Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 2 timestamps • 0 reasons • 2 subpages) • 0 malformed
40 copyvios • 88 duplicates • 3 adverts • 4 selfies • 49 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Slovenian municipal coats of arms

I request review and (partial) undeletion of the files deleted as result of this request without a proper discussion. Although the request was actually mentioned by a third user in one of the unofficial communication channels of the Slovenian Wikipedia community, the requester or involved Commons administrators could have notified the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion. Since these files are actively used on the project, such a notification could have helped ensure that relevant comments were made already during the deletion discussion.

Generally, coats of arms are exempt from copyright law in Slovenia, see Template:PD-Slovenia-exempt. One might argue that some images were "independent creations" (as per the earlier discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of coats of arms of Slovenian municipalities). However, (1) it is highly debatable whether such works can be considered original if they only follow the textual description; and (2) the requester did not verify the actual source of the images. The link he cited is dead, and deleting files originating from dead links could have far-reaching consequences for the project. One of Commons’ goals is to preserve free media, and losing it due to link rot seems counterproductive. In the case of dead links, the assumption should not automatically be that the files are problematic. Fortunately, there are initiatives such as the Internet Archive that help us verify sources.

While some images indeed have come from third-party websites (which are now also dead, for example for Žirovnica), in several cases the files are direct reproductions of official heraldic acts. For example, the deleted coat of arms of Žužemberk (cached copy of the file information page) cites http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc20.html#si-zv as the source. This in turn cites Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Žužemberk, št. 8/00, which is an official municipal document. See the archived source. This is an official document, which means that in addition to the copyright exemption, it is also considered informacija javnega značaja (information of public character). Under Slovenian law, such materials must be publicly available and freely reusable, since official acts cannot be restricted by copyright in a way that prevents public access.

Therefore, even if a particular depiction were argued to be an “independent creation,” its publication within an official act places it firmly in the public domain as information of public character.


The files that should be reviewed are:
* File:Coat of arm of Hrastnik.png

I propose to:

  • Undelete the deleted files to allow the community to review them carefully on a case-by-case basis, using archived sources (e.g. via Internet Archive)
  • Subsequent edits by CommonsDelinker on Slovenian Wikipedia should also be reversed where the files are restored (see sl:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker)

Best regards, --Miha (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smihael: Maybe, it would be better to upload images that are clearly covered by the exemption and request undeletion only if the upload is prevented due to being binary identical with the deleted ones? Ankry (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So due to an overly narrow interpretation of copyright and lack of notice to the affected community, valuable files were lost and now others must dig through archives or search for alternatives to replace them. This is counterproductive — these files should be restored in good faith, and the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester and judged on an individual basis. In general, coats of arms are exempt from copyright protection in Slovenia, and the claim that these are copyrightable individual interpretations is doubtful at best, if not outright flawed... What definitely was flawed, is the deletion process itself, as it wrongly assumed that all files from a certain dead link were problematic. Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down: are we just going to delete thousands of imported images simply because their licenses are no longer easily verifiable? -- Miha (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. First, we cannot manufacture discussion. The DR was open for three and a half months. All of the uploaders were notified and no  Keep appeared there. We get about 10,000 new files every day and around 1,500 of them must be deleted. Most of this work is done by 20 Admins. We simply do not have the human resources to even think about "notifi[ng] the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion".

As for "Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down", this is why we have License Review -- so that there is a record of the license status of files that might otherwise be a problem. As far as I know, none of the uploaders requested license review for any of the files.

Also, please note that "the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester" is backward. Commons clear policy is that those who would keep a file must prove that it is either PD or freely licensed.

Finally, I examined a random dozen of the files before the deletion and found none that qualified for use on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The more pressing question is whether all coats of arms published on official pages of Slovenian municipalities are public domain or only those that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances. --TadejM (t/p) 10:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Those are in fact different legal questions, and I think we should not be conflating them.
  • First (copyright): coats of arms, when adopted as official municipal symbols, generally do not qualify for ordinary copyright protection in Slovenia — they are treated as official symbols or public emblems rather than ordinary works. The question of derivative versions is separate: such variants usually do not cross the threshold of originality, as they only follow the wording describing the coat of arms. If there are substantial differences, we should anyway avoid them to prevent confusion.
  • Second (access / source of the file): The doctrine of informacija javnega značaja (the right of access to public information) requires that documents held by public authorities — including municipal graphical identity or coat of arms files — be made accessible and reusable, unless a statutory exception applies. This principle is recognized in the Constitution (see https://e-kurs.si/komentar/kaj-je-informacija-javnega-znacaja/) and is implemented in the Access to Public Information Act (ZDIJZ). ZDIJZ applies to all state bodies, local government bodies, and related public law entities, requiring them to provide access and re-use of public information (including works created by them or acquired from others) unless specifically exempt (for example: national security, personal data protection, internal deliberations, trade secrets) regardless of the medium or format in which the information is stored. Thus, whether the coat of arms was published in Uradni list or only on a municipal website is irrelevant under access law — what matters is that the public authority holds the file and that it is not subject to a statutory exemption.
  • There remains the separate question of how the coat of arms may be used to prevent misuse. That is regulated by municipal acts (usage ordinances, design rules, prohibitions), and is separate from copyright concerns. On Wikimedia Commons, you will often see notices such as despite the copyright status, additional restrictions may apply (e.g. photos of cultural heritage, local usage rules). So potential presence of usage restrictions does not automatically invalidate a file’s eligibility on Commons as long as the file itself is not under copyright protection.
To sum up: the version of the coat of arms found in municipal materials can generally be used without issue, because it has already been published by the public authority, is publicly available, and is effectively exempt from copyright under Slovenian law. Therefore, the requester should check which of the files were sourced from official documents and at least restore those!
In my view, the first part of rationale also covers coat of arms images sourced from elsewhere: even if they are derivatives (and not mere copies of versions found in municipial documents), they typically do not cross the threshold of originality and so do not attract separate copyright. If you accept this logic, then all the files in this discussion should be restored. That said, it is of course a better policy to gradually replace them with versions directly sourced from official documents, and even better if redrawn in vector format (so quality and fidelity are improved). But that is no justification to leave the files deleted in the meantime. -- Miha (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow doubt that all municipal coats of arms are copyright exempt in Slovenia. For example, this page cites the Municipality of Grosuplje as the copyright holder. --TadejM (t/p) 10:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there are solid sources to claim that. Article 9 of the ZASP (Copyright and Related Rights Act) lists official legislative, administrative and judicial texts among non-protected creations (i.e. not covered by ordinary copyright). A study, commissioned by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency and co-authored by the Institute for Comparative Law at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, explains that although ZASP uses the term official texts, in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes to, official texts—explicitly including drawings of the state coat of arms, municipal coats of arms, flags, traffic-sign drawings, urban plans, and the anthem (see section 2.1.2 Nejasnost pojma uradna besedila, pp. 27–28).
While it's true that some municipalities (as in your example) present themselves as copyright holders, this mostly reflects a widespread misunderstanding of basic copyright principles. Many people — including public officials — are generally un(der)educated about copyright issues and often use “copyright” loosely when they actually mean that it is legally protected by special rules. Again, such claims do not override the copyright status of the works. -- Miha (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes". This would mean that only those municipal coats of arms "that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances" qualify as copyright exempt. --TadejM (t/p) 13:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so we at least agree that the municipal coats of arms, which are sourced from official sources are not protected by copyright.
I checked https://web.archive.org/web/20091208063825/http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc.html and this already concerns many deleted coat of arms. On the first page alone, I found that most of the files were indeed sourced from official acts, including:
  • Ajdovscina
  • Beltinci
  • Benedikt
  • Bistrica ob Sotli
  • Bled
  • Bloke
  • Bohinj
@TadejM Please, go through the remaining files and undelete those coming from official acts.
As for the other files, I still believe they are also unproblematic. In most cases, they likely come from official acts through intermediaries, but this is not the key issue. What matters is the official nature of the symbol, not its intermediate source. To clarify, any faithful depiction (which was as far as I can remember the case for all deleted files) of a coat of arms does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Since these symbols are not original designs, they do not qualify for copyright. -- Miha (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, other coat of arms can be easily sourced from official sources. Redirects can be made to resolve any deadlinks caused by this deletion. --Miha (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images could be undeleted if directly taken from an official document (ordinance, see e.g. Vrhnika) but not if the official document contains only a blazon. It will take time to check all of them. Regarding the threshold, these images are quite original and at least some have been designed by a professional company (Heraldika d.o.o); I'm not certain why they would fall below a TOO. --TadejM (t/p) 17:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really see a problem here. If you look again at the study I cited above, it is clear that once a coat of arms is part of an official document (including annexes to ordinances), it falls under the category of official texts within the meaning of Article 9 ZASP. That means two things: (1) they are not subject to ordinary copyright, and (2) this applies regardless of whether the drawing was created in-house or commissioned from a third party. The study itself explicitly references Copyright and Related Rights Act with a commentary by Trampuž, Oman and Zupančič. I am trying to obtain a copy of that commentary, which should clear up any remaining doubt on this point.
As for your Vrhnika example. The act you are citing above is no longer in force. The updated Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Vrhnika (13.2.02) removes any ambiguity: Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati (the coat of arms and flag cannot be copyright-protected) and that Izvirnike grba in zastave občine Vrhnika v vseh oblikah hrani Občinska uprava občine Vrhnika (the originals in all forms are kept by the municipal administration). In legal terms, that is equivalent to annex publication. Under ZDIJZ, the official source file can be requested directly from the authority and freely reused.
And even if the earlier act with the poor-quality scan were still valid, that still would not magically make faithful reproductions reach TOO. If the emblem is prescribed and published in an official act (as it is), then any accurate reproduction is non-copyright under ZASP and cannot be treated otherwise. Period. -- Miha (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What the actual ordinance really says about Vrhnika is that "Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati [po drugih osebah] brez dovoljenja občine" (the coat of arms and flag must not be copyright-protected [by other parties] without a permission of the municipality). In any case, as the image of the coat of arms was previously published in the Official Gazette, it is copyright-exempt. A similar clause is contained in the ordinance issued by the Municipality of Preddvor: "avtorske pravice si pridrži občina" (Copyright is retained by the municipality).[1] --TadejM (t/p) 09:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going through the list of deleted images and will undelete those that are exact images copied from official publications. For example, File:Trbovlje.png is an exact copy from https://www.e-obcina.si/vsebina/uradni-vestnik-zasavja-st-112015. --TadejM (t/p) 10:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now undeleted some as per the above. --TadejM (t/p) 17:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Miha (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've got access to the aforementioned commentary on copyright act. The exceprt (pp. 54-55) below discusses how the term "official text" should be interpreted and extended to include other categories.
Pojem besedila - Po vzoru Bernske konvencije zakon govori o »besedilih«, čeprav se v okviru uradnih pristojnosti in oblastvenih upravičenj pogosto objavljajo tudi druge kategorije avtorskih del, in sicer kot del uradnega besedila, kot njegova priloga ali pa samostojno (npr. dela urbanizma, kanografije, zbirke, baze podatkov). Tudi za take kategorije lahko velja, da so uradnega značaja in da je njihovo poslanstvo v čim večjem razširjanju. Z vidika njihovega namena se torej ne razlikujejo od zakonov, odločb ali drugih uradnih besedil. Temu ustrezno pojma »besedila« iz člena 9/1 tč. 2 ZASP ni mogoče tolmačiti samo dobesedno, temveč s primerno razširitvijo na druge kategorije del. Pogoj je, da gre za uradne kategorije (z vsemi značilnostmi tega pojma) ter da se taka interpretacija opravi glede na vse okoliščine primera in previdno. V dvomu bo merodajen predvsem uradni značaj dela: uravnavanja družbenih razmerij s to kategorijo avtorskega dela se ne da doseči le z uradno objavo, temveč tudi z nadaljnjim (za vsakogar) neoviranim in poljubnim reproduciranjem (Ulmer, § 30, II, 2; Schricker/Karzettberger, § 5, tč. 42).
I marked parts relavant for our discussion. Later on they discuss several examples and as already established by the aformentioned study, this also includes coat of arms. You can see that the intention of the exemption is to ensure that, among others official symbols, can be freely used and reproduced in order to fulfill their function. This supports my claim that it is the official nature of the coat of arms that matters, not where it is pusblished (in Uradni list or independently). Therefore the coat of arms from municipial sites should be fine. -- Miha (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined the first dozen of these including two that have been restored. None of them are sourced from a municipality and none of them has a correct license. Note that while CoA created by a government may not have a copyright as discussed in great detail above, those created by persons other than the government have copyrights both in Slovenia and in the USA. I see no reason why my closure of the DR was incorrect. Those files that have been restored should be deleted and this should be closed as Not Done. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín.jpg

The reason for deletion was: I don't think the original photo is in the public domain in the United States (which is required on Commons) even if it is in the public domain in Argentina. I doubt the photo even belongs to that Argentinian newspaper, so I doubt it is in the public domain in Argentina either

Also:

The photo should be PD in USA. It was published in some American newspapers during that time without author and copyright notice. For example, The Boston Globe [2] on 14 February 1984, The Evening News [3] on 13 February 1984, Standard-Freeholder on 24 December 1984 [4].

Ping @Turkmenistan and @Ur Nan123 for discussion. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo from Associated Press who publish this photo at their web site with the following credit: "Soviet Politburo member Konstantin Chernenko is seen, 1983. (AP Photo)". The location is said to be Moscow, Russia. (ap.org). Thuresson (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AP images published between 1964 and 1977 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain. By at least 1981 AP began including copyright notices on some photos.' But this one doesn't have.
I guess it should be {{PD-US-1978-89}} Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson ? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It is not possible to say for sure that this photo is public domain in the country of origin. It is probably not by an Associated Press photographer since the photographer is said to be anonymous. Thuresson (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson country of origin - you mean USSR / Russia? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be Boris Yurchenko who has worked for AP. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boris Yurchenko (Q23901745) died in 2010 so his works are not public domain in Russia. Thuresson (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But if they were produced for AP and not first published in Russia, that's irrelevant. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need to know if it was published in Soviet Union (we know it was in USA). Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo WFV04.png

I am requesting that File:Logo WFV04.png be restored to the Commons and placed under a Template:PD-textlogo + Template:Trademark license. It is a simple logo comprised strictly only of simple geometric shapes and text. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text is in the center is not a standard text font though. Abzeronow (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The text in the centre is not complex enough to be above TOO;
  2. COM:TOO Germany contains a clear example of a logo being denied protections regardless of it having stylised text
  3. It is my understanding, based on articles such as this, that Monster energy drink were denied protection in German courts for their brand's font/typeface in 2024/2025. This also shows that stylised fonts/typeface do not push a logo above TOO in Germany. The Monster font is arguably more complex/stylised than the one featured in File:Logo WFV04.png.
Based on the above, I don't think there should be an issue with restoring File:Logo WFV04.png. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG

A file that was deleted 2009 (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG). The reason given at the time was that the file is public domain in the US, but not yet in Germany. Sixteen years have passed since then, and the image is public domain since 2011. The license would need to be changed accordingly to {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} after restoration. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On Commons, the file was uploaded on 27 July 2008 and it was deleted on 19 February 2009. On en.wikipedia, it was uploaded on 19 February 2009 [5] and it was deleted on 23 July 2014, per this deletion discussion, apparently on the basis submitted by Stefan2 that the copyright holder could be the photographer, even if working for the German government. If the deletion reason of en.wikipedia is correct (or per the precautionary principle), then the photo might be under copyright in the U.S. In the meantime, another copy was uploaded to Commons on 12 September 2011, under the claim of being a work created by an employee of the U.S. government. Not sure what to make of all that. Just mentioning it so it can be addressed if necessary. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose A 1941 image must still have been under copyright in either Russia or Germany on the URAA date, so it will be under copyright in the USA until 1/1/2037. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support, NARA says this[6] "During World War II, the Wehrmacht established a propaganda section to coordinate and approve for release photographs taken by military photographers in the Wehrmacht and in Waffen-SS. This propaganda section worked under the direction of Goebbel's Ministry for National Enlightenment and Propaganda. After photographs passed censorship, they were published in military publications and or distributed to the civilian press or publication. The subject content of this series is extremely diversified. Among the subjects covered are the invasion of European countries, their occupation by the Germans, civilian life under German rule; frontline military action, German soldiers in barracks, POWs, military equipment; civilian life in Germany, bomb damage to German cities, German military leaders and officials, political leaders, soldiers decorated with medals. Just before Germany's collapse, and official in the Wehrmacht Propaganda Section who was in charge of the photographic archives, in violation of Goebbel's order that the archives be destroyed, arranged for the movement of the archives to Bavaria. There it was discovered by US Army officials. Part of the archives was destroyed and another part was appropriated by an unidentified Allied officer and was never recovered. The archives consisted of some two million uncaptioned 35mm negatives and approximately 25,000 captioned prints. In the 1960's, copy negatives and prints were made of the 25,000 prints. However, the copying of the captions on the back of the prints was not conducted consistently. Therefore, there is a large number of prints for which no captioning information is available. The original prints and negatives were returned to the Bundesarchiv." These "spoils of war" are treated as uncopyrighted in the US[7] -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is all vague and unhelpful. There is no cite to a law covering the images. Please remember (as perhaps NARA does not) that the Federal Government can and does enforce copyright on works for which it owns the copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Team Grahaa SOLARAS.png

Hello,

I request the undeletion of File:Team Grahaa SOLARAS.png.

I am Malaya Kumar Biswal M, Director of Grahaa Space, and I am the original copyright holder of this image. I hold all necessary rights to publish and distribute this file and am willing to release it under a free license acceptable to Wikimedia Commons (such as CC BY-SA 4.0).

If the deletion was due to licensing or permission concerns, I can:

Re-upload the file with a correct free license declaration, and

Provide formal permission via OTRS / VRTS if required.

The image is intended for encyclopedic use to illustrate Grahaa Space’s SOLARAS mission team, and it does not violate copyright, privacy, or promotional content policies.

Kindly advise on the appropriate steps needed to proceed with restoration.

Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaya Kumar Biswal M (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Destinus Hornet 30 au Salon du Bourget 2025 1.jpg

Also:

Hello everyone, I'm requesting the restoration of files

  1. File:Destinus Hornet 30 au Salon du Bourget 2025 1.jpg
  2. File:Destinus Hornet au Salon du Bourget 2025 1.jpg
  3. File:Maquette d'un moteur-fusée de Sirius Space Services au Salon du Bourget 2025.jpg
  4. File:Maquette du moteur-fusée Navier de Latitude sur son pas de tir au Salon du Bourget 2025.jpg, which are not models but devices. Thank you in advance. Best regards. Artvill (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the french word "maquette" appearing in several of these file names literally means "model". The Destinus drones indeed may be the actual devices, but I tend to expect that a producer of military drones would rather exhibit life-size models of his creations instead of the actual machines for security purposes. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Agreed. These are likely full size models -- much cheaper and safer than the real thing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, in this Air Show, models and reald devices are featured. ~2025-41156-70 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I am not an expert, but File:Maquette du moteur-fusée Navier de Latitude sur son pas de tir au Salon du Bourget 2025.jpg seems to be the real thing. Yann (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A full size model should look like the real thing, but we don't know what's inside. Also I note that this is highly finished and all stainless steel, which seems odd for a piece that will be used once. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: le nom du fichier dit carrément que c'est une maquette, comment une maquette peut être le vrai engin?!
Additional question: there's an article, fr:Zéphyr (fusée) providing a range for the size of the actual rocket engine. I do not recall if there were any references in the image from which one could deduce the size of the depicted device, but an engine made for a 19m rocket is quite probably larger than comfortable to fit into an exhibition stand. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Grand-Duc Le nom du fichier est une erreur : pour rappel, c'est moi qui l'ai donné. Il y a aussi une autre erreur de copier coller avec "sur son pas de tir". Quant à la taille du moteur (7 moteur sur un disque de 1,5 m de diamètre), elle est cohérente. Artvill (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honnêtement, ce n'est pas ce que j'appellerais une maquette. C'est peut-être un prototype, ou une (re)création à la même échelle, mais cela a probablement une utilité et n'a pas un nouveau droit d'auteur. Yann (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I'd like to hear the opinion of @Clindberg in regards to possible IP rights and COM:MODELS. It's about an exhibit shown at the Salon du Bourget (en:Paris Air Show). That exhibit is meant to display the propulsive subassembly of a en:small-lift launch vehicle (the fr:Zéphyr (fusée)); Artvill clarified that the device is probably at an 1:1 scale. At the moment, we don't know for sure whether it's a non-functional model, a prototype or an actual working rocket part. What are your thoughts about the image's ability to get hosted here? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore File:67 dance.webm minus violating audio

According to its list of attributions, the WP25 Anthem video for Wikipedia's 25h anniversary celebration incorporates the deleted file File:67 dance.webm. The deletion log for that file states “The background song is not under a free license”.

Since the WP25 Anthem video has its own sound track, hopefully only non-violating video from the deleted file was used, and no audio.

However, the sole attribution in the list of attributions is the link to that file (all other fields in that entry are empty). So with the file deleted, there is no more valid form of attribution, creating a licence violation (unless the original was public domain).

It would be particularly embarrassing for such a licence violation to exist in Wikimedia's own anthem video for Wikipedia's 25th anniversary celebration. Therefore it seems important to restore this file promptly, minus the offending audio.

See also the prior discussion.

Thank you for your time. – McDutchie (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the undeletion admin, if needed, I am willing to help re-uploading the video without the audio, then the original version can be revdeled. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject piece is a three second video of a boy juggling air, at about 0:27 into the WP25 video. I would just add a note in the long list of attributions that it was deleted for copyvio audio, but that the video was licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is insufficient. CC-BY-SA requires attribution, not just a mention of the licence. Unfortunately, no information except a link was in the credits for this file. We do not know who the author is, so we cannot attribute them. So, without having access to the original, the legally mandated attribution is impossible. – McDutchie (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You offer contradictory arguments -- if attribution is a problem, then we can't restore the file with or without the audio. In fact, the upload claims {{Own}} by the uploader, User:RowanJ LP, so what's the attribution problem? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand. The attribution problem is not with File:67 dance.webm. The attribution problem is in the list of attributions in File:WP25 Anthem video.webm, which uses File:67 dance.webm, but only attributes it by file name. Since File:67 dance.webm is deleted, that attribution in File:WP25 Anthem video.webm now contains no information at all, which is likely a violation of the license. – McDutchie (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recorded the video myself, I told my friend to do the 6-7 thing and I'd upload it to Wikipedia. Not only was he happy with it but it became an inside joke with my friends. I was a little devastated when I found out it was deleted but focusing on school I really couldn't do anything. RowanJ LP (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is very helpful to at least know that you are the author of File:67 dance.webm. Under what license did you originally upload the video, please? With that information we can at least amend the list of attributions and resolve some of the immediate problem. If you could re-upload it without audio, that would be even better. – McDutchie (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bruto_Mazzolani,_Borgo_di_Lierna_Lago_di_Como.jpg

Hello, this cluster of files was deleted with reason "No license since 25 February 2025":

Please consider undelete them, the right licence to add is {{PD-old-auto-expired |deathyear= 1949}}, author is {{Creator:Bruto_Mazzolani}}.--Una tantum (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If further information is needed, I can try to complete it when files will be undeleted. Una tantum (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Were any of these created after 1930? -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your question. Why it is relevant the date of 1930 for you? Una tantum (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The questions concerns the copyright status in the United States. Thuresson (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To upload on Wikimedia Commons an Italian 2D artworks in Italy, it is enought that the author died more then 70 years ago, as I did with this other file of the same artist, no additional date is required. Is it correct? Una tantum (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The licence {{PD-Art |1= PD-old-70|deathyear=1949 |country= IT}} should be better for those created after 1930? Una tantum (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Una tantum: These were deleted for lacking a source. What is the source? Also, with the source, the date could be confirmed. Yann (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found them on the web on a dealer site, but they were not dated there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The date, if not sure, should be: {{other date|before|1949}} (before the date of the death of the author). As I said, I can't found & add information without the undeletion of the files, because I'm not an admin and I can't see the original files. Una tantum (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some dates are in the items of the paintings: [8]. Una tantum (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to associate names with items or photos, but it's really hard without having access to original images and descriptions:
Laundresses in Lierna Lake Como
In the Picryl archive, there are images with dates, from Commons:
Una tantum (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:2025-09-16 La Hojilla.webm

Per {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}. La Hojilla is a Venezuelan television program produced by the state owned channel Venezolana de Televisión. The Labor Law of Venezuela states that works produced under the public sector are considered public domain. See also the related discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:2022-08-02 Sesión Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela.webm.

I probably forgot to add the license when I first uploaded it, my apologies. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The web site for VTV has:

"Copyright © 2018-2024 vtv Venezolana de Televisión. Todos los derechos reservados."

While it is entirely possible that that notice is in error, it raises a significant doubt over the PD status of their work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Could you kindly link the URL? The disclaimer can also be for content posted in the website, such as news articles, but not for the content aired in television, like stated in the Venezuelan law ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}}). --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the article, La Hojilla, describes the show but does not tell us whether it is produced by VTV or simply carried by them with production by someone else. It would be usual for the stars of a popular show to have a production company that creates the show. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bitchute Image.svg

According to en:File:Bitchute Image.svg, I doubt the logo is copyrighted in the UK under the new Threshold of originality: Are the "BIT" part or the "C" part do have enough "author’s own intellectual creation"? It would be good to have some explanations here. --Saimmx (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azerbaijani in Perso-Arabic, Latin, and Cyrillic.png

@Kadı: It's not a "duplicate", look closer. The Nastaliq fonts, Latin fonts, and Cyrillic fonts have been completely changed and revamped for added consistency and visual appeal. I really would have preferred to simply overwrite the existing file with my current image, but for some reason this is no longer permitted. I was affiliated with and helped the person who made the original image you reinstated (Muhafiz-e-Pakistan), and he has since been banned. Either restore the file I made or help me overwrite the existing file. Kindly, ThatDohDude (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Beatles - Abbey Road 0.9.jpg

This file was not a copyright violation. The work was published simultaneously in the United States and the UK without a copyright notice. Thus it can be tagged with both {PD-US-no notice} and {Simultaneous US publication|country1=United Kingdom|publication year=1967/1969/1970}. See the discussion on English Wikipedia here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aplucas0703 (talk • contribs)

    • Actually not exactly! Since it was published simultaneously in the United States and the United Kingdom, for the purposes of Commons, it isn't any more a UK photo than a US one. Commons treats photos published simultaneously in the United States as if it was first published in the United States. For this reason, the file doesn't have copyright protection. Aplucas0703 (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose First, this is an upload which is claimed to be Own Work, which is obviously not the case. The eBay version cited in the WP:EN discussion has no notice on either the slipcase or the disc. That strongly suggests to me that it is a British version. It is possible that the American slipcase was created without a copyright notice, but absolutely unbelieveable that the songs on the disc are PD No Notice. If we therefore assume that the eBay offering is a UK version, the absence of the copyright notice on the slipcase is inconclusive. That also raises the question -- I doubt there is case law on this -- that the two versions, while published simultaneously, were not identical and therefore the rules on simulataneous publication do not apply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, per discussion. Thuresson (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ross Ulbricht passport photo.jpg

Passport photos, while taken by a third party, are taken to government specifications and may not meet the "threshold of originality" that would allow a copyright in the name of the person operating the shutter or the company providing the service--Trade (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The fact that the government specifies a size and a plain background does not limit the creativity of the actual photographer. Most formal portraits are made to a specified size with a background chosen by the subject. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jose Moran Urena CAP Portrait v2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I believe the criteria was applied too broadly in this case, as the image is a formal uniformed portrait taken in the context of participation in Civil Air Patrol, a congressionally chartered auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force. The file was intended solely for use in an encyclopedic biographical context and not as a casual personal photograph or for self promotion. JoseMoranUrena (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We do not keep images of persons unless either they are significant contributors, who may post images for their user page, or notable people. Jose Moran Urena does not appear to be either. Also, as noted above, this is a small formal uniformed portrait, so I doubt the claim that it is a selfie. The user has uploaded several blatant copyright violations. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other points you mention are reasonable, however, “blatant copyright violations” shouldn’t be used as a basis for this undeletion decision, as the file in question does not contain any copyrighted material. JoseMoranUrena (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read COM:Licensing. The photograph is copyrighted unless it was taken by a Federal photographer, in which case your claim that you were the actual photographer is false. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, Wikimedia user's own photo, subject is not a significant contributor. Thuresson (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Oussama Batouche.png

Hello,

I request to keep my personal profile protrait and not delete it.

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oussamabatouche (talk • contribs) 08:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose See COM:SCOPE:

" However, the uploading of small numbers of images for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project."

Since this image is your only contribution to Commons, it does not qualify. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Undelete File:বিডিআর কল্যাণ পরিষদ, গোপালগঞ্জ.jpg

I would like to formally request the restoration of File:বিডিআর কল্যাণ পরিষদ, গোপালগঞ্জ.jpg. This file was deleted citing 'Copyright violation' and being 'above the Threshold of Originality (ToO)'.

I believe the deletion was premature for the following reasons:

Distinct Elements: Although the logo shares some themes with the general BDR monogram, it is a specific insignia for the 'BDR Welfare Council, Gopalganj.' It contains unique text and design features that differentiate it from the file cited by the admin (File:Bangladesh Rifles monogram.png.)

Clarification Needed: I reached out to the deleting administrator for clarification on the specific similarities and the '3D effect' issue, but the response I received was vague and did not address my concerns.

Willingness to Correct: If the file is restored, I am fully committed to updating the metadata. I am willing to list it as a 'Derivative work' and apply the correct licensing tags as per Commons policies.

I request you to restore the file so that I can make the necessary corrections to bring it into compliance with Wikimedia Commons guidelines. Thank you for your time and consideration. --BDR Welfare Council Gopalganj 1 (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this image fall within our project scope? Your global account standing would appear questionable so using the image on other wikis is unlikely. Herby talk thyme 11:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The fact that is different and more complex than the the other logo argues against restoring it. It is clearly above the Threshold of Originality anywhere in the world. It cannot be older than Bangladesh's founding in 1971, so it is still under copyright in Bangladesh (Publish + 60 years). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=1120634274"