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: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
29 copyvios • 7 adverts • 30 selfies • 24 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:Popeye-floor-flusher.jpg

As said copyright on Bluto was not renewed  REAL 💬 ⬆   16:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Abzeronow and Krd: as the deletion nominator and the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My information at the time said that Bluto's copyright was in fact renewed. Abzeronow (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: In Commons:Character copyrights, Bluto is mentioned as "not renewed". So? Yann (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Character copyrights can be difficult -- they don't expire all at once usually. Each time a new cartoon or episode or movie or whatever uses a character, and adds more details to their backstory or changes a drawing style or things like that, it sort of creates a new derivative work of the character. The copyright to the new details lasts 95 years from that date. So, characters don't expire all at once -- they expire bit by bit as each work that added detail or changed things expires. The original Mickey Mouse movie has expired, but lots of later details and appearance changes have not. I don't know how reliable it is, but https://pdsh.fandom.com/wiki/Bluto seems to say the original appearance comic was not renewed. But, it sounds like the character was altered in 1933, and those don't seem to be listed in the "public domain appearances". So if there are significant 1933 changes still under copyright, and this image incorporates those, there would be a problem. If this is the 1932 original, it would seem to be OK. I don't really know a lot about the history of that character. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case there shouldn't be a problem. The character wasn't altered in 1933, or at any time in the 1930s. Anyway his design in Floor Flusher doesn't look too different from how he looked in Segar's comics or Fleischer's cartoons. @ZigZagTheTigerSkunk: would you agree? Grey ghost (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree,
Also, no. Bluto was not renewed. @Abzeronow
Bluto's debut in the 1932 strip was not renewed. The original "comic" version of Bluto from "Thimble Theatre" did not have it's copyright renewed at all. So you must be confusing the animated iteration from 1933 which was renewed.
For #@Clindberg To confirm Bluto is PD, copyright records on Project Gutenberg and Card Catalogue (the same typer Jennifer used to confirm the Spinach aspect is also public domain) from 1959 and 1960 did not show anything for Thimble Theatre. King Features only renewed Popeye's debut strip as well as 2 from 1930 and 1935. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also i do agree Bluto's animated iteration looks a bit like the comic version, Popeye got a Fleichor-like apperance in the 1931 strips which did not get renewed. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bluto was a one off villain who didn't have any romantic feelings for Olive Oyl and was not a recurring nemesis for Popeye unlike the still copyrighted animated persona. The original 1932 Bluto Character is in the public domain due to king features not renewing the 1932 strips aka The Eighth Sea storyline.
1933 (copyrighted) Bluto looks like his comic version but acts as a love triangle rival to Popeye rather than his public domain version who wanted to steal a parrot to locate ea treasure and kill Popeye.
Wimpy and other characters however had most of their traits from when they first appeared in the public domain strips. Poopdeck Pappy however was more of a grumpy elder character then the loving and caring iterations from the animated cartoons. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote on undelete, since the animated bluto apperance is not so different from the comic iteration. ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposing undeletion. Abzeronow (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ZigZagTheTigerSkunk (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 917ph

"According to Articles 41 and 42 of the Copyright Act of South Korea, under the jurisdiction of the Government of the South Korea, a work made for hire or a cinematographic work enter the public domain 70 years after it has been made public. (30 years before July 1987, 50 years before July 2013)". So films published before 1957 should be in the public domain.  REAL 💬 ⬆   20:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@999real: According to COM:South Korea and {{PD-Korea}} non-retroativity of 2013 law applies if the author died before 1953. It is not clear if the same rule apples to works for hire. Does the law explicitly state that if copyright expired before 2013, it was not restored also in other cases? Ankry (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it sounds quite clear:
1987 - This Act shall not apply to those works or parts of such works in which copyright has been expired in whole or in part, and which have not been protected by the provisions of the former Act before the enforcement of this Act.
2013 - 제3조(적용 범위에 관한 경과조치) 이 법 시행 전에 종전의 규정에 따라 저작권, 그 밖에 이 법에 따라 보호되는 권리의 전부 또는 일부가 소멸하였거나 보호를 받지 못한 저작물등에 대하여는 그 부분에 대하여 이 법을 적용하지 아니한다. (This Act shall not apply to works, etc. for which all or part of the copyright or other rights protected by this Act were extinguished or were not protected pursuant to previous provisions prior to the enforcement of this Act.)  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the videos fall under Template:PD-South Korea-organization, but some appear to have been filmed in the U.S. and produced by U.S. personnel or networks. It would be better if there were more detailed descriptions or links to the sources. There are no direct links available for now.--Namoroka (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ric Flair Big Gold NWA 1988 colored.png

@Abzeronow This was deleted because of the following copyright registrations made in 1992 ( Commons:Deletion requests/Professional wrestling magazines and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Sismarinho):

  1. V2833P041 for GC London Publishing, which covers the following titles:
    1. Inside wrestling
    2. Victory sports series
    3. World boxing
    4. Wrestling superstars
    5. The Wrestler
  2. V2833P043 for TV Sports Inc / GC London Publishing
    1. KO magazine
    2. Pro wrestling

but this was from "Wrestling's Main Event" which is not one of the listed magazines. I am also not sure that these were registrations at all, they are listed as "Recordation" not "Registration" and "Notes": "Assignment of copyright" between 2 parties. There would have been 4 years of valid copyrights to transfer since 1989, plus whatever issues were published with a valid notice.  REAL 💬 ⬆   23:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Carl Lindberg confirmed this was not a copyright registration  REAL 💬 ⬆   04:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: to check if his opinion is that I should undelete this. Abzeronow (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The records starting with "V" and then numbers are "recorded documents" -- they are not registrations or renewals. It is simply a statement sent to the Copyright Office and dutifully published. There is no verification of any claims. It's usually to note a transfer of copyright and the like. So, those records above are not themselves evidence of anything, other than they think or hope that copyright exists. I have no idea if there were copyright notices on the magazine or not, or if there are other, valid registrations. But, those two cited records are not registrations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hasan md shahriare profile pic.jpg

I am Hasan Md. Shahriare, a published researcher and CTO of Magnetism Tech Limited. My Wikidata item is Q135092463, which references my peer-reviewed IEEE publication (Q135179996).

I am both the subject and original photographer of the image. I re-uploaded the photo with a valid license (CC0 1.0) and added a neutral caption for Wikimedia-wide educational use, not self-promotion. The image is intended for use in my Wikidata item and possible future biographical content on Wikipedia and other projects.

I request that the deletion be reconsidered as the image supports an existing, notable Wikidata item with academic context and satisfies COM:SCOPE and licensing guidelines.

Thank you.

--Hasanshahriare (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Automatically in scope per COM:INUSE on Wikidata: d:Q135092463. The page is currently nominated for deletion with one keep !vote stating that it fulfills d:Wikidata:Notability#3 (fulfills a structural need), and I tend to agree; he is the author of d:Q135179996, which is inherently notable per d:Wikidata:Notability#2 as a publicly available scholarly work. Therefore, I expect the WD entry to be kept, and this image can be readded to that page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait here for a decision in Wikidata. Ankry (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral Just wonder, that who captured your profile picture? If that's just yourself then there's a concern called COM:SELFIE on restoration. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, copyright is another issue to be resolved if the Wikidata item is kept. On-wiki licensing per the "Own work" declaraion does not apply: (1) to photos that are not in the original camera resolution, (2) to photos without EXIF metadata, (3) to photos published elsewhere prior to upload to Commons, (4) to photos of identifiable (non-anonymous) authorship. At least few of the requirements are violated here. In any of the mentioned cases, a free license permission from the photo copyright holder through VRT may be needed unless the licensing can be proven basing on earlier publication. So even if it is undeleted, I will nominate if as {{No permission}}. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: I don't think this is a universal requirement. The lighting and framing are obviously non-professional, making it very plausible for it to have been taken with a webcam or mobile phone on a stand. In these cases, it is reasonable to take the uploader at their word. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hal_Greer_1964.jpeg

This was deleted with the idea that "Please credit United Press International Photo: This picture is for your publication only and must not be loaned, syndicated or used for advertising purposes without written permission from United Press International. By accepting this picture you agree to hold United Press International harmless from any loss or damage arising by reason of your use or publication of this picture.: United Press International, Inc. 220 East 42nd Street New York 17, N. Y." is a valid copyright notice which it is not because it does not contain a copyright notice or symbol.  REAL 💬 ⬆   04:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info The message suggests that receiving this photo in 1964 could not be considered as publication but as private distribution. So what was the real publication date? Its publication on web was much newer. If you wish to reopen the DR you need to provide other arguments than those rejected in the DR.
Pinging @DMacks and Taivo: the deletion nominator and the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we don't know the "publication" in order to decide whether that fails to have a technically notice (making the image free by virtue {{PD-US-no notice}}). DMacks (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source notes it is from the archives of SPORT magazine. I found an issue of it from May 1965 that has an article about Greer. While it does have a photo, it does not have that particular photo (no evidence of publication at that time), and the issue does have a copyright notice that meets the technical formalities and has many other photos as well (suggesting that if they did publish the photo in question themselves at that approximate time, they would have given notice). DMacks (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If UPI was sending copies to clients for further publication, that should be publication by most measures. The client license mentioned just means they couldn't send it to someone else. If this was a wire photo, that is a bit more troubling to me, as the actual copy was transmitted across phone lines and not sure there was a spot for a notice, and not sure if that counted as distributing copies without notice. It's best if there are physical copies which were in the control of the copyright owner, and they sent those copies out. So while I would not doubt publication at the time in general, the question is if there is enough evidence for lack of notice on this particular copy (which I can't see). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never saw this photo so I can't check for other copies or if it was published in newspapers at the time. I am not sure whether UPI ever had exclusive contracts with magazines, I think AP did.
 REAL 💬 ⬆   23:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree that UPI images were distributed to subscribers and that constitutes being "made public", they also did not copyright/renew_copyrights of their images, because they produced hundreds per day and the expense outweighed any benefit. --RAN (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alyemda Airlines Boeing 707 stamp Democratic Yemen.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file was deleted because it is "a graphic art work and is not a government document" but it falls under PD per COM:Yemen as works of applied art or photography produced more than 25 years ago or before 2002 are PD in here. There is no reason for it to be deleted 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to believe that this is public domain in USA? Thuresson (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The URAA date for Yemen is 2008 and the stamp is from 1981 so it seems OK with 25-year term. Ankry (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
because it was published in Yemen and its copyright had expired here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The 25 year term which Abo Yeman mentions is for applied arts -- that is, painting on furniture and the like. Stamps are fine art which have a fifty year after publication term for anonymous works, so this stamp will be under copyright until 1/1/2032 in Yemen and 1/1/2077 in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where does it say that in COM:Yemen? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Yemeni copyright law define what an applied art is? A stamp might be covered under it, but it might not be based on the available information. Abzeronow (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The law on the Protection of Copyrights and Related Rights of Yemen lists "Works of art" as "all branches of art" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only question here is whether the stamp is fine art or applied art, because fine art has a term of fifty years pms and applied art has a term of only twenty-five years from creation. The only appearance of the word "applied" in the Yemeni copyright law is in Article 35:

The financial rights of applied arts and photography shall be protected for twenty five years starting from the beginning of the Gregorian year following the achievement of the work.

Since "applied" is not defined in the document, we must use the generally accepted use of the term. Applied art is decoration on useful objects. Nowhere are stamps treated as applied art -- they are copyrighted with all other fine art. Therefore this stamp will be under copyright in Yemen until 1/1/2032 and in the USA until 1/1/2077. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case can we remove "Graphic design" from en:w:Applied_arts because that is what makes everyone think it applies  REAL 💬 ⬆   00:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Oxford says, "Graphic design is the art or skill of combining text and pictures in advertisements, magazines, or books." A graphic designer creates ads or pages in printed works. Therefore graphic design is applied art. That is distinct from fine arts -- painting and sculpture. This stamp is a painting of an airplane and mountains behind it. While it is not an Old Master, it gets the same copyright treatment as any oil painting. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
any oil painting, as in a work of art? That is already defined in the document as oil paintings definitely falls under "all branches of art" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct -- not Applied Art, and therefore having a fifty year pms term, not twenty-five years from creation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Проект станции «ЗИЛ» Троицкой линии метро.jpg

The file was deleted in February due to lack of permission - however, in other stations of the future metro section, similar images did not cause problems and are officially licensed for use with attribution, including a clarification that the site is from the official Moscow government site. The file should be restored, including because this section will be opened in the near future and there are real photographs of the station that correspond to the project image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlnqln (talk • contribs) 10:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jlnqln (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The fact that similar images exist is irrelevant. Commons has many images that should be deleted. The source site, https://stroi.mos.ru/metro/station/105, times out and there is no {{Licensereview}}, so we cannot check to see if there is a license. This must remain deleted until we can see a valid license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find it? The station images of the same section have the same source site and a similar original, and nothing is said about the license, although if you go to their description and settings, then everything is clearly described there. What should I do? If anything, excuse me, I'm a newbie on Wikipedia and I don't really know how to act, although I really want to help the article of my native Wikipedia, and why this image flew away is not clear to me Jlnqln (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take my words back, sorry.
I understand that you are an English-speaking person, so it will hardly be difficult for you to translate.
Item 2.6, official document on the website. All images related to Moscow transport are based on it. So maybe it’s worth reconsidering the decision?
https://stroi.mos.ru/uploads/media/file/0002/77/4fdfc41ef8c75f38d4de1729020c6dc55b4d483f.pdf Jlnqln (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I have violated something in terms of formatting - I apologize, I am ready to correct, and I really hope that the discussion is not closed and my argument, which I initially did not attach due to ignorance, will be taken into account Jlnqln (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"2.6. All site materials are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license, provided that the original source is cited (in the case of using the site materials on the Internet, an interactive link is provided)." Jlnqln (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above links timeouts to me. So any action here may be performed only by an admin who can access it or after the site is available worldwide. Ankry (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know. I gave point 2.6 in the final message, I can give a screenshot or something else. The file is Russian and written in Russian, so this is probably the main reason for the impossibility of access Jlnqln (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The site https://stroi.mos.ru also times out for me. The problem is not language -- we access Russian sites all the time. As Ankry says, this can be restored only if an Admin or other License Reviewer can access the site and confirm the license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I rather meant that it is easily accessible - I live in St. Petersburg, and for foreigners it turns out to be blocked. Honestly, I'm surprised, I don't know what to do, because I understand that the situation you described is unlikely to happen, but I'll hope Jlnqln (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought, by the way, that I could somehow prove the license with my own efforts, but apparently this is not possible. Jlnqln (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is archived here https://web.archive.org/web/20211128105545/https://stroi.mos.ru/soghlashieniie-o-pol-zovanii-informatsionnymi-sistiemami-i-riesursami-ghoroda-moskvy there is a template already Template:Stroi.mos.ru  REAL 💬 ⬆   00:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, this is the version of the agreement on the site, the link to the file that I sent. There is the same point 2.6, so I think it will be easier to confirm license. Jlnqln (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jalal Parsa Motlagh.jpg

Please undeletion Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohammadApp (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MohammadApp Any reason, or nah? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, many duplicate photos of this work have been uploaded with different titles and Wikipedia administrators have deleted them. Please undo and restore this title. Thank you. MohammadApp (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose (reopened) Fuzzy B&W image, certainly not 2025 image and likely not {{Own}}, as claimed. No reason given for restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Hi Jim, Could you please wait for 24h before closing? This is probably in the public domain. Yann (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, I generally wait until the next calendar day -- this was open 20 hours -- but OK. Should I reopen File:Example.jpg Undelete, below, which was open 1 hour 19 minutes? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Date given as "circa 1960", so {{PD-Iran}} should apply. The first DR was uploader's request, and the second was "Previously deleted", so the copyright was not discussed in the DR. Yann (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1960 date was added by Richard Arthur Norton without any source reference. Where did it come from? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Info The uploader stated in the description "جلال پارسا مطلق در سال ۱۳۴۵" (translation: Jalal Parsa Motlagh in 1966). That explains where the photo was taken, but when was it published? I see no reason to assume that "it was published close to the date when it was taken" as Yann often suggests. It is likely, that it was made for some documents (passport, personal ID, etc); but does this mean publication in Iran? Ankry (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this date indicates what decade the photo was taken in. MohammadApp (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But taken is not the same as published as required in {{PD-Iran}}. If you can point out a dated publication from 1960s, 70s, 80s, or early 90s it would be an evidence of PD status. Ankry (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support We follow USA case law like we did in National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. USA case law has an image made public when a copy leaves the custody of the creator. We consider passport photos and visa photos "made public" if created prior to 1989. --RAN (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cramerwiki

Closed in less than two weeks and the consensus appeared to be to keep those prior to 1989 so that the images could be checked at Ancestry and Classmates, if the yearbooks had a copyright notice. I have yet to find one that bothered, since there is no market for yearbooks, except to those that pre-ordered theirs. Those post 1989 can remain deleted. --RAN (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DRs normally run for 7 days, and anything beyond that is extra time when there is little (or high) engagement or backlog. What matters here is not how long the DR was open or whether some participants leaned "keep", but whether the files comply with Commons licensing requirements. Per COM:PRP and COM:EVIDENCE, the burden is on the uploader or those requesting undeletion to provide clear evidence that the works are indeed free. For yearbooks, that generally means demonstrating that no copyright was ever secured (e.g. lack of notice for pre-1978 publications, no renewal where applicable, or explicit evidence of publication without copyright). General observations that "most yearbooks did not bother" are unfortunately not sufficient. Commons requires evidence tied to the specific works in question. Unless reliable documentation is provided that these pre-1989 yearbooks are in the public domain under U.S. law, the deletions should stand. If you can show such evidence for particular files, please open individual undeletion requests with the relevant details. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25 files researched by hand through online yearbooks in 10 days is too fast, we have some current images in the deletion queue that are over 6-months old. And of course they can only be researched if they are visible. "Most yearbooks did not bother" is not evidence presented for keeping, it is the evidence for undeletion so they can be researched at Ancestry and Classmates. --RAN (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): This is not the right venue to contest policy about timing. The uploader had enough time to do research before upload. The DR timing is just time to provide this information. Ankry (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet, it is the correct venue to have images temporarily undeleted so more research can be performed. --RAN (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    temporary undeletion also has a deadline, needs a valid reason (discussion here or transfer to another wiki), and should be requested explicitly. If you cannot provide information required in the appropriate time period due to large number of files, just do not request them all to be undeleted in a single request. Ankry (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harry Topham.jpg

These were deleted, then restored, and then deleted again because they need the license changed in bulk, and no one performed the license change. The last request for undeletion had no one restoring them despite the agreement that they just need the proper license added in bulk by a bot. --RAN (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The requester needs to convince us that file source / licensing information will be fixed in 24h after undeletion. Without a reliable declaration in this matter undeletion is pointless because automatic deletion would follow it. Note that a declaration by a user who failed to do so in the past may be considered not reliable. Ankry (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ):  Doing… Yann (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Swedish-artist-Carl-Kylberg-in-front-of-his-easel-in-his-studio-at-Strandvägen-142458415533.jpg

The original photo was deleted and replaced by User:Amada44 with a photo with the painting blurred out. In the deletion request discussion she pointed out that the photo could be restored after four years when Carl Kylberg's copyrights expired. It's now been six years, so I believe that I now can request undeletion of the original photo. /ℇsquilo 11:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Esquilo: What about US copyright expiration? Was the painting published before 1930? Ankry (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I only could see what painting it is.... /ℇsquilo 12:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Not currently deleted. Please create a deletion request if needed. --Yann (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen -- I think Yann misunderstands. The current image is OK because the painting is blurred. The request is for undeletion of the first version, with the painting not blurred. It doesn't show up as a previous version of this image because it was deleted before the current image was uploaded. It is visible to Admins if you look at the history.

The image does not appear elsewhere on the web. A quick look at the artist's work shows them mostly later than 1930, but quite a few earlier. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info A cropped version of this photo was published in the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet on April 16, 1946 with an interview with the artist about his upcoming art exposition at Liljevalchs art gallery in Stockholm. The photo depicts the artist in front of a painting and to me it looks like Kylberg's panting Yellow Trees painted in 1938-1939. I have no idea who the photographer is but my best guess is Herman Ronninger who was news photographer of Svenska Dagbladet at the time. Thuresson (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that is the painting. So a 1938/39 painting, published as part of a 1946 newspaper photo, apparently exhibited for the first time in 1946 (per the auction web site you linked). Which most likely means that the artist still had it in his possession in 1946. What would be the publication date here as far as US copyright is concerned? --Rosenzweig τ 17:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photo, including whatever part of the painting it captured, would be published in 1946. The full painting was probably published in 1946 as well, but there's some weasel room on that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The painting was under copyright on the URAA date, so it will have its US copyright until at least 1/1/2034. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Painting is still under US copyright per URAA. Restore uncensored version in 2042. --Abzeronow (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iiitp logo transparent.png

This is the whole logo of IIIT Pune, the website is https://iiitp.ac.in the only sole owner of this logo not any kind of third party, if copyright violated, it did those website without taking any permission.

Therefore, kindly take a proper investigation and observation before condemn it to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missdecoder (talk • contribs) 09:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The source page is clearly marked "Copyright © 2021 - All Rights Reserved - IIIT Pune" and there is no indication of the free license which you claimed in your upload. In order to have this restored, an authorized official of the institute must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nikita Matytsin.jpg

This file is not related to self-photographs or photographs of family members. This photograph was made especially for job purposes and used to demonstrate the person in different projects. Therefore undelete the photo with the name Nikita Matytsin.jpg, please. --Surfing2025 (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Surfing2025: Why is this photo useful to a Wikimedia project? Thuresson (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter.
This photo will be useful for Wikimedia, as it is going to be used for personal page for this person in Russian Wikipedia. Surfing2025 (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Russian Wikipedia does not have an article about this person, nor can I find any other Wikimedia project with an article about the subject. Thuresson (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Domanevskii Sergei.jpg

Սերգей Доманевский — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rima0073 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no file by this name and neither you nor your sockpuppet have uploaded any files. Also, you must give a reason for restoring a file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:21 juillet 1938 Honneurs L.SEITZ par HITLER et GÖRING.jpg

Deleted by Krd, and I was the one who had nominated it (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:21 juillet 1938 Honneurs L.SEITZ par HITLER et GÖRING.jpg), but in my nomination I wrote, "the documents depicted should probably be PD, so cropped-out documents would probably be salvageable. In use on fr-wiki, so probably worth the trouble." This was ignored on closure.

I have created a file at https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/54777071399 with just the documents, no other elements from the original photo. (Same resolution as the initial photo.) I'd be interested in whether people think in this form these would be PD in both Germany and the U.S. For Germany, I presume that these are clearly in the public domain (either from the outset or due to the passage of time). For the U.S, the Trading With the Enemy Act or other related legislation may come into play. They could imaginably be in copyright through 2032 (1937 + 95, with URAA coming into play if they were originally copyrightable), but I think not longer.

If restored or re-uploaded, the terse French-language description from the deleted file would still apply: "21 juillet 1938 Honneurs L.SEITZ par HITLER et GÖRING". - Jmabel ! talk 21:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info This request is unclear to me. The requester does not contest the doubts concerning "Own work" declaration for File:21 juillet 1938 Honneurs L.SEITZ par HITLER et GÖRING.jpg, which were the deletion reason. And I see no other file that can be undeleted here. Ankry (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text on these certificates is entirely formulaic and below COM:TOO Germany, presumably below COM:TOO US too. The only graphic element is the eagle with the swastika, and that is an official work (compare this decree). --Rosenzweig τ 07:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Per the mentioned DR, the problem is not copyright to the certificate itself, but copyright to the photo which seems to be a photo of a showcase with the certificates on display. The showcase is 3D and The photo is unlikely own work by the uploader. Ankry (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel's question was "I'd be interested in whether people think in this form these would be PD in both Germany and the U.S." --Rosenzweig τ 11:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if it is unclear: I was not suggesting that we restore the original photo. I'm suggesting that we substitute the derivative version I have placed for observation at https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/54777071399, which I believe is edited down to the point where it is irrelevant who snapped the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old photographs from the Dominican Republic

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Porfirio_Rubirosa_Ariza.jpg

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mirabal_sisters.jpg

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dominican_Republic_baseball_history.jpg

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_General_de_San_Juan

The current term of photographs in the Dominican Republic is 50 years and these were all deleted because they were taken after 1946. However until 2000 the term was 10 years from publication (Law No. 32-86 on Copyright art. 26). It was increased retroactively but photographs published before 1986 were out of copyright by 1996. Note I have never seen any of these.  REAL 💬 ⬆   22:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The baseball one should be good to go. The other ones are tricky because no definite year is asserted. Bedivere (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rubirosa died in 1965, so that one should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 00:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mirabal sisters were killed in 1960, so that one should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For General de San Juan, the pictures with Trujillo are presumably OK on the same basis, but I suggest handling the others either one-by-one or in batches that clearly will stand or fall together. There are numerous pictures and we'd have to show that the DR was the relevant place of publication for each, not a country with longer protection. Also, at least some (e.g. File:Toma de posesión de D. Joaquín Balaguer en 1986.jpg) are presumably going to run afoul of URAA even with just a 10-year copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Timmah Blaq Profile.jpg

tbis picture was deleted for copyright but i'm pretty sure it was by mistake, so i need a proper review so it can br restore Thank you for your support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmah Blaq (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose You claimed to be the actual photographer, but this does not look like a selfie. Also, it appears without a free license at https://audiomack.com/search/?q=timmah+blaq. In order for it to be restored, the actual photographer must give a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please reinstate the deleted photo IMG_6897.jpg

Please reinstate the deleted photo. It is the personal property of Melissa Rauch and therefore does not violate any copyright issues. Thank you so much. John Highsmith Assistant to Melissa Rauch--JackGarrettPhoto (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JackGarrettPhoto: Presumably about File:Melissa Rauch in 2022.jpg. Please ask Melissa Rauch to follow the instructions at COM:VRT. If you are employed by Melissa Rauch you are strongly advised to disclose if you have a conflict of interest with regards to editing articles concerning Melissa Rauch. Thuresson (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give one the right to license it. Rauch may have a license from the actual photographer to use the image for her publicity, but such licenses very rarely give the licensee the right to freely license the image to others.

I note that in the upload, User:JackGarrettPhoto claimed to be the actual photographer, but above he implies that is not the case. Making false statements above authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexey Volodin pianist2.jpg

Also

This image is my own original work, and I retain full copyright. It cannot be found elsewhere on the web. While the resolution isn’t perfect, it is sufficient for Wikipedia. I hereby license it under CC BY-SA 4.0 for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diveyev (talk • contribs) 12:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The three images all have:

|source={{Own}}
|author=Diveyev
|permission=
|other_versions=
|other_fields=
}}
=={{int:license-header}}==
{{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}

Which should be enough if we assume good faith. On the other hand, they are tiny and there is no useful EXIF. There are no Google hits for them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support No hits on the internet, no history of dishonesty from this uploader. They were uploaded in 2011 and 2012 when we didn't really have clear standards of what kind of evidence is required to accept claims of own work, so I would COM:AGF here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:EMCEE_DOT

I’m requesting undeletion of my user page User:EMCEE_DOT, which was deleted under CSD U3. The page was intended to support my contributions to Wikimedia Commons through educational media—such as freely licensed audio, visuals, and technical content related to music production and site management. I’d like to revise the page to better align with Commons’ scope and guidelines.

EMCEE DOT (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User pages are intended to introduce active users to the Commons community. I suggest that you become an active user by making useful contributions to Commons and only then request the restoration of your user page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minecraft Marketplace logo.png

Deleted by @The Squirrel Conspiracy as clear violation (F1), despite most likely being a pd-textlogo. The font is too simple to be copyrighted, the rectangular shape and gold gradient don't adhere to TOO either. Per COM:TOO Sweden, the logo seems to be simple enough to pass, having only simple lines and gradients with little original input.

I originally requested undeletion here, but it got closed for being stale. Dabmasterars (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Certainly below ToO in the USA, I think this is also below ToO in Sweden. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Himno de arbo.wav

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2025091010009991. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: The source needs to be fixed. --Yann (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pip Eastop.jpg

This file has been uploaded twice by its author Graham Salter so should not have been deleted. Please can it be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojmortimer (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The EXIF shows the copyright belonging to the subject, not Graham Salter, so in order for it to be restored here, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foreign dignitaries attending the 2025 China Victory Day Parade (cropped for Daniel Andrews).jpg

I believe this file was deleted mistakenly. For one, it was an extracted file, made using CropTool from File:Foreign dignitaries attending the 2025 China Victory Day Parade.jpg, so if this image is a copyright violation that one must be too. But the user who nominated it for speedy deletion identified it as a copyright violation (citing some news sources here with the same photo, and also on wiki stating "The image you uploaded to commons and added to Daniel Andrews is a copyright violation. Please see https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/australian-news-live-updates-china-to-flex-military-might-at-wwii-anniversary-parade-20250903-p5mrya where it is credited to Sergei Bobylev/POOL/TASS/Sipa USA. Just because the website for the President of Azerbaijan says they own the copyright, it doesn't make it so. Please conduct searches in the future."

But this photo was taken from a gallery uploaded by the press service of the Azeri president. The about copyright notice on this website clearly states that all materials on the website are available under a CC BY 4.0 attribution notice. If it was a straightforward case of copyright violation, that would be one thing, but a number of images in this stream (1, 2, 3) don't seem to be available anywhere else on the internet, suggesting they were taken by the Azeri press service and not ripped from somewhere else. Additionally, the photo in question is of a massive number of world leaders. While I have no doubt Sergei Bobylev was in the press scrum taking photos, it seems entirely plausible that the Azeri press service was as well, and took a photo that is rightly available under CC BY 4.0. I don't see why this image was deleted as the copyright seems to be entirely valid, and I do not think the nominating user brought forward enough evidence to dispute this. --LivelyRatification (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claims by the Azerbaijan government are contridicted by copyright attribution in the AFR story. Frankly I trust the AFR more than I trust the Azerbaijan government. TarnishedPathtalk 00:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get behind the AFR paywall, so I have no comment there. However, I compared the subject image to it's twin on https://president.az/az/articles/view/70020/images at high magnification and they appear to be identical. They are either the same image or taken with two cameras side by side at the same resolution, which I think is highly unlikely. That site does call out a CC-BY 4.0 International license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/04/who-else-dan-andrews-group-photo-xi-putin-kim-china-military-parade which is not behind a paywall. TarnishedPathtalk 00:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Kribbebijter Cast.png

Generally we accept when an archive declares an image to be "copyright free". --RAN (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've also had cases where the Amsterdam Archive has told us they made a mistake on their declarations of copyright, and ask us to delete the files because they're not actually "copyright free". Abzeronow (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"