Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page

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: 1 timestamp • 0 reasons • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed
1 copyvios • 3 duplicates • 36 selfies • 10 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:Sia – Reasonable Woman cover art.png

I would argue that the arguments in the DR for deletion were flawed:

  • User:LeftRightRightLeft's nomination "We need a fair use image 'stead!" seems to imply that the file page on the English Wikipedia should include something like w:Template:Non-free album cover instead of {{YouTube CC-BY}}.
  • User:Heylenny first argued that the photograph was not a work for hire belonging to the record label, but rather an independently authored work requiring special licensing. Heylenny later argued that, because the cover contains the text "All rights reserved," that it can never be relicensed (unlike many files officially relicensed via COM:VRT).

The CC BY licenses on Warner Music New Zealand's YouTube channel (an official subsidiary of Warner Music Group) have been found many times to be legitimate (see COM:DR/File:Dua Lipa samples from 5 songs.webm, COM:DR/File:The Evolution of Cardi B.webm, COM:DR/File:Ed Sheeran – Shivers sample.ogg and COM:DR/File:Dua Lipa – Dua Lipa cover art.png). Thus, this file should be reinstated. (As I said in the DR, if the point was to question the validity of the YouTube channel's CC BY licenses, that should be discussed at COM:VP or COM:VPC [or perhaps even w:WP:RFC/Spongebob Squarepants is now freely licensed!] but not in a DR nor a UR.) JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian municipal coats of arms

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

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

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

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


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

I propose to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:BBFC 18.svg

 Question Any more opinions about this? Yann (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. TOO UK says: "The level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom used to be very low." In my opinion, per British law this is complex logo. Taivo (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment After THJ v Sheridan decision in 2023 ,some logos simples are OK in Commons,peer {{TOO-UK}} (my opinion). AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Yayan550:any opinion?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guillermo Francos - Retrato Oficial 2024.png

This image comes from the official portal *Mapa del Estado* (https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/), which belongs to the Argentina.gob.ar portal. In the "About" section of Argentina.gob.ar it is expressly indicated that the published content can be copied and redistributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, the same license through which I uploaded the images to Wikipedia Commons.

For this reason, I believe that the files do not violate any copyright regulations and I request that should be undeleted. Expressly the source and license are as follows:
- Source: https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/ministerios/Jefatura-de-Gabinete-de-Ministros/48/detalle
- Portal licensing policy: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca
KmiKC16 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the same case with these other portraits that I have uploaded, as I detail them below:

KmiKC16 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have undeleted these files. Could someone speaking Spanish confirm that the license is valid please? If that is the case, they should be {{Licensereview}}. Yann (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support @Yann: per Yann, but i speak in Spanish but im not a licensereviewer (https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca) but in Spanish says:Por supuesto. Podés copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato y adaptarlo para cualquier propósito, incluso comercial, siempre que cumplas con los términos de la licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional. También podés compartir un trámite, una noticia o una página en tus redes sociales. La información de Argentina.gob.ar es pública, es de todos nosotros. (ENG:Of course. You can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and adapt it for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you comply with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY-4.0). You can also share a procedure, a news story, or a page on your social media. The information on Argentina.gob.ar is public; it belongs to all of us.) AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca is for content from https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ (the actual T&C is here https://www.argentina.gob.ar/terminos-y-condiciones). These images were taken from https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/, a different website. Günther Frager (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't vote either for or against this request, since I was the one who originally nominated the files for speedy deletion. However, to give my opinion: as Günther Frager mentioned, I requested deletion because the files were taken from mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar, which is not the official government website. Therefore, the CC-AR-ArgentinaGobAr license, nor any of the licenses listed in Category:License tags of Argentina, would apply as far as I am aware. Franco Brignone • Talkpage 11:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/ is an official service that depends on the Jefatura de Gabinete de Ministros (under the national government) which content is part of what is published in Argentina.gob.ar, as seen at https://www.argentina.gob.ar/desregulacion/mapa-del-estado, I believe that it is reasonable to consider that it's content is covered by those policies. KmiKC16 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think gob.ar is not a government website? @Franco Brignone Bedivere (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere, "Which is not 'the' official government website." I never claimed it was not government-managed; it is a subdomain, not the main site. As Günther Frager pointed out in the comment below, even subdomains of the official site can operate under different licenses that may conflict with the free license stated on argentina.gob.ar. Assuming that every subdomain automatically has the same license requires more careful consideration, both for Argentina and for other countries with similar cases. This issue perhaps deserves a more detailed discussion, not necessarily in an undeletion request. As I mentioned, I do not believe a free license would apply, but that is just my reasoning when adding the deletion tag. Regards, Franco Brignone • Talkpage 06:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two different webpages and they don't have the same content (one has photos the other does not). Besides assumptions are not real evidence Take a look at https://casarosada.gob.ar it has a slightly different license. It has a CC-BY 2.5 while https://argentina.gob.ar CC-BY 4.0. Even better, take a look at https://cursos.argentina.gob.ar/ that is a subdomain of https://argentina.gob.ar, it has an incompatible CC-BY-NC license! To avoid headaches we should stick to website with known licenses, argentina.gob.ar has plenty of material, e.g. https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/styles/cuadrada/public/2024/04/francos_1.jpg (found at https://www.argentina.gob.ar/jefatura/) . Günther Frager (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Günther Frager you might have a fair point. Still, I believe these images are free to be copied and redistributed since we are talking about the official portraits of Argentinian ministers. I will search information to back this belief. However, as I do not possess that evidence now, you may delete these images. I will request another Undeletion if I find proof of what I am claiming. Regards. KmiKC16 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Any more opinions about this? Yann (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the terms of Argentina.gob.ar apply to Mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar. This is because the "State map" is published as a sub-site of the Argentina.gob.ar website. The National Direction of Organizational Design linked in the Mapadelestado site is located at Argentina.gob.ar. Furthermore, jefatura.gob.ar redirects to Argentina.gob.ar. To me it is pretty clear the license does apply to this website. Bedivere (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, Argentina.gob.ar does contain official portraits, although slightly different to the ones at the Mapadelestado website. See for example: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/styles/cuadrada/public/2016/03/francos.jpg and https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/back/imagenes/perfil/001.png Bedivere (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 tornado warnings and reports.png

This file does not surpass the threshold of originality, so I am appealing the deletion request, which had split consensus. The image was created soley using public domain data, which came from the National Weather Service (under {{PD-NWS-employee}}) and the Iowa Environmental Mesonet (confirmed public domain disclaimer. The background is just a map of the United States, which almost certainly is not more original than File:Appraisers.com - Map of the United States - May 2002.gif, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was below the threshold. The only remaining aspect is color choice. Unless we wish to determine a person can copyright their choice of color, this image should be undeleted. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The Appraisers.com map is a simple map of the USA with state abbreviations. There is no visible data. This map has hundreds of data points plotted. The fact that the data behind the map is public domain is irrelevant. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's irrelevant. The location of every data point is not creative -- that is part of the public data, as is the number of elements. That is determined by which warnings the weather service issued, and which tornadoes were reported, since this shows all of them. As for a selection and arrangement copyright, it's limited to the choice of those three elements to display -- it's the same copyright as if there was a single thunderstorm warning, a single tornado warning, and a single tornado report on the map, if those were the only ones which happened to occur. The question then is if such a map of three elements would have a copyright, based on the selection of those three elements in particular, and those particular colors to represent them. The choice of how to represent them is really not creative, as the two warnings are given as regions, and tornadoes as a particular location (at least at this scale), which are directly represented here. So there really isn't anything to the arrangement, which is dictated by the data. Any copyright is basically the selection of those three elements, to me, combined with the color choice, and maybe date range (though that is also dictated by the subject at hand). It's possible but it's really thin to me, as those three elements are pretty strongly correlated. I don't think there is a copyright on the choice of those three elements alone, nor the color choice alone. If there is a copyright, it's about the thinnest one possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To help everyone, here is a brief breakdown of items:
  1. Tornado reports come from the Storm Prediction Center (US Gov) on this website already in dot form. SPC colors tornado reports red, this map colors them black.
  2. Tornado warnings and severe thunderstorm warnings themselves come from the National Weather Service, who issues them and draws the warning polygons. Tornado warnings are automatically colored red and severe thunderstorm warnings are automatically colored yellow. GIS archives of these warning polygons are hosted on the Iowa Environmental Mesonet site.
  3. Date choice is dictated by the event being discussed which also has its' own Wikipedia article for those dates: Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025.
  4. The only aspect not automatically provided is the outline of the US, which absolutely does not meet the threshold of originality per Supreme Court.
I honestly do not see any copyrightable aspects to this article. This essentially is just a compilation of U.S. government-created aspects overlayed over a simple outline of the US. The Commons has confirmed numerous times that attribution does not equal copyright, i.e. the "By: Ian Livingston" is not proof it is copyrighted. The U.S. government requires by law they are attributed in any creation that has mostly aspects created by them (see warning on {{PD-NWS-employee}} for that law), so the "Source:" line is required by law, not creator choice. Literally, there is nothing creative about this work. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I agree, not a true creative work. If the map was hand drawn and the points placed by hand it would be created by a human, and be eligible for a copyright. --RAN (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bakstein4-1-11.jpg

Мне было указано, что файл удалён, так как он легко находится в других местах, где не обозначено его авторство. Изображение полностью сделано мной в рамках моего авторского проекта "Многопортрет", моя съёмка (есть негатив), моя печать (есть бумажная фотография). Я выкладываю свои работы на своих ресурсах, откуда они могут быть свободно взяты безответственными людьми без указания источника и использованы в своих интересах. Вот оригинальная ссылка на фотографию Иосифа Бакштейна на моём ресурсе: https://cloud.mail.ru/home/Многопортрет/Иосиф%20Бакштейн/bakstein4-1-11.jpg Можно увидеть, что фотография там бОльшего размера и необрезанная. Конечно, есть у меня и скан ещё бОльшего размера. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Михальчук Михаил Александрович (talk • contribs) 08:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Извините, правильная общедоступная ссылка на эту фотографию на моём ресурсе: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/zyWf/bJG4eZrP6 Михальчук Михаил Александрович (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I don't see any free license on the cited page. I don't read Russian and Google translate did not work on the page, but the linked terms of use has an explicit prohibition for all except personal use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what "cited page" you mean, so I don't understand what "linked terms" you write about.
Most of all I don't understand why I can't upload file which is my own work.
Вот перевод текста, который я написал первым ответом на удаление:
"I was told that the file had been deleted because it was easily accessible in other places where its authorship was not indicated. The image was completely created by me as part of my author's project "Mnogoportret," my photography (with a negative), and my printing (with a paper photograph). I post my works on my own resources, where they can be freely taken by irresponsible individuals without attribution and used for their own benefit. Here is the original link to the photograph of Joseph Bakstein on my resource: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/zyWf/bJG4eZrP6
You can see that the photo is larger and uncut. Of course, I also have a larger scan".
Of course, I immediately placed the correct link to the photo on my website. Михальчук Михаил Александрович (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Михальчук Михаил Александрович: For any content previously published elsewhere, a confirmation of the license via COM:VRT is necessary. Also this is not the original picture and EXIF data. Yann (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
I'll try to figure it out and do what I can to fix the situation. Михальчук Михаил Александрович (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the erroneous citation, there is only one page cited in this discussion -- you have cited it twice. It has a subpage linked to it which shows terms of use.
You can't upload the file because you are an anonymous user -- although you have a username, anyone could have that name -- and the file is in use elsewhere without a free license. We have no way here of knowing if you have any valid relationship with the page you cite, so for your protection we require that you prove that own the copyright by using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
I will try to understand this and do what I can to fix the situation. Михальчук Михаил Александрович (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jonathan_Brill_portrait_2024.jpg

The file is owned by Jonathan Brill and has given authorization for public use. --Ptulloch (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)pet[reply]

 Oppose "Public use" is not enough for Commons file. It has to be freely licensed so that anyone can use it for any purpose. Abzeronow (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Also please remember that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give one the right to freely license it as required here. That right is held by the photographer. While Mr. Brill may have a license to use the image for his publicity, it is extremely rare for such licenses to include the right to freely license the image to others. In order for the image to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or Mr. Brill must send such a license together with a copy of his license from the photographer which permits him to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files from admhmao.ru

The files were taken from the website [2] the materials of which are available under license "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International". Is the official website of the government of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug. Fenixs-ru (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info
 https://admhmao.ru/admhmao.ru sent back an error.
 Error code: 447 No Reason Phrase
Ankry (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There a problem with access from some countries outside of Russia, so it seems WebArhive does not save the current version of the site. Perhaps YandexwebCache will open (YandexwebCache). Or the old website design https://old.admhmao.ru/. is available in the archive https://archive.fo/jvufc/ Fenixs-ru (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that if someone restricts access to license then we may doubt if they indeed want to grant a license worldwide and, maybe, we should request a VRT permission. But leaving the decision to other admins.  Neutral Ankry (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The files are clearly CC-BY 4.0. The site shows the notice "Все материалы сайта доступны по лицензии: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" prominently in the footer. Geo-restrictions to access governmental sites are implemented to prevent DDOS attacks. In doubt, a screenshot could be sent to VRT. -- Miha (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Emma Luttenauer championnat d'europe.jpg

Hello the picture emma luttenauer european championship have been removed but we have the right to use it you can contact the fflutte and they will tell you, we have the right for this picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akiraoconor (talk • contribs) 22:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, uploader was informed about VRT on September 9, 2025. Thuresson (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg

As a user keen on flags, I suppose that File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg should not be deleted.

One of the reasons explaining why File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg should not be deleted is that according to the original statement of this file, the design then was derived from that from Vexilla Mundi, and Vexilla Mundi allows the designs there to be used in non-commercial websites.

In this page is the description of this file before deletion: https://web.archive.org/web/20250828195257/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg

Moreover, I object to Safes007's reason to delete this flag. It seems to me that once a flag is released into the public domain, minor changes to it do not infringe on the original version's copyright; what's more, the flag of the Cocos Islands has been used in emoji icons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9BBWMJ (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, from my point of view, File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg should be restored.

@9BBWMJ: Do you believe that this flag is in the public domain, and if so, why? Thuresson (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the page describing the Australian Symbols booklet has a Copyright and Disclaimer page with a CC-BY 4.0 International license. YIIBUGRADIO (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page you cite contains an Australian Symbols booklet which clearly states "This work is copyright. Apart from use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth, available from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet". So no, this shouldn't be restored. Bedivere (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given @Jameslwoodward's comment above, what do you think of this one? I closed this as not done but then I saw your comment in the other thread thinking otherwise. Bedivere (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The situation with the Capitol Territory Flag is ambiguous. We have the booklet with a clear and explicit copyright notice and the web site describing the booklet in detail including an image of the flag. The web site has a CC-BY license. It is a fixed rule of legal interpretation that ambiguity may always be construed against the writer, so on that basis we can accept the image.
That doesn't help with Cocos(Keeling) because the flag is described but not pictured on the web site, so the only illustration we have of the flag is clearly marked with a copyright notice. The note above about Vexilla Mundi covers only NC uses, which, of course, we do not permit.
A final consideration is that the Australian Government paid A$20 million to free the Aboriginal Peoples flag from copyright, so it seems that they want the flags to be free. Not withstanding that, however, I think we are stuck with a clear copyright notice on the only source we have. This is probably a bureaucratic screwup, so could probably be fixed by someone here interested enough in the situation to write a letter. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my part, I would prefer to delete only when we copy an actual drawing from elsewhere, not when someone makes their own drawing/SVG based on the description. If we are copying all the specific curves and lines, that is an issue to me. Much like heraldry (and Commons:Coats of arms), often it's just the particular drawing which has a copyright, not the overall idea of the flag. There could be some gray areas, but when it comes to governmental flags at least, which often has a description or drawing in the law (which is PD-EdictGov in the US), I would more limit it to the particular drawing. We should not copying particular drawings from elsewhere, but I don't think it means we can't have any flag at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: Do you suggest that any of these versions of Aboriginal flag may be free in Australia? Ankry (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Private flags (which the aboriginal flag was) would be a bit different as there is likely not a written description to start with. Particularly in Australia, where the threshold is so exceedingly low. Official flags, unless they are copying specific lines or another drawing, probably OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: Carl, generally I would agree with you, but perhaps Australia is a special case. Using your argument, anyone could have made a copy (on paper or cloth) of the Aboriginal Flag from the time of its creation until 2022 when the government spent A$20 million to acquire the copyright. I think we did not keep any copies of that flag until 2022. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Australia definitely has a low threshold of originality so any private flag, I'd say stay away. This flag is meant to be an official government flag. If not slavishly copying lines, I'd probably think those are OK. Maybe it would still be considered Crown Copyright -- Australia does have a really low threshold, so yes I would tread carefully. Just don't think that copyright can cover any drawing somewhat matching a description (though the aboriginal flag would be far, far below the TOO in the U.S.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Birmingham_Skyline_at_dusk_(Instagram@3johnnyg2025).jpg

The above upload was deleted by User:Podzemnik following a request by User:Gbawden on the basis: "Credited to Instagram@3johnnyg2025 - needs permission to keep"

Please see attached permission from 3johnnyg2025, dated 12 March 2025. Per our agreement, he was credited for the image by including his Instagram account within the filename. To avoid future confusion, the credit could instead be noted in the caption or further information for the image.

Please either undelete the image or grant permission for its upload per the above mentioned procedure.

File:Permission details.png

BlueandWhiteStripes (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose For two reasons. First, we do not accept forwarded permissions -- we have seen too many forgeries, so the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. Second, permission to use the images on WP is not sufficient -- images here must be free for any use by anybody anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done As per Jim. Ankry (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg

Deiner Bayona es un cantante colombiano de música vallenata, conocido por haber sido integrante del grupo El Binomio de Oro de América entre 2013 y 2017. Es oriundo de Valledupar y creció en un ambiente musical, siendo reconocido como una voz joven y fresca dentro del género vallenato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deinerb (talk • contribs) 16:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Probably about the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Deinerb. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Info eswiki article deleted 2 years ago as promo. Ankry (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Ankry and WP/ES. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:August Theodoor Cornelis Kiehl.jpg and File:Henri van Wermeskerken 1929.jpg

@MKoot: These images were deleted because the original license was {{PD-old-assumed}}. However the keep argument was that {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} was the applicable license. The image at the website is marked as "auteursrechtenvrij" (copyright free) and "fotograaf onbekend" (photographer unknown) by the archive. We generally accept the declarations of archives and their lawyers. See: File:Louis Davids Kleine Man.jpg and File:Tropenadel scene 1916.jpg and File:Herman Heijermans 1923.jpg where the argument was accepted. We require "significant doubt" to override a copyright free declaration by an archive. The argument to delete in this series is that "archives do make errors", however no evidence was presented that an error had occurred. --RAN (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:August Kiehl 1915.jpg and File:Intieme Kunst Nap de la Mar.jpg

The correct license would be {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tropenadel scene 1916.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wijze Kater 1918.jpg. The argument was that {{PD-old-assumed}} did not apply, which is correct but not a valid argument for deletion when we know there is an applicable license. I can pick a dozen licenses that are not applicable, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. The other argument used is that the archive declaring that the creator is "Unknown" is not valid. I call this argument "if we just look under one more rock" we may just find the name of the creator. We generally accept the due diligence of the archive unless someone's own research find the name of the creator, which has not happened here. --RAN (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose For both photographs, we are not given any details about the first/original publication, nor about any possible subsequent publications, so we cannot know if there really was "no author disclosure" as claimed here. --Rosenzweig τ 19:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yann: If a search of over 14 billion images by Google Image and Tineye cannot find a named creator, then we have performed the due diligence needed to declare creator=unknown. We have also relied on USA case law for images prior to URAA rule changes that have an image "made public" when it leaves the custody of the creator, and reserve "unpublished" for images with a clear provenance of being retained in an archive since creation as a photographic negative, and no print has ever been in circulation. --RAN (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Over 14 billion images" sounds impressive, but it still is only a fraction of what was published. Claiming "no author disclosure" because you cannot find it online is not correct. --Rosenzweig τ 14:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The license says: "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name was not published." It is only requiring that the due diligence I stated be performed. That is all that can be done, epistemology does not allow one to prove a negative. Your reasoning is what I call: "Just look under one more rock and maybe you will find it.", but 14 billion rocks is enough to meet the requirement of due diligence. --RAN (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding information in a quick online search is not "reasonable evidence", and it is not "all that can be done". If there is no source at all, no information about the original first publication of something, we have PD-old-assumed for it. If it is at least 120 years old. --Rosenzweig τ 11:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:D1875D55-5EC3-C52A-12FF-Crayenesterbrug.jpg

The argument for the deletion was based on the speculation that "interns [may have been given] access to their collections and often those interns added files without any understanding of copyright regulations" and that negates the CCO license. That is the definition of not being "significant doubt", but undue speculation. In the past we have deleted items when an archive has withdrawn the license when an error has been pointed out. This happened several times with the Gallica archive when someone found an named creator for a previously "unknown" creator, or found a death date for a creator that originally did not have a death date, and Gallic withdrew their license. Neither has occurred with this image. The EU generally allows a claw back from the public domain when a creator is found and it is not yet 70 years post mortem auctoris. I have no objection to deletion, should the archive in question withdraw their license. --RAN (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It is a 1931 image, so it must have had a copyright in Holland on the URAA date and therefore has a URAA copyright until next year. It would be good if RAN did not routinely ignore URAA, as that creates a lot of unnecessary discussions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are incorrect, you wrote: "requires proof the work was anonymous" (my emphasis added). The license actually says: "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name was not published." (my emphasis added). It is only requiring that the due diligence I stated be performed. That is all that can be done, epistemology does not allow one to prove a negative. Your reasoning is what I call: "Just look under one more rock and maybe you will find it.", but 14 billion rocks is enough to meet the requirement of due diligence. --RAN (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alex Vasilescu TEDxUCLA 2014.jpg

I own all copyrights to this image.Alexmov (talk)

 Oppose The log shows four different images including three very different people. The first and last of these are the same and are from Facebook. The others are from LinkedIn. In the upload, User:Alexmov claimed to be the actual photographer. The comment above suggests that may not be true. Since this is a FaceBook image, policy requires that either the actual photographer send a free license using VRT or Alexmov send such a license together with a written license from the actual photographer allowing Alexmov to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done VRT permission needed. Ankry (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:circulant 6_3.svg

Accidentally deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomruen (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened, you meant to try to rename it, but you instead put it for speedy deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CEC Gyanesh Kumar taking charge.jpg

The image which has been deleted is of a public authority and is available on the website of the Election Commission of India without any copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strickenduck (talk • contribs) 06:54, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Strickenduck: Where is the Creative Commons license from? Thuresson (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I note that in the upload you claimed that you were the actual photographer. That is clearly not true. Making false statements here can result in your being blocked from editing here.
The image appears here with "© Copyright NDTV Convergence Limited 2025. All rights reserved", so it cannot be restored here without a free license from the actual photographer using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done VRT permission needed. Ankry (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaos Etíliko.jpg

Kaos Etiliko es un grupo musical relevante en la escena del Punk Vasco, merecedor de un artículo en Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pompaelo (talk • contribs)

@Pompaelo: No such file and you have no deleted files. Which file you want to be undeleted? Ankry (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kaos Etiliko (grupo mítico del punk vasco) Pompaelo (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a deleted file. Ankry (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Chief of the Australian Army.svg

How can it violate copyright? It's a military flag, so it's most likely in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.34.164.124 (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-Australia}} does not apply to a 2021 (as declared by the uploader) or 1990s (as suggested in the DR) work. Providing false or incorect information about copyright status is considered copyright violation. Per policy, it is up to the uploader to provide correect information about authorship and copyright status. Most likely is not an accepted undeletion rationale; clear evidence of the declared copyright status needs to be provided. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Australian government works have a 50 year copyright. See {{PD-AustraliaGov}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ducsu election overview.webm

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am Sakib Howlader, a journalist and the original creator of these videos. Both videos were personally Capture and upload by me.

When I first uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons, the files were converted from MP4 to WEBM, which took quite a long time. Due to this delay, I was unable to immediately provide the license information at the time of upload.

I kindly request the restoration of these files so that I can properly add the required license information. SAKIB HOWLADER (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was over a week between upload and deletion: this is enough time to provide license and other info here:
{{Information
|description=
|date=
|source=
|author=
|permission=
|other_versions=
|other_fields=
}}

We need to know their license in order to undelete. Ankry (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Balázs Ádám zeneszerző (2017).png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per ticket:2025080510013675, but I will need to verify once the file is accessible again. Bencemac (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bencemac: No license declared at upload. We need info about license in order to undelete. Ankry (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bencemac: Done. {{Temporarily undeleted}} Yann (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mehrdad bazyari.jpg

hello

reason: i asked the author to send an email with permissions and licence and he sent it(mehrdad bazyari himseldf)

so i request, please undelete this file

thank you

--Lordnorow (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Undeletions based on VRT permissions are handled by VRT team. Ankry (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 8 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SKUlogga-2.png

i have permission from the chairman of the communist youth of sweden to use the logo for wikipedia ive spoken to him and he doesnt have a problem with it its free to use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannananana (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please have them submit the permission to COM:VRT. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montage of photos of all the murdered Nova festival participants.jpg

Requesting undeletion based on the concept of Commons:De minimis. Each photo in the montage is a low enough resolution to be able to be considered de minimis. This image is similar to the case of the photo of the skyline of the Georgian city of Batumi, in which the country has no Freedom of Panorama, making each builing in the photo copyrightable. However, with the resolution of each building low enough, the contribution of each building is considered de minimis, and the image can be stored on the Commons. Green Montanan (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"