisting logo for the Office staff to compare with the new logo being registered - copyright applicants don't always submit complete and accurate information. Qzekrom (she/her •talk) 06:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Suggest moving to Commons as this logo may be below TOO. Qzekrom (she/her •talk) 03:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
I'll defer to others on whether it is original enough to pass WP:TOO but it always struck me as looking more like a volleyball, rather than the intended globe. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
These MeTV logos do not meet the WP:THRESHOLD required to be non-free and therefore should be moved to Commons. JHD0919 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Move these twelve logos to Commons as I agree they're below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
These three logos do not meet the WP:THRESHOLD required to be non-free, and therefore should be moved to Commons. JHD0919 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Move these three logos to Commons as I agree they're below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
This is literally just the number 10 inside of a red rectangle. It does not meet the WP:THRESHOLD required to be non-free, and should therefore be moved to Commons. JHD0919 (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Move this to Commons as I agree it's below the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
@Gert7: For my own understanding, please could you clarify if the issue is with the fact that the photo was taken by Ahmed Albahrani and not me therefore the photo itself has its own copyright, or is the issue with the fair use under Template:Non-free 3D art licensing? The photo is used to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question (Iraq Stars League trophy discussed in the article) and hence it seemed to be fair use. I have seen many instances of photos taken from online (i.e. where the photo was not taken by the uploader) and uploaded to Wikipedia under non-free use policy (see Category:Non-free images of three-dimensional art) so it might be worth checking some of the files in that category too if this doesn't qualify. One such example would be File:AEW Dynamite Diamond Ring.jpg as an example. Thanks, Hashim-afc (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
This was originally nominated under the theory that this was public domain but was closed as keep due to lack of evidence. I now have the receipts tickets to probably prove it. Tickets for NBA All-Star games from the 70s and 80s included the logo but routinely lacked notice (197019711985). Media guides from this era also included the logo and lacked notice (). Logopedia does note a 2017 change in typeface and colors from the 70s/80s logo, but those are not independently copyrightable. This logo is public domain and can be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
@Based5290: I don't think we can move this file to Commons in any case as its a vectorization taken from elsewhere (brandlogos.net), and SVG code carries its own separate copyright from the thing it depicts. ―Howard • 🌽33 17:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Vectorization copyright is confusing to me, but if that's the case and we can't find a free vectorization, then we can upload a raster version as a stopgap and delete this file. Based5290 :3 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
@Based5290 and @Howardcorn33: I just overwrote the file with a vector version found at NBA's website. Properly done vector versions sourced from the owners of the logos, whether the logo is copyrighted or not, is always preferable. We should only use raster logos if a properly vectorized version can't be found. My stance is that vectorization doesn't generate a new copyright. I found the vector here, and adapted to remove the "Draft 2026" words. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Even if vectors of well known entities are deleted, other users would quickly upload a replacement vector. Discussions like that are silly. Major entities will almost always use vector versions when displaying their logo. Also, Wikipedia's policy for non-free logos is to say get vectorized versions of copyrighted logos from the owner of the logo or official sources. Using raster versions of major entities when vector versions are available from the entities themselves would degrade Wikipedia's quality, and it wouldn't be the branding intended by the entities. Logos should be high quality vectors.
The discussion should be about whether the logo is free or not. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
My stance on vector logos is similar to how Wikipedia treats reproductions of paintings: Simple reproductions do not generate a new copyright. Regardless, we should never use autotraced vectors ever. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
SVGs are code files and copyrightable just like other programs that is the opposite of Wikipedia:FREER 999REAL💬⬆ 14:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
If we follow your line of thought, many logos would end up in ways which don't meet the minimum quality standards intended by the brands which are the subjects of articles. Reproductions of copyrighted paintings do not generate a new copyright for the reproduction, any faithful reproduction would have its copyright granted to the copyright holder of the painting. Similarly, any raster or vector version of a copyrighted logo would be copyrighted to the copyright holder of the design of the logo, not the vector or raster representation. The copyright is for the design of the logo, not its reproduction. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
The visual output of the vector does not get a new copyright but the code does. Logos don't need to "meet the minimum quality standards intended by the brands" they just need to be accurate 999REAL💬⬆ 16:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Meeting the quality standards and respecting the intended branding by the entities is a legitimate part of the fair use of the logos here. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
I think you aint understand how SVG rendering works in here it does not display the SVG directly but generates a PNG at fixed resolution and shows it inspect element on any SVG file in wikipedia and you will see it you can get the same quality by exporting the SVG to png 999REAL💬⬆ 02:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
And also, SVG is a free format, and there are online converters from non-free formats such as .AI, EPS, CDR, etc... Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
No SVG source code is non-free under Wikimedia rules as the format is free, but the output of each vector can be. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
This is so wrong it is like saying all Android apps are free because android is Apache 2.0 look at c:Help:SVG#Copyright 999REAL💬⬆ 02:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that. Although the Android logo has a registration (VA0001789579), the logo has a free license (CC-BY 3.0). The Twitter logo before Elon Musk acquired it and renamed it X also has a registration (VA0001950611) but is also under a free license (Apache License 2.0). The Nvidia logo was granted a registration, VA0001427710 (which I disagree as I think the logo is below the threshold of originality), but it also has the same license as the Twitter one. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, source codes of anything are perfectly copyrightable, but SVG codes are under free licenses as the format itself is free (even if the output is not). See this page if you don't understand my argument. Non-free file formats are not accepted on Wikimedia projects. Other vector formats (.AI, EPS, CDR) are non-free formats and their source codes are therefore non-free too. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
No it is not this is like saying code of all Android apps is free because android is Apache 2.0 999REAL💬⬆ 14:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't buy Candidyeoman's arguments that the SVG code would not be copyrighted due to the file format being free. The issue is not with the format of the file but rather the content of the file, which was written and created by a third party. As with any other code, this can be protected by copyright separate from the design. Furthermore, they appear to be bludgeoning the discussion. ―Howard • 🌽33 14:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not disrupting the discussion in any way and I don't want to. See this section, it formulates my argument here. It says that "US law is not clear as to whether the vectorisation of the logo has its own copyright which exists in addition to any copyright on the actual logo. To avoid this uncertainty, editors who upload vector images of non-free logos should use a vector image that was produced by the copyright holder of the logo..." I even overwrote this file with one found at NBA's website, as recommended by the policy.
Also, when you click "Original file" on the page about the file, the original SVG appears.
I already run into some vandalisms of national soccer team pages where they insert non-free logos that shouldn't be there (child entities without their own branding).
I don't want to move this discussion off-topic, but I don't understand Wikipedia sometimes. For example, they kept the coat of arms of Canada out of the page about Canada itself...
If you see my page on Commons, I'm actually trying to get many logos vectorized, some since February.
Wikimedia projects have an exception for simple faithful reproductions of paintings. Since 2008, the skill and labour used to reproduce the painting is not considered.
I'm trying to give all my arguments, but they come to my mind in parts sometimes. Also, don't refer to me as a "they", I find it offensive. I'm a man.
The attached template, {{FoP-USonly}}, only refers to buildings. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. This is a building. People can go inside the structure. It has an elevator and a number of observation decks. US law has an expansive view of what a building is which this meets, per c:COM:FOP US. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
The attached template, {{FoP-USonly}}, only refers to buildings. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. This is a building. People can go inside the structure. It has an elevator and a number of observation decks. US law has an expansive view of what a building is which this meets, per c:COM:FOP US. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:54, 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)
Move to Commons per nom. Searches for renewals by Wain & Baruch, Inc. and the American Public Health Association turn up no relevant results. I think it can be reasonably inferred that the American Public Health Association gained the implicit right to reproduce this image in their press material, newsletters, etc., so general (as opposed to limited) publication occured. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:35, 8 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)
Move to Commons. All four are simple and lack meaningful styling, just a simple and non-stylized gradient at most. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons Falls well below THRESHOLD and is clearly PD. PolarManne (talk) 10:12, 12 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)
Delete: Nvm, I misread that sentence to mean the opposite of what it actually says: that if something doesn't meet the TOO of US then it certainly doesn't reach the stricter TOO of Brazil. ―Howard • 🌽33 23:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think this is free in Brazil. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA the Threshold of originality in brazil is very high, so we're more likely to keep this file on commons under a free license. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
For it to be on commons it has to be free in Brazil.PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Convert to non-free and crop. I think the logo is above the threshold of originality. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 09:47, 23 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)
Move to Commons. Does not surpass the ToO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:29, 10 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)
Move to Commons. Not created by a human but by a computer, so not copyrightable per pd-automated on commons. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:30, 10 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: 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)
Keep. I don't think we should be using that image on enwiki, it is not free in the US. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete In John Mollo, it fails WP:NFG. In Darth Vader, we can't skate around the question of the copyright of the free Darth Vader photo here. Contrary to Case's argument, I think the photo is perfectly fine. This is a far cry from the cases of foreign subsidiaries releasing works under free licenses when they may or may not have the ability to do that. That is the official Star Wars Flickr stream. The photographer worked for Disney. The copyright of the costume is owned by Disney. Therefore c:Commons:Free depictions of non-free works can be invoked here; Disney need not cede its exclusive rights over the design of the Vader costume for the photo to be free enough for Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
@Based5290 The United States does not have statue Freedom of Panorama so whether the photograph is free or not the statue is not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
This is an associated press photo (visible on old archives of this NYT stories and in older publications like this, though why its mirrored is beyond me...) As such, this is in WP:F7 territory. However, given that this was published in 1966, there's a very real chance that this is public domain, iff we can show that AP sent this photo to newspapers sans copyright notice. So I'm sending it to FFD: if anybody finds evidence that it's public domain: yay! If not: then we can F7, and refund later as needed. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
However, the US doesn't have FoP for sculptures, so we need to also consider the copyright on the Marilyn Monroe figure. It seems press photography in the 60s and 70s was allowed in the Hollywood Wax Museum (see ), so it is likely that the figure would be considered "published" upon exhibition per wikisource:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago. The question is then whether the figure had a proper copyright notice affixed to it. I'd probably say no? This brochure from the museum lacks notice, and I can't find a single photo showing a copyright notice in the museum.
If the Marilyn Monroe figure is found to be copyrighted, crop to just show Singh and move to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
No, LAECN isn't the originator. Inspired by your search, I've found an earlier version.... though this one is credited to UPI. Fun. Love 1960s newspapers. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
There's still no copyright notice on it ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
If the wire agency sent this out with a valid copyright notice, then it's not PD, even if the newspaper didn't include it. Which, given wire agency's trend of not putting copyright notices on their images from this period.... it's unlikely. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
How, then, can we determine whether it was sent out without a valid copyright notice after more than 50 years, at a time when wire stories went out on teletype and were often sent straight to the composing room after a cursory readthrough by the copy desk? Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Respectfully, @Daniel Case, I don't particularly want to be accused by you of "copyrightsplaining" for having what I mistakenly believed to be a good-faith conversation about the non-free content policy, not realizing that because you had "actually" been around in the early 2000s, you knew better. AGF, you arriving on this FFD page so soon after I tagged a file you uploaded for speedy deletion is not WP:FOLLOWING, it's just a coincidence. I've already said I believe this is more likely than not going to be in the public domain, we just have to prove it. That's where I'm at. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
I had already been contributing to the discussions of other images above when I noticed this going on, before I got notice that you had tagged that file. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons. If every newspaper that initially published this image neglected to include a notice that would count as distribution without a notice. If one or two failed to do so despite, no, but we have quite a few examples that evidence this was not the case. But every single newspaper I am seeing that included this neglected to include a notice, that would count. Also, according to the LOC UPI and AP virtually never copyrighted their images. Sometimes both would have distribution rights. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Though, if we need another free one, the Los Angeles Evening Citizen News published another photo of him marked as a Staff Photo, so it is definitely theirs and is free because no notice PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
This is not what Commons says. The LOC's statement, quoted and linked there, about absence of a copyright notice on AP-distributed content applies only to images produced between 1931 and 1963. The earliest version of this one we have found, per GLL above, dates to 1966.
As for post-1963 AP images, it is clearly stated at Commons that "If the original Wirephoto contained a valid copyright notice (Such as this one) it is still copyrighted even if it was later published or reprinted without Copyright." This is, frankly, just how copyright works generally, even today—a downstream reuser's failure to include notice, or erroneous claim that the image is public domain (remember, many people still believe that if it's on the Internet and you can download it it's PD) or otherwise freely licensed cannot have any impact on the original work's copyright. We have deleted, and continue to, many images from Commons that came from Flickr for this reason.
So, this image cannot be on Commons. Unless it can be demonstrated that it carried no notice on its original publication. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
That commons category is not reflective of the commons consensus , which did in fact conclude that "images published between 1963 and 1978 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain." And yes, copyright notice being present on only a minority of copies of the initial would invalidate a notice per the copyright office ("The notice was omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies"). If one private copy was sent to a guy with a notice and 20,000 copies were sent through a medium without a notice, per the copyright office, that counted as lacking a notice. Additionally, if a copyright was on the wire card, the newspaper included it on the newspage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
If consensus was reached in that discussion, I can't find it, and no one seems to have indicated what it was in the usual box at the top. Someone did] explicitly ask that, then took it upon themselves to add that confusing sentence to the category without bothering to see how it fit with anything else around it. And frankly I don't see how Commons consensus overrides blackletter law of the time. Just because the AP at the time didn't build their business model around copyright does not mean it didn't exist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Sure, it existed, no one is disputing that, but you had to register it and do proper notice, which according to the Library of Congress and evidence of practice, most press agencies did not bother to do. We and commons are abiding by blackletter law of copyright, which at the time included notice requirements. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Notwithstanding what I wrote below, in the case of wire service photos we cannot, we ought not, to assume that if there was notice it was included upon republication. Only if there was no copyright notice with the wire card can we say authoritatively there was never any notice. I have enough experience in newspapering to know that copyright notice is not and never has been a priority when using third-party photos. In the absence of proof there was no notice upon original publication of a pre-1978 US image, our policy requires that we assume there was notice. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
The Commons category is mostly correct, but it is clearly intended to deal with things like File:Kent State massacre.jpg where only some republications in newspapers had proper notice. In that case, the strong possibility of a contract, implicit or explicit, requiring that reusers had to reproduce an already present copyright notice, prevents the photo from passing the precautionary principle at Commons. A situation where the wirephoto has a valid copyright notice and every single newspaper downstream does not reproduce the same copyright notice is unheard of. If several newspapers can be located that lack an individualized notice for the photo and not a single newspaper with an individualized notice for the photo can be found, then any doubt about the copyright status of the photo falls well below "significant". If this was hypothetically transferred to Commons and then nominated for deletion, the burden of proof would lie on the nominator to prove that the cited republications were unauthorized. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
I have no position on whether the nominated file should be moved or not but I will say I did find a PD photo of Singh and upload it here. ―Howard • 🌽33 22:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
This is probably the best resolution. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
King Features Syndicate acquired its modern name in 1915. If the logo was used before 1931 it is in the public domain. However, I don't see any evidence of its use before 1959 at least on Logopedia, and I can't find a trademark registration for it either. I'd be happy for someone to do some research. Qzekrom (she/her •talk) 06:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
It says that one logo was used from 1929 to 1942. That one meets {{PD-1923}}. Then there's a gap with no information, and then the logo on Wikipedia was used from 1960 to 1972. I would say that the differences between the PD logo and the one on Wikipedia do not meet the threshold of originality, and most logos from that period meet {{PD-US-no notice}}, so it is probably in the public domain regardless. Should the logo nevertheless be copyrighted, the older logo could serve as a replacement. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Good find, thanks! Qzekrom (she/her •talk) 05:33, 18 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)
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)
Comment: Handling of these cases at Commons seems unclear; On the one hand, users seem to be of the opinion that work is created abroad as in this deletion request, simultaneous publication in the US is insufficient to overturn Commons policy that works should also be in the public domain in the source country, while their own licensing guideline page suggests that simultaneous publication always resolves to the country with the shortest copyright term. If we don't think we have sufficient evidence for {{PD-UK-anon}}, then I think asking at the Commons copyright noticeboard/village pump is the safest bet. Felix QW (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
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)
The source of this file is an official source, which is always preferrable. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Free files are preferable to official non-free ones Traumnovelle (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
But for every logo, an official source is always preferable because it is the branding intended by the entities. Also, I think the logo of the Kansas City Chiefs is below the threshold of originality and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons. However, we must verify whether the team was able to copyright the logo at the US Copyright Office. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
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 . 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)
Move to Commons per nom. Felix QW (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons per nom. Felix QW (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
PD in the US by c:Template:PD-US-no notice-ad and can therefore be moved to Commons. While the uploader has not supplied a publication date, a very similar ad appears in 1954 (see ). Based5290 :3 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons per nom. Felix QW (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
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?
999
{\displaystyle 999}
REAL💬⬆ 14:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep, this is the historic photograph and is not duplicated by the "replaceable by" a different angle, this is not just a photo of a particular moment but a known image. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete I originally nominated this for removal from Birmingham campaign, but I think it probably doesn't meet NFCC even at Charles Moore (photographer). There is already one (public domain!) photo showing that Moore photographed the civil rights movement, and I don't think the photo of protestors getting sprayed with water is given enough attention to warrant the inclusion of the non-free photo. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
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)
Oppose. This seems to be a case of "copyright laundering". The uploader apparently assumed that (a) the video being released under a free license wasn't an error, and (b) every copyrighted property depicted in that video must also be considered released under that same free license. Neither assumption is true just because the uploader says it is. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Not PD, derivative work of the Google Maps website. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 01:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Not sure that this image is copyrightable, as it appears to be generated by the map software rather than by a human author at Google. A color scheme for a 2D map is not copyrightable (In no case does copyright [...] extend to any... system, 17 U.S.C.§102(b)). Qzekrom (she/her •talk) 06:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Not PD, derivative work of the Google Maps website. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 01:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
It doesn't look like Google Maps to me, but if it's generated by some map software without original authorship on the mapmaker's part, then it's probably not copyrightable. Qzekrom (she/her •talk) 06:38, 13 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)
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)
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)
Move to Commons per nom, permanent public display counted as publication and there is no renewal (doubt a notice, even). PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete, redundant to better file. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep, this image does not seem redundant to the Getty file suggested as a replacement (the Getty file also states it was created on January 01, 1968 and is described as circa 1968 not 1969). Also, as stated in the summary of the non-free use rationale, the purpose of the use in the article is, "This file significantly enhances the discussion in the Post-trial subsection of the Contempt citations section of the Chicago Seven article, where the haircuts the defendants received after being remanded to jail are described, because this file depicts their post-haircut appearance after they were released from jail. In addition, this file provides a visual contrast with a picture in the A Political Trial subsection that depicts the appearance of Hoffman and Rubin in judicial robes - together, the pictures also provide significant enhancement to the article by showing a progression in the appearance of the defendants over time." A depiction of the defendants before this event (i.e. the circa 1968 Getty image) does not seem to serve the encyclopedic purpose intended by the current image, which attempts to follow the timeline in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC) (please note I have a general COI with this subject)
We can't even use Getty per WP:GETTY. The haircut is irrelevant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
The content in the article is relevant to the use of the non-free image per WP:NFCCP#8. But the nomination also appears to suggest replacing the post-trial image in the Post-trial section of the Chicago Seven article with an image of the defendants produced during the trial, including a defendant who was severed before the trial ended, so the suggested replacement does not seem to serve the same encyclopedic purpose in the Post-trial section per WP:NFCCP#1. Beccaynr (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Also, the suggested replacement photo is a Getty image and is listed as Getty Images ID 515574692 at the Commons. Beccaynr (talk) 02:00, 26 June 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)
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)
Delete Unfortunately, I would have to agree that NFCC makes clear that a free alternative must be impossible to obtain. In a page about a specific video game, screenshots from the game MUST be used. This is only a generic page on loot boxes, and the Overwatch section doesn't mention that the game's loot box animation is unique compared to other games. A loot box animation would be possible, just difficult due to the rarity of there being a professionally skilled 3D animator that could contribute something freely licensed. But, if, say, someone with deep pockets specifically commissioned an animation and released it into the public domain, I could see that happening. While it may be an extreme long shot that such an animation would ever be made, policy is policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
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 . 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" (17U.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)
Would it be safe to assume this is an official UK gov't photo, therefore under Crown copyright and PD? JayCubby 14:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would make that assumption. It's cited as "Karel Richter, Agent of the German Intelligence Service, 1941-1942 (KV 2/31)", and then it links to asset# 43835, which doesn't appear to exist. I wonder if it's not from the archives themselves. –DMartin (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Seemingly a list of official photographs. JayCubby 19:01, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Is that the same Richter? Bruno Richter (named on Page 4) was also alive at this time and was never discovered as a spy, unlike Karel. I am inclined to believe we don't know the provenance of this photo right now. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Verify if they are above or below Serbia's threshold of originality. I think they should be moved to Commons. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Could this file be at least relisted? Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
No relevant renewals related to the 1962 Daytona 500, NASCAR, or any other plausible search term, meaning this can be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragonT/C 20:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Could this fail WP:NFCC#1? The advertisement had no copyright notice in 1986 CBS commercial break which is a full video, and 1987 ABC commercial break. A search with the U.S. Copyright Office for "Michael Jordan anti-drug" and published 1986-1987 McDonald's U.S. TV advertisements that were registered within 5 years yields zero matching names or description. Artemhao (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, US definition of publication post-1978 would've excluded TV broadcasts. I am not aware of evidence that the ad would have been distributed in physical records. ―Howard • 🌽33 12:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
per Copyright Office 1906.1, I think TV advertisements are considered publication because the tapes were distributed to a group of TV networks to the public broadcast. U.S. Copyright Office has registrations of TV advertisements, like this example: , , . Artemhao (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I will let others determine the copyright status. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
This is unrelated to th copyright thing (80s commercials are a minefield I've explored before and am not tempted to down again), but wouldn't sound sample compliment the article better? --RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons While Howardcorn33 is correct that TV broadcast alone does not constitute publication, per https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101, the offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. For a commercial, copies would have had to been distributed to several news stations for public broadcast, so this commercial was indeed published. Therefore, the failure to affix notice or register the work forfeited the copyright protection (looking through every registration for McDonalds and Michale Jordan under the motion picture category at the copyright office gives no relevant results). For completeness, I will note that there is some weirdness with notice requirements for short advertisements: per In the case of an untitled motion picture or other audiovisual work whose duration is sixty seconds or less, [...] a notice that is embodied in the copies by a photomechanical or electronic process, in such a position that it ordinarily would appear to the projectionist or broadcaster when preparing the work for performance, is acceptable if it is located on the leader of the film or tape immediately preceding the beginning of the work (). This would maybe factor int the 1987 cut of the ad, but this would not apply to the two minute 1986 ad. Even if the 1987 did have a copyright notice as described above, it would not prevent forfeiture on the 1986 ad. Based5290 :3 (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I think that this was published but it may not be public domain. Look at this case where the copyright office originally refused to register a film published in 1983 without a valid copyright notice but they eventually registered it because the 1978 law says it must have been published and “publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner” without a notice to lose copyright. 999REAL💬⬆ 19:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
That's an interesting argument, but I don't think that case is particularly applicable here. In that case, the only public screening was held for the purpose of securing an acquisition or distribution deal, but no such deal ever materialized. By contrast, the Michael Jordan PSA was definitely given to television stations, as opposed to a simple offering to do so. I would argue that this is an act of public distribution, even if it was only confined to television stations. The Copyright Office rule about short motion pictures supports this idea; both advertisers and the Copyright Office understood that distribution of a commercial to television stations without a copyright notice could result in copyright forfeiture (and thus advertisers sought to ease notice requirements). Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Also, while the McDonald's 1986 commercial might be public domain, the background music in it is potentially copyrighted (since it's a piano background instrumental track that we don't know who made it, thus it's an orphaned work). Artemhao (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
WehaveenoughphotosofdogsonCommons,Idon’tthinkweneedanymore.WikipedianTalk to me!or not… 21:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons. The photo is decent and we don't have any decent photos of this kind of breed mix on there. That is a valid use. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons per Parakanyaa. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
This was the New London School in New London, Texas, which exploded on March 18, 1937 as a result of a natural gas leak. Maybe this image or a replacement image is in the public domain because they were published without a copyright notice. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep: we need more than speculation to determine that the image or a replacement is in the public domain. ―Howard • 🌽33 00:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Based. ―Howard • 🌽33 22:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: I've struck out my "keep" statement now. ―Howard • 🌽33 22:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Invalid purpose claim for non-free use. The File:Oldham Athletic AFC (emblem).svg already performs the same purpose ("help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization", etc) and seems to be used in the Oldham Athletic A.F.C. article for solely decorative reasons. C679 12:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. C679 19:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
There might be a free image of him? In this webpage of the US State Dept., two photos of Kabuga are provided. The text when hovering over the image reads: "Date: 12/12/2016 Description: Felicien Kabuga - State Dept Image". The photos were obviously not taken in 2016, but if this is a State Dept image then it would be a US govt work and thus a public domain alternative. According to his article, the US govt (including the FBI) actually did spend resources trying to track him down and arrest him. However, I worry that these wanted images also could be outsourced third-party works tagged on with a default State Dept. credit. I would like to know other people's thoughts on whether the current non-free image on the article can be allowed or not in light of this. ―Howard • 🌽33 22:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
This was originally nominated under the theory that this logo was public domain but was closed as no consensus (IMO the evidence provided by 999real was more than enough but whatever). There is ample evidence that this logo is public domain. A look through various ebay listings shows that ticket stubs for Bulls games did not have copyright notices:
1970:
1971:
1976:
1977:
Therefore, this logo is public domain. However, as pointed out at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 June 7#File:National Basketball Association logo.svg, the vectorization of the logo likely has a separate copyright. Therefore, this file should be deleted, and a raster version (or a free vectorization, if it can be found or made) should be uploaded on Commons in its place. Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Keep. If you follow this line of thought, you're going to ruin major pages, which are widely visited. Stop with this argument. The copyright only applies to the design, not any simple reproduction. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Not liking the outcome of something is not a policy argument. Following this line of thought will only lead to a handful of logos being correctly marked as public domain and moved to Commons. The only downside is that we will have to settle with raster images until someone (perhaps you or me!) comes along and makes a free vectorization.
I am reasonably convinced that vectorization can generate a new copyright. See Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. for an example of how vectorization of even noncopyrightable typography can generate a new copyrightable work; the opinion's analysis on the selection of control points is applicable to our logo situation. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. this is not a question of "I don't like it", it's a question of accuracy. Any of your actions will be reverted by other users if you keep on this line of action, as these are major pages visited by lots of people. Raster fair use logos are never the quality intended by the entities. Any logo used here is fair use on a trademark sense, even those under public domain on a copyright sense. That's why we should never use autotraced versions, but properly done ones. Wikimedia projects do not allow non-free file formats, but SVG is a free one, and therefore any SVG source code is free (even if the output, the resulting image, is not). Candidyeoman55 (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
I told you how SVG rendering works in here it does not display the SVG directly but generates a PNG at fixed resolution and shows it inspect element on any SVG file in wikipedia and you will see it you can get the same quality by exporting the SVG to png also I just autotraced this logo in vectorizer.ai and compared it in a image comparison there was no difference 999REAL💬⬆ 15:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, source codes of anything are perfectly copyrightable, but SVG codes are under free licenses as the format itself is free (even if the output is not). See this page if you don't understand my argument. Non-free file formats are not accepted on Wikimedia projects. Other vector formats (.AI, EPS, CDR) are non-free formats and their source codes are therefore non-free too. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
This is so wrong it is like saying code of all Android apps are free because android is Apache 2.0 999REAL💬⬆ 15:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
What you're arguing is more like saying any digitization of any file has a new copyright. No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
An accurate vectorization wouldn't have a separate copyright. That is like saying any computerized version of any file has a different copyright. No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
SVG files are made from XML text files which provide the necessary instructions, not pixels unlike raster formats such as PNG or JPG. As such the underlying SVG code may well be copyrighted as any other written code or program. This distinction is explicitly noted in c:Help:SVG#Copyright. ―Howard • 🌽33 17:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
"On the other hand, factors suggesting that SVG source code lacks sufficient creativity include:
Code generated programatically
Exact copying of a public domain source". PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Right above that it says:
"Factors that may support SVG source code being sufficiently creative to be copyrightable include:
Hand-written source code
Complex embedded CSS
Embedded comments longer than short phrases
A carefully selected set of control points" ―Howard • 🌽33 17:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah. And does it have any of those? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
I agree with Parakanyaa, we should use official vectorized versions when possible, as it's recommended in this section. I don't know what I can do to convince 999real, Based5290 and Howardcorn33 of my arguments. They're also trying to get the NBA logo deleted. These pages about highly visible subjects already deal with vandalism. If SVG logos are deleted and replaced by rasters, they'll quickly be effectively reverted by other users.
As I said, I already run into some vandalisms of national soccer team pages where they insert non-free logos that shouldn't be there (child entities without their own branding). My contributions are legitimate. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
The section you linked effectively confirms that, to be legally in the clear, enwiki guidelines consider the copyright of SVG code to be separate from that of the design itself. This actually further reinforces my view. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
But in the end, I agree with you that raster images should not be used to replace the existing SVG files as this would be unhelpful for scaling purposes.
@Based5290: I would like to kindly ask that the deletion request be withdrawn unless a free SVG vectorization actually does exist to replace the already existing pages. It is unideal to delete the images while no such replacement exists. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
I traced it using vectorizer.ai it is identical here 999REAL💬⬆ 19:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
No logos should be autotraced, especially major logos like this one. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
You didn't give any reasons. 999REAL💬⬆ 22:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
For quality reasons, especially complex logos like the Chicago Bulls logo. It's far from the branding intended by the entities. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Where is the difference in the 2 files? 999REAL💬⬆ 23:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
It's for respecting the brands purposes. Every logo here is a fair use on a trademark sense, not necessarily on a copyright sense. For example, Tesla tried to get their logos removed from Wikimedia Commons and even sent a DMCA notice to Wikimedia. Only one logo, which was granted a registration by the US Copyright Office, was removed by Wikimedia. Go out and search Tesla here, and you'll get my point. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
I remember when that happened but what does it have to do with anything at all? Where is the difference in quality or visual output? You gave no reasons 999REAL💬⬆ 14:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete in that case. A free alternative exists and is ready to replace the original. ―Howard • 🌽33 11:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
That section is a misunderstanding of the section above, 1st it's not true that the law is not clear, there were several cases which documented at c:Help:SVG#Copyright. Whether it is confirmed or not, Wikipedia:FREER and foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy actually requires that we should make our own SVG and waive any copyright on it instead of using an SVG copyrighted by either the owner of the logo itself or by a third party 999REAL💬⬆ 19:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Any vector version of non-free logos are non-free by default. Therefore the fair use would be justified in this case. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
For free logos, user made vectorization are more than okay, even if there are official versions (if you still have concerns over source code copyright), but for non-free logos, the official vectorization, if available and properly done, should be used instead. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
No it shouldn't. There are 2 copyrights 1 for the logo and 1 for the code. We can get rid of the burden of the copyright on the code by vectorizing it ourselves that is exactly the point of Wikipedia:FREER that way you can use the vector immediately as soon as copyright expired on the logo itself 999REAL💬⬆ 23:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
If you're copying non-free code, why would that be any more free? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
That's the whole point. We should not be 999REAL💬⬆ 03:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
You're arguing we can make a replacement that is free, but that would just be copying a non-free file. So no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
There are 2 copyrights 1 for the logo and 1 for the code just like with photos of copyrighted sculptures that Wikipedia:FREER requires photos of to be under a free license 999REAL💬⬆ 04:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
If you are copying something that is copyrighted that would not make it any less copyrighted. A photograph is not the same because the photograph is an additional work reflecting the first one, not the same here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
The code is an additional work over the first one. You all are saying a big load of nonsense the equivalent is saying that if the visual output of a program doesn't pass ToO the code of the program will not pass it either. They are 2 totally different works SVGs are code just like other programs 999REAL💬⬆ 17:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Hello, and hope you're well. I solicit consensus on whether the WP:NFCC allow Lucy Westenra to use this illustration from a 2004 edition of Dracula. My quick skim of results from a generic search engine and of the article on Dracula yielded no illustrations from around the time (in the vein of serialized works around the time like the Sherlock Holmes stories).
That said, commons:Category:Lucy Westenra contains several images. An argument that the NFCC allow the 2004 image over File:Dracula (1931) trailer - Dracula & Lucy.png seems possible but tenuous: the trailer image might not be a free equivalent as the image quality limits its helpfulness and educational value to readers. I think it's much harder to say so for that film's publicity still (whose caption can just indicate that Lucy's on the left) or even File:Dracula (1958) trailer - Carol Marsh.png (readers still get the point even with just her head and shoulders).
If I've missed some salient point, please feel free to say so. Thank you for your time and assistance! Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 14:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
I originally scanned from a copy of the graphic novel I had borrowed from Fresno County Public Library. I tried to check it out again but turned out that they had weeded it. But I found the image from ebay. NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming the image source. Based on that info, it is still copyrighted, so its use must comply with the NFCC. tl;dr My concern is if there is consensus that a free replacement image of Lucy can be reasonably found (or created). If so, then the article should use the free image instead, and the 2004 image should be deleted. If not, then perhaps the file page needs to document more clearly why the free images are not replacements. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 21:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
This file is marked as "Non-free logo", however, the text "Disney" was the gradient, "INSTITUTE" text was uppercase, and also outline retangle (the logo was above to the threshold of originality). So, I suggest file change from non-free license to free license and should would be removed from Wikipedia and place to Commons instead (which added category: Category:Disney logos). ~2026-36081-26 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Move to Commons per nom ―Howard • 🌽33 19:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
This fails NFCC8 (reader understanding is hardly helped by "a humorous acknowledgement", that's ) and NFCC1 (a replacement could be either a shorter text quote from this or just describing the scene). Also, for purposes of being the lead image for the article, it really doesn't do it well and should be replaced by some free-content depiction of the actual ship itself, such as fanart or cosplay. Rose Abrams (TCL) 15:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.
Please ensure "===June27===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.
Comment: I also found this ordinance from 1998 that references an amendment to "The Revised General Ordinances of the Township of Wall, 1977," § 1-5. I couldn't find the 1977 revised ordinances online. I can try to contact the township and obtain a copy of the 1977 revised general ordinances and anything regarding to the adoption of the township official seal in 1972. ForeverFlying (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg%3Faction%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%3Faction%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_screenshot.png){kind=link}
_screenshot.png){kind=link}
_screenshot.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif%3Faction%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_trailer_-_Dracula_%26_Lucy.png){kind=link}
_trailer_-_Carol_Marsh.png){kind=link}
