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Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.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 August 7}} 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 August 7}} 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.
I do not think this is non-free due to common (not national) sides of Euro coins being freely licensed. Reproduction of euro coins is allowed, and there are many free images of euro coins available on Wikimedia Commons. The only restriction that applies to Euro coins is prohibiting damaging the image of the euro, but that's only a non-copyright restriction. - MJGTMKME12319:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Some of the photos on Commons don't have their authorship tagged correctly; see e.g. . It is questionable if they would survive a deletion request. Janhrach (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The PD-Art template is for 2D artworks, coins are considered as 3D artwork, so the pictures themselves could be copyrighted. Therefore, I think that the non-free EU coin common side images should be deleted and replaced with free ones (if they already exist, otherwise new ones can be created) Soviet Pepega (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree wholeheartedly with JayCubby. At the time I uploaded this non-free image in 2012 or 2013, no file existed upon the Commons. Just had a quick look on there and note that at least one image of the sculpture (File:Kelly Ingram Park.jpg) has since been uploaded to Wiki. Commons.--Kieronoldham (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I should've been a bit clearer, but either the current file location should be revised to use the Commons image or the Commons image be brought over to local hosting on en wiki under NFCC. I am aware that the Commons image should not be hosted at Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the ping George. Although the angle of the four subjects in the current NFCC image and the lack of backdrop there makes the current image more illustrative to the event (in my opinion), I am amenable to the suggestions. (There is another sculpture in the background of the proposed replacement though.)--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
According the file, it was published on 21 February 1930. Unfortunately, the copyright of the file has expired, since it was published in the USA before 1931, it could be in public domain and transferrable to Commons. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Move to Commons with the extra note that one of the photos was published in Princeton Daily Clarion in 1930. The statement that this photo is from a press release is more than likely correct, meaning the other photo was also published and therefore fell into the public domain. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I haven't checked the copyright status of later Star-Bulletin issues, but the problem is that there don't seem to be many photos of him at all, much less ones that aren't protected by copyright. Maybe there is a photo of him floating around in some yearbooks, but I don't have access to those. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:20, 5 August 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
I do not agree, every time I have seen a notice on the card it was present in the newspaper. Also, I question whether a notice on the wire card would count either way, as does that count as distribution to the public (when notice was considered); if it the notice was not included on the card, but was included in the newspaper (as I have seen) that would count for copyright, to be sure. Especially given the fact that according to the LoC, UPI and AP virtually never registered copyright. For every single photo there's theoretically a possibility that every single source about its origin was wrong and it was theoretically first published in a source in the UK and so is copyrighted until 2099 or something - but we only take into account realistic possibilities. There is technically no way to be absolutely certain about any photograph copyright unless you took it yourself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 4 August 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
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
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
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
(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
I would agree that given that two of the frames are prodigiously in the public domain, the added value of the non-PD frames is insufficient to justify their non-free use. Felix QW (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This file have too bad quality. A better file is available here, which the Commons file is automatically in public domain because provided by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation... Or this file can be a candidate for Commons because released under a free license (CC-BY-SA 3.0). Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The song was originally released only in the UK and Portugal before being re-recorded for the wider release. "Take On Me" by a-ha is a song which has a very similar history to "We Got the Beat" in that it had an original single release which failed to chart before being re-recorded and re-released to wide success; its Wikipedia page shows the original 7" release's cover in the main infobox. In other instances where a band or artist changes an cover after release, Wikipedia tends to use the original version first (see Street Survivors, Creatures of the Night, Yesterday and Today).
Delete secondary non-free album cover image. Its rationale is false as it is not "the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article". There is no discussion of its artwork in the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. Since this is not an obscure person or a historical personage who died a century ago, I don't think we should use or rely on newspaper scans, especially since the ones presented are low quality and do not represent McGlaughlin as he was nationally and internationally known and recognizable – for his radio-host career which began in 1981 and went international in 2003. I think an actual photograph is needed, and this low-resolution photo is suitable since he is deceased, he no longer hosts the program, and there is no reason it would henceforth be used for commercial purposes. Softlavender (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm somewhat confounded by the statement that this photo doesn't represent McGlaughlin as he was nationally and internationally known and recognizable because he was radio host? Maybe that's a good argument for including a copyrighted recording of his voice, but a photo, especially one which has to be crunched down to conform to NFCC's resolution criteria, does not fit with this argument. Also, the literal first sentence of the article mentions that he was a conductor, so those images of him in advertisements for orchestras are absolutely representative of him. This copyrighted image still fails WP:NFCC1 (even if it may be considered fair use in a court of law) because for the encyclopedic purpose of representing the visual appearance of McGlaughlin, even relatively low quality photos can suffice. Based5290 :3 (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This cover is not copyrightable. The photo is File:Buzz Aldrin.jpg, which is a work by NASA and therefore not under copyright. The top left logo is File:Interplay Entertainment logo colored.svg, which is also uncopyrightable as text and a simple squiggly line. The final element, the text in the top right, reads in full Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space: A U.S.-Soviet Space-Race Simulation. Titles are generally not subject to copyright protection, and rotating one word in that title does not make the typography copyrightable. Therefore, this can be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I have pretty major doubts that File:Interplay Entertainment logo colored.svg is not copyrightable. It was recently uploaded by a single user and was never checked. It's far from simple text as all the text in the logo is drawn artwork. If one person can declare it's not copyrightable, then one person can certainly declare it is.
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
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
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
This image serves a purely descriptive use in the article. While Luigi being initially a palette swap of Mario is important, this is not a hard visual to convey given the general nature of how simple a palette swap is. We do not need a free use image to showcase such a simple description. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
A purely decorative image, failing non free file uses. While Bowser's first appearance is important, the image serves no further use beyond that, and Bowser's article discusses very little the design present in the first game; indeed, there is also concept artwork used in the developmental section of his article to convey his earlier design and how he was developed initially. This image is redundant and largely unnecessary at present within the article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Below the threshold of originality in the US and therefore not subject to copyright protection. Substituting the u for a simple heart, putting a barely recognizable blue blob behind the text, and the use of the chalk and border effects are not enough to make this copyrightable. This can safely be moved to Commons. Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:32, 31 July 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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Logopedia is user-generated and not a reliable source. Can we get a better source to verify publication details? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit06:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Violates WP:NFCC#8. The photo itself is not subject to sourced critical commentary. Policy requires that a non-free image both enhance the readers' understanding of the article text and that its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. This image lacks contextual significance.
The uploader contested the original deletion tag on the file's talk page. ✗plicit07:30, 7 August 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)
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+July+23%23File%3AEva+Dugan+%28murderer%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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+July+31%23File%3AChris+Brown+-+BROWN+%28The+Chocolate+Edition%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+discussion%2F2026+August+3%23File%3AEDGE+magazine+%28logo%29.svg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=history){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
