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
53 copyvios • 123 duplicates • 19 adverts • 151 selfies • 98 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

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]
If the SDSS images were in public domain, what the SDSS license for images would be for? Licensing of something that is already released to PD is poinless and raises a significant doubt as per COM:PCP.
If the images are CC-licensed and not PD, I suggest to request undeletion of images that can be currently found on SDSS site and cannot be reuploaded due to earlier deletion: this way you can identify current source for the deleted images. Unfortunately, most of the above images lack precise information about source; they have {{Own}} or "English Wikipedia" provided as source. Ankry (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry bro, I and @SevenSpheres meant that before SDSS moved to PD, these images are uploaded and deleted due to at that time the things were copyrighted but now as they are under PD these images should be undeleted as they are now not copyrighted and are under PD. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
S o what is the CC-BY license (as mentioned in the initial request) for? Maybe, the "data" applies to numeric data only. Ankry (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant about CC-BY-SA 4.0 Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 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]
Then  Neutral as I do not know where the text in NOP Slovenia not consisting with the legal act content originates from. Ankry (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This interpretation of the law is provided in: Trampuž, Miha (1997) (slovene) Zakon o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah: s komentarjem, Gospodarski vestnik. --TadejM (t/p) 19:13, 21 April 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]

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]
Hello @Polserb,
You are allowed to upload any file that is in the COM:Scope and under a free COM:License.
One could argue that the file is not in the project scope if it contains errors.
Best, Wikisquack (talk) 00:04, 20 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). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Greg2600. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 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]
Your "most of the time" case is actually an exception. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment
Hello @Alexis Jazz,
In your answer on Wikilegal, you mentioned a potential joint authorship. Even in that case, such pictures would require the agreement of all authors in order to publish them under a license.
Best, Wikisquack (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very selective reading of what I said. Jameslwoodward's situation is special. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I disagree. While the museum may be a special case, I have never, anywhere, been given any specific instructions by the subjects of a courtesy photograph. And, even if the subjects give very specific instructions, modern point and shoots do almost all the thinking, so the only thing that makes a point and shoot image copyrightable is that the photographer has the discretion to take it at a specific moment.
Note that "Even in that case, such pictures would require the agreement of all authors in order to publish them under a license" is not correct. As a general rule, in the absence of a written agreement among joint holders of a copyright, any of them can grant a non-exclusive license such as the one we require here. An exclusive license requires the consent of all the joint holders, but we do not require that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 26 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]

 Doing… --Yann (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China, The People's Republic of China government does not recognise the legitimacy of the Republic of China, and Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China is retroactive. Therefore laws of the ROC is not relevant and TaronjaSatsuma's claim is most likely incorrect. Pinging @Teetrition for input. Wcam (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wcam. For works created in mainland China after October 1949, ROC law is no longer applicable; instead, the PRC Copyright Law (1990) should be applied because of its retroactivity. Teetrition (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Teetrition and Wcam: Could you please explain and give a link to the relevant laws. This should be documented somewhere on Commons. Thanks for answering. Yann (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article 17 of the Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference formally abolished all laws, decrees, and the judicial system of the "Kuomintang reactionary government" (the ROC government). While the text includes the qualifier "which oppress the people," this should not be interpreted as allowing certain ROC laws to remain valid.
In fact, this article constitutes a total repeal of the ROC legal system. This interpretation is supported by the Directive on the Abolition of the Kuomintang's Complete Book of Six Codes, which explicitly categorized the "Six Codes" (the entire ROC legal corpus) as inherently oppressive. Therefore, no ROC statutes survived the transition to the PRC's legal jurisdiction.
From another perspective, if ROC copyright law had remained valid in mainland China from 1949 to 1990, there would have been no need for the PRC Copyright Law to include provisions regarding its retroactivity. The very existence of such retroactive mechanisms implies a legal vacuum, rather than a continuation of ROC law. Teetrition (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

（六）请你们与政府及司法干部讨论我们这些意见，并把讨论结果报告我们。

I don't believe the Directive can give us any clue about this, considering it's not even a law.
(also, to provide some guidance, check this discussion where the proposal of the RoC-Registered template was born.
For the post-October 1949 Mainland scenario, the question is "when" did the RoC law expire.
  • Is the expiration date the proclamation of the PRC in 1949?
  • Is the expiration date the creation of a Constitution in 1954 (it's 1954?)
  • Given the non-existence of any copyright law until 1996, was the RoC law the one to consider prior to 1991 (even if 1991 was retroactive)? NOTE: under international law, copyright should never be considered non-existent
  • Can we agree that at least any work created before 30th September 1949 is under RoC law?
That's why I asked for any court ruling anything on this regard, to have some kind of guidance (I hate when Commons users became judges on Copyright issues, which I believe happens sometimes here) TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1st October 1949 is the proclamation of the PRC, but the PRC did not have a constitution of its own until 1954. Which date should we take? there is any court ruling anything on this regard? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The enactment of the 1954 Constitution is irrelevant to this issue, as the PRC government had already promulgated numerous edicts prior to that year. For instance, the Regulations of the PRC on Punishment of Counter-revolutionaries was enacted in 1951.
Furthermore, Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, adopted on September 29, 1949, served as the de facto Constitution. Official sources have confirmed that the Common Program functioned as the interim constitutional law during that period. [2] Teetrition (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Teetrition: Thanks for all the details. So, in short, only pictures from before October 1949 might be OK? Yann (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree on pre- proclamation should be a safe terrain (Proclamation of PRC, 1st October 1949).
Even if I insist on asking if there is any judicial precedent on any kind of court, be it Chinese or international, ruling on this issue. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Still, changing a Constitution means nothing.
  • Spain have had several regime changes by 1987, and still they used the same XIX century copyright law under all of those different regimes.
  • Current copyright law in Iran is from the Sha's time.
RoC copyright law the last copyright law in China in the 1950s-1980s. They don't having any kind of copyirght protection or recognition is not an issue of changing the laws, but because of their very specific understanding of Communism. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Indeed, 1950 Conference resolution and 1984 regulations are considered to be valid texts and seminal to copyright in China.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found some legal base under PRC law:

  • 1950 Publishing Conference Resolution is considered the first legal work where copyright is mentioned (there was an administrative recognition of copyright as something which exists, but there is no term)
  • 1994广电部 608号文 confirms 1950 as the strating point of copyright in China (for films) it states:

现对1949年10月1日至1993年6月30日期间国产电影发行权归属问题作出以下规定

October 1, 1949 (the date of the PRC's founding) is the starting point. Films from this date forward are treated as having 版权 (copyright) from the beginning, and they're considered to have copyright because they had distribution rights (1950 Resolution, which was for books). There a alot of nuances on this law, but at least we can consider 1st October as a safe date for under RoC laws works.

合同期限超过十年的（包括影片发行权永久性或一次性出售给中影公司的如《生死树》、《关键时刻》之类的影片），根据《中华人民共和国著作权法》合同的有效期限不超过十年的规定，从合同签订之日起按十年计算，合同期满后发行权归制片厂，必要时双方可以续订合同。

--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the (previous discussion on Chinese copyright laws, where the proposal of the RoC-Registered template was born, I believe we've reached a flaw on Commons guidelines. And probably it's not exclusive of China: because of the URAA restoration policy (Can I advocate for fully deprecate it?), we have policies and guidelines based on current laws, but, de facto, for Commons is 1996 law what is relevant.

In real world, the distinction between 1944 RoC law, 1985 RoC-Taiwan law and 1991 PRC law would be irrelevant, because any work post 1975 is PD under all three laws, making them reduncdant. But because of URAA, in Commons we should look at laws as they were, not as they are.

In short: First regulatory text on copyright in PRC is Trial Regulations on Copyright Protection of Books and Periodicals:

Article 11: The rights provided in Items (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Article 5 of these Regulations are enjoyed by authors for their entire life. After an author passes away, the lawful successor of the author or the Ministry of Culture Publications Undertakings Management Bureau protects them from infringements.

The rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to the lifetime of the author and thirty years after his death. These thirty years are to be calculated from the end of the year of death of the author; concerning joint works, these thirty years are to be calculated from the end of the year of death of the last passing away author.

Concerning photographs, the rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to thirty years, so be calculated from the end of the year of first publication.

Concerning works of which the copyright belongs to bodies, collectives, industrial or undertaking work units or other work units and collective, the rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to thirty years, so be calculated from the end of the year of first publication.

The rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, after the author passes away, will be inherited according to relevant inheritance legislation.

Concerning works already published before these Regulations take effect, of all those that did not yet exceed the periods of the second, third and fourth paragraph of this Article, the copyright holder still enjoys copyright over the remainder of the time period.

So, between 1949 and June 1991 the valid normative was 30 years after publishing/death or author, and the law was only partially retroactive, in the sense it guaranteed 30 years term for works created after 1949, but did not restore any copyright for works having its natural term of 30 expired by then.

Our guidelines in Commons apply 1991 law as a whole because, in a non-URAA world, any of the Chinese laws is irrelevant because anything older than 1975 is PD. But in the URAA world we created in Commons, older copyright laws matter.

What does Chinese 1990-91 copyright law say about restoring copyirght? Article 59:

第五十九条 本法规定的著作权人和出版者、表演者、录音录像制作者、广播电台、电视台的权利，在本法施行之日尚未超过本法规定的保护期的，依照本法予以保护。

本法施行前发生的侵权或者违约行为，依照侵权或者违约行为发生时的有关规定和政策处理。

This means the works falling in PD under the 1984 directive by June 1991 did not have its copyright restored.

Here there is an authoritative legal commentary on the 1990 Copyright Law with specific examples.

Which also aligns with Berne 18(2): A work that has fallen into the public domain in its source country through the expiry of a previously granted term shall not be protected anew.

And aligns with URAA (17 U.S.C. § 104A): restoration applies only to works that entered the public domain due to lack of formalities or lack of treaty relations, not to works that entered the public domain because their copyright term expired.

And the 1984 Regulations granted 30 years terms, not 50. So, Works in PRC created (or whose author died) between 1st October 1949 and 31 December 1960 (maybe 31 May 1961) were PD by the 1991 law (and therefore, had its copyright expired by URAA time).--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose because the s:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (1990) was retroactive and we cannot say that it didn't apply to works created before 1949. The first point follows from the plain meaning of Chapter VI, Article 55, which says that protection is granted to any qualifying work whose "term of protection as specified in this Law [my emphasis] has not yet expired on the date of entry into force of this Law." The second point follows because to say otherwise would be to deny—a la {{PD-RusEmpire}}—that the People's Republic of China is the legal successor to the Republic of China (1912–1949), something that I don't think we have the power to do. prospectprospekt (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The second point follows because to say otherwise would be to deny—a la {{PD-RusEmpire}}—that the People's Republic of China is the legal successor to the Republic of China (1912–1949), something that I don't think we have the power to do

This is your interpretation, not the Courts one. The second point follows, and clearly states "the policies and provisions" (notice it does not say law, it does not refer to RoC law, but to 1984 directive and 1950 Publishing resolution) are the ones to follow for anything happening before the 1991 law. The article has two full paragraphs, You cannot read paragraph 1 in isolation. Whatever the Russian Empire template says or the Russian law said is not only irrelevant, but offtopic to this issue.

You cannot apply the first paragraph retroactively to revive works that had already entered the public domain under the 1984 rules, it contradicts the very 1984 rules (article 11), Berne 18(2) and URAA (17 U.S.C. § 104A). Indeed, when Russia entered WIPO in 1995 they did it with a public reservation to article 18. They did it because Russian authorities understood that Article 18(2) prohibits reviving works whose term already expired. This is an international treaty, at the end Russia had to accept it. If China had intended to revive works that already fell into the public domain under the 1984 regulations, it would have needed to make a similar declaration or reservation—which it did not.

Let's do the URAA test:
  • If a Chinese work's 30-year term under the 1984 regulations expired before June 1, 1991. (Any infringements of copyright and the copyright-related rights or breaches of contract committed prior to the entry into force of 1991 law shall be dealt with under the relevant regulations or policies in force at the time when the act was committed.)
  • The 1991 law did not revive it (Berne Article 18(2); China Article 59(2))
  • Therefore, the URAA cannot restore US copyright for that work
TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TaronjaSatsuma: The 1991 Copyright Law did, in fact, restore protection to works that had "expired" under the 1984 Trial Regulations. The NPC's official interpretation specifically uses the 1984 Regulations as an example of how the 1991 Law's "life plus 50 years" term overrides the previous "life plus 30 years" term.
As stated in the official interpretation of the retroactivity clause by the NPC (the legislative authority of China):
比如，1984年文化部颁布的《图书、期刊版权保护试行条例》，规定著作、译作的作者享有的使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为作者终身及其死亡后三十年。假如某翻译者是1950年去世的，按照文化部的条例，该译作的翻译者不再享有使用权和获得报酬权，但依照著作权法，该译作的翻译者仍然享有使用权和获得报酬权。因为著作权法规定，公民的作品，其使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为作者终生及其死亡后五十年，到1991年6月1日，权利的保护期尚未届满。Translation: For example, the 1984 Regulations stipulated that the term of protection... shall last for the author's lifetime plus 30 years. If a translator died in 1950, they would no longer enjoy these rights under the Ministry of Culture's 1984 Regulations. However, per the 1991 Copyright Law, the translator still enjoys these rights, because the new law extended the term to life plus 50 years, and as of June 1, 1991, this new term had not yet expired by June 1, 1991.
Additionally, Berne 18(2) is inapplicable here because the PRC was not a party to the Berne Convention until 15 October 1992, over a year after the 1991 Law established these protections domestically. Therefore, the domestic restoration of these rights in 1991 did not conflict with any international treaty obligations at that time. Teetrition (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the 1984 Regulations were highly restrictive in scope. Per Article 2, protection was only extended to works "lawfully published by Chinese publishing entities." (我国公民创作的文学、艺术和科学作品，由国家出版单位印制成图书出版或在期刊上发表，其作者依本条例享有版权。) This means many works that did not meet these specific administrative requirements might not have been covered by the 1984 Regulations at all. In such cases, or where the publication status under the 1984 criteria is unclear, we should follow COM:PRE and apply the "life plus 50 years" term as established by the 1991 Law. It would be an enormous evidentiary burden to prove a work was "lawfully published" under the 1984 administrative standards just to argue for a shorter, expired term. Teetrition (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check everything once I have the time to do so, but it is no be so difficult to prove a work was "lawfully published" under the 1984 administrative standards: pre-1978 works were basically made always by state owned corporations, so: films by Changchun, Shanghai, Bayi, etc; works published by the publishing house making Renmin Ribao, Renmin Huabao, etc; books published by University publishing houses or Sanlian/Joint Publishing (Mainland branch), CCTN/Peking TV and Radio Peking, and many others were obviously "lawfully published" (they were state-owned corporate works). And the facto, any works PD by 1991/1996 would have been published by a state-owned corporation. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for unlawfully published works, it is also easy to discover when those were not.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To notice, {{PD-ROC-registered}} has been created. This is true for files made in the RoC, so for Mainland pre-1949 registered works it should work.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:7Games Logo.png, File:Betao logo.png, File:Logotipo OIG Gaming Brazil.jpg, File:Logo One Internet Group.jpg

Hello,

I am requesting the undeletion of the following files and categories deleted on 22 March 2026:

Files:

Categories:

These files and categories were deleted as G10 (advertisement/spam) in the context of a sockpuppet investigation involving the accounts d:User:Pamela drudi and User:Fernandin oig on Wikidata.

However, on 24 March 2026, a full undeletion request was submitted on Lymantria's talk page on Wikidata with extensive independent sources demonstrating the notability of these entities. The full discussion can be found here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Lymantria#Request_for_undeletion_of_Q138685752,_Q138711584,_Q138738665,_Q138749746

Administrator User:Lymantria reviewed the request and on 31 March 2026 restored all four Wikidata items:

All four items were restored with the note «As requested», acknowledging that the original deletions were made in the context of a misunderstanding that has since been resolved.

The logos and categories are now needed to illustrate the restored Wikidata items. The original files were legitimate logos of notable Brazilian companies that operate under federal licences issued by the Brazilian Ministry of Finance.

Any questions, I am ready to help.

Thank you for your time.

Beto Amaral pm (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just following up on this request. Please let me know if you need any additional information or clarification. Thank you. Beto Amaral pm (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Images are educationally useful (at least on Wikidata) and should be undeleted if no other problems (such as with copyright) exist. Pinging deleting admin @Lymantria. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I undeleted the one that I deleted. --Lymantria (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging other admins (apparently, there's more than one who got invloved in the deletion) @Túrelio and @The Squirrel Conspiracy. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio and @The Squirrel Conspiracy You can review this undelete request regarding my images. If you have any questions, I'm here to help. Thank you. Emigma Sonhador (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pierre-Georges Arlabosse.jpg

 Comment File:Arlabosse.png is in use on 28 pages..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix that JayCubby (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:1948年三毛流浪记 大公报.jpg

per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=1182351221#Several_Chinese_pictures, similar pre-1949 Chinese works were already deemed PD under ROC law and not subject to URAA, so this file should be treated consistently. --JaydenChao (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Das Wappen von Heinrichsort im Landkreis Zwickau besteht weiterhin als inoffizielles Ortswappen.

Hallo, Das Wappen ist ein inoffizielles weiterhin verwendetes ortswappen. Es soll weiterhin auf der Wikipedia Seite verfügbar sein. Das Wappen kann bestätigt werden durch die ortschronik Heinrichsort.

Lg Fabian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolo Dachs (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The post does not name a file and this is the editor's only contribution to Commons, so there is nothing for us to do here..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I guess this is about File:Wappen Kuber Tillmann Sänger.png (also previously uploaded as File:Wappen Kuber by Tillmann Sänger.png), which was deleted several times per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Kuber by Tillmann Sänger.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Kuber Tillmann Sänger.png. I kept it the first time because I thought it might have been an official coat of arms and therefore in the public domain, but as written above, it is apparently an inofficial coat of arms and therefore protected by copyright. If it was indeed official at some point, we would need sufficient evidence.
@Jolo Dachs: War das denn jemals ein offizielles Ortswappen, also offiziell verliehen (mit Bekanntgabe in einem Amtsblatt o. ä.) von Landratsamt, Regierungspräsdium, Ministerium oder dergleichen? --Rosenzweig τ 09:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Snail photos by User:II52tt52

I had tagged these as COM:NETCOPYVIO because they were previously published on Reddit. Turns out the Commons user and the Reddit user are one and the same. They added "I tried to upload a photo I took to Wikipedia, but it got removed. This photo is also on Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA" to https://www.reddit.com/r/snails/comments/1paeiyr/parakaliella_serica_pilsbry_1926/, so please add a license review as well to prevent future deletions. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parakaliella serica bottom view.jpg
File:Parakaliella serica bottom.jpg
File:Parakaliella serica side.jpg
File:Parakaliella serica.jpg
I have re-uploaded the high-definition photos! Will there be any issues with the newly uploaded photos......? II52tt52 (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@II52tt52: I hope not, but you may be required to contact the Volunteer Response Team to verify your ownership of the photos
Chill :) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: I don't know what VRT could achieve here. This is a job for a license reviewer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:STALKER꞉ Shadow of Chernobyl – quest journal.jpg

Screenshot from the video game S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl, released under the Attribution-GSC Game World license, which states: "GSC Game World allows the users to publish screenshots of all their games under GFDL or any later version." Pottero (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose From COM:L:

GFDL is not permitted as the only acceptable license where all of the following are true:
The content was licensed on or after 15 October 2018. The licensing date is considered, not the creation or upload date.
The content is primarily a photograph, painting, drawing, audio or video.
The content is not a software logo, diagram or screenshot that is extracted from a GFDL software manual.

Also, I see "© GSC Game World. All right reserved. " on https://soc.stalker-game.com/ and I do not see any free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward, Masur, and Pottero: all three conditions must be met. This file was certainly not a photograph, audio or video. It was probably not a painting or drawing either, but I can't view deleted files. Perhaps a VRT agent could check whether {{Attribution-GSC Game World}} (ticket:2009020610021884) would still be valid for screenshots taken recently. The deprecation of GFDL was primarily fueled by photographers who used GFDL as a backdoor non-commercial license when GFDL was already a dinosaur. A permission originally granted in 2009 to license screenshots is clearly not that. What the actual license date here would be (2009 or 2025?) would be an interesting question. Legally it's likely 2025, but it's not hard to argue that the spirit of COM:L would suggest considering the license date to be 2009 in this case.
This was speedily deleted without a talk page notification, which is a faux pas in my book. Unless a VRT agent finds that {{Attribution-GSC Game World}} has clearly ceased to be valid for recent screenshots, I  Support undeletion. Whether the file then goes through the regular DR process or not depends on the circumstances. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Alexis Jazz. --Yann (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, I thought we have a 24 hour rule. Alexis Jazz has it wrong -- this is a screenshot of a handheld device with the game on it. And, as I noted, the game's home page has an explicit copyright notice and no free license of any kind. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, reopened. Yann (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that this is a product released by Microsoft and others, so any license from GSC would not be valid. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How? Microsoft only have the right to redistribute and advertise the game (and use it for all the other publishing stuff), while GSC owns the game itself (including assets such as models and textures present on the screenshots) and can do whatever they want, including custom licensing. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jameslwoodward has it wrong -- this isn't "a screenshot of a handheld device with the game on it". The "handheld device" is part of the game, it's the equivalent of Fallout's w:Pip-Boy for this game. This is a "screenshot of the game" and thus covered by the language of {{Attribution-GSC Game World}}. Whether that template is still valid after all these years I can't say, I have no access to the ticket. Skimming w:GSC_Game_World it appears they never lost their independence, but they did get "dissolved" in 2011 and re-opened in 2014. Whether that had any influence on existing agreements, I don't know. According to Wikipedia, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl was published by THQ and GSC World Publishing. GOG lists "GSC Game World" as the publisher. Neither list Microsoft. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was published by GSC, but, as I said, released by Microsoft and others, so it is their ToC that matters, not one from GSC and the game's Web page has an explicit copyright notice and no free license. Also note that the template requires that the screenshot come from the manual -- a screenshot from the actual game is not covered. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? {{Attribution-GSC Game World}} says nothing about manuals. Seriously, are you okay? You didn't understand that the "handheld device" is simply part of the game, you're talking about a requirement in the template that doesn't seem to be there (are you confusing the template with the third exemption requirement from the GFDL deprecation policy?) and you say the game was "released by Microsoft and others" which continues to baffle me. There were Xbox ports in 2024 and 2025, but I completely fail to see how those would affect anything. Honestly, this reminds me of some conversations I've had with LLMs. (Struck - I didn't mean to say James is using an LLM, but some might interpret it that way. The way things are getting mixed up reminded me of how LLMs can mix things up, but if I believed James was using an LLM I wouldn't have suggested a cup of coffee as that wouldn't have helped) Please have some coffee or strong tea and try to explain your arguments with direct quotes and sources. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
{{Attribution-GSC Game World}} simply says that we can use a GFDL license on pre-2011 GSC files. Files we keep under that template must still conform to our rules for using GFDL files, which are deliberately difficult because GFDL files are essentially unusable in print. As I said, since this did not come from a manual, it does not meet our requirements for GFDL. Also note that the VRT message supporting the template was given by a company that was dissolved in 2011, so that the template does not apply to anything created later than that.
If "Microsoft and others" ("others" = XBox, etc) release the game with restrictive licenses then those licenses apply, not one given us long ago by a company that was dissolved.
And, by the way, I can do without the ad hominem comments. This is the second time you have made such comments. If you continue, one of our colleagues will probably block you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, since this did not come from a manual, it does not meet our requirements for GFDL.
You're trying to educate the author of policy text on what it means. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The template states that "GSC Game World allows the users to publish screenshots of all their games under GFDL or any later version", no matter how old or new the game is, no matter if it's on some manual or not. The permission has been verified by the VRT. This is a clear cut case, and I don't know why this discussion is still going. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support just to be clear. We have a valid license. I don't see any reason to delete this file. I thought that was obvious, that why I closed it early. Yann (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we have clear limits on the use of GFDL because it is so difficult to use GFDL licensed works, particularly in print. All that the GSC template says is that we may use a GFDL license for their works. Any of their works that we keep must conform to our rules for the use of the GFDL license, which this file does not.
Suppose the GSC template said, "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-NC license". We would not keep such a file because we do not keep NC files. The same logic applies here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Any of their works that we keep must conform to our rules for the use of the GFDL license, which this file does not.
Actually it does. In my very first comment here I already explained that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Text logos deleted en masse by User:Masur

I would like to ask you to verify the possibility of restoring the following logos, consisting only of text or simple geometric shapes, that have been deleted en masse by User:Masur along with many other files with appropriate licenses. Additionaly, many of the same logos, just in other languages (i.e. Star Wars, Harry Potter, The Witcher, The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Tomb Raider series), ​​are still available on Commons.

Pottero (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We should close this as Not Done and then Pottero should open new requests sorted by the publisher/producer's country. Those I looked at were from the USA and are PD-text logo but others may not be free in other countries of origin.

Please note that whenever linking an image file, you must include a colon before "File" as in [[:File:So and So. This links the file; without the colon it will be shown if and when it is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Also, some of these were marked as -self, whereas clearly they are COM:Derivative, and weren't properly described. Lastly, they represented uncommon lettering (font/typeface) usually with additional graphical effects in my opinion passing COM:TOO. Also, largely they could be copyrighted as trademarks. Masur (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Masur: Trademarks are not copyright. However Jim has a point about a small request ordered by country of origin. Yann (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Masur: 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" -- the USCO explicitly says that "uncommon lettering (font/typeface) usually with additional graphical effects" do not give rise to a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  SupportThere is very obviously doubt about the cause to speedy delete the files. The only right thing to do is to undelete all the files and allow Masurnto start a deletion request so proper consensus can be formed--Trade (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: I have restored all of these. I have created a gallery titled "Logo Gallery" with all of them in it so that anyone interested can create a DR with those that need it. Note that none of the Logos of USA companies qualify for copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Historical PD-RusEmpire documents

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Maximdogadin#Files uploaded by Maximdogadin (talk · contribs) 4:

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Maximdogadin#Files uploaded by Maximdogadin (talk · contribs) 3:

  • File:Старая карта 'Медведицкое и окрестностей' 1863 год.jpg This file was moved, so only an unused redirect was deleted. Guess we don't really need the redirect.
  • File:Дача Блохина.jpg now deleted in later DR

I'm not really sure why @Infrogmation deleted these. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these images were removed due to copyright issues, but other ones might have been removed erroneously as a "per nomination" deletion, despite a clear indication that the files could be kept if relicensed. Pinging @Infrogmation for further info. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 14:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was the third ping, and they ignored them all. Romano1981 (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • My impression was that it was a group of images with bad information - some might be out of copyright if the uploader or someone else cared to do the work of figuring out accurate information, but if no one seemed to think it worth bothering with, deleted in whole. I have no objection to undeletion of any files that can have accurate information and correct free licenses. (I saw the ping on my talk page today. For whatever reason I never received any notification of any earlier pings.) Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Infrogmation: there were several sections. I had split the DRs:
      • DR #2 was indeed a collection of likely copyvios claimed as "own work".
      • DR #3 was a then-unidentified map that was identified by a ruwiki user who also replaced the "own work" claim with {{PD-RusEmpire}}.
      • DR #4 was a collection of historical documents claimed as own work. I suspected at least some would be PD, but asked ruwiki to comment on that. Two trusted ruwiki users (Pinging @SomeFancyUsername, Bestalex) said all were {{PD-RusEmpire}}, so I inserted that license on all with VFC.
      • DR #5 consisted of some old-looking photos that I thought might be PD, but ruwiki user Yellow Horror found no reason to believe they would be PD.
    I had already closed/withdrawn #3 an #4. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Alexis Jazz: Please fix the information whenever necessary. --Yann (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PhET Circuit Construction Kit screenshot.jpg

PhET was relicensed under CC-BY-NC in 2026, but the file was created in 2021; Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable so the original CC-BY still applies to the file and the speedy deletion rationale is invalid. Dudhhr (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The license on the upload was CC-BY-SA, and the uploader falsely claimed it was {{Own}} work. There was no license review requested, so we have no evidence of what the license might have been at the time of upload. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: I was new to editing when the image was uploaded and made errors in the upload process (it should have been labeled as CC-BY and not an own work); I then forgot about the image in the almost five years following until I received a notification on my talk about the deletion. I am unfamiliar with the license review process, how would I request that? Dudhhr (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudhhr: with the {{Licensereview}} template. But that requires a source. Was the source/license archived in the w:Waybackmachine? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see [3]. Dudhhr (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The license was valid, any material published until 11 March 2026 inclusive (the latest archive I could find with the old license) can be reused under CC BY rules. Someone should probably make a template for that.
Edit: I requested a template at COM:Template requests. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: See above, license reviewed. --Yann (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Udeletion request File:Location United States of Biafra, West Africa.svg

Admin @Pi.1415926535: pointed out this medium to me after I appealed for the file which they recently deleted to be reinstated. It is a good thing to be here. To reiterate what I already appealed to them, the file in question which was deleted few weeks ago was neither deleted based on copyright violation nor inaccurate/incredible events or information. The media file was created by me originally based on the ground information and reliable sources. I am appealing for the file to be undeleted on the note that the file is copyright free. I will be glad to provide more information proving that I am the original author of the file upon request. Wikimedia Commons is rated high because of it's long-standing value on original media and I hope that still stands. Wikimedia's policy on deletion is solely and mostly based on copyright infringement. It will be considered the best and great thing for wikimedia once again when the file is undeleted. I am kindly appealing in good faith as I await your verdict. Thanks. War Term (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Commons:Deletion requests/File:Location United States of Biafra, West Africa.svg. Thuresson (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@War Term: the lack of copyright on a file is not in itself a rationale to retain it at deletion requests (you can call them DRs for short) or undelete it; if, say, I upload a vandalistic file and call it public-domain, administrators can still delete it and block me.
To your credit, you are demonstrating the right mentality towards undeletion requests (UDRs for short): "I will be glad to provide more information proving that I am the original author of the file upon request."
However, please try to keep in mind that one should try not to create walls of text :) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No support to restore this except for the uploader. Six opposed at DR and here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rizwan Rashid Rewon.png

Hello,

This file is **not a copyright violation**. I am the **original creator / copyright holder** of this image, and it is my own work. I have full permission to upload it under a free license on Wikimedia Commons.

I kindly request a review of the deletion decision. If further verification is needed, I am willing to provide proof of authorship.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadman sagor (talk • contribs) 16:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadman sagor: it's not claimed to be a copyright violation, it was deleted for being a personal photo. Interestingly w:Draft:Rizwan Rashid Rewon has some sources, but I can't review them very well due to the language barrier. I can't see the file, but I think I  Support this request, even if only to allow a regular DR to run its course. In addition, depending on what this image shows, COM:VRT permission may need to be obtained through permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Pinging @Herbythyme - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for your clarification.
I now have an original photograph taken directly by us, and I am uploading it to Wikimedia Commons as my own work under a free license (CC BY-SA 4.0).
No copyrighted third-party image will be used.
Thank you for your guidance.
— Sadman Sagor Sadman sagor (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader's article has been rejected on Wikipedia several times now. The images are therefore likely outside our scope (some are copyright issues though). The user seems to care little about our policies and more about themselves. Herby talk thyme 06:47, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Herbythyme: I see no rejections? Can you link them? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See the user page on en wp. Herby talk thyme 11:47, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Herbythyme: I see one (singular, not "several") 2022 rejection for w:Draft:Sadman Hossain Sagor, but nothing for w:Draft:Rizwan Rashid Rewon. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My bad and you are right. I'm confusing some of the interesting contributors we have currently. Herby talk thyme 12:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose
The upload says:
source=Social Media and news portal
author=Rizwan Rashid Rewon
Neither of those matches the claim above that this is {{Own}} of Sadman sagor. That makes it difficult to believe anything this user says. Also, I doubt very much that this is actually a selfie as claimed in the upload. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My support was under the assumption this was purely a scope issue as I can't see the file and it was deleted as F10. If the copyright situation is unclear we need permission through COM:VRT. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done While likely in scope, VRT permission is needed to resolve copyright related issues. Ankry (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Trichronic Time Theory (2).pdf

https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9780-0676 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashraf mohammed alhran (talk • contribs) 17:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer: - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that link is relevant. The file was an unpublished, nonsensical AI-generated document. Commons is not a scientific journal and does not house this type of content. Omphalographer (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I erroneously thought this was a copyright issue. The link to the document is https://zenodo.org/records/18272135 and I'm not sure if it means anything. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:10, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This could be in scope if published in peer-reviewed journals. Yann (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Terms of use of the source cite include:

Zenodo is an open dissemination research data repository for the preservation and making available of research, educational and informational content. Access to Zenodo’s content is open to all, for non-military purposes only. [BOLD added]. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:54, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting. Seeing that there is a free license where the file is available for download, I think this trumps the restrictions on the whole website. Yann (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Out of scope. Ankry (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yakovlev MC-21-310.jpg

Hello! This is my own original work. I am the author of this photograph. I took this photo myself using my Nikon D750 camera. If necessary, I can provide the original RAW file or a full-size JPEG with EXIF metadata to confirm my authorship. Please let me know how I can verify this. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibailya (talk • contribs) 22:54, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Didym: What was the reason for deletion? Romano1981 (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Romano1981: I suspect, the deletion rationale was low resolution (1.5Mpx is low for a 2026 photo) and lack of the original EXIF. @Shibailya: If you wish to upload the original photo, feel free to do so and it is unlikely to be deleted. If you do not, you can send the original photo to VRT as an evidence of your authorship, together with the formal free license permission. Ankry (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibailya: to avoid things like that, I would recommend you to process your photos using apps that don't remove the original metadata, or, better yet, upload the raw image here and then process it using CropTool. Romano1981 (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:D’r Hans im Schnokeloch (EN).svg

  • Sheet music for an old folk song from the Alsace region (D'r Hans im Schnokeloch)
  • The folk song itself is certainly in the public domain
  • The sheet music is my own creation, I added a CC0 licence after initially failing to provide any licence

Best regards, Nachtbold (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nachtbold: When was this music / text first published and where? "Your own creation" but based on what? Ankry (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: The text was first published in 1842, already in the context of a “well-known folk song”. The melody is hard to track down precisely as it may be found in countless variations, but it must be very old itself; possibly as old as the lyrics. This publication contains a musical notation from 1913. And as of the sheet music, I don’t see how I’m supposed to further “prove” that I’m the creator. The description included the LilyPond input file that I’ve written for the sake of generating this SVG. — Nachtbold (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I think this is enough. My doubts were raised by a case that folk music that was not written (existing only in its vocal form) may be copyrighted 70/95 years since it was written/published in a written form first time. But as you have shown, this is not the case. Ankry (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Шевчук И.М..jpg

The depicted person is a famous Russian children's literature writer. Таёжный лес (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support The source for this photo. @Таёжный лес: categorize images better next time. Ankry (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Таёжный лес (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Таёжный лес: The image had no category. Images without a category are generally useless as they are unlikely to be found by readers. Ankry (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an uploader. The uploader is stated in the description of the cropped version. Таёжный лес (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Katakana_-_Japanese_syllabary,_published_in_1893.jpg - deletion was unfair. The image was misunderstood as AI-generated. It isn't.

File:Katakana_-_Japanese_syllabary,_published_in_1893.jpg - deletion was unfair. The image was misunderstood as AI-generated. It isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getdincts (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not AI-generated, then you need to identify where exactly it originates from. Providing a source is up to the uploader and AI is not a source that can be accepted. Ankry (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
German language text next to katakana and orthography of the text caption looks similar to pre-WW2 German I've seen. Still without a source, this is not educationally useful. Abzeronow (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry and Abzeronow: on the DR they claimed the same image can be seen on Getty as copyfraud. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that Getty have no copyright to the image. And 1893 publication from Germany may be {{PD-old-assumed}} unless we identify its author. Ankry (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Looks real per Getty. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bhikkhu Satynanda.png

File name: Bhikkhu_Satyananda.png

Reason: This file is my own work. I am the original photographer and author of this image. I may have missed adding proper licensing and description during upload.

I confirm that I release this file under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

I will also add proper source, author, and categories if the file is restored.

Please consider restoring it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhikkhu Satynanda (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was deleted without talk page notification by User:Gbawden for being a "personal file". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Uncategorized, uploaded by a user with no Wikimedia contribution, hardly educationally useful, subject has no hits in Google: rather zero notability. It seems to be autopromotion which is strictly forbidden in Wikimedia. Ankry (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment FWIW their user page was deleted for U3 Gbawden (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose: thank you Gbawden for deleting the file Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:CaseOh by Xian2000.webp

Commons:Deletion requests/File:CaseOh by Xian2000.webp
I don't know what this image was, but it was nominated for being "out of scope" and deleted by User:Pi.1415926535 "per nomination". Then CommonsDelinker removed it from Q124813026, proving it was COM:INUSE. Some disagreed with that use, but nobody disagreed enough to actually remove the image from Wikidata. In the meantime an article for Mr. CaseOh has been created on fiwiki.
Pinging @Vitorperrut555, Dabmasterars, Taylor 49, Andy Dingley, Kelly The Angel- Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:47, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if fan art belongs on someone's official article (at least for BLPs, w:Geralt of Rivia has had fan art as the lead image for a while now), but if celebrity fan art such as Category:Hermitcraft Season 10 fanart gallery submissions can exist, then so can this file. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 16:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given the filename, I'm guessing this was a copy of this Newgrounds submission? I seriously doubt that this crude drawing is an appropriate way to represent the subject on any project. Omphalographer (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Minecraft Reindev Features.png

Per Trade at COM:Undeletion requests/Archive/2026-04#File:Minecraft Reindev Features.png: "someone undelete the files and put them up for deletion so we can have a proper discussion determine if there copyright has been violated. At this point there is enough doubt to there no longer is unanimous consensus for speedy deletion"

Once again, pinging @SevenSpheres and @IronGargoyle. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The DR discussion was closed after two weeks. Two users find it a copyvio, nobody provided an argument against. In order to reopen it we need new arguments, not just a will of one or two users. Ankry (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Erik Naiche at iDent Evolution Congress 2021.jpg

Hello

The file I uploaded has no copy rights and was taken by me at the congress, I have many more from different angles. Please upload it again on the page Erik Naiche. The image is posted on different social media platforms, I will attach the links here : https://www.linkedin.com/in/erik-naiche/

Thank you

--Waveharp (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose: intended for self-promotion; see File:Dr. Erik Naiche.jpg and ro:Erik Naiche. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Prodigal Son (sculpture).jpg

Sculptor died in 1917, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:The prodigal son - rodin 075269.jpg. Pinging @ChemSim. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per uploader's request. So @Issac I Navarro: FYI. Ankry (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The uploader opened the DR with, "I believe it would fail free use Issac I Navarro". Since that is incorrect, I think we can and should restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: obviously public domain. --Abzeronow (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norman Lloyd Johnson.jpg

At least temp undeleted. Nomination by banned user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I would agree to keep the original, but this is a badly retouched image by AI. Yann (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:TINI STOESSEL (04).jpg

Estimados administradores de Wikimedia Commons, Me dirijo a ustedes con el propósito de solicitar formalmente la restauración del archivo arriba referenciado, el cual ha sido recientemente retirado bajo la premisa de una presunta infracción de derechos de autor. Tras un análisis pormenorizado de la procedencia de la imagen, considero respetuosamente que su disponibilidad en plataformas de amplio acceso público —donde circula con absoluta libertad y sin restricciones de propiedad intelectual explícitas— respalda su carácter de interés general para la comunidad. Mi intención al compartir este material es enriquecer el registro visual de la artista en cuestión, permitiendo que su presencia en esta enciclopedia sea tan completa y fidedigna como su trayectoria lo merece. Ruego a los bibliotecarios reconsiderar la vigencia de este archivo, entendiendo que su permanencia constituye un aporte valioso para el acervo cultural de Commons. Quedo a su entera disposición para aportar cualquier detalle adicional que facilite la resolución de este asunto. Atentamente, 

jeanvaljean8 29/04/2026 --Jeanvaljean8 (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=1151099667"