This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
Files for discussion (FfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether images and other media files should be deleted because they may be unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Nominated files are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which a decision may be reached based on community consensus or the file may be deleted or removed if the nominator specifically requests it and no objections are raised.
While this list comprises the most common and uncontroversial reasons to discuss a file, any properly explained reason can be used. Examples of files you may request for discussion here include:
Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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.
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 or its copyright status, start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.
The majority of deletion and merge proposals concerning pages in the file namespace should be nominated at this venue. However, there are a few exceptions:
In general, if a deletion is uncontroversial, use the Proposed deletion process; if your proposed deletion is later contested, then you can nominate the file here.
For speedy deletion candidates, tag the file under one of the criteria for speedy deletion of files. These include duplicates, thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, and others
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.
For files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused, or are non-free without rationale, place one of the following tags on the file page:
{{Db-f1|FILENAME}} (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
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is nominated 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}}.
For local description pages with no associated file, speedily delete them under criterion G8 using {{db-imagepage}}.
For local description pages for files hosted on Commons, speedily delete them under criterion F2 using {{db-fpcfail}}.
For other local description pages for files hosted on Commons, nominate them at Miscellany for deletion.
For appropriately-licensed files which could be usable elsewhere, copy them to Wikimedia Commons instead. Once copied to the Commons, you can speedily delete them under criterion G8 using {{db-imagepage}}.
For requesting the undeletion of a file, contact the administrator who deleted the file; if you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, use Deletion review.
You are not logged in, so you are not autoconfirmed. Unless you log in, you cannot nominate an file on your own.Your account isautoconfirmed. This means you canuse Twinkle to easily nominate files!is not autoconfirmed. You can nominate files, but you cannot use Twinkle to do it easily.
Follow the instructions in this section to nominate a file for discussion. Do not include the "File:" prefix in any of the steps. If you wish to nominate multiple related files at once, nominate the first file using one of the methods below, preferably the §Twinkle method, and then bundle the additional files into the existing nomination.
You will need to write a short nomination statement, explaining why you think the file should be deleted or merged. If a nomination does not recommend any course of action, it is implied that the nominator recommends deletion. Only registered users can nominate files. If the box on the left says your account is autoconfirmed, it is highly recommended that you use the Twinkle tool to nominate files. Otherwise, you can become autoconfirmed by creating an account and making at least 10 edits and waiting 4 days since your first edit.
If you are autoconfirmed, you should use the §Twinkle method to nominate files at FfD. You can use the manual method in case you're registered but not yet autoconfirmed. However, using Twinkle is still recommended in most cases. All of the steps below can be performed automatically by the script in a few seconds.
Manual instructions
Most of these steps are performed automatically when using the §Twinkle method. To do it manually instead, follow these steps:
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 nominating 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 a nomination of multiple files. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2026 July 21}} 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 July 21}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.
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. 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.
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}}.
The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by AnomieBOT (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
Likely below TOO: calligraphy is not subject to copyright in the US (although it may be sometimes in Japan), and the white paper background doesn't add much. Suggest moving to Commons. Qzekrom (she/her •talk)23:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The previous image of Edward Furlong's version in Terminator 2 was PRODded and then deleted without contest. Indeed, John Conner is supposed to be a rebel in the now-nonexistent (or previous) timeline. Here, this is a child version portrayed by Edward Furlong, and his post-apocalyptical era hasn't arrived yet. Furthermore, any image of him as a child (i.e. portrayed by Furlong) may no longer be suitable as the lead image. I just can't help wonder why this image is perceived to have met NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" criterion. As far as I'm concerned, this image may be inadequately supported by sourced(?) critical commentary. George Ho (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's use an image of adult Connor as the lead image, but move this current image down to the Terminator 2 section instead of deleting it. TalkTuahLunchly (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still unconvinced that this child version needs to be shown, especially to other readers. Since there are no free images of Furlong in 1991, what about other images of him, like File:Edward Furlong 2009.jpg? Sure, the context isn't the same, but we want to avoid appealing to only the fan base and instead try to relate well to general readers, especially those who've not yet watched the franchise or any movie of it. George Ho (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Unfortunately, not all character articles need a lead image, do they?" according to who? I think an image of a fictional character significantly enhances understanding and identifiability of the article. Personally I can't remember the names of movie characters for nothing. That there are multiple versions of a character doesn't mean we can't use any. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should've duplicated my comment (from the below listing of the one-time adult John) comparing John Connor to Bernard Quatermass (which lacks a lead image at this time after FFDs)... instead of The Doctor (after failed attempt on the collage of the incarnations), shouldn't I? (Oh great.... I'm discussing which lead image to choose much more than which non-free content would comply with NFCC, huh?)
That there are multiple versions of a character doesn't mean we can't use any.
It's not merely that. There are free images of various portrayers of this character, in this case, e.g. Edward Furlong himself. Furthermore, "contextual significance" criterion must be also complied as well as not exceeding "minimal number of items". In the case of Bernard Quatermass, no image is suitable as a lead image at this time, and possible free images of various portrayers would replace non-free images, e.g. the guy who appeared in the 2005 version (can't remember the name without looking it up, honestly). George Ho (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Portrayers of a character is not the character and does not serve as a replacement for an illustration of the character in most cases. It can in some, e.g. with the Fred example I'd say it would, but not a movie character. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, not all character articles need a lead image, do they? This version of John Connor appeared in only one scene without lines. Also, inadequately supported by critical commentary. The previous image of this portrayer was PRODdded and then deleted for the same reason. Compare this character to Bernard Quatermass, which currently doesn't have a lead image because multiple portrayers haven't lasted much. George Ho (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 • 🌽3317:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"On the other hand, factors suggesting that SVG source code lacks sufficient creativity include:
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)[reply]
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 • 🌽3318:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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 • 🌽3318:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have a concern whether the 2-minute ad was published first. But we have 2 reasons, All Response Media notes that a 120 second ad are often used to launch products and to "evoke emotion and deliver a longer message", but "can dominate ad breaks". The second is that 120-second PSA ad was launched to build an emotional connection and memories, once the audiences fully understand the ad, it is shortened to 1 minute. Artemhao (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 • 🌽3300:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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 • 🌽3317:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 • 🌽3314:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 • 🌽3322:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Issue with Commons and several Disney character articles
[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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 • 🌽3321:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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 • 🌽3321:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. —Cryptic00:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. —Cryptic00:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons. CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc., 888 F. Supp. 192 (D. Me. 1995), "[w]ords and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans" may not be copyrighted. The first sentence is a short slogan, while the second is functional description that is too simple and lacks any creative element to qualify for copyright protection. I suspect nom is not arguing about the other elements of the screenshot, so they don't need addressing. ✗plicit07:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). WidgetKidConverse04:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. WidgetKidConverse17:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note that even if it’s copyrighted in the country of origin, we can still keep it as is under {{PD-USonly}}.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Non-free, {{pd-text}} is for logos. See both the template's text (images consisting of "individual words") and the documentation which starts with "This template is only for logos in the public domain." This is what {{Non-free web screenshot}} is for. Perryprog (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
File is clearly taken from elsewhere (note artefacting, lack of metadata, odd resolution). Unlikely to be own work but file is so old that the original is likely long been offline. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Replace: The US army has another image from the same photoshoot (2008): (image 2 in the slideshow). This could be used as a replacement since it fits {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}. Oracle7 apparently had a history of copyvio uploads, although they seemingly uploaded genuine dog images as well (for example, 1 and 2). Regardless, since the nominated image's status is disputed, we should use the army image instead. I don't know if it would be better to delete-then-upload or to upload-new-version-then-revdel. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (WP:NFCC8) and WP:NFCC1. There is no commentary in the article about the image's relevance. The image is just an IGN page with advertisements, not a synthesis of the two, which does not by itself explain what "McIGN" is; it doesn't seem to clearly fit the pejorative associations with the restaurant chain or fast food in general, often for qualities of cheapness, inauthenticity, or the speed and ease of manufacture description. I don't see how the image significantly aids reader understanding of McWord. For WP:NFCC1, a free image of one of the examples in "McWords not officially related to McDonald's", like McMansion, could be used. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this was is not PD. It has no copyright notice (the text on the bottom right reads “Distributed by RKD Radio Pictures Inc.”) and was first published before 1978. Nutella lover • [chat│supervise]20:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as non-free I think most movie posters actually did have a proper copyright notice, including this one (see https://www.posterpalace.com/products/pinocchio-2# but also why is the year on the copyright notice not 1940??? is this even the original poster??). However, most movie posters did not see a copyright renewal, which would be required for continued copyright protection, and a search for such a renewal for the Pinocchio poster does not turn up any results. This, though, is further complicated by the fact that the film itself most certainly did receive a renewal. If this was like the 12 Angry Men poster where the artwork use for the poster is most certainly not from or based on the film, this wouldn't matter. Here, there is a reasonable argument that Disney's character design for Pinnochio remains under copyright and that the artwork on the poster is derivative of said design. If this is the case, Commons would not consider this free enough to host (see also c:Commons:Free depictions of non-free works). Based5290 :3 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC1. The rationale is faulty in its claim that the look and feel of the animation effects could not be demonstrated by a free alternative. In particular, a game under a free license would not have to be released to demonstrate the effects and psychology: a short animation would suffice. I agree that the creation of such an animation seems unlikely given the work entailed, but that doesn't mean creation is impossible, as required by NFCC1. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that WP:NFCC#1 is not met, because this is not irreplaceable to describe the general concept of lootboxes; if we were discussing using the file for specifically in the context of the game in question I would consider keeping, but for now that is not enough. Choucas🐦⬛13:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#1. This file's purpose is illustrating general loot box mechanics (anticipation, rarity indicators, presentation), not documenting Overwatch specifically. These elements could be demonstrated through a free-licensed animation; creation may be difficult but not impossible. NFCC#1 requires irreplaceability in fact, not merely in likelihood. For general concept articles, proprietary game footage doesn't meet this standard when the same visual principles are theoretically demonstrable through any loot box animation. --Wcam (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there is sometimes justification for fair use photos of defunct bands, even if each individual member is still living, but this is not one of those situations. We have free photos of the band as a single unit, namely File:Nirvana - Love Buzz Big Cheese front cover.jpg and File:Nirvana around 1992.jpg. The fact that they omit Grohl is unfortunate but can be remedied by simply stating in the caption something to the effect of "Not pictured: Dave Grohl". This fair use rationale is made even weaker by the existence of a free photo of Grohl from 1989 as a drummer (albeit for a different band). Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8: Non-free images fail the contextual significance test. The article's subject is the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft (the heist, investigation, and suspects) not the stolen objects themselves. While the gu and finial are mentioned as items taken, images of these objects provide no meaningful increase to readers' understanding of the theft as a subject. The article's narrative focuses on the robbery's execution, the thieves' motives, investigative leads, and theories about the crime. Understanding what a Chinese gu or Napoleonic finial looks like is unnecessary and detrimental to nothing; omitting these images would not impair comprehension of the article's actual topic. The gallery function is purely decorative inventory, not integral to explaining the theft itself. Wcam (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8: Non-free images fail the contextual significance test. The article's subject is the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft (the heist, investigation, and suspects) not the stolen objects themselves. While the gu and finial are mentioned as items taken, images of these objects provide no meaningful increase to readers' understanding of the theft as a subject. The article's narrative focuses on the robbery's execution, the thieves' motives, investigative leads, and theories about the crime. Understanding what a Chinese gu or Napoleonic finial looks like is unnecessary and detrimental to nothing; omitting these images would not impair comprehension of the article's actual topic. The gallery function is purely decorative inventory, not integral to explaining the theft itself. Wcam (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Contradictory and false description page variously purporting to show a "logo" or "a flag, seal, emblem, coat of arms or crest". In reality, this is the profile picture used by an internet personality, depicting Cristiano Ronaldo. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retain broad classification precedent exists for labeling pfps under the "logo" classification (see File:Technoblade.jpg and File:Shaun skull logo.jpg). Granted, these are slightly different since those were made to be pfps, but still, Freddy's pfp is an "official" illustrator of himself as an entity. Change subtype to either be generic or other type of logo, I seemed to have labeled it as an emblem via mistake. — Knightoftheswords19:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the picture is now unused in the article, failing WP:NFCC#7; but even if it still was, or it was properly described, I still do not believe it would meet WP:NFCC#8, as there is absolutely nothing gained by showing the photo compared to saying that the account used a picture of Ronaldo as a profile picture in plain text. Choucas🐦⬛14:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Ronaldo pic is pretty important given that he’s still anonymous and is known solely through this photo, which he uses to cover his face on posts. — Knightoftheswords20:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion, as well as several others on this page, has been open for over a month now. Why is it taking so long to close or relist all these? JHD0919 (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The stated purpose of use in article is simply "To show SMG4's profile picture" which is by no means valid under NFCC. The image really served no point in the article. Rose Abrams (TCL) 16:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 • 🌽3308:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons: the depicted artwork is not copyrightable because it is just a cube, and the condensation patterns on the cube's surface are not determined by a human author. Qzekrom (she/her •talk)23:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
" in the top right, and choose "XFD"
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)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+July+2%23File%3AMadonna+-+Sorry+%28music+video%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_trailer_-_Dracula_&_Lucy.png){kind=link}
_trailer_-_Carol_Marsh.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+April+17%23File%3ANouvelle+Action+Royaliste+%28emblem%29.png%5D%5D){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+April+10%23File%3AAwakenings+%28Oliver+Sacks+book%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
