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: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
106 copyvios • 190 duplicates • 47 selfies • 17 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

File:The Route.jpg

The user had contacted VRT users before (see: {{RaftFilms Permission}})

Not sure but as far as I can remember these two images had been published on Commons for the first time so netcopyvio is not valid.

Hanooz 18:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support {{RaftFilms Permission}} appears to be valid and is present on the first file, so this deletion seems to be a mistake. As far as I can see, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem with the other two. Note that the copyright watermark in File:Taghi Rahmani.jpg must remain -- from the text of the CC-BY license:

Section 3 – License Conditions.
Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions.
a. Attribution.
1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
A. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:
....
ii. a copyright notice;
....

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS images

Images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) were once non-free many years ago, but are now under CC-BY (https://www.sdss.org/collaboration/#image-use). SDSS images that were deleted in the past should be restored.

Note that SDSS is different from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), which allows non-commercial use only; see Commons:Village pump#Digitized Sky Survey. There seems to have been confusion between DSS and SDSS in some old deletion requests, so some of these images might still be non-free.

Deletion requests found with "SDSS", there are surely more:

SevenSpheres (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Although I  Support this line of reasoning, note that we must verify that each image is currently posted with the new license. Any images that do not exist on the current site have only the old license and must remain deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the relevant part, not the part about the SDSS website: All SDSS data released in our public data releases are considered in the public domain. So SDSS image data is in the public domain actually, not CC-BY. That includes, for example, the SDSS data available through Aladin, which I think is the source of most of these images. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They also told Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We provide all images on a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) in there website Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Jameslwoodward), I did a google search on "have Sloan sdss images always been public domain".
Annoyngly, google now seems to use AI to summarize and try to interpret results, meaning I couldn't link to it. More annoyingly, the same search provides a slightly different answer, each time. But, one time, it provided an explanation for why some of its earliest images were not (immediately) considered "free". In its earliest years, as a courtesy to researchers, images were not made available under a free lisence, right away, so researchers wouldn't worry about being scooped, until after they published their paper. Once the grace period was over, and researchers were presumed to have had time to publish their papers, then all images were considered free. If I understood what it was saying, all images uploaded to their official website are considered free, even from the early years, when their mages were not initially free. Those initially unfree images weren't supposed to be uploaded to their website, until the grace period had passed.
If I understood it, any non-free images someone here acquired, through industrial espionage, or a leaker, would now be considered free, because the grace period expired over fifteen years ago. Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. Before 2017, SDSS images were under a non-commercial license. In 2017 this was changed to a free license. Compare the old SDSS image use page with the current page, and see the old update to the Commons category and undeletion request from that time. There was certainly no "industrial espionage, or a leaker" involved here. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, SDSS images are in public domain Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orelha (Cão).png

See also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2026-02#File:Orelha (Cão).png.

@Yann: This AI image can be used to illustrate pt:Caso do cão Orelha. It was widely used in the media, and it was deleted before we knew it was AI generated: "Foto do Orelha, usada por imprensa e famosos, é falsa e gerada por IA" (The photo of Orelha, used by the press and celebrities, is fake and generated by AI)... And @Thuresson: in case you didn't see, the discussion you mentioned isn't even finished yet (update: It's finished and the article has been kept). Also, pt:Orelha (cão) and pt:Caso do cão Orelha are two different pages. heylenny (talk/edits) 20:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Heylenny: First, you declared that YOU are the original author of the image; that false declaration is serious violation of policy. Second, Own work declaration is accepted in Commons ONLY for unpublished works; for anything else that is used eg. in the net the uploader is REQUIRED to provide a free license EVIDENCE, not a free license DECLARATION. Third, as Yann is not Portuguese Wikipedia editor, his opinion whether Portuguese Wikipedia users prefers AI-generated image over a real image is irrelevant. It is up to you to provide evidence of such consensus. Ankry (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: Where, exactly, with evidence, do I say that "[I am] the original author of the image"? I did not say that and did not even upload it. Also, when the image is undeleted, the "author" and "permission" must be corrected using the {{PD-algorithm}} template, as I said before. heylenny (talk/edits) 18:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my mistake, it was declared "Own work" by the uploader not by you.
|source=Own work
|author=110280Andre
and here attemted to grant a license on-wiki:
== Licensing ==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
Anyway, we have no valid license at the moment. Ankry (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The valid license is {{PD-algorithm}}: "This file is in the public domain because it is the work of a computer algorithm or artificial intelligence and does not contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim."! heylenny (talk/edits) 18:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I have to believe that if this AI creation looks enough like the real dog to be useful, creation must have required carefully worded lengthy explicit instructions. Commons and the case law have not yet fully defined when an AI image has required enough specific instructions to be over the ToO, but this surely is a case where {{PD-algorithm}} does not apply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have precedents, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Gaza.webm, showing that the idea that a "carefully worded, lengthy prompt" automatically exceeds the ToO is not established consensus. Those files were way more complex, commercially produced, and of known authorship, yet it was kept under {{PD-algorithm}}. By contrast, the Orelha dog image depicts an extremely common type of dog in Brazil and does not appear to require any particularly sophisticated or highly creative prompt. heylenny (talk/edits) 18:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miklavž na Dravskem polju.png

The image of the coat of arms has been published as part of an official text (see [1]) and thus meets the criterion at COM:NOP Slovenia exempting from copyright "municipal coats of arms" that have been published as part of official texts. --TadejM (t/p) 16:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The cited page has "© 2022 Lex Localis" and Section I, Articles 2 and 3, of the decree have a variety of restrictions that amount to an ND license. There is nothing like a free license there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Lex localis nor the municipality can claim copyright on materials that are exempted from copyright per the Slovenian legislation (cited on COM:NOP Slovenia). --TadejM (t/p) 13:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The act mentions explicitly only text of legal acts, not images. Ankry (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion directly contradicts COM:NOP Slovenia, which is based on scholarly sources. --TadejM (t/p) 21:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I would trust COM:NOP Slovenia and what a Slovenian would say about their country's laws. Abzeronow (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bonn Zoological Bulletin

For example:

The journal is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License per https://zoologicalbulletin.de/content-policy. --Geohakkeri (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per nom Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 16:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:1350balkans.png

Map was accidently misunderstood as EU5 map while it wasn't.

Person that deleted the map apologised. Full discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneZeta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polserb (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there the youtube video and the reddit post if different need to be under a free license, and I explained how to do that. However given that the comments there unanimously point out its inaccuracies, I'm undecided - it's very hard to map everything accurately, as even if modifications were made there might be further issues (and I can't view that deleted file, but the reddit post turned up as an exact match). HurricaneZetaC 23:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to point that reddit post is about year 1337, while map presented year 1350 with Serbian Empire at it's peak and several border differences so some of mistakes mentioned are off. I can eventually change map style and fix incorrect border and then upload it as new file. I am just unsure is that allowed Polserb (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Files deleted by Minorax

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: At Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06#Requesting a Large-scale Courtesy Deletion of Personal Images of Myself several admins had responded and nobody was concerned about this. Greg said I have a hobby where I meet (take photos and get signatures) various "celebrities" of film, TV, music, sports, etc. there.

He could have used a tripod, which wouldn't be too far-fetched if you're going places specifically to take photos with celebrities. Even if someone else triggered the shutter, it's likely a case of m:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership#The Example of the Third Party Photographer (in a nutshell: human tripods don't get copyright).

 Oppose But most of the time the person who pushes the button gets the copyright, see m:Talk:Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership#Disagreement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Greg2600. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Afghanistan (variant used in protests).svg and File:Flag of Afghanistan (Another Variant used in protests).svg

  1. Did the files directly state any author that actually owns the design?
  2. The IP user in particular also tried to delete File:Flag of Afghanistan (1978–1980).svg, File:Flag of Afghanistan (1974–1978).svg, and File:Flag of Afghanistan (1987–1992).svg due to it being under 50 years for {{PD-Afghanistan}}. By that logic, won't File:Flag of Afghanistan (2004-2013).svg and File:Flag of Afghanistan (2013-2021).svg be deleted as well? Or are defunct countries not included.

If I am unable to get the file undeleted, I hope that at least I could get it emailed to to my email address as I swear I read somewhere that it was an option until it got deleted?

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/74.98.226.71 as my source, sorry for not linking it before :( GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The uploader is a problematic contributor and the file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Afghanistan (Another Variant used in protests).svg. Thuresson (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sinn Sisamouth.jpg

So, a discovery I made on COM:Village Pump/Copyright#Are the CC licenses of these Youtube videos valid? (Sinn Sisamouth) is that the official verified account of Sinn Sisamouth on Youtube has released several videos under CC licenses, here is all from around the time of the file's deletion to the present:

You may notice 2 things, 1 is that the photo of Sisamouth is in these videos, and 2 being that not all recent videos were placed with CC licenses.

This leads me to the conclusion that these licenses were placed on purpose, and that it's plausible that the original uploader was telling the truth when they said they got permission from the Sinn Sisamouth Association, an NGO, to upload the original file. We were just unable to verify that being the case because it didn't go through VRT (and, in fact, trying to contact the SSA or now the CVMA has been fruitless).

If the preceding isn't enough to establish that the copyright holders intended to place this version of Sisamouth's portrait under a CC license, then the other rationale would be that the file is a free depiction of a non-free work and would still qualify for undeletion.

Here is the original DR for reference. TansoShoshen (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We don't guess at the intentions of people who hold files. All we know is that the Association has licensed a few files.

Also, the Association may have a license to use the image, but the Association is very unlikely to actually have the right to freely license the image as required here -- that right almost always remains with the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward The Association, are in fact the copyright holders for at least several media in regards to the artists they archive, including Sinn Sisamouth. In fact, it took petitioning for the copyright of some songs to be awarded to Sisamouth's family. In regards to the photo, there was no copyright law at the time of creation, which is why we see this photo used on album covers and other marketing material. Post Khmer-Rouge, the photographer like many Cambodians are likely dead, and the copyright of the photo (once that became a thing), along with the songs, passed to the SSA (you can find copyright notices for an album cover among this abandoned blog they maintained), which would later merge into the CVMA. TansoShoshen (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright to the photo would not have passed to anyone except the photographer's statutory heir(s) unless the photographer left a will. If there was a will, then the heir to the copyright would have been named in it. I see no reason why we should assume that this unknown photographer left a will and named the Association. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward That is factually incorrect. Article 19 of Cambodia's law on copyright and related rights includes:
In case of having no heir, this right will be subjected to the administration and governance of the state represented by the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts.
Given the nature of when and how this particular file was made, it would be very strange for copyright law to work with statutory heirs and wills when the vast majority of copyright holders of fine arts were deliberately killed and their heirs either also killed or displaced.

Like mentioned above, it took petitioning for the heirs of Sisamouth to receive the right of copyright. In a similar vein, the Cambodian Music Vintage Association (CMVA) has clearly received the copyright of plenty of Sisamouth's media from the MCFA, including album covers as seen from the blog of their predecessor, the SSA. TansoShoshen (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That may all be true, but it remains to be proven that (a) the Association has actually freely licensed this image and (b) that the Association actually has the right to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward In the aforementioned copyright page for the CMVA, the exact wording used in the headers of the release documents from the MCFA are "...សិទ្ធិគ្រប់គ្រងមរតកសាសន៍បទចម្រៀង..." and "...សិទ្ធិគ្រប់គ្រងមរតកសាសន៍របស់កាកាងចម្រៀង..." which roughly translates to "the right to manage the legacy/heritage of songs", which does imply that the copyright of album covers were also transferred over. Again, their predecessor, the SSA, have claimed copyright via copyright notice over visual material, and the original uploader to Commons claimed permission was granted by the SSA despite lack of contact with VRT.

In regards to (a), CC licenses applied to Youtube videos apply to the whole video, both audio and visual for the content that is either created or granted, i.e. not a reaction or compilation of someone else's work. By applying the license, the specific use case of the photo in question is applied. If you are to not believe the original uploader to Commons, then this would fall under Category:Free depictions of non-free works.

Now there's something that made my heart sank when I saw. Earlier today, @Tchaikovsky1 uploaded a file with the EXACT same name as the one that is of topic as this undeletion request. It was SD by @Yann a few hours later. But this leaves me with the concern of if the original, pre-Tchaikovsky1 upload be undeleted in the event that I am able to convince y'all of the copyright status? I was the original one behind the DR, I remember the file being higher resolution than most on the internet, at least at the time. TansoShoshen (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Tchaikovsky1 upload is a slightly better version of the same photograph, so it would probably be the one to be kept. However, again, we have a photograph by an unknown author. The copyright may or may not have passed to his heirs and may or may not have passed to the Cambodian government and thence possibly to the Association. The Association may or may not have freely licensed it. Unless someone can dig out the paper trail -- any copyright transfer requires a written document -- for the four transfers here, I don't see any way we can say that this is free beyond a significant doubt as required by PCP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Blockhaj

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Listed files were deleted due to incorrect self-licensing, despite being in public domain. This mass deletion (see: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Blockhaj) was 7 years ago. I (the uploader) was at the time young, inexperienced, depressed, among more, and thus never got around to fixing their licenses, and thus they where deleted. Today, this is an easy fix. Blockhaj (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please list the correct licence for each file? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused Since i cannot see the images, i can only estimate based on memory and name. In order:
Blockhaj (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Insignia-Sweden is a redirect to Template:Insignia, which does not confer any copyright status upon the article
The first and last two items are presumed to be fully copyrighted because you have not provided proof of free licencing Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused The last two motifs already exist on commons: File:Flygvapnet vapen bra.svg. The insignias would probably be given CC 4.0. Compare with the most recent offical Swedish government files: File:Vapen för Myndigheten för civilt forsvar - Riksarkivet.jpg. Blockhaj (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Blockhaj: then they do not need to exist for a second time Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is conventional to have several stylistic variations of coats of arms, some quick examples: Category:SVG coats of arms of Sweden, Category:Coats of arms of Småland (File:Ekobrottsmyndigheten vapen bra.svg, File:Ekobrottsmyndigheten vapen.svg)
The existing Swedish Air Force COA is infamously ugly, and im working on a new svg for it, however, i still want this deleted version for legacy reasons. The specific round type, File:Svenska flygvapnets vapen vid FMV.png does not exist already. It was part of a group of three, together with: File:Svenska armens vapen vid FMV.png, File:Svenska marinens vapen vid FMV.png Blockhaj (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo, as the deleter, do u have a comment? Blockhaj (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that you are not the original photographer. So real source is needed for photos: where did you take them? Original photographer's name would be good, although this is not necessary. Creation year and first publication data are needed to confirm, that the license applies. And here your words are not enough, more evidence for creation year and publication year are needed. Why do you think, that the photos are not created in 1980s and still copyrighted? Taivo (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Hong Kong (Black Bauhinia with wilted petals variant).png

This file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion of redundant raster files.

However, the deleted file contained part of the historical licensing trail and attribution context related to the Black Bauhinia flag files. Since the licensing history of these files was already complex and discussed in earlier deletion discussions, restoring the file page (even if the file itself remains unused) may help preserve the licensing chain and documentation.

Could the file page or file be restored for documentation purposes?

JaydenChao (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:AleksanderAndryszak.jpg

These deserve a second look, they were deleted in a concerted effort using multiple accounts targeting Polish history. The accounts were SPAs either nominating the images or trying to get the uploaders banned or blocked. They appear to have concentrated on people who opposed the Soviet occupation of Poland.

Taking a second look at the first file, File:AleksanderAndryszak.jpg. The source is found here: https://bs.sejm.gov.pl/F?func=direct&local_base=ARS10&doc_number=000007524 . The file was deleted based on supposed copyright violation. On what basis should we undelete the image? It has not been deleted based on political reasons. Ellywa (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images published prior to May 23, 1994 in Poland were not copyrightable unless accompanied by a copyright notice. The website has images taken from internal passports and Communist party membership registration cards, from the 1960s to the 1980s. None of the IDs carry a copyright notice. --RAN (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rapper Woodie Smalls 2026 recent picture.jpg

This is a recent picture of rapper Woodie Smalls in 2026 shared on his official instagram why is this being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donsvito (talk • contribs) 22:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Obvious copyright violation. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not done deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rapper Woodie Smalls 2026 recent picture.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salweyn-cairn-standing-stones.png

Hi, the file File:Salweyn-cairn-standing-stones.png was deleted for no reason. The source of the file comes from: https://landofpunt.wordpress.com/salweyn-cairn-standing-stones/. Originally, it was a screenshot of the original photo from the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, credited to: British Institute in Eastern Africa Digital Archives: Somalia British Institute in Eastern Africa, Neville Chittick, 2024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5284/1117728. Under the CC BY 4.0 license, it is allowed to screenshot, copy, and adapt the material. There is no reason for the deletion of this file, and I request that it be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshax (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Note that the file was deleted primarily because we did not believe that the uploader was the actual photographer as they claimed. That disbelief is confirmed at https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/collections/view/object.cfm?object_id=2604345, where the image is licensed as noted above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Jim. @Shahanshax: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alois Vladislav Vraný (1851-1907) portrait (ChatGPT enhanced).png

Deleted because unused, but only 25 percent of all images are ever used. The rule was to include AI enhanced images if correctly marked as such, and paired with the prompt image. The images document the software, flaws and all. In a year the software will change and we should have images documenting its output now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support While I would agree with the deletion if the changes were subtle, this AI work turns a "usable only if nothing else is available" image into one that is good for use, with the note that it is AI enhanced. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Prospectprospekt

17th December 2024 discussion: the arguments for deletion (of Vintage Chinese movies) were mistaken.

Those files were deleted because of Article 11, Paragraph 4 of 1991 law, irrelevant to determine the lenghth of the protection of a cinematographic work:

At the time of the URAA date, Chinese copyright law said that "The citizen, legal person or entity without legal personality whose name is indicated on a work shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be deemed to be the author of the work."

This is not true: those are movies of the Republican era, most of those of the thirties. The ROC 1928 copyright law had no specification for movies, but the ROC 1944 copyright law did. Article 9: 10 years after date of registration.

Assuming all those movies were registered, that makes all of those movies PD by 1950, far before URAA arrived.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, Article 21 of the 1991 Copyright Law explicitly states:

电影、电视、录像和摄影作品的发表权、使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为五十年，截止于作品首次发表后第五十年的12月31日，但作品自创作完成后五十年内未发表的，本法不再保护。

Translation: "For cinematographic, television, video and photographic works, the term of protection for the right of publication, the right of exploitation and the right to remuneration shall be fifty years, expiring on December 31 of the fiftieth year after the first publication of the work. However, any such work that has not been published within fifty years after its creation shall no longer be protected by this Law."
I don't understand why the files were deleted.
TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peng Dehuai (1948).png

Mistakenly deleted because of alledged URAA restoration: This picture was made in 1948 under the 著作權法 (民國33年) [Copyright Law of the Republic of China (1944)]:

Photographs and Sound Recordings were protected for 10 years after publication, and alternatively (I can't check who and where was the picture made) Corporate or Official Works had 30 year copyright after publication. Assuming the "most protective case" (Official work, which maybe it's not) that means copyright expired by 1979, far before URAA could restore anything.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xu Beihong yugongyishan.jpg

Paiting (apprently, made in 1939) by an author who died in 1953. Mistakenly deleted because of alledged URAA restoration: This picture was made under the 著作權法 (民國33年) [Copyright Law of the Republic of China (1944)]:

General Works (Individual Author) were protected for 30 years death of author, that means copyright expired by 1984, so it was PD far before URAA could restore anything.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zhang Zhixin younger.jpg

Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peng Dehuai (1948).png and others: Mistakenly deleted because of alledged URAA restoration: Can't check when exactly was this photo made, but Zhang Zhixin was born in 1930, and if she was young when the photo was made, it felt under the 著作權法 (民國33年) [Copyright Law of the Republic of China (1944)]:

Photographs and Sound Recordings were protected for 10 years after publication, and alternatively (I can't check who and were was the picture made) Corporate or Official Works had 30 year copyright after publication. Assuming the "most protective case" (Official work, which maybe it's not) that means copyright must had expired before 1996 and before URAA could restore anything.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:台灣 阿里山林業鐵路 DPC柴聯車.jpg

Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peng Dehuai (1948).png and others: Mistakenly deleted because of alledged URAA restoration: Can't check when exactly was this photo made, but if made in Taiwan, it must had felt under the 著作權法 (民國33年) [Copyright Law of the Republic of China (1944)]:

Photographs and Sound Recordings were protected for 10 years after publication, and alternatively (I can't check who and were was the picture made) Corporate or Official Works had 30 year copyright after publication. Assuming the "most protective case" (Official work, which maybe it's not) that means copyright must had expired before URAA could restore anything. Also, Taiwan did not change the copyright length of the 1928/1944 law until the 1985 revision, so it's very likely the 10 year term had expired by the time URAA arrived to the island.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Likely, File:林絲緞人體攝影.jpg should also be restored by the same rationale TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Several Chinese pictures

Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peng Dehuai (1948).png and others: Mistakenly deleted because of alledged URAA restoration: All of those were made before 1991 (and most of it, before 1949) so it must had felt under the 著作權法 (民國33年) [Copyright Law of the Republic of China (1944)]:

Photographs and Sound Recordings were protected for 10 years after publication. That means copyright must had expired before URAA could restore anything.

Files affected:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:大音乐家马思聪.jpg: The discussion says it was made 1947, clearly under 1928/1944 law and PD by 1957.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:岸信介拜會嚴家淦院長(朱正祺攝).jpg: Unknown date, probably PD before 1996.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:李俊仁肖像.png: Same case as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:王炳南.jpg: Same case as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:穿制服的少女 (陳敬輝, 1940年代左右).jpg: title says 1940, cleary PD by 1951 (or 1971 if official work)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:黃炳松肖像.jpg: unknown date, likely candidate to be restored.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣經國特使覲見泰王.jpg: Same as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣桂琴肖像.jpg: Same as above
File:Puyi's sister Reginald Fleming Johnston in Kew.jpg: from the 1930s. If it was an official work, then PD before 1970, if just a picture, PD by 1950 the latest.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong in Xibaipo.jpg: Likely made in 1948-early 1949, so PD by 1960.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maozedong.jpg: Unknown date, likely to be PD.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:大澳橫水渡 WKYP 19620429.png: Same as above.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Desheng 1952.jpg: Made in 1952, PRC did not have a Constitution until 1954, so I'm assuming 1928 law still is valid.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Ailing 1954.jpg: Made in 1954, same rationale as above (depends on what was before, Constiution or pic).
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enlai-Yingchao (1963).jpg: Made in 1963, but PRC had no copyright law of its own, under same rationale: PD by 1974.
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1958 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1959: Even if made during PRC, the 1928-1944 copyright law was never substituted.

There are many more cases, I'll check it out.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Lee Shiau-Shiuan

Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peng Dehuai (1948).png and others: Mistakenly deleted because of alledged URAA restoration: All of those were made before 1991/2002 (and most of it, before 1960) so it must had felt under the 著作權法 (民國33年) [Copyright Law of the Republic of China (1944)]:

Photographs and Sound Recordings were protected for 10 years after publication. That means copyright must had expired before URAA could restore anything.

Apparently the author moved to Taiwan, where the 1964 reform did not change any term; so same law applied until 1985 when either 30 years from publication or life+50 was introduced.

Anyway, the newest of the pictures has 1966 as date: under the 1928/1944 copyright laws, a picture has 10 years of copyright protection since it was published. That makes all pics PD by 1976, 9 years before the 1985 reform changed copyright rules (if following Taiwan laws) and 15 years before the PRC had a copyright law of its own (20 full years before the alledged URAA restoration date).

So, undelete.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This directly contradicts Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_T#Taiwan which says that any photograph after 1951 is subject to the URAA. We do not debate Commons guidance here. If you want this restored, you must first discuss the issue at the Village Pump and wait for the guidance to be changed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for the guidance to be changed. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kellieevertswash1.jpg

I am requesting undeletion of this image, as I believe this deletion was done in error. Explicit permission was in fact given in the source itself, if the person requesting deletion had bothered to actually read the source:

http://embodimentofgod.com/college-of-god-love/fatima-speech-in-front-of-the-white-house-june-16-1978/

Thank you for your consideration 😊 Ajax151 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Fair use is not allowed on Commons. Copied from the Internet, no permission. The source mentions "© The University of MotherGod Church 2026. Bogus CC license. Given that this is from the US, it might be in public domain if published without a copyright notice, but that has to be proved with evidence. Yann (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from [8]. Yann (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The article text is CC-BY-4.0, but the images are "Images FAIR USE by Kellie Everts aka Rasa Von Werder". It is evident that the writer did not have the right to freely license the images and Fair Use is unacceptable here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that at least one image from this site has a completely bogus CC-0 license -- see Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Humping Iron", Kellie Everts, May 1977.jpg where it is completely clear that the subject cannot give a free license for an image that appeared in Playboy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kellieevertswash2.jpg

I am requesting undeletion of this image, as I believe this deletion was done in error. Explicit permission was in fact given in the source itself, if the person requesting deletion had bothered to actually read the source:

http://embodimentofgod.com/college-of-god-love/fatima-speech-in-front-of-the-white-house-june-16-1978/

Thank you for your consideration 😊 Ajax151 (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Fair use is not allowed on Commons. Copied from the Internet, no permission. The source mentions "© The University of MotherGod Church 2026. Bogus CC license. Given that this is from the US, it might be in public domain if published without a copyright notice, but that has to be proved with evidence. Yann (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from [9]. Yann (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kellieevertswash3.jpg

I am also requesting undeletion of this image as well, as I believe this deletion was also done in error. Explicit permission was in fact given in the source itself, if the person requesting deletion had bothered to actually read the source at the URL given:

http://embodimentofgod.com/college-of-god-love/fatima-speech-in-front-of-the-white-house-june-16-1978/

(Also, I do realize the poor choice of words in my description as well. If and when you undelete it, please also remove the words "fair use" from the description as well, as my errant use of such superfluous, redundant, and imprecise language apparently red-flagged it for deletion.)

Thank you for your consideration 😊 Ajax151 (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Fair use is not allowed on Commons. Copied from the Internet, no permission. The source mentions "© The University of MotherGod Church 2026. Bogus CC license. Given that this is from the US, it might be in public domain if published without a copyright notice, but that has to be proved with evidence. Yann (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from [10]. Yann (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:William Bond (author).jpg

With all due respect, this picture was NOT a candidate for speedy deletion. It was removed far too hastily and abruptly without a good enough reason to justify doing so, and in any case was IMHO deleted in error. This image had no copyright whatsoever to my knowledge, and IIRC was simply a photo of the subject William Bond himself who freely shared it. The person who nominated it for deletion it lumped it together with a bunch of other items in their hasty deleting spree, apparently. Please undelete it, at least long enough for it to go through the normal discussion process. Thank you for understanding 😊 Ajax151 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Copied from the Internet, no permission. --Yann (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Almost everything has a copyright until it expires. The copyright for this recent photograph has certainly not expired. It might be freely licensed, but since you did not give any source except "Online", we have no way of checking that. The speedy deletion was entirely appropriate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Retrato Oficial Presidente Kast Rist.jpg

This now appears on the Chile's government website so it should be allowed in the public domain.

https://www.gob.cl/en/institutions/presidency/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by VegetableVedo (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The portrait has been the subject of a somewhat lengthy discusion at the Spanish Wikipedia at es:Discusión:José_Antonio_Kast#Clarificación_sobre_retrato_oficial which even resulted in the article being fully protected. In short, the portrait was taken by Víctor Burgos for the Office of the President-Elect (OPE) before he took office and Burgos or the OPE (or whoever was in charge of Kast's team) are the legitimate copyright owners. The portrait has since yesterday (11 March) been published on the Government of Chile website, which we consider (although more dubiously with each passing government, since the CC tags have been long removed) to be CC licensed. However, the point still stands, this was not the work of the Government of Chile. I think the previous discussion on the earliest first term presidential portrait of Donald Trump applies in some sense, since the portrait too was generated before Trump took office and so it wasn't in the public domain. Chile has no public domain provisions for government works (other than the usual law and uncreative documents). Bedivere (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Syrakus Archäologisches Museum.jpg

Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Syrakus Archäologisches Museum.jpg. The image was deleted in 2014 after this DR and it depicts the en:Museo archeologico regionale Paolo Orsi, the archeological museum of Syracuse. The museum building was commissioned to the architect it:Franco Minissi in 1961 by the local Soprintendenza, which is part of the administrative structure of the Ministry of Culture. The building was then completed in 1988 (see here). Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 2009. It's a building built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Game Show Central.svg

The logo is in the public domain freely and has been made from Logopedia. OWaunTon (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support There is no USA copyright for anything that is solely text too short for a literary copyright. This is true no matter how fancy the font might be. From USCO Circular 1, "Not covered by copyright:mere variations of typographic ornamentation,lettering, or coloring" .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Club the seals now! Save the whales for later.jpg et al

ArthurWilliamJack uploaded a bunch of images of pins scanned by the London School of Economics, then realized that the LSE was claiming copyright over them, and requested they be speedy deleted G7. Many of the pins can be kept as {{PD-Art|PD-Text}}, and I'm going though the list to save the ones I can, but a few got deleted by Túrelio before I got to them.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. These are all clearly below the USA ToO, but I suspect most of them may be above the UK's ToO since there is a typographical copyright there. See File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg which is under copyright in the UK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:EBS Rainbow Card 1970s.jpg

This is a public domain image that was designed by a US Government Agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajundweeb (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:EBS Rainbow Card 1970s.jpg which was unanimous in believing that this is a fake. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uzair Hassan.jpg

The subject of the photo, Uzair Hassan, has explicitly given me permission to upload this image to Wikimedia Commons for free use. This image is provided for use on Wikimedia.Aleenwal (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=1151099667"