The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donato Francis Pangilinan8.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Copyright status of this portrait needs to be determined if this is free in the Philippines (if so, this can also be free in the U.S.). While U.S. copyright law is lenient on commercial exploitations of architectures, it is not in terms of artistic works. This painting, if found to be copyrighted and pre-1977, may be unfree in the U.S. for 95 years after first publication (the U.S. copyright term for pre-1977 non-American works is longer than the Philippine term which is only 50 years). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: in the description I expressed my uncertaintyamid the officers believed it is too old "I am not sure if the photo is very very old, since the OIC of the Building says it dates back to 1965, taken from the old town hall; for caution, there is also no freedom of panorama in the Philippines copyright law permitting free commercial uses of peoples' images of modern architectural and public art works without the need of licensing permissions from the architects and sculptors or their heirs." therefore I submit to the options of admins as far as US laws are concerned thank you very truly yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  @Valenzuela400: The photo you took isn't really the problem here, unless you really didn't take it yourself. The problem has to do with painting you photographed and it's copyright status. Assuming you're not the artist who painted that painting, you have no claim of copyright over it; so, the license you've decided to use for your photo doesn't apply to it. Your photo is essentially a WP:Derivative work which means that there are two copyrights to consider: the copyright of the photo and the copyright of the photographed painting. It's the latter copyright that JWilz12345 is asking about. For reference, there's no automatic freedom of panorama for 2D works of art (even publicly displayed ones) under current US copyright law as explained in c:COM:FOP US. So, Wikipedia might need to treat the painting itself as non-free content, which means the file's use will be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy because it isn't 100% freely licensed content. Given the way the file is being used in Santo Tomas, Pampanga#Gallery, there's pretty much no way to justify the non-free use of this file and it will most likely end up deleted if it needs to be treated as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Izno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tan Jianci wikipedia.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hahaha090 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Reverse image search shows multiple versions of this photo along with others in a presumed photoshoot. Results go back to 2022, presumed copyvio. Kline • talk • contribs 02:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment:@Kline: For future reference, when you come across a file that's missing source information and a copyright license like this one, there's really no need to start a discussion about here at FFD. Such files can be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F4. In addition, when you come across a file like this which you reasonably expect to be a copyright violation after doing some digging, you can tag the file for speedy deletion per WP:F9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marchjuly Oh, thanks. I don't know anything about file CSD reasons so this helps. Kline • talk • contribs 13:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: The uploader has been blocked per WP:SOCK which means the file might also be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete No copyright information listed. Bremps... 03:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chatime shop8.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Probable derivative work issue of the menu display. If this is OK, this should be transferred to Wikimedia Commons. If not, this must be deleted even on enwiki. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I think next time I will take a farther distance from the menus and the like such as those in Chatime shops thank you very truly yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Fernando, Pampanga City1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Likely copyrighted parols as copyrightable works of craftsmanship. May not be free in the U.S.. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  I withdraw my nomination , as well as the image I nominated below. The authorship is attributed to Francisco Estanislao who is said to have made the first version of the star-shaped Christmas décor in circa 1908 (during the American colonial era) as per w:en:Parol#History. The PH laws during that time (1879 Spanish intellectual property law and eveb its successor Act 3134 of 1924) required registration to protect artistic works, and it is very likely that Estanislao failed to register his first parol. So now withdrawing these two nominations, and someone can transfer these to Wikimedia Commons.

For U.S. status, parol design is also PD in the U.S. since the work failed to caught up with Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) from the beginning (pre-1923 work at the time URAA was passed). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Fernando, Pampanga City3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Valenzuela400 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Likely copyrighted parols as copyrightable works of craftsmanship. May not be free in the U.S.. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I think next time I will take a farther distance from the crafts and the like some of those approved photos in Category:Parols thank you very truly yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Valenzuela400 sorry, but being "farther" is not enough. There is no concept of "de minimis" here in the Philippines, and even then, incidental appearances of copyrighted works are infringements in accordance with IPOPHL's opinion on FoP absence in the Philippines. But even if FoP becomes introduced here, parols are typically temporary in nature, so not eligible. Best option is to be more discriminative on what to upload here on enwiki. Buildings OK, but many recent public and national monuments, handicrafts, crafts like parols, and other artistic works, not OK. Even if FoP becomes implemented in the Philippines, only – at most – 90% of public artworks and of the Philippines will become eligible for Wikimedia sites, the 10% (including parols) may not be eligible. Including temporary works in the future FoP (like parols) may lead to backlash of artists vs. Wikimedia world. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Missed the transmission code, Speedy deleted, CSD G7 IronGargoyle (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zamboanga Peninsula Medical Center, Putik, Zamboanga City.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by IronGargoyle ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Likely problematic image that came from Facebook, see my comments at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zamboanga Peninsula Medical Center, Putik, Zamboanga City.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yes Minister - Thatcher sketch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The JPS ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The file is a photo showing Margaret Thatcher performing in a Yes Minister sketch. The event is well described in text under Yes Minister#Reception, and the image only serves as an extra illustration of "Thatcher performed in a YM sketch in 1984". It's omission would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding. The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minecraft text.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HmmOily ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Minecraft_Logo-en.svg, a simpler version of this same 3D logo without the fractures and shading effect, is considered to be copyrighted. Belbury (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete The png logo is clearly copyrighted that is obvious and there is also no need for it and it's redundant.

This0k (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. There is rough consensus that we do not need a low resolution local PNG that depicts the same work as is in c:File:Our Banner in the Sky by Frederic Edwin Church.jpg. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:OurBannerInTheSky1861 FrederickEdwinChurch 83d40m wp.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 83d40m ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A lower resolution copy with a half-false description. — Ирука¹³ 18:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Received a notice regarding this image that I uploaded. No details were provided to indicate what is proposed regarding my image and I fail to understand an unreferenced criticism about its "description" (not its use in several articles and country versions of WP), curious about "half-false" compared to "half-true" judgement without discussion and the grammatical error in what appears to be a replacement — would appreciate more details in order to discuss whatever is being proposed so it may be addressed before some action is taken. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @83d40m: Perhaps Iruka13 can clarify what they mean by half-false description. However, since a higher-resolution version of the same file is available as c:File:Our Banner in the Sky by Frederic Edwin Church.jpg, it's not clear why a lower-resolution local version is needed by English Wikipedia. In addition, it's not clear why you're claiming copyright ownership over this file since (1) the original work itself wasn't created by you and is already within the public domain, and (2) slavish reproductions (like what this file seems to be) of someone else's creative work or of a work in the public domain are typically not considered to meet the standard of creativity required by US copyright law to warrant copyright protection per c:COM:2D copying and qualify as c:COM:Own work. Creative Commons licenses typically imply the underlying work is protected by copyright and that the copyright holder of the work is making it available for others to freely use as long as they comply with certain conditions. How does of any of that apply to you and this file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ?Huh? Please read my reply to being contacted to participate in this discussion — your presumptions merely increase my wonder about why. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You were notified of the discussion because you uploaded the file on June 1, 2021. Notification of the uploaders of files being discussed here at FFD is required per item 3 of the instructions listed at WP:FFD. My guess is that the file was noticed by Iruka13 for some reason and they decided it should be discussed; so, they notified you as they're required to do so but also as a courtesy. Finally, I'm not presuming anything. You've uploaded this file as your "own work" and even included your username in the file's name, even though the photographed work is clearly within the public domain; the photo/scan you took of the original work isn't eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. If that was just a misunderstanding, then that's OK; however, the license you chose for the file isn't accurate. If the file is to be kept it should be relicensed and its author information updated accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly fully explained my position on this issue (thanks to him for that).

I would also like to hear from you the answer to the question "why did you install a template on the file that prevents it from being moved to Commons". — Ирука¹³ 08:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete There is absolutely no reason to keep this png file. It fails multiple criteria.

This0k (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep (already removed from the other article)--Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Easybeats - Friday On My Mind excerpt.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ian Dunster ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Sample's contextual significance to the whole song and the band who performed the content heard in the sample questionable. Song demonstration ≠ contextual significance. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first paragraph of Friday on My Mind#Composition describes more or less this exact portion of the song, and I do think that the song sample improves readers' understanding in a way that text alone could not do. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the sample from the band article, but left it remaining in the song one. George Ho (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2024 December 4. (non-admin closure) Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Susan Smith (SC convict).png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.