File:SnivyPlushWithFlowers.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILike Leavanny ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

c:COM:TOYS. ✗plicit 00:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, questionable licensing with no usage in the main space. Salavat (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the toy carries its own copyright as a work of 3D art. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, ok. Makes sense but then why do we have clear pictures of Pokémon Centers with the plushes in the distance OR manholes with Pokémon on them OR AIRPLANES WITH POKÉMON ON THEM?

  Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 19:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ILike Leavanny: I can't speak to all these images, but some may fall under de minimis or freedom of panorama laws. Tenpop421 (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think my photo of my Snivy plush and my Armaldo plush should be removed in case there are any more copyright problems.

Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 18:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per uploader's comment. Buffs (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philip Low.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chetsford ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File:Low and Low.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chetsford ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This image of Philip Low from a Youtube video was originally uploaded to Wikipedia with a CC-BY license, as per the video's original description (see this archive). Since the upload to Wikipedia, the uploader of the Youtube video has modified the description so that it states the video is copyrighted (as per this current link). I originally PRODed this, but after a discussion on Chetsford's talk page where this previous license came to light, I'm uncertain about the copyright issues. Does Wikipedia regard Creative Commons licenses as revocable? The sources I've found ([1], [2]) aren't clear on the legal issues.

Chetsford also brought up the issue of BLP, as the subject of these images may not want a free image of himself on Wikipedia. Tenpop421 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• First, thank you very much to Tenpop421 for his diligent investigative work here. It appears the subject may have contacted the video uploader and had the license changed on this several years-old video literally within hours of it being uploaded to WP. I'm the uploader and I support delete on two grounds. First, the Creative Commons license -- as Tenpop421 pointed out -- is somewhat ambiguous and we may be better to err on the side of caution for images of low, overall value to the project, and I think this counts as one such. It's a simple, low-resolution headshot of no historic value and of a person who may be notable by our standards, but is probably not a public figure.

Second, from a non-copyright standpoint, WP:IMAGEPOL directs we not host images that are likely to demean or ridicule the subject. While the image seems fine to me, the fact that the subject went to somewhat extraordinary lengths to have the license changed on this image suggests that they (rightly or wrongly) feel demeaned by it. (As a general proscription, we usually don't screen capture headshots at odd moments where a person's face appears contorted into an unnatural pose.) The standard of "likely" to demean is softer than "does" demean and I think a likelihood is more-or-less established in this instance. (The circumstances here are somewhat qualitatively different from a public figure who merely expressed performative discomfort out of avarice or spite at WP or to control some aspect of the narrative about themselves.) Chetsford (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ...for now. CC licenses cannot be revoked per the terms of their license. [3] Legal scholars have confirmed the answer is "no". [4] [5].

However, that is only part of the issue for these images. The other is whether they are appropriate for an encyclopedia or useful to people writ large in other contexts. I think the images themselves should remain as they have a capacity for future use. If nothing else, they could serve as a useful illustration within our documentation about licensing and people changing their minds. Buffs (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford you are uploading files from YouTube with the wrong license, the CC license on YouTube is CC-BY-3.0, not CC-BY-SA-4.0 999real (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and transfer to Commons with the correct license 999real (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]