Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

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.

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: alsarbarbnbebe-taraskcaeleneteofafifrfrrhehrhyidisitjalbltlvmkmsptroruslsrthtrttukvizh+/−

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

This is a logo for JS13K games. I am writing on behalf of the creators Andrzej and Ewa Mazur who wishes it to not be deleted. This image was being used on the wikipedia page for js13k also. Thank you for fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackluster (talk • contribs)

 Support If this is the logo shown at the top of https://js13kgames.com Andrzej Mazur uploaded this file under CC0 in 2018  REAL 💬   21:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Although Ewa Mazur is mentioned on the web site, Andrzej is not. This logo was uploaded by USER:Mypoint13k in 2021. The web site has "©2024 js13kGames & authors". If the owners of the site actually want the logo freely licensed here, they must do it with a message to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is in https://github.com/orgs/js13kGames/people. He uploaded the logo on the website in a GitHub repository under CC0 in 2018  REAL 💬   14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yann I don't think so. Aside from the explicit copyright notice which I cited above, the legal section of the web site has
"As a condition of submission, Entrant grants the Competition Organizer, its subsidiaries, agents and partner companies, a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, distribute, publicly perform, create a derivative work from, and publicly display the Submission."
That is a free license only in the sense that no money changes hands. It does not include the right to freely license anything. Also, please remember that even in the case where the software may be freely licensed, the logo for it is often not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an agreement for entrants who submit games to the competition, not anything to do with the website itself, which in fact has no license on GitHub at all. However, one of the staff of js13kGames uploaded this logo in a different repository under CC0. The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted, which has not been done so there  REAL 💬   15:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted. Yes, I agree with that. Yann (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann As Ankry suggested below, that free-licensed one isn't really "same as the deleted one here", probably just re-upload it, please? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@999real: This is not the same logo. Feel free to upload it under CC0 providing that source. Ankry (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Direct restoring, but  Support re-uploading a correctly licensed one, per Ankry, previous one might have differently designed shapes. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be cropped images from an anonymous UK group shot from 1895 and the another group shot circa 1900 when these players were on the team. The consensus was to keep, they were deleted, then restored, then apparently deleted again. They should be restored. --RAN (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Hosting them here with false authorship / licensing is pointless. As nobody wanted to fix this information, their undeletion is also pointless. Following the recent restoration, neither the user requesting the restoration nor any of the users supporting the action did so for several months. Ankry (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I rather support keeping these files. However the license, the date, the source, and the author should have been fixed after undeletion, and they weren't. If neither the uploader or you are able to do it, why requesting undeletion again? Yann (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to notify me if you want me to fix them. I only noticed them undeleted and then deleted again when I posted this. I will fix them if they are undeleted. But someone has to message me that they are available to edit again. --RAN (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VFC will do cut and pastes across a list of files -- which can be a gallery or a category, among others. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never used VFC, can you do it, once restored? It looks like I fixed File:RHurtley.jpg, and a few others, then could not figure out how to automate the process, back at the original nomination. --RAN (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below TOO in South Korea--Trade (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The tree is not incidentally included. Per COM:DM South Korea. Thuresson (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the tree is not incidentally included per COM:DM South Korea, the object stated above may be fall with another PD-license, that is either {{PD-South Korea-anon}} (in case of creator of the work is unknown) or {{PD-South Korea-organization}} (in case of a work created on behalf of organization). As stated of two templates, According to Article 40, 41, and 42 of the Copyright Act of South Korea, a work that is anonymous or bears the pseudonym which is not widely known (unless the creator of the logo was publicly known) and works created on behalf of organization enter the public domain 70 years after publication when made public. (30 years before July 1987, 50 years before July 2013) In other words, organizational, anonymous and pseudonymous works made public in before 1 January 1963 are in the public domain in South Korea. In case of Yuhan willow tree logo, it was exist in various incarnations since the creation of the company in 1926, and the current incarnation of the logo, with circle included, was presumably created in 1956. 1959 advertisement and calendar of 1962 also included the current incarnation of the logo as well. I also believe that the actual creator of Yuhan Willow tree logo is unknown (apply {{PD-South Korea-anon}}), and if was publicly known, its copyright might be expired as well. Assuming that the current incarnation of the logo was created in 1956, it may be expired on 1 January 1987 (before its copyright term was extended to 50 years according to new law in July of next year, but is non-retroactive to works already expired). So, i suggest the file will be restored with licensing changed. Yayan550 (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support There are two stories about the origin of the logo.
  1. According to the company's official explanation, it was designed by Philip Jaisohn (1864–1951) in 1925 and adopted as the company’s logo in 1926. https://yuhan.co.kr/introduce/Promote/CI/ → {{PD-South Korea}}
  2. Another theory is that it was designed based on Ilhan New's surname (柳). https://yakup.com/news/index.html?mode=view&nid=248726 → {{PD-South Korea-anon}} or {{PD-South Korea-organization}} (the latter would be better, imo)
Regardless of which is correct, the current logo is in the public domain in both South Korea and the US.--Namoroka (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Uh oh, you deleted file after merge, see COM:TOO South Korea YehudaHubert (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Hakaped, leider war ich die ganze Woche mit einem Umzug beschäftigt, daher bin ich nicht dazu gekommen, das zu kommentieren. Die Quellen meiner Informationen hatte ich ja bereits angegeben, das Zusammenstellen der Karte selbst habe ich erledigt. Das gilt im Übrigen auch für die anderen Dateien mit dem Titel "Ethnic groups of Afghanistan by district", die ich selbst erstellt habe. Daher bitte wiederherstellen.--SdHb (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There is no credit or source given for the base map. It is hard to believe that the uploader drew this from scratch. The file was deleted as "no source", but the uploader references Districts of Afghanistan#List of districts, but enclosed the reference only in [[x]] so the reference shows up as a non-existent Commons Gallery page rather than a link to WP:EN.

If we can confirm that the base map is freely licensed, then this page took a lot of work and would be useful to those interested in Afghanistan. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Interwiki prefix titles and all associated redirects

I created this page in the past and redirected technical redirects from Wikipedia to this page, because Meta has the same. I changed the target of the previous redirect Real to Commons:Interwiki prefix titles because for technical reasons, "C:Real" on English Wikipedia redirects to this wiki, and I did the same for C: The Contra Adventure. For technical reasons, interwiki hard redirects aren't allowed. I don't see any other redirects from ENWP that could do this, but we could do this to pages on other wikis, too. Faster than Thunder (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I do not think that this page needs to be undeleted: it may be recreated if it is in COM:SCOPE.  No opinion in this matter, however. Ankry (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interwiki prefix titles on Meta is an operational page, and "Allowable page/gallery/category content" includes "Operational pages, such as templates and the like, including Commons-operational program listings." The Commons page got deleted with the reason, "That's not the way it works," and redirects to that page were deleted as cross-namespace redirects. Faster than Thunder (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I kindly request the undeletion of the file File:Alejo Igoa 2024 Retrato.jpg.

This image is a portrait photograph that I **took myself**, and I am the copyright holder. At the time of upload, I released the image under the **Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)** license, allowing for free use, redistribution, and modification, including for commercial and educational purposes.

The image was intended for use on the Wikipedia page of Alejo Igoa as an infobox profile photo, which is a valid and educational use consistent with Commons policy.

I am willing to re-upload the image if needed, clearly marking the license and providing all required information.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Alexrod1 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexrod1, the file was deleted as a personal photo from a non contributor. There is only one WP article on Alejo Igoa, Alejo Igoa, but the photo there shows black hair. The subject image shows a blond. However, I also note that the subject image was removed from that article when the image was deleted. Are the two images the same person? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment, he has some blonde hair on newer images, see his instagram account. זיו「Ziv」For love letters and other notes 23:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found the image. זיו「Ziv」For love letters and other notes 00:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, yes, it is the same person. He uses black hair and also blond hair as someone commented above. Could you undelete the image please? Let me know if it is possible. Thank you so much in advance. Alexrod1 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 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]

I wrongfully nominated this file for deletion. The coat of arms is also the CoA of the city of Sancti Spiritus.

The file got deleted for both "wrong authorship and license" and "Cuban government works are perpetually copyrighted". This specific CoA was created 21 Feb 1911 by the Sancti Spiritus City Council ([2]), although the actually oval shield of the file was taken from File:Escudo de Sancti Spíritus (1823).jpg, made 3 March 1823 also by the city council, either way it falls under Template:PD-US, and for Cuba the Template:PD-Cuba in the Anonymous section, since the people that were apart of either council at the time are unidentified, so it would be +50+1. Once reuploaded I will fix the authorship and license.

For the "Cuban government works are perpetually copyrighted", the Cuban copyright law only states that works by the "Estado" (state), which is the central government of Cuba. The law doesn't mention any local government (including city council) works.

CubanoBoi (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as clear violation (F1), despite clearly being a pd-textlogo.

The font is too simple to be copyrighted, the rectangular shape and gold gradient don't adhere to TOO either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabmasterars (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Mojang Studios were US based, I would support that. By as they are Swedish, I have doubts. Ankry (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Info See COM:TOO Sweden where the text logo for en:Entombed (logo here) was considered by a court of law to be above TOO. Thuresson (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that the above example is not helpful here: the Minecraft logo is much simpler than the Entombed's one. However doubts remain. Ankry (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file is in public domain due to age. Sreejith K (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sreejithk2000: Could you, please, elaborate? It does not seem to be 120+ years old or published more than 95 years ago. Also, the 70 year copyright term (since the death of the photographer) does not seem to expire. Ankry (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The author died in 1972, so this work is in the public domain in its country of origin. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an artistic, signed photo, so 70 pma applies. It will be PD in Italy in 2045. US copyright expiration term still needs to identified. The 20-year term applies to simple, mostly documentary photographs, which this one is not. Ankry (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

This flag, and the encompassing logo are the official symbols of the school. As for rights to the flag, I was the designer, being a student at the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Epper (talk • contribs) 04:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Max Epper: At upload you claimed that you are the flag author and exclusive copyright holder. Unless you can prove that basing on public record, we need a free license following via email from the actual copyright holder as described in VRT in order to host it here. Note also, that providing false or incorrect information is serious violation of Wikimedia Commons policy. Ankry (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which CC licence should it be uploaded under? While I am the creator, I don't think I automatically have copyright to it, and I have no intention on actually claiming copyright to it. Can it just be uploaded free licenced? Max Epper (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Max Epper: See COM:L for licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In regards to the fact that the Queensland Government appears to hold the copyright for all school logos across the state, would it be best to ask an executive staff member of the school for permission to use on Wikipedia, or alternatively to upload the civil ensign version of the flag without the seal? Max Epper (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A permission "to use in Wikipedia" is useless for Wikimedia Commons (and likely also for Wikipedia). We need a free license compatible with the mentioned requirements. Not a permission to use. The required license needs to grant more rights than to use (eg. to publish, to reuse, to modify, ...) Ankry (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request the non deletion of the photo as I am the legal owner of the copywrites of the photo and I have all the writes to use it and upload it. With a total repspedt to all terms of copywrite I use only my personal photos and with my copy writes as I am the person that belongs the photo. So please undelete it. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthistory333 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose @Arthistory333: The right procedure in such cases is VRT, not a request here. Unless you can prove that there is CC-BY-SA 4.0 license granted for the image on this page or that the linkedin publication was newer than your upload to Commons. Ankry (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Response Regarding Uploaded Photo – Copyright Ownership
I wish to clarify that I am the sole legal copyright owner of the photograph titled File:VENIS STUDIOS -Art Conservation and Restoration.jpg, as it is my original work and was uploaded exclusively by me. The image was not copied from LinkedIn or any third-party source. I hold full rights to the photograph and am authorized to release it under the appropriate free license for Wikimedia Commons.
To comply fully with Wikimedia Commons requirements, I will confirm my ownership and explicitly grant a CC BY-SA 4.0 license via the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) process. I am prepared to provide a signed declaration or any additional verification needed to establish that the image is my own creation and that I authorize its use on Commons.
I respectfully request that the image not be deleted while this verification is completed, as I am acting in good faith to ensure full compliance with Wikimedia’s copyright and licensing policies. Arthistory333 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days. . --Yann (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain just like the current Rassemblement National logo on wikimedia. --Ryegun (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg. Thuresson (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this logo is considered to meet the threshold of originality, why are similar, unlicensed logos (kept under the PD‑textlogo rationale) treated differently? Commons policy (e.g. COM:TOO, COM:L, COM:LOGO) requires files to be free in both the source country and the U.S. If this file is copyrightable under that standard, shouldn’t the same reasoning apply to comparable cases? I’d appreciate clarification on which specific elements here are deemed original and how that differs from other retained logos. Ryegun (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not simply geometric shapes. Sources are: [3] [4]
SVG derived from: Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg. France has a lower ToO than Italy. Abzeronow (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a few aspects that seem somewhat nebulous in that deletion request. I can't view the deleted file as such, so please tell me if I'm missing something. From what the uploader says, their file File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg is essentially a copy of the file File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg, with only the colour green changed to blue and the letters MSI at the bottom changed to FN (the result looking something like this). Whatever the copyright status of the basic design of the original file (File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg) might be, most people would probably say that the small changes (colour and letters), are not copyrightable as such, in Italy nor in France. One argument of the nominator of the DR seems to imply that the basic design, which is essentially identical in the two files (excepted for the small uncopyrightable changes mentioned), would be below the threshold of originality in Italy but would be above the threshold of originality in France. I'm not sure that we can really make such a distinction between those two countries. It would seem more consistent to treat those two quasi identical files in the same manner. If File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg is PD-textlogo, then so should the other file. Anyway, another question is why France would enter into consideration in relation with this design and Commons policy. The design being of Italian origin, and the changes being uncopyrightable, then logically the country of reference for the possibly copyrighted work, i.e. the design, is therefore still Italy. A third question is, in the hypothesis that the design would be copyrightable, what would be the year of expiration of the copyright? Probably not the years mentioned in the DR. According to File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg, the author of the design would be Giorgio Almirante, a MSI founder whose life years are 1914-1988. So, if that attribution is correct, and if the design is even copyrightable anywhere, be it in Italy or in France, then the year of expiration of the copyright would be 2059. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Oppose. I have no idea why the Italian version is accepted on Commons, but this is certainly complex enough to have a copyright in France. Now if it was created before 1955, it may be in the public domain in France, but that remains to be proved. Yann (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of Movimento Sociale Italiano. Yann (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But for the policy of Commons, the only two relevant countries for a work of Italian origin are the United States and Italy. It seems undisputed that it was created circa 1947 (it:Fiamma tricolore). That it (and/or any later minor variation of it) might be under copyright or not in other countries, China, France or Egypt, does not enter into consideration for Commons. Contributors of Commons have made various slightly different redrawings. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: BuildTheEarth has published the file under the MIT license at [5] (permalink) EvenTwist41 (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per [6]. Ankry (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete this image, as used in various Wikipedia files, and widely used beyond as a profile image by the subject, Alan Bundy.

Alan Bundy was not available when the request to confirm that the image could be used on the Wikimedia Command and on Wikipedia, but he is now available and indicated he can confirm permission when asked.

The proposed licence is CC-BY 4.0 and I will set that if the image is undeleted.

Please let me know if you would prefer me to reupload separately with permission information and the licence in place on the fresh upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austintate (talk • contribs) 12:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose See your talk page about the procedure (VRT) required by the policy. Image reupload would be violation of commons policy. Ankry (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Permission now OK. --Yann (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maximilian Ambrosy

Maximilian Ambrosy ist ein Deutscher Rennradfahrer in der U23 MariaSanis (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: No file name provided. Wikimedia Commons is for free educational images, not to promote yourself. Please read COM:SCOPE and COM:L. --Yann (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

No actual proof of Reuters or anyone else making the image. If I remember correctly, the photo was sourced to a tweet by a person who works at the US government. This article [7] was where the nominator got the idea that it was from Reuters, but 1) it's secondary, 2) No proof Reuters themselves made it, 3) Could very well be a mistake, doesn't even link to where they got it from. Thegoofhere (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the file is listed as https://x.com/VP/status/1913977824739729459 but the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vice President JD Vance with Pope Francis, April 2025 (4).jpg cites a source that says the photo was "via Reuters". The Trump administration has done some license laundering before, I wouldn't be surprised if J.D. Vance passed off Reuters photos as his. I'll note that those who want to restore should prove that it is not a Reuters photo per COM:EVID. Abzeronow (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's not enough to have reasons to doubt the original source is Reuters. Commons needs actual evidence that the original photo is free licensed. There are many versions online, and as the deletion request notes, various attributions - the tweet doesn't say where they got it from either. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Infrogmation. --Yann (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request undeletion of this file.

I am the original photographer and copyright holder of this image, taken at the Quantum Group office in Gunung Sindur, Bogor. The photo was taken using my personal device and has not been published elsewhere.

The previous deletion may have been based on a misunderstanding, and I am happy to provide the original file with EXIF metadata as evidence.

Please restore the file, or advise if additional documentation is needed.

Thank you.

Rezha Firmansyah (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files listed on VRTN

Please restore the files listed here: Special:PermanentLink/1062146177#Release of Telman Abdinov's works under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license

Thanks in advance. Nemoralis (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of files:
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Nemoralis: Please edit the file description pages. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undeletion of File:Stashdel-logo.png

Hello, I am requesting the undeletion of the image Haddag Holdings logo.png, which represents Haddag Holdings, the parent company of STASHDEL. Haddag Holdings is a legitimate business entity, and the logo is a necessary visual for its representation on Wikidata. This logo does not serve any promotional or advertising purpose, but simply helps identify the company. I would appreciate the restoration of this image in compliance with the Wikimedia Commons guidelines for free-to-use content. Thank you for your time and assistance. Advertdel-edits (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: No advertising on Commons. Please read COM:ADVERT. --Yann (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Remove the ban from Advertdel-edits for Posting a new Item for a registered company "Stashdel"

Please remove the ban from our account for simply posting a listing of a registered company on wikidata Advertdel-edits (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: No advertising on Commons. Please read COM:ADVERT. --Yann (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a official public profile photograph of the news anchor. 寶欣霓虹 (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose So what? It is still not a free picture. We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder via COM:VRT. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i only added "this photo was taken by Demola" to give him a credit here, the picture is mine and i don't want it deleted, the statement can ba removed if possible. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ẸMÍ Tha Spirit (talk • contribs) 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Giving him credit is nonsense, and a lousy excuse. Another point is, you've mistaken Commons for Instagram, or Facebook. We don't collect selfies. ---Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image was mistakenly deleted

The image qualifies as public domain

Elon Philipo (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]