User talk:Josve05a

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Josve05a.

This is the user talk page of Josve05a, where you can send messages and comments to Josve05a.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

• Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
• Put new text under old text.
• New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
• Click here to start a new topic.

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day. The latest archive is located at Archive 16.

Undeletion request

Hello. I noticed you have deleted the following file:

• Photo of Luigi Mangione.png

You provided the following justification "Multiple participants raised plausible concerns that the video includes third-party content (e.g., Reuters, CCTV and other news footage), but no clear breakdown was provided identifying which segments originate from NBC and which do not", however I actually did provide evidence that the footage in question was credited to NBC News. The original video file I uploaded explicitly linked to such evidence. Can you please review this evidence and consider re-allowing the images?

To be specific, here is the evidence which shows NBC shot the original content themselves:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evWqDQSmvNo (top right features a watermark with "NBC News")
• https://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-luigi-magione-transported-to-new-york-to-face-federal-charges-in-ceo-killing-227511365666 (bottom right NBC news watermark)

Both these videos feature no external credit to Reuters, AFP, AP, or any other agency. The only credit given is to NBC News. I have no evidence the footage featuring Alvin Bragg was produced by NBC News themselves, however. And as you said that footage may have been produced from elsewhere. Additionally I could not find original content credited to NBC News for the following files:

• Luigi Mangione perp walk closeup.png
• Luigi Mangione perp walk.gif

These may be kept deleted. Since the original CC-BY video may contain such copyrighted content, it should stay deleted, however Photo of Luigi Mangione.png should be restored as I have provided sufficient evidence for original authorship. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 10:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, I'll look into this later tonight when I am at home. If urgent (for some reason), feel free to ping another admin in the meantime. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 17:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I have reviewed the two links provided above and I am not fully convinced that they establish NBC News as the original author of the footage.

The second link (nbcnews.com) does not explicitly indicate the production source of the video. The "NBC logo" watermark shown there appears to be a en:station identification, which is present on essentially all videos hosted on that site, and does not in itself demonstrate that NBC shot the footage.

In the first link (YouTube), there are two videos displayed one above the other, and it is unclear whether the "NBC News" label refers to the channel branding (or aired on "NBC on [DATE]") or to the actual source of the specific helicopter footage. It is therefore possible that the label applies only to part of the clip (such as the helicopter video, since that is the video watermarked during that angle), or that it is another instance of station identification rather than an authorship credit.

Given this ambiguity, the evidence does not clearly rule out the possibility that some or all of the footage originates from third parties (for example, wire services or pooled news footage). I am therefore not fully persuaded that the file can be restored solely on the basis of the links provided.

That said, I would not object to the you or someone bringing this matter to COM:UNDEL for a second opinion, provided that this concern about the interpretation of the watermarks and source attribution is included as a counterpoint in that discussion. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe the given videos prove more than a reasonable doubt that NBC News is the origin of the footage, especially given the fact that I was not able to find any earlier evidence of this footage being posted elsewhere by any other news agency. NBC News is a professional news organization fully capable of producing such footage.

Furthermore, I have found three other short videos uploaded by NBC News on YouTube where the top right watermark is indeed used to indicate the source of the content in the video:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s93pHm_Yub8 (credits top-right various TikTok accounts)
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWu3awROF7E (credits top-right WTVJ)
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMsZbjqkkZk (credits top-right various people's names)

I believe, in the absence of any evidence that the relevant footage of Mangione was released prior to NBC News posting it, we can safely assume it was created and released by them.

If you disagree, I will post a notice on COM:UNDEL and we can discuss further there. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 20:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional context and research. I've undeleted the file in question per this. For documentation purposes, would you mind summarizing this assessment on the file's talk page? Having this reasoning recorded there would be helpful for any future deletion requests. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for undeleting the file. I have added a summary to the file talk page. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 21:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The "absence of any evidence" does not equal that presence of evidence that the footage copyright belongs to NBC. Howardcorn33 has previously also posted screenshots from the same clip which also used Reuters video, claiming that it was NBC. In other words, Howard has incorrectly posted copyrighted material claiming it was under free license.

Howard saying "no clear breakdown was provided identifying which segments originate from NBC and which do not" is a lie.

In the commons discussion, there was clear evidence provided of the full footage of Reuters video used in this NBC video. NBC used parts of Reuters video - all of which was licensed under the same license on youtube. Obviously, however, Reuters video was not licensed correctly since NBC does not have copyrights of it. In other other video does NBC freely license this footage. It is a tiktok style commentary video. The same video without this commentary is NOT freely licensed.

Howard has failed to provide any evidence that NBC has copyrights to the segment he used and that NBC intended to release that segment under free license. The initial commons decision was correct. The video and associated content need to be taken down again. Occisors (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Occisors: please do not accuse anyone of lying. We are meant to assume good faith on this website. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here between the broader NBC video and the specific segment used in Photo of Luigi Mangione.png.

It is undisputed that the longer NBC compilation video may include third-party material (for example Reuters or CCTV footage from the hotel). However, the file in question is based solely on the perp walk segment. That segment is consistently presented by NBC News as their own footage, carries an NBC News watermark, and has not been shown to originate from Reuters, AP, AFP, or any other agency.

The previously cited Reuters material concerns other parts of the same compilation video, not this specific segment.

Under Commons:Free depictions of non-free works and Template:YouTube CC-BY, the CC BY license applies to content created by the uploader (NBC), provided there is no evidence that the specific segment originates from a third party. Original research for copyright verification is explicitly allowed on Commons.

If you have concrete evidence that this perp walk footage itself was produced by Reuters or another rights holder prior to NBC’s publication, please provide a link to that source so it can be evaluated. Absent such evidence, the undeletion stands on the basis of available attribution and licensing.

I also want to note that accusing another editor of lying is not helpful here. We should focus on sources and policy, and assume good faith per COM:AGF. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your response! I cannot find the part in your links where it says that the absence of evidence of copyright holder is enough to proof that the poster of the video is the holder of copyrights.

Commons:Free depictions of non-free works says it's NOT ALLOWED to post screencaps from "YouTube videos uploaded under {{YouTube CC-BY}} by the copyright owner with contradictory licensing information in the video/description." Once again in this specific example, it has already been proven that part of that video was copyrighter by Reuters. Yet NBC has applied CC-BY license on the whole video. Therefore, it is incorrect, let alone contradictory. As I have said before, Howardcorn33 has uploaded a screencap from that Reuters clip to the commons claiming it was under free license and because it was recorded by NBC. Which was proven not to be true. Meaning that Howard does not know what they're talking about. Them saying, they couldn't find anyone else using the same video, doesn't mean anything, as they "couldn't" find the Reuters video either. And from what I have understood from previous wiki commons discussions - it's up to the poster to provide the proof of copyright. Which Howard has not. I mean, what kind of logic would that even be? Everyone would just be uploading everything to the commons without any kind of proof and then other users would have to prove them to the contrary to get copyrighted material gets removed.

According to Commons:Copyright rules we have to "Assume the most reasonable restrictive copyright barring evidence to the contrary. That is, unless the site or source itself asserts a freer set of rights (and you have good reason to believe they are not misapplying rights they do not have) assume the photographer retained all rights he legally could in his jurisdiction." This is not the case here. If anything, I have already proved that NBC has "misapplied rights they do not have" by using Reuters clip in that video and licensing it under CC-BY on youtube. Once again, no proof has been provided so far where NBC claimed the copyrights of that clip AND that they also agreed to release it under free license. And no other NBC video, which uses the same clip, is licensed under CC-BY license.

HowardCorn33 has nominated for deletion other pictures on this page, so that only his screencaps would be used, claiming that's because their image is free work, so no "non-free work" alternatives are allowed. Most recently, Howard just nominated another photo from this page for deletion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luigi Mangione Radical Sticker in Minneapolis.jpg claiming that the photo in question has "copyrighted element as central part of image; fails de minimis", however, the element in question is not in the centre, is very low quality, and takes up less than 1% of the total area of the photo (I calculated this - measuring the pixels). So it definitely meets, at the very least the de minimis.

There was recently another user (Counterfeit Purses) who was also nominating most of the photos on that page for deletion, even requesting speedy deletion – against wiki rules – all so that only Howard’s screencaps remain. They made bogus claims for deletion because they admitted that they do not like Mangione. They even defended keeping Howard’s Reuters screencap. So, clearly biased. This user has now also been indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet.

I would also like to point out that Howard threatened me with reporting on my commons user talk page after commenting here. Interestingly, Howard, mostly linked my comments to the now blocked sockpuppet – calling them “uncivil” and that I’m essentially commenting too much. They “warned” me that they’ll report me for such comments as where I ask people for sources to their claims.?? Howard says it was “uncivil” to point out that NBC doesn’t release their raw editorial footage under free license, and to ask to provide an example where they did that before. Howard/sockpuppet were not able to provide that, by the way. Mind you, the same sockpuppet requested the deletion of my uploaded photos, claiming they weren’t in public domain. When I provided multiple sources that they were, including several legal documents which included sworn under oath testimony from an official of the state law enforcement (LE), which explicitly stated that the photo in question was “in public domain”.. The sockpuppet then argued that they personally don’t think that this state LE knew what public domain was, and they meant “public access”, intentionally misinterpreting the legal documents to fit their narrative. But I am the one in the wrong for commenting and providing sources (and quoting relevant bits from said sources – that’s why my comments are so long) to defend my opinion and asking others to provide their sources when they are only relying on their opinions?

Lastly, don’t undeletion requests have to go through a specific process? And not through the user page of the reviewer? I could be wrong on this, genuinely asking for the future reference, thanks! Occisors (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I have seen your message and I will respond to all points brought up. However, I am AFK for the duration of today, and will be unable to do so until tomorrow. Of another en:WP:Talk page stalker reads this they are of course welcome to reapond before I do. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping me updated! I would like to add that Howard has now reported me to admin board for the above comment, requesting that I was blocked from Commons for things like text formatting (e.g. using bold text), and the stuff I already mentioned above. In case you also had issue with my text formatting then I explained my rationale behind it there.

(Personal, unrelated: thank you for linking en:WP:Talk page stalker page, I'm not sure if this applies here, but I still found it interesting & informative. I've used wikipedia for close to 2 decades & this is the first time I've read a funny wikipedia article. So, this was a bit of a revelation to me! :D I've also checked a few other humorous pages this page directed to, & it was fascinating to learn more about wikipedia culture & rich history this way. Thanks again!) Occisors (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

First, regarding the core issue: the undeletion concerned only the specific perp walk segment used in File:Photo of Luigi Mangione.png, not the entire NBC commentary compilation video. It is undisputed that the longer NBC video contains third-party material (for example Reuters). The question was whether there is significant doubt that this particular segment originates from NBC.

Under COM:PRC and COM:EVID, the standard is not absolute proof of authorship, but whether there remains significant doubt about the freedom of the specific content in question. In this case, the relevant evidence was:

• NBC published this segment on its own platforms (NBCNews.com and its official YouTube account), and included it in a video which they licensed under a CC BY license.
• The perp walk footage in at least one of the videos uploaded by NBC carries an on-screen "NBC News" attribution in the same location NBC uses to credit either itself or third-party sources.
• In comparable NBC short-form videos, that same on-screen position is used to credit external sources explicitly (for example usernames, affiliates, or "via Storyful"). For this segment, no such third-party credit appears.
• No contrary source has been presented showing that this exact perp walk footage was produced earlier by Reuters, AP, AFP, or another agency.

I agree with you that NBC does not always credit third-party footage perfectly, and that the presence of an NBC watermark alone is not conclusive proof. However, policy does not require certainty, only that there is no significant unresolved doubt. At present, there is no concrete evidence that this particular segment originates from a third party, while there is an explicit CC BY release by NBC for the video containing it. On balance, that was sufficient to restore this one image.

Regarding your point that "absence of evidence is not evidence of ownership": that is correct in the abstract. But here we are not dealing with total absence of evidence. We have a positive assertion of a free license by NBC combined with NBC's self-attribution of the footage in another video also published by them, and no specific contradictory attribution for that segment. Where NBC's CC BY license is clearly wrong (for example Reuters or CCTV clips), those parts must not be used. Where it has not been shown to be wrong, Commons practice allows keeping the uploader's own material per Commons:Free depictions of non-free works.

On "contradictory licensing information": that policy applies when the same segment is marked both as CC BY and, for example, "courtesy of Reuters". In this case, there is no such contradiction attached to the perp walk segment itself. The contradiction exists elsewhere in the compilation, which is why the full video cannot be kept, but it does not automatically invalidate every frame if the uploader's own content can be separated.

About the undeletion process: yes, undeletion requests are normally handled at COM:UNDEL. It is also acceptable for the deleting admin to reconsider directly when new evidence or arguments are presented, which is what happened here. Given how complex and contested this discussion has become, I would have no objection at all to this being taken to e.g. COM:AN for broader review by other admins if you or anyone else feels that is appropriate.

Finally, I want to stress that this decision was not based on trust in any individual editor, but on the evidence presented and my interpretation of Commons policy. I also ask that we keep the discussion focused on sources and policy rather than accusations about motives or behavior in other cases. Disagreement on a close copyright call does not require assumptions of bad faith.

If you can provide concrete evidence that this specific perp walk footage was produced by Reuters, Storyful, or another rights holder (for example a matching clip with clear attribution predating NBC's publication), that would change the assessment and would justify re-deletion under COM:PRC. Absent such evidence, my judgment remains that there is not significant doubt about this particular file's freedom. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for a thorough reply! So, you only linked this other NBC video as a proof of NBC holding the copyright because they have their logo on it. (This video is not licensed under CC:BY, by the way, which, in my opinion, would make it "contradictory" with another video used here)

NBC logo/watermark is there on it all throughout the video. And this video contains 3 different clips. And the NBC logo is technically not even on the clip in question from which the screencap was taken. As there are 2 clips being played at the same time. The top one - the footage of the helicopter - has the NBC logo on it. The bottom clip - from which the screencap was taken - does not.

You have stated this yourself previously and also In the first link (YouTube), there are two videos displayed one above the other, and it is unclear whether the "NBC News" label refers to the channel branding (or aired on "NBC on [DATE]") or to the actual source of the specific helicopter footage.

But now it seems that the crux of the issue, and what convinced you that the video is NBC's, is the "location" of the logo (i.e. top-right corner) and that's the only "evidence" that's been provided to prove their copyrights. (you also linked COM:PRC twice, I think it may have been a mistake because it directs me to the page for China's copyright rules, which I'm pretty sure don't apply here)

The logo is all throughout the video & I already proved that NBC just puts their logo all throughout their videos even if those videos contain third-party clips (not sure if you saw my comments below about this) So, I'd agree with your previous assessment that they're just using it as "channel branding" and not a watermark to denote their copyrights of the footage. We already established that they are not giving 3rd party credit consistently, in the first place. So, the "position" of the logo means even less, and afaik no evidence has been provided proving that NBC is using "position" of their logo intentionally to denote when when it's just "channel branding" and when it's "self-attribution" - that's just speculation based on a few selected videos by Howard.

And here are few examples proving these speculations wrong (i.e. where NBC logo used at the top-right corner, all throughout the video, doesn't mean that all the content within that video is NBC's & that they hold copyright to it OR that NBC always displays 3rd party credits at the top-corner):

• In this video NBC logo is at top-right corner all throughout the video - no credit is given to any 3rd party creators - however, at least 0:29 - 0:34 NBC displays the photo, which is Bloomberg's(Photographer: Michael Nagle) & not theirs

• In this video NBC's logo is at the top-right corner and they credit the 3rd party (Manhattan District Attorney's office) at the bottom left. The whole video is just 3rd party footage, so this proves the argument The perp walk footage in at least one of the videos uploaded by NBC carries an on-screen "NBC News" attribution in the same location NBC uses to credit either itself or third-party sources.

to be wrong. "NBC news" does not denote NBC's "self-attribution" and NBC does not use "the same location...to credit either itself or third- party sources."

• This video has tons of copyrighted pics and CCTV video, but only one is credited (at 0:47 they briefly flash Mangione's mughshot which has "PA Corrections" at the corner) - all throughout the video "WNBC" logo is the only one at the top-right corner - that location is not used to credit any 3rd parties.

• Additionally, here during live news reporting by NBC here (& not just tiktok/YT shorts compilation videos, seemingly made by their interns), NBC used the full/uncropped Reuters footage (though, uncredited), makes no sense for them to do so if they had their own footage. They posted it on their Youtube channel as well as their own website.

Lastly, as you can see from photos here and here - there were close to a hundred photographers both from the public and the media at this specific event, a lot of videos both on youtube and tiktok (and elsewhere) have since been deleted due to censorship. I think for these reasons, wikipedia requires that "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file...is properly licensed, and that any required consent has been obtained." Howard already uploaded copyrighted image once arguing the same "absence of evidence" as they are doing here again and I've proved them to be wrong - it's not a personal accusation - it's a proof why such reasoning is not appropriate and erroreus. Especially, in instances like here with thousands of videos from ~100 sources - and when search engines like google/google lens/even youtube's own search bar have become almost useless lately, thanks to AI. The proof you're asking is for someone to manually go through 1000s of videos - which can take 100s of hours - once again, a lot of Mangione videos have been deleted.

"If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied that the copyright owner has indeed released the file under the given licence." - it doesn't say anything about others having to provide such evidence against it. It doesn't mention anything about time when copyrighted material was uploaded & by whom as an indicator that the copyright belongs to that person/account. And I think there are plenty questions now that I've shown "top-right" logo hypothesis to be wrong. Which means that Howard needs to prove that NBC is copyright holder and did intend to release this particular footage under CC:BY license. Occisors (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand that this is based on your assessment of the situation and interpretation of wikipedia policies and that you suggested taking this to COM:AN for broader review by other admins as it's gotten a bit complex, but I actually thought your interpretation/arguments were sound based on the evidence you had, so I'd still like to hear your thoughts on this in the light of the new evidence about the logo placement, since, from my reading of your message - "logo location" was the main reason influencing your judgement? Plus, you familiarized with this particular situation far better than other admins would at this point.

Also, thank you for clarifying about the undeletion requests! Occisors (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I would have no issue with this being taken to review by other admins. I hope the matter can be settled one way or the other. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 16:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

First, to clarify what convinced me to undelete: it was not the NBC peacock logo or general station identifiers. As you correctly note, those appear on nearly all NBC content, including compilations with third-party material, and function mainly as branding rather than reliable indicators of authorship.

What did influence my assessment was the specific text overlay format in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evWqDQSmvNo, namely the "NBC News" text placed in the same template style NBC uses in other short-form videos to indicate the source of footage (date/location/source overlays), such as in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMsZbjqkkZk. In several comparison cases, that same format is used to credit external sources explicitly.

In https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vyqHgj7ixPM, the NBC logo is present throughout, but there is no source-specific text overlay in the date/location/source format I mentioned. The Bloomberg photo is not credited via overlay, which supports your point that NBC does not always attribute perfectly. However, this does not directly contradict the existence of a template pattern for footage attribution in cases where such overlays are used.

The https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tBO10qxLjrQ WNBC video shows "WNBC" in the top-right throughout. That reflects attribution to the local affiliate (WNBC, which is part of the NBC family but a separate entity). If WNBC failed to credit its sources there, that is a problem with that upload, but it does not by itself undermine NBC’s use of the overlay template in other cases.

You are also correct that the overlay in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evWqDQSmvNo appears on the helicopter clip in the upper frame and not on the lower split-screen clip from which the screenshot was taken. That does introduce ambiguity, and I acknowledged that earlier.

Absence of contrary evidence is not dispositive on its own. However, when combined with positive indicators such as the overlay template match, it can be sufficient to move the assessment away from "significant doubt".

I am not fully convinced that this is definitively NBC’s original footage, and your examples demonstrate that NBC’s attribution practices are imperfect. Still, based on the evidence currently presented, there is a reasonable argument that this specific segment is theirs, and not enough unresolved doubt to justify immediate re-deletion outright. I do however welcome if another admin wishes to weigh in, or if a new DR is opened just to debate this one part of the video, instead of the previous DR which involved the entire commentary compilation which made it very disorganized.

(And yes, I meant to link COM:PCP rather than COM:PRC earlier.) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so now you're talking about a specific "template/format" that NBC sometimes uses and not just location of the logo? That NBC logo within that "template" denotes their copyrights over that video because sometimes in other videos with the same template that location was also used to denote credit for the 3rd party. How does that not raise enough questions for you? I mean, you agree that NBC uses many different logos in many different locations of the video regardless of whether the video is theirs or not, and that when they do sometimes credit 3rd parties, they also use several different locations on the video to do so? So, there are countless "formats". I mean we're already not relying on the original video, which has CC:BY license - since it has no such template/format- and most of which is not actually under free license. We're relying another video witht this format, but w/o CC:BY license - using it as a derivative for the first video. That's already questionable, imo. If NBC had no issue putting CC:BY license on videos they have no copyrights of, why wouldn't they put it on this specific video, which you say they do hold the copyrights of, if it makes sense? I.e.

NBC's CC:BY licensed video = (Reuters clip) + (Alleged NBC clip) + (CCTV) + (Commentary video) + (a few other videos with questionable copyrights)

NBC's unlicensed video = (Alleged NBC clip) + (Alleged NBC clip) + (Alleged NBC clip)

The https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tBO10qxLjrQ WNBC video shows "WNBC" in the top-right throughout. That reflects attribution to the local affiliate (WNBC, which is part of the NBC family but a separate entity). If WNBC failed to credit its sources there, that is a problem with that upload, but it does not by itself undermine NBC’s use of the overlay template in other cases. I mean this video would disprove this "format/template" hypothesis, WNBC is owned by NBC, it's not "affiliate" and also this video was posted on NBC youtube channel - the same channel the video we're discussing here came from.

But anyways, here's another video that uses the exact same format, you spoke about, and shows "NBC News" at the top-right corner - all throughout the video - which you say means that video is NBC's - and yet it's not NBC's. You can see ABC is also using the same video (though, slightly zoomed in) with their own logo at the top-right corner. Meaning that both NBC & ABC are using their logos just as their "channel branding" and not to denote that they are both owners of the same footage. Occisors (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Howardcorn33 (no need to repeat everything from here onto there, since I've linked to here already). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33@Josve05a Is it possible that we're looking at "pool" video here? I'm sure there was a lot of interest in the event and it is possible that authorities limited the number of videographers. Just a thought. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Counterfeit Purses: Media reports at the time indicate the opposite. Both USA Today and NYT spoke explicitly of how publicized and high-profile the perp walk was. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Just for informational purposes, I've written to NBC News media relations team for press inquiries to ask about this as well. However, I have yet to receive a response. ticket:2026012910011384 - in case I'll get a reply back, I'll let you know. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for answering my question [1]. I figured I'd chat with you here since we're discussing the copyright status of the un-deleted image (main topic of this thread). If https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evWqDQSmvNo is not freely licensed, as you stated, then I highly doubt the use of that video's footage in the TikTok vertical vid suddenly made it copyright-free. I don't think it's up to us editors to investigate which specific parts of that TikTok vertical video is free or not, and it's better to err on the side of caution and delete it until there's official confirmation from NBC themselves that the specific parts are available for free use. If you have TikTok a YouTube account, you could reach out to the NBC channel that uploaded that TikTok vertical video and ask (or post in the comment section). Some1 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The video was already released with an explicit CC BY notice on the official NBC account. This serves as enough of an official confirmation. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 19:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you talking about TikTok vertical video? If so, that doesn't mean everything in that TikTok vertical vid is free to use; IIRC Brian Thompson's official UHG image was in that vid and it's copyrighted. The YouTube video of the perp walk (in which the TikTok account took its footage from) is not freely licensed. Some1 (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The YouTube shorts video took footage from themselves, which made that content also the same license as per the ”free depictions” link below. That part is not up for debate anywhere. The thing that’s been up to debate has been if NBC (the TikTok/youtube shorts video took creator) was the same company that took the footage to begin with. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It just seems very odd that a single screenshot is considered "free to use" while the main video where that screenshot is taken from is not. The screenshot was taken at 0:11; what about 0:10 - 0:13 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL-NSFaxnbQ&t=11s? Are those 3 seconds considered "free to use" as well? Some1 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes they are. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Howardcorn33, since you were the one who made the perp walk gif (which I thought was a good addition to the article, by the way), do you want to make a gif of those 3 seconds (0:10-0:13 which Josve05a says are free to use)? IMO, a 3 second gif is preferable to the blurry screenshot. Some1 (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Some1: I have uploaded a gif at Luigi Mangione perp walk.gif. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 21:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Some1 (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

All content provable made by NBC in that YouTube video is free. That’s the difficulty, proving the authorship of each footage. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Unless NBC News reach back and state that the CC BY release was a mistake by an employee, this should be enough as is to consider it CC BY. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 19:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Previous discussions on Commons have upheld this norm, see Commons:Free depictions of non-free works. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 19:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not true. Literally says:

"YouTube videos with copyrighted material uploaded under {{YouTube CC-BY}} by the copyright owner of the said material or its subsidiaries."

You FAILED to prove that NBC is the copyright owner of this video. It was already proven that part of this video (which you claim is fully freely licensed) is actually from Reuters and CCTV from Hilton Hotel - none of which NBC is the copyright owner of. Occisors (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The relevant standard here is not absolute proof of authorship, but whether there remains significant doubt under COM:PRC in light of the available evidence assessed per COM:EVID.

For the specific perp walk segment used, the evidence shows that NBC News has published the same footage on both its own website and in another YouTube videowith a consistent NBC News watermark placed in the position normally used by NBC to credit either itself or third-party sources. In comparable NBC uploads, that same watermark location is used to explicitly attribute footage to third parties when applicable. Based on NBC's consistent self-attribution of this segment across platforms, and the absence of any contrary source predating NBC's publication, the threshold of "significant doubt" required by COM:PRC is not met. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

There are tons of videos including the tiktok-style commentary video uploaded by Howard which do not use any watermarks neither on the alleged NBC clip, nor on the 3rd party Reuters clip. So, clearly the watermarks are not applied consistently and shouldn't be used as a definitive proof. Also, in many videos NBC puts their logo up all throughout the video, even though, in their videos they use clips that are not theirs. If this specific clip has been watermarked with NBC logo watermark in all the videos they posted then yes, I'd agree that there would be no question. But it has not been the case. Especially, since the video with "free license" used here mostly has clips that aren't NBC's - therefore most of the content from video is actually not under "free license". and according to Commons:Copyright rules we have to "Assume the most reasonable restrictive copyright barring evidence to the contrary." Lack of evidence is not "evidence to the contrary" Occisors (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

For example, here the same NBC tiktok person from Howard's video has posted another commentary video on youtube with their face on top of video footage and licensed it under free license. With NBC watermark on it - which according to your logic means that it was filmed by NBC and the copyright belongs to NBC, however, ALL underlying video/editorial footage used is not NBC's. Yet, NBC put their watermark on it. (Here's author of one ofthe videos (@tammyyyeee on Storyful/tiktok) incorrectly credited to NBC)

Therefore:

NBC does not consistently put the watermark on their own videos and it does not consistently credit 3rd party clips, AND it also puts their logo/watermark on 3rd party clips. So, having it's logo on one clip in one of their videos, is not proof that that clip is their & that they have copyright. Especially, when the same clip doesn't have their logo on it in other videos. Occisors (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

You can see even Newsweek is using the same clip here and crediting in correctly with a watermark "@tammyyyeee via Storyful", which NBC's tiktok commentary video didn't have. It only had NBC's watermark. Occisors (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Valgplakater Kobenhavn 2015jun01 0030 (18381519085).jpg

File:Valgplakater Kobenhavn 2015jun01 0030 (18381519085).jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Valgplakater Kobenhavn 2015jun01 0030 (183815… This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Metallurgical Furnace

I hereby affirm that I, Vikramjit Kakati, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Metallurgical_Furnace_in_Guwahati,_Assam.jpg

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Vikramjit Kakati

2026-02-08 Vikramjit Kakati (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Donvikro, could you please email that to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

French pictures from 1932

Hi, French pictures like this one are in the public domain both in France and in USA. French term was 58 years, so for any pictures whose author died before 1937, or for anonymous pictures from before 1937, copyright was not restored. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Gah, you know the funny thing? I've written down a cheat-list of all countries whcih did not change their duration in time for 1996, and I seem to have missed to type France down...

Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria.

I'll spend some time tonight going through my stupid DRs...sorry. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)