Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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: 2 timestamps • 0 reasons • 2 subpages) • 0 malformed
125 copyvios • 14 duplicates • 87 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:Park Sung-jae.jpg

This photo was originally uploaded on the “Open Minister's Office”(열린장관실) homepage of the Ministry of Justice. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice three things.

  1. “COPYRIGHTⓒ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. REPUBLIC OF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.” — This claim is on every website of the South Korean government, even on the page of the KOGL. This is just a general disclaimer only.
  2. Logo of WebWatch in green color — A web standardization certification that has nothing to do with copyright. (It's like W3C or HTML5 logo)
  3. The KOGL Type 1 logo ({{KOGL}}, File:KOGL 1.svg) — It is clearly indicates that the entire content of the this subdomain of MoJ is released under KOGL Type 1. Please note “Open Minister's Office” homepage is separated from the original homepage of MoJ. It is only accesiable by click "법무부 소개" > "장관소개" from top menu and it will be open in new tab. You can obviously see that it's separated from the original site with diffrent logo, title and web design.

Average Pennsylvanian mentioned that he couldn't be sure because each photo didn't have the KOGL logo, which is not true. Here's an example of a misuse of the KOGL logo. This is the homepage of the Office of the President. It also displays the KOGL logo(File:KOGL wordmark (Korean).svg at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't say what kind of KOGL it is at all. In this case we cannot use the image unless there is KOGL logo and specified type on each page.--Namoroka (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antigua.news.jpg File:Antigua.news small icon.jpg

File: antigua.news.jpg File: Antigua.news small icon.jpg

Hi,

I noticed that the above files have been deleted for copyright reasons. However the owner of the images authorizes the use of them with credit and link. Both requirement have been met on the wiki page where there are used.

Please note that on antigua.news website there is this copyright message on the bottom of the page, which confirms what I wrote above:

“All contents of this site including images, texts and other assets are copyrighted and owned by Antigua.news. No contents of this site may be reproduced, altered, or distributed except you give appropriate credit and provide a link to the copyright holder, and indicate if changes were made.”

Therefore, I kindly request to undelete the images.

Thanks and regards.

--Mediascriptor (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The requirement for a link cannot be met in print use, so the permission cited is not enough for Commons. These are fairly simply and probably don't have a USA copyright. We know nothing about the Threshold of Originality in Antigua, but as a former UK colony it is probably very low, so these probably have a copyright there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can the requirement for a link be met in print by simply including a URL in the printout? I'd hope so. In this case, that's probably moot (in the U.S. sense) because of your salient point about COM:TOO Antigua, but it's still worth a thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Lunda Tchokwe.svg

This file was just deleted because it doesn't fit in TOO Angola, but the symbol in the middle is the traditional lusona symbol for antelope footprint. [1] Other than that the graphic consists of just simple rectangles and circle. Therefore the deletion was incorrect. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, although COM:Angola also notes that "Traditional learning and use are treated the same as literary, artistic and scientific works." I will admit that my knowledge of African symbols like this is lacking so I won't oppose restoration here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about it before, but the pattern probably already existed in colonial times and Portuguese law, where folk patterns are not protected, may apply. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I might need to try to find someone who is an expert on Angola and then temporarily undelete to get their opinion. (if someone else thinks I should reverse my deletion, I'll also do so.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg

File:Heinz Organic Tomato Ketchup (28723042688).jpg As per the discussion at [2] and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, we need to be consistent in our decisions. Pinging @Jameslwoodward, King of Hearts, Glrx, Clindberg, and Josve05a: involved people. Yann (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still object to this interpretation, but do not care at this point. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support My opinion is unchanged from the original deletion discussions,1 and 2. Takipoint123 (💬) 19:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak oppose IMO, we should be able to allow derivative works, including reasonable cropping. Unlike De minimis cases, where cropping to copyrighted items is mostly pointless due to their size and crop quality, the label here is prominent part of the photo. Same applies to File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, IMO. If the label quality was low or copyrighted parts were not fully visible, I would change my opinion. Ankry (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is similar to a FOP situation. The picture would be OK on Commons, even if a crop might not be. Yann (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support If it's the photo at https://www.flickr.com/photos/85567416@N03/37211095091, I would say it's directly in line with Ets-Hokin. Similar to de minimis, cropping to just the label may be an issue (it changes the "underlying work"). Though in this case, the only copyrightable parts of the label are the pictorial representations of the fruit and leaves, so that may be actual de minimis as well. But a pictorial label would still be "incidental" to the photo of the entire bottle regardless, per that ruling. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carl Lindberg: Yes, that's the file. The other one is this picture. Yann (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chandraprabha Saikiani Stamp.jpg

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India stamps of India are now PD per the Government Open Data License. I'm also requesting that the following files be undeleted for the same reason.

Along with all the files that were previously deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps of India and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Koiladababu (the second one might need extra review). --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info #1 is not a stamp of India. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Filipe Nery Xavier commemorative stamp - 450th anniversary of Portuguese India.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vystoupení Digitalism v České Kamenici.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Copyright is mentioned in the source code of this website https://www.festivalkamenice.cz/o-festivalu/ as I have described in my Discussion page at Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bruex).

You can use F12 and search 

<link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" data-image="festival-kamence-2023-122.jpg">
<link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" data-image="36_vypsana-fixa_ceska-kamenice_festival-kamence_2022-1.jpg">
<link rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" data-image="festival-kamenice-2024-112.jpg">

If the copyright evidence isn't enough, please let me know ASAP. Thank you very much in advance. Bruex Bruex (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The first image does not appear on the page listed as its source. It may have previously appeared in Gallery 2023 which is now empty.
 Support The second and third images appear as listed and have the named language in their source code.
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be also OK with undeletion of File:Koncert kapely Vypsaná fiXa v České Kamenici.jpg and File:Vystoupení Digitalism v České Kamenici.jpg, even without File:Koncert Davida Kollera v České Kamenici.jpg. Do I have to submit a new request in that case? If not, I ask for undeletion of File:Koncert kapely Vypsaná fiXa v České Kamenici.jpg and File:Vystoupení Digitalism v České Kamenici.jpg only. Bruex (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Srpsko carstvo.jpg

I sincerely apologize if i have done something i should not have done.I am new to Wikipedia(publishing perspective). I uploaded the file titled "Srpsko carstvo" and the file "Stefan Uroš IV Dušan Nemanjić" on 11th january,2025.

I would more or less understand the picture of Dušan,but the file "Srpsko carstvo" was a map made by my hands. The file is the map of the Serbian Empire i personally made,while the picture of Dušan i added the full name which i haven't found anywhere on the internet,so i thought the picture was fine.

Everything was fine until i have tried putting it on the page on wikipedia,which ultimately resulted in a deletion of both pictures. If me putting the pictures on the wikipedia was a mistake,i am truly sorry.

I implore you to,at the very least,restore the file "Srpsko carstvo" I know it might not seem special,but i am sure you understand,as creators,the sentimental value of personal work and it means a lot.

Thank you in advance and best wishes from me!

Stefan Binić — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan Binić (talk • contribs) 04:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The portrait of Stefan Dusan appears in many places on the Web. It may be in the public domain, but it is up to you to prove that. As for the map, it is hard to believe that you drew the map from a blank sheet of paper and inserted the many place names the appear on it. It would be a foolish thing to waste time on as there are many base maps available that are freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,@Jameslwoodward.
Huge thank you for your quick reply and answer.
If it helps in any way,i will provide you with a link to a quick Youtube video i made which shows three pictures of the map "Srpsko carstvo" in works.
[3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc7E08M1YOA
That might be enough evidence,if not to restore the map,then,at the very least,show you i would rather not have anything than have work online that is not of my own.
I completely understand and agree with the need to be seriously careful when it comes to personal works of the creators and protecting their work online from being stolen in any way by others.It is a huge personal relief knowing my work is safe in your hands.
I originally made the map only for the youtube video with the purpose of showing,at least,the glimse of who our ancestors were,while me trying to put the map on Wikipedia was just a "if it is accepted,it's a bonus.If not,my main purpose was done".
If you're still adamant with your decision that the map "Srpsko carstvo" is not acceptable on the Wikipedia platform,i understand.
Thank you,again,in advance for your time and the discussion you've allowed me to have with you.
Stefan Binić Stefan Binić (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube video shows a base map with dots for the towns. Where did the base map come from. It says nothing about the labor required to name all the dots and does not speak to the question of the image of Stefan Dusan. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with pauldebevec.com

I emailed Jim Blinn about whether or not I could upload those pictures and he gave me full permission to upload them. I hadnt asked for which license to use so I used the license of the original paper these pictures appeared in, which was an attribution license. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/360349.360353 That license probably isnt friendly to Wikimedia Commons standards; I can email him again to ask for a new license to upload these under. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bst9jkj (talk • contribs) 15:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bst9jkj: What is the purpose of these images? Thuresson (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are some examples of the earliest computer made reflection maps, made in 1979 by Jim Blinn. I thought it'd be unfair for these important pictures to be forgotten so I decided to upload them to Wikipedia Bst9jkj (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I meant Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Bst9jkj (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Bst9jkj, if you can follow the instructions at COM:VRTS I believe you'll get a case number and you can connect your correspondence with that. I'm sure these are really great and valuable historically so I hope you can get them restored properly! Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:HarmonyOS NEXT.webp

So, I was referred here from ENWP about undeleting the file. I'd make sure that this would be PD-ineligibleUSonly. --Ahri Boy (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File looks under the US ToO to me. (so it could be transferred to enwiki) Abzeronow (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly PD in the USA where there is no copyright on typography. Possibly PD in China as well. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahri Boy: I've temporarily undeleted it. Abzeronow (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checking on the X part of the logo, it's too simple. I feel it should have been undeleted. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shizhao: @Wcam: I'll ask a few that would know more about Chinese ToO than me. Abzeronow (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Рудковецьке городище.jpg

Це мої особисті фотографії Michaila vnuk (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Probably out of scope for lack of good captions. Also note that Commons policy on montages requires that the individual images be uploaded separately. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This photo series shows the landscape changes in relation to an archaeological site (before and after its partial flooding by a reservoir), making such a photomontage necessary. It is essential for orientation. Michaila vnuk (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Scope is fine, but as Jim says, each of the composing pictures must be in the public domain or under a free license. And we need a proof of that, preferably by uploading all of them here with proper information. Yann (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: I’ve never heard of a Commons policy on montages, let alone one that requires that the individual images be uploaded separately. It would be terrible if discussions here are able to make up policies as they go.
Luckily, Yann has already replied with a more accurate explanation of actual Commons policy. Brianjd (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that my summary of Yann's more complete explanation offended -- the fact remains that the copyright status of each constituent image must be addressed and the easiest way to do that -- the way it is almost always done -- is to upload each constituent image separately. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: I agree that uploading each source image individually is ideal, both for verifying provenance and helping re-mixers.
However, it is not strictly required, and your initial reply was simply incorrect. I previously defended a file from a wrongful speedy deletion based on a similar misinterpretation of policy. Brianjd (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portrait Stefan Schramm.jpg

I am the author of this file. I am the person on this image and also did the image by myself hence I have the right to use it as I want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LumiChemist (talk • contribs) 19:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the copyright holder, please use the Wikimedia VRT release generator. --Leyo 19:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The image appears with a copyright notice and no free license at https://www.htw-dresden.de/en/luc/ueber-uns/personen/professoren/schramm-prof-dr-rer-nat-stefan. I see no reason there to assume that the subject is sufficiently notable to require an image here and I also do not see anywhere near enough contributions to justify keeping it for the subject's user page, which does not, in any event, exist. Also, it looks like a formal studio portrait, not a selfie.      Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Splatoon 3.svg

This is a simplified logo of the videogame Splatoon 3 taken from FACEIT and in my opinion it does not meet the threshold of originality, especially when compared to other works uploaded to Commons under the same license.

There are other Nintendo game logos uploaded to Commons that are equally, if not more complex than this one, including:

As well as other ones in Category:Nintendo video game logos.

Furthermore, the Cyberpunk 2077 logo—a videogame logo that has two colors instead of one, way more details, and is overall more complex in my opinion (it has a much larger SVG file size as well)—was deemed not copyrightable by the Review Board of the U.S. Copyright Office for not being complex enough.

My upload is a simplified version of the game's logo and therefore, as well as per my reasoning above I would like it to be undeleted.

Thank you! Best regards, Wmyttmlimvty (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There's no universe in which this file is problematic and Splatoon 2.svg is fine. Either both should be kept or both should be deleted. The question is whether the squid head is copyrightable in either the US or Japan. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion as per USCO decision on the Cyberpunk logo the complexity or originality of the font used does not matter for US copyright protection. Japanese ToO was not discussed in the DR and if someone considers this logo as above Japanese ToO, a new DR discussion should be opened. Ankry (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fontana La Nave

The deletion of these files by Rosenzweig was incorrect for multiple reasons:

1. Incorrect copyright assessment

  • The sculpture was commissioned by an Italian public entity and is therefore subject to Italy's 20-year copyright term for government works per COM:FOP Italy. It was published in 1987, meaning its copyright expired in 2007.
  • The URAA does not extend copyright indefinitely; it only restores copyright if it was still valid in the source country on January 1, 1996. Since copyright in Italy expired in 2007, any URAA-restored copyright in the US also ended in 2007.

2. Deletion despite ongoing discussion

  • Rosenzweig deleted the files while a discussion was still in progress, with two users explicitly opposing deletion. Given the existing debate, a more appropriate course of action would have been to allow proper consensus to form before deletion.
  • A previous deletion request was already closed as keep, reinforcing the case for retention.

3. URAA is not a standalone reason for deletion

  • As explicitly stated in COM:URAA, the mere fact that the URAA may have applied temporarily is not a sufficient reason for deletion.
  • Copyright status must be assessed under both US and local laws, and in this case, the work is in the public domain in both jurisdictions.

4. Files could have been transferred instead of deleted

  • Given that there is clearly no copyright restriction in Italy, a more appropriate approach would have been to transfer the files to the Italian Wikipedia rather than deleting them outright.

Given these factors, I request the undeletion of these files.--Earthh (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose as deleting admin.
  • Yes, the monument is in the PD in Italy. However, Earthh's claim that "Since copyright in Italy expired in 2007, any URAA-restored copyright in the US also ended in 2007" is not correct. As I wrote in the deletion rationale, that would be what is called the rule of the shorter term, and Commons:URAA-restored copyrights#Frequently Asked Questions explicitly says “The US does not have the rule of the shorter term”. So URAA did not apply “temporarily” as claimed, it does still apply. And it does not “extend copyright indefinitely”. It provides a term of protection accd. to US copyright rules.
  • Claims like URAA is not a standalone reason for deletion are outdated, the current status quo is that URAA absolutely can be the sole reason for deletion.
  • Deletion requests are usually open for at least seven days. This one dates from January 11, I closed it today after 21 days. The last contribution to the discussion was on January 24, 8 days ago. Also, deletion discussions are not votes, and no consensus can override copyright.
  • If you (or anybody else) want to transfer the files to anywhere else, temporary undeletion for transfer (usually no longer than 2 days) is possible. --Rosenzweig τ 13:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "the current status quo is that URAA absolutely can be the sole reason for deletion" directly contradicts COM:URAA, which states that "a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion."
Anyway, I suggest proceeding with a temporary undeletion to transfer the files to Italian Wikipedia. Earthh (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the issue is not really URAA, but has it a copyright in USA in the first place? That's not obvious. And we don't usually care about USA copyright if the pictures are under a free license (e.g. Category:Chapelle Perret: all these files were undeleted a few weeks ago as the architect died more than 70 years ago). And thousands of files under Category:Military monuments and memorials in France, i.e. File:Monument pigeons 1914 1918 2.jpg and File:Monument pigeons 1914 1918 1.jpg. Yann (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Earthh: It is not a "mere allegation" (but has a rationale why the URAA applies), so there is no contradiction. Re: Temporary undeletion: Are you ready to transfer the files to somewhere? Because after two days (at most), the files will be deleted again.
  • @Yann: It's not architecture, it's art created by a sculptor. Why would it not have a US copyright? I also don't see how the notion "we don't usually care about USA copyright if the pictures are under a free license" is correct. The fr:Chapelle Perret is a 1927/1929 building, so there should be no problem with US copyright a) because the building as such is not copyrighted b) because the copyright for the works of art inside the building has expired. Unless some are from after 1929, then they're still copyrighted. The WW I monuments are also usually from before 1930. --Rosenzweig τ 21:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rosenzweig: OK, forget about Chapelle Perret. But no, WW I monuments are not always from before 1930. The ones I linked above are from 1936. There are thousands of files in the same situation. And this is the first time I see someone arguing for deletion of such files. Yann (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they're from after 1929, their copyright was probably restored by the URAA, in which case the files should be deleted. And it's certainly not the first time that someone has argued for the deletion of such files. In the past years, I have regularly un-deleted files of statues from Finland, Iceland and other countries without FOP which were already in the PD in their source country for some time, but not yet in the US (before the year of undeletion). Just a month ago another case like this (La Fée Électricité) was mentioned at the COM:VPC. --Rosenzweig τ 22:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is the first time I see someone arguing for deletion of such works. More examples? Category:Robert Wlérick, Category:Hercule et le taureau de Crète, Category:Monument au Maréchal Foch (Lille), Category:Charles Malfray, Category:Sculptures by Aristide Maillol, Category:Edgar Boutry, etc. Yann (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I see no reason why this work does not have a URAA copyright until 1/1/2083 and, therefore, no way we can restore it without the permission of the sculptor or their heir. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Earthh: I've temporarily undeleted the first three for transfer to itwiki. Let me know when the transfer of these is done, and I'll re-delete and move on to the next wave of temporarily undeletions. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antrag zur Wiederherstellung von File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

im Frühjahr 2014 habe ich von einem Plakat des Kameradenkreises der Gebirgstruppe die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht kopiert und in die jeweiligen Artikel der Divisionen eingefügt. Dabei habe ich bei jedem Divisionsabzeichen fälschlicherweise (damals war ich Anfänger bei Wikipedia) als Urheber den Kameradenkreis angegeben.

In der Beschreibung aller Divisionsabzeichen muss es richtigerweise heißen: - Quelle: Archiv Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe - Autor: unbekannt, da heute für alle Divisionen nicht mehr nachvollziehbar - Lizenz: Dieses Bild stellt das Wappen einer deutschen Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts dar. Nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG (Deutschland) sind amtliche Werke wie Wappen gemeinfrei. Zu beachten: Wappen sind allgemein unabhängig von ihrem urheberrechtlichen Status in ihrer Nutzung gesetzlich beschränkt. Ihre Verwendung unterliegt dem Namensrecht (§ 12 BGB), und den öffentlichen Körperschaften dienen sie darüber hinaus als Hoheitszeichen.

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg und auch die der übrigen 12 Gebirgsdivisionen, falls die auch schon gelöscht worden sind.

Mit Dank im Voraus für Ihr Verständnis und Ihre Bereitschaft helfen zu wollen -- Jost (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: I am the deleting admin. Jost, can you cite which statute or decree these patches are part of? (and I've discussed similar cases with Rosenzweig on my talk page.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: These patches were worne as an official part of the uniform. Each mountain division of the Wehrmacht have had their own patch. The patches were created by the staff of the division and were approved by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH). I have read your dicussion with Rosenzweig. Jost (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JostGudelius: Ob die Bundeswehr oder ihre Untergliederungen wirklich Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, finde ich zumindest zweifelhaft. Müsste man evtl. mal bei de:WP:URF klären. Aber unabhängig davon sind auch Gemeindewappen usw. deshalb gemeinfreie amtliche Werke, weil sie mal in einer amtlichen Verlautbarung bekanntgemacht wurden. Die ZDv 37/10 hat bspw. diverse Verbandsabzeichen. Ist das hier auch so? Wenn ja, wann und wo? Oder hat das irgendjemand inoffiziell erstellt? --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Es handelt sich hier um die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht. Diese Abzeichen wurden wahrscheinlich von den Divisionen geschaffen und vom Kriegsministerium bzw. Oberkommando des Heeres genehmigt. Urheber und Genehmigungsprozess sind heute nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Ob Streitkräfte Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, kann ich nicht belegen - ich bin kein Jurist. Sie sind aber eine vom Staat beauftragte Organisation/Körperschaft mit einem Auftrag und klaren Rechtsrahmen, der mit der Verfassung / dem Grungesetz beginnt.Gruß --Jost (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Deine Frage bezüglich der ZDV 37/10, die diverse Verbandsabzeichen enthält, trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Diese Verbandsabzeichen werden bei allen Verbänden, die eines Artikels bei Wikipedia würdig sind, in der Info-Box ohne Probleme eingefügt. Das gleiche muss auch für die Verbandsabzeichen der Verbände der Wehrmacht gelten; sie haben von ihrer Entstehung und Genehmigung her das gleiche Procedere und den gleichen Status. Sie sind offizielle Abzeichen/Wappen einer deutschen Behörde/eines Verbandes der Wehrmacht und m.E. gemeinfrei. Ich bitte Dich, dies @Abzeronowzu erklären und darauf hinzuwirken, dass die Löschungen der Divisionsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht rückgängig gemacht bzw. unterlassen werden, damit wir uns in Zukunft diese Diskussionen ersparen. Dein Englisch ist weitaus besser als das meinige, bitte mach es. Ich werde inzwischen Quelle und Urheber in den Beschreibungen der Verbandsabzeichen bearbeiten/korrigieren. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ich übersetze das mal: Du weißt demnach nicht, ob besagte Grafik mal in irgendeiner Vorschrift bekanntgemacht o. ä. wurde. Du vermutest es nur. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig:zunächst mal herzlichen Dank, dass Ihr weiter mit mir kommuniziert und versucht, mir zu helfen. Inzwischen habe ich heute nach heftiger Recherche folgende Aussagen und Quellen gefunden, die belegen, dass meine Vermutung (Erfahrung aus langjähriger Tätigkeit in den Streitkräften bei der Truppe, in Stäben und im Ministerium) durchaus richtig ist und auch bei Wikipedia und Commons bearbeitet wurde. Siehe:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verbandsabzeichen_1._Gebirgs-Division.png in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht?uselang=deDivision.png?uselang=de.
Mützenedelweiß, Ärmelabzeichen und Verbandsabzeichen (für Fahrzeuge und Gerät) der 1. GebDiv wurden vom Oberkommando des Heeres mit Verfügung vom 2.Mai 1939 eingeführt; siehe in: Thomas Müller, Verheizt - Vergöttert - Verführt, Die deutsche Gebirgstruppe 1915- 1939, Veröffentlichung des Bayerischen Armeemuseums Band 16, 1. Auflage 2017, S. 68. Die Divisionsabzeichen/Truppenkennzeichen der Wehrmacht wurden vom OKH endgültig legitimiert mit Befehl Nr. 21 vom 16.Februar 1944 (OKH GenSt d H Org Abt II/31 180/44); siehe in: W. Fleischer, Truppenkennzeichen des deutschen Heeres und der Luftwaffe, Dörfler-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3895554448.
Ich meine, das reicht Ich bitte Dich und @Abzeronow, die Verbandsabzeichen der 1.GebDiv (Edelweiß) und der 3.GebDiv (Narvikschild) wiederherzustellen. Gruß --Jost (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jost, Ich habe Ihre Aussagen über Google Translate gelesen. Da ich kein Deutsch spreche, habe ich mich auf Englisch verständigt. Aber ich werde bei Bedarf maschinelle Übersetzung verwenden. (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: I hope you can although translate my answer to @Rosenzweig. I think all doubts are now cleared up. Greetings --Jost (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russian Paralympic Committee flag (2021).svg

This file was deleted because the original uploader didn't provide sufficient evidence that the file was in the public domain or with a free licence. However, a user on zh-wp gave evidence that the logo was proposed by International Paralympic Committee (IPC) (per Paralympic document). We can assume that the IPC created the logo since there's no other information about the designer. We can, therefore, use pd-textlogo by COM:TOO Germany (since the IPC is based in Germany) to deal with the logo and the special emblem, per №.N at the deletion request.

Here's the original text:

这个标志最初由国际残奥委会推出[4]。原设计者不明的情况下可以认为是国际残奥委会的作品，技术上可依据国际残奥委会总部所在国德国的原创性门槛来处理。（以下信息皆仅用于本讨论作为参考）另外，合理推测俄罗斯残奥委会的标志中明显的俄罗斯国旗元素，是国际残奥委会推出这个special emblem的原因之一（俄罗斯在东京奥运可以直接使用俄罗斯奥委会标志，因为俄罗斯奥委会标志的俄罗斯国旗元素相对没那么明显），同时这个special emblem原设计者是俄罗斯籍的可能性也很低。

— User:Liu116, in: 檔案存廢討論#File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg

--Saimmx (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Full erection of circumcised 76-year-old.jpg

This image depicts a 76-year-old male (it used to be in the category Nude 76-year-old male humans per Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/05/Category:Nude 76-year-old male humans and the preceding CfD linked there). A 76-year-old male would be an ‘old man’ (per the de facto Commons categorization scheme).

The mere fact that this image depicts an erection of an old man seems to make the image notable.

It is not clear how many other images Commons has depicting this topic, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that Commons lacks such images. There is no category Nude old men with erect penis. There is a category Nude old men, which contains (directly or indirectly) a total of 5 files, none of which depict erections. There is one image that I am aware of, File:00000 An Erect human penis viewed from the front 190mm.jpg, and even that image narrowly escaped deletion after a dubious discussion. Brianjd (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ing. Jozef Belko CSc.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: By the [5] this file is uploaded by inheritor of author. Uploader is Mirkuff. Frettie (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a selfie by the subject, is it? Thuresson (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:필라델피아 한인 대회 실제 촬영 동영상 2 (1919. 4. 16.).webm

I want to add correct information of it, but it was deleted. Unfortunately, I deleted that file too long ago so I can't upload this file correctly and even I don't remember what this file was. Restore this file then I'll add everything you've requested as soon as possible.--917ph (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info 1919 film, title says "copyright Chai-Ho Ro" Abzeronow (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source : https://theme.archives.go.kr/viewer/common/archWebViewer.do?bsid=200200000715&dsid=000000000001&gubun=search
Author : Chai-Ho Ro
This video is from 'National Archives of Korea(https://archives.go.kr/english/index.jsp)' and all materials from this website is totally copyright free like LOC (Library of Congress) and Chai-Ho Ro gave this video to the korean government for public use a long time ago. 917ph (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any copyright statement other than an all rights reserved disclaimer at the bottom. A 1919 film could be public domain, was Chai-Ho Ro a person or a company? (Edit: It appears {{PD-Korea-1910-1945-film}} would be relevant here.) Abzeronow (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is a person who was born in 19th century. So there is much less info about this man. I guess his video was donated to Korean Government for public use. 917ph (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is copy free but if you request, I'll put that {{PD-Korea-1910-1945-film}}. Just restore this file cuz I don't have this file too, so I even can't modify any info to get thing right. 917ph (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support This seems old enough with {{PD-Korea-1910-1945-film}}. Yann (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: PD film. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:이승만 대통령 취임사 실제 육성 전체 녹취 음성 (1952. 8. 15.).ogg

I want to add correct information of it, but it was deleted. Unfortunately, I deleted that file too long ago so I can't upload this file correctly and even I don't remember what this file was. Restore this file then I'll add everything you've requested as soon as possible.

--917ph (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1952 audio file. Likely still in copyright. Please provide information here so we can determine if the file can be restored. Abzeronow (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the information that was included with the file:
|description= 이승만 대통령 취임사 실제 육성 전체 녹취 음성 (1952. 8. 15.) |date= 2024-09-18 |source= 대통령기록관 |author= 917ph |other_versions= |other_fields= Abzeronow (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've searched all day long but I couldn't find exact source of this video. I give up this video to be restored. Thank you for your effort. 917ph (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: implicitly withdrawn by requestor. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 917ph

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I want to add correct information of it, but it was deleted. Unfortunately, I deleted that file too long ago so I can't upload this file correctly and even I don't remember what this file was. Restore this file then I'll add everything you've requested as soon as possible. 917ph (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Pre-1946 films should be OK with {{PD-Korea-1910-1945-film}}. Yann (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I want to restore only pre-1946 films with {{PD-Korea-1910-1945-film}}.
File:필라델피아 한인 대회 실제 촬영 동영상 (1919. 4. 16.).webm, File:이승만 환국 첫 육성 라디오 연설 영상 (1945. 10. 17.).webm, these two files are all from National Museum of Korean Contemporary History (https://modern_history.kbs.co.kr/archive/userrecordimage/recordImageView.do) whose onwer is KBS (Korea Broadcasting Station) that is operated by Korean Government officially with citizen's tax money. It's public broadcasting station like PBS and C-SPAN in US.
All copyright of them are in KBS and they released these videos for public uses of learning and educating early modern korean history. Other videos can be dismissed. I only want to get only these two videos back. 917ph (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laurent Rieppi July 2022.jpg

Dear Wikimedia Commons team,

I am the original creator of the recently deleted image "Laurent Rieppi 24 July 2022.jpg" and had released it under a CC BY 4.0 licence. Unfortunately, I missed the deadline to respond to the email requesting confirmation of my identity. I kindly request that the image be undeleted, as I am fully willing to provide any necessary verification.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Rieppi (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal image by non contributor. Wikimedia Commons is not a social media, and we do not accept personal images unless people contribute somehow. Please read COM:WEBHOST. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That image was used to illustrate de:Laurent_Rieppi, nl:Laurent Rieppi and the pending en:Draft:Laurent Rieppi.
It was replaced by a lesser quality image (Laurent Rieppi 24 July 2022.png) that I see was deleted too a few seconds ago, after I asked the undeletion.
Isn't the fact that it's used as an illustration on wikipedia pages a good reason for the file to exist? Or have I done it wrong? Rieppi (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts do not count, and nl:Laurent Rieppi is tagged for deletion. Yann (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But de:Laurent Rieppi is online. Rieppi (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May be OK then. Yann (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, do I need to do anything else for the restoration of Laurent Rieppi 24 July 2022.png and Laurent Rieppi 24 July 2022.jpg to be effective, or is it automatic from here? Rieppi (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:DJT Official Portrait (cropped).jpg

Восстанавливай файл негодяй! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.205.161.31 (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The author is photographer Doug Coulter, not in the public domain. Relevant DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:DJT Official Portrait (cropped).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:President Donald J. Trump (32820377445).jpg. Yann (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose We need VRT permission from Coulter. Abzeronow (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:FK Vardar logo.png

I request the undeletion of the file File:FK Vardar logo.png. This file is the official logo of FK Vardar, a historically significant football club in North Macedonia. The logo is essential for accurately representing the club in Wikipedia articles and other Wikimedia projects. Its deletion adversely affects the visual identification of FK Vardar and diminishes the quality of related content. Moreover, the file meets Commons’ copyright and licensing requirements. I kindly ask that the file be restored for the benefit of the community. --Dast2109 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I note that in your upload you claimed that you were the actual creator of the logo. That is apparently not true. Please remember that making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and contributed to the deletion of the image. If you do it again you may be blocked here.

Policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright owner must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:В.Г.Клюев1943.jpg

Hello, This file is a photo taken during the Second World War (1943) and it’s over 70 years old, which makes it public domain in Russia. The author of this photo is unknown (сonsidering the peculiarities of the time and the fact that it has been over 80 years since then), the photos are kept in the family archive of Mr Kluev’s heirs. According to the image licensing instructions, this file fits the public domain rule by template {{PD-old-70}} (here I made a mistake, sorry). Please restore the file so I can make changes and use this template, or please explain how I should make it correctly (users who have been asked such a question have not answered me). Thank you !

03.02. 2025--Varvaratarapova (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose A 1943 Russian work became PD in Russia on 1/1/2014, which is long after the URAA date. It will have a US copyright until 1/1/2039 and can be restored then. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Збережена плиточка.jpg

It is photo of tiles in historical building, cultural heritage monument. Photo was uploaded as part of WLM contest. It was only photo of tiles of this building. Human legs on the photo is useful for comparison to understand what is size of the photo. Can be useful to illustrate article of heritage monument.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Richard Williamson.svg

The file "Coat of arms of Richard Williamson.svg" is truly my own work. I see no reason for its deletion in view of this fact, especially since I have waived my claim to copyright.

--MineEdu (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:16 July 2021 Groundswell protest "Stupid Bitch".jpg

A Facebook friend uploaded this and gave me permission to upload it on Wikimedia. He did not wish to be named. Are there no provisions for those who don't want to be named?

Reposting as @Rieppi swiftly deleted this request without explanation? Cameron.coombe (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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