Commons:UR

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

Category:Commons deletion Category:Undeletion requests#*

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: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests


SDSS images

Images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) were once non-free many years ago, but are now under CC-BY (https://www.sdss.org/collaboration/#image-use). SDSS images that were deleted in the past should be restored.

Note that SDSS is different from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), which allows non-commercial use only; see Commons:Village pump#Digitized Sky Survey. There seems to have been confusion between DSS and SDSS in some old deletion requests, so some of these images might still be non-free.

Deletion requests found with "SDSS", there are surely more:

SevenSpheres (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Although I  Support this line of reasoning, note that we must verify that each image is currently posted with the new license. Any images that do not exist on the current site have only the old license and must remain deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually this is the relevant part, not the part about the SDSS website: All SDSS data released in our public data releases are considered in the public domain. So SDSS image data is in the public domain actually, not CC-BY. That includes, for example, the SDSS data available through Aladin, which I think is the source of most of these images. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
They also told Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We provide all images on a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) in there website Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
(Jameslwoodward), I did a google search on "have Sloan sdss images always been public domain".
Annoyngly, google now seems to use AI to summarize and try to interpret results, meaning I couldn't link to it. More annoyingly, the same search provides a slightly different answer, each time. But, one time, it provided an explanation for why some of its earliest images were not (immediately) considered "free". In its earliest years, as a courtesy to researchers, images were not made available under a free lisence, right away, so researchers wouldn't worry about being scooped, until after they published their paper. Once the grace period was over, and researchers were presumed to have had time to publish their papers, then all images were considered free. If I understood what it was saying, all images uploaded to their official website are considered free, even from the early years, when their mages were not initially free. Those initially unfree images weren't supposed to be uploaded to their website, until the grace period had passed.
If I understood it, any non-free images someone here acquired, through industrial espionage, or a leaker, would now be considered free, because the grace period expired over fifteen years ago. Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Before 2017, SDSS images were under a non-commercial license. In 2017 this was changed to a free license. Compare the old SDSS image use page with the current page, and see the old update to the Commons category and undeletion request from that time. There was certainly no "industrial espionage, or a leaker" involved here. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, SDSS images are in public domain Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
If the SDSS images were in public domain, what the SDSS license for images would be for? Licensing of something that is already released to PD is poinless and raises a significant doubt as per COM:PCP.
If the images are CC-licensed and not PD, I suggest to request undeletion of images that can be currently found on SDSS site and cannot be reuploaded due to earlier deletion: this way you can identify current source for the deleted images. Unfortunately, most of the above images lack precise information about source; they have {{Own}} or "English Wikipedia" provided as source. Ankry (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
@Ankry bro, I and @SevenSpheres meant that before SDSS moved to PD, these images are uploaded and deleted due to at that time the things were copyrighted but now as they are under PD these images should be undeleted as they are now not copyrighted and are under PD. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
S o what is the CC-BY license (as mentioned in the initial request) for? Maybe, the "data" applies to numeric data only. Ankry (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
I think he meant about CC-BY-SA 4.0 Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Miklavž na Dravskem polju.png

The image of the coat of arms has been published as part of an official text (see ) and thus meets the criterion at COM:NOP Slovenia exempting from copyright "municipal coats of arms" that have been published as part of official texts. --TadejM (t/p) 16:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The cited page has "© 2022 Lex Localis" and Section I, Articles 2 and 3, of the decree have a variety of restrictions that amount to an ND license. There is nothing like a free license there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Neither Lex localis nor the municipality can claim copyright on materials that are exempted from copyright per the Slovenian legislation (cited on COM:NOP Slovenia). --TadejM (t/p) 13:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
 Oppose The act mentions explicitly only text of legal acts, not images. Ankry (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Your opinion directly contradicts COM:NOP Slovenia, which is based on scholarly sources. --TadejM (t/p) 21:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
 Support I would trust COM:NOP Slovenia and what a Slovenian would say about their country's laws. Abzeronow (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:1350balkans.png

Map was accidently misunderstood as EU5 map while it wasn't.

Person that deleted the map apologised. Full discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneZeta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polserb (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

As I said there the youtube video and the reddit post if different need to be under a free license, and I explained how to do that. However given that the comments there unanimously point out its inaccuracies, I'm undecided - it's very hard to map everything accurately, as even if modifications were made there might be further issues (and I can't view that deleted file, but the reddit post turned up as an exact match). HurricaneZetaC 23:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
It's also important to point that reddit post is about year 1337, while map presented year 1350 with Serbian Empire at it's peak and several border differences so some of mistakes mentioned are off. I can eventually change map style and fix incorrect border and then upload it as new file. I am just unsure is that allowed Polserb (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello @Polserb,
You are allowed to upload any file that is in the COM:Scope and under a free COM:License.
One could argue that the file is not in the project scope if it contains errors.
Best, Wikisquack (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Files deleted by Minorax

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: At Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06#Requesting a Large-scale Courtesy Deletion of Personal Images of Myself several admins had responded and nobody was concerned about this. Greg said I have a hobby where I meet (take photos and get signatures) various "celebrities" of film, TV, music, sports, etc. there.

He could have used a tripod, which wouldn't be too far-fetched if you're going places specifically to take photos with celebrities. Even if someone else triggered the shutter, it's likely a case of m:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership#The Example of the Third Party Photographer (in a nutshell: human tripods don't get copyright). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Greg2600. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose But most of the time the person who pushes the button gets the copyright, see m:Talk:Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership#Disagreement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Your "most of the time" case is actually an exception. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
 Comment
Hello @Alexis Jazz,
In your answer on Wikilegal, you mentioned a potential joint authorship. Even in that case, such pictures would require the agreement of all authors in order to publish them under a license.
Best, Wikisquack (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
That's a very selective reading of what I said. Jameslwoodward's situation is special. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Again, I disagree. While the museum may be a special case, I have never, anywhere, been given any specific instructions by the subjects of a courtesy photograph. And, even if the subjects give very specific instructions, modern point and shoots do almost all the thinking, so the only thing that makes a point and shoot image copyrightable is that the photographer has the discretion to take it at a specific moment.
Note that "Even in that case, such pictures would require the agreement of all authors in order to publish them under a license" is not correct. As a general rule, in the absence of a written agreement among joint holders of a copyright, any of them can grant a non-exclusive license such as the one we require here. An exclusive license requires the consent of all the joint holders, but we do not require that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Several Chinese pictures

Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peng Dehuai (1948).png and others: Mistakenly deleted because of alledged URAA restoration: All of those were made before 1991 (and most of it, before 1949) so it must had felt under the 著作權法 (民國33年) [Copyright Law of the Republic of China (1944)]:

Photographs and Sound Recordings were protected for 10 years after publication. That means copyright must had expired before URAA could restore anything.

Files affected:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:大音乐家马思聪.jpg: The discussion says it was made 1947, clearly under 1928/1944 law and PD by 1957.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:岸信介拜會嚴家淦院長(朱正祺攝).jpg: Unknown date, probably PD before 1996.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:李俊仁肖像.png: Same case as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:王炳南.jpg: Same case as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:穿制服的少女 (陳敬輝, 1940年代左右).jpg: title says 1940, cleary PD by 1951 (or 1971 if official work)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:黃炳松肖像.jpg: unknown date, likely candidate to be restored.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣經國特使覲見泰王.jpg: Same as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣桂琴肖像.jpg: Same as above
File:Puyi's sister Reginald Fleming Johnston in Kew.jpg: from the 1930s. If it was an official work, then PD before 1970, if just a picture, PD by 1950 the latest.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong in Xibaipo.jpg: Likely made in 1948-early 1949, so PD by 1960.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maozedong.jpg: Unknown date, likely to be PD.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:大澳橫水渡 WKYP 19620429.png: Same as above.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Desheng 1952.jpg: Made in 1952, PRC did not have a Constitution until 1954, so I'm assuming 1928 law still is valid.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Ailing 1954.jpg: Made in 1954, same rationale as above (depends on what was before, Constiution or pic).
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enlai-Yingchao (1963).jpg: Made in 1963, but PRC had no copyright law of its own, under same rationale: PD by 1974.
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1958 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1959: Even if made during PRC, the 1928-1944 copyright law was never substituted.

There are many more cases, I'll check it out.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

（六）请你们与政府及司法干部讨论我们这些意见，并把讨论结果报告我们。

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

I found some legal base under PRC law:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's do the URAA test:
  • If a Chinese work's 30-year term under the 1984 regulations expired before June 1, 1991. (Any infringements of copyright and the copyright-related rights or breaches of contract committed prior to the entry into force of 1991 law shall be dealt with under the relevant regulations or policies in force at the time when the act was committed.)
  • The 1991 law did not revive it (Berne Article 18(2); China Article 59(2))
  • Therefore, the URAA cannot restore US copyright for that work
TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Club the seals now! Save the whales for later.jpg et al

ArthurWilliamJack uploaded a bunch of images of pins scanned by the London School of Economics, then realized that the LSE was claiming copyright over them, and requested they be speedy deleted G7. Many of the pins can be kept as {{PD-Art|PD-Text}}, and I'm going though the list to save the ones I can, but a few got deleted by Túrelio before I got to them.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. These are all clearly below the USA ToO, but I suspect most of them may be above the UK's ToO since there is a typographical copyright there. See File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg which is under copyright in the UK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what the new standard *is*, but there has been a new, more lenient standard since the THJ v Sheridan case in 2023. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello! Please can my request as uploader to delete them all be honoured? I thought that was a given? I appreciate differences exist between US and UK copyright, but also that we shouldn't upload to Wikimedia Commons if they are protected by copyright in the home country. It was an error that LSE marked them as 'No Known Copyright Restrictions' on Flickr and that has now been resolved. They remain on LSE Digital Library. Do I need put in the request again The Squirrel Conspiracy? Thanks! ArthurWilliamJack (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
 Oppose I am inclined to believe that whether or not they are above the normal copyright ToO, they fall under the UK Typographical Copyright, which we must honor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Grant Report SUPER SIGN.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: : Well this is awkward. I accidentally uploaded that file while mass exporting Meta files, and so I marked it for deletion as it was out of scope. Between the time of marking it for deletion and it actually getting deleted though, the local copy was deleted, meaning there is now a big ugly redlink in the transcluding page. Can someone temporarily restore the file so I can reupload it onto Meta‐wiki? ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 05:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Anohthterwikipedian
Hello, I suggest you ask a Meta-Wiki administrator to undelete the local copy instead. Otherwise, Request temporary undeletion
Best, Wikisquack (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Hugo Chávez Frías.jpg

Although the original Flickr upload is licensed as "All rights reserved", which reads:

"The content owner retains all rights provided by copyright law. As such, you cannot reproduce, distribute and/or adapt any part of the work without permission",

which would by itself would be grounds for removal, according to the Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras (Labor Law), of 7 May 2012, Article 325:

Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector—or financed through public funds—that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recognition,

permission to use this image is given by the previously mentioned law releasing works like it into the public domain.

As such, I believe that the photo should be reinstated, since the image was uploaded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' (a ministry of the Venezuelan government, making it part of the public sector) official Flickr account, with the image being, according to said account's profile, courtesy of the Presidential Press (also part of the Venezuelan government and public sector). thinqpad (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I've been recently uploading multiple Venezuelan media from official sources, so I like this proposal of undeletion (also related to this discussion, check Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by NoonIcarus).
For a Chávez portait, however, I'd like to ask: When was the file released on a Government-owned channel (Flickr, in this case)? Was it prior or after the May 2012 date? I'm not sure if the law is retroactive. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Good question; to begin, the image was released in April 2012. Regardless, the law is retroactive, since all works previously made or owned by the Government were released into the public domain through it, including, for example, a previous portrait of Chávez. The copyright already belonged to the government; as previously mentioned, the law just served as a way to release the works it owned already. thinqpad (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
So who is the photographer that has a legal right to be recognised for her or his work? Thuresson (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
The Government hasn't shared their name, all we know that the copyright currently belongs to it. They were the first to publish the image, after all. thinqpad (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
So there is no evidence at all that suggests that the photographer is a government employee or that the photographer was paid by the government to take the photo? Instead it may be a press photographer and the government does not own the copyright? Thuresson (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
It says "foto oficial" and it's published by the Venezuelan cancillería. I believe it is safe to be assumed the "foto oficial" of the Venezuelan government was indeed made by a government employee (or it's a corporate work, anyway).
Indeed, because it is a Corporate Work, it even seems logical to me they don't share the photographers name (they don't need to).
To me the important question is if the (Labor Law), of 7 May 2012, Article 325 of Venezuela is retroactive or not. Questioning if an official portait published by the government could have been license-washed is not what I believe should be done in this conversation, In my humble opinion. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Who spoke of license washing? The photo is not licensed. The ministry states that it is all rights reserved, not free. The burden is on who claims that they know better than the ministry to present convincing reasons to contradict the statement, and prove that the photo is free in the United States and in its source country. Even in the hypothesis that the photo were uncopyrightable or otherwise free in its source country, no rationale has been offered for why it could be free in the United States. For the status inside Venezuela, as discussed in previous discussions, it seems a shaky theory to extract out of its context a bit of sentence from the Law on the Labour norms, and try to apply it to general copyrights. It seems that we do not have doctrine from Venezuelan legal professionals about that theory. (And I don't know if anyone has found what was the result of the constitutional challenge of that particular part of the Labour law.) -- Asclepias (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The ministry states that it is all rights reserved, not free

Where? {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} clearly applies here, and (Labor Law), of 7 May 2012, Article 325 has been applied in Venezuela, so, whether you like or hate the government, the law does apply. And any work in PD in the home country is also in the US, the exception were the works restored by URAA 1st January 1996, and this file was created after the date.

(And I don't know if anyone has found what was the result of the constitutional challenge of that particular part of the Labour law.)

Yes, the law remained: I couldn't find the exact rulings, but here is a 2024 text proposing changes to the law, antoher work critising the law, but pundits complaining does not make a law null. It seems obvious the Venezuelan courts are applying the law, otherwise there won't be articles critizing it.
So,  Keep the file, forward with undeletion. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
"Where?" At the source, of course, at the ministry account. It is the reason why there was a deletion and why there is this undeletion nomination here. It is copied and linked by the nominator at the top of the discussion. So, "whether you like or hate the government", the burden is to prove the opinion that the government is lying or wrong when it states that this photo is all rights reserved. About "any work in PD in the home country is also in the US", that's not how it works. A work that is copyrightable in the U.S. and is published after 1989 gets a copyright in the U.S., independently of its copyright status in other countries. A photo published in 2012 got a U.S. copyright. On the Venezuela side, thank you for the mention of the judgments. Are there links to online copies, by chance? Does one of the three contain something relevant for this issue? If so, I certainly would read it. The issue being if and how a bit of the Labour law outside of its immediate context could be invoked to trump the copyright law in matters of artistic copyright (not industrial process). -- Asclepias (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

the burden is to prove the opinion that the government is lying or wrong when it states that this photo is all rights reserved

"All rights registered" is the default license on Flickr. Obviously, Venezuelan copyright laws are far more important than whatever the default license says.

A photo published in 2012 got a U.S. copyright.

Assuming it was ever published in the US.

On the Venezuela side, thank you for the mention of the judgments. Are there links to online copies, by chance? Does one of the three contain something relevant for this issue?

I found whatever I could find (it's not easy to access to texts about the Labour law) and those are linked. They're in Spanish, though.

The issue being if and how a bit of the Labour law outside of its immediate context could be invoked to trump the copyright law in matters of artistic copyright

You're judging the legitimacy of the Venezuelan law system. And that's out of Commons user's scope. I don't know which legal procedures were used by the Venezuelan law system to consider such a law with such a writing valid, but it is a fact this law has been in use since 2012 in the country. Commons does apply the laws as the courts do apply, not as their indivual users believe it should be done. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
On the constitutional aspect, I'm happy to just assume that the Labour law is constitutional. There's no need to go out of your way to find more about it. I was asking mostly in the possibility that a decision might also contain something that could bring some light about the opinion of the user who added the bit to PD-VenezuelaGov, which seems a stretch in the absence of at least doctrinal support. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
 Oppose Nobody knows the name of the photographer and the circumstances at which the photo was taken. It is undisputable that it is available at Flickr with the license "All rights reserved". Thuresson (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
And you know the photographer and circumstances in which an official portait of a US president was taken? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, yes: en:Portraits of presidents of the United States. Thuresson (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Ok, you got me. But this is the paintings, not the photos. Trump's first portrait was taken in December 2016 by an unnamed staff member, ahead of Trump's first inauguration in January 2017.
Still, other countries might have different customs, and even US used unsigned works. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Aigaleo Flag.png

@Krd it was moved a few days ago from Simaia Dimou.png Miraitowa963 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It was licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 Miraitowa963 (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
@Miraitowa963: and where is the licence? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused it was in the lemma before being moved from Simaia dimou.png Miraitowa963 (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Sorry; I meant, can it be proven externally? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused it was listed as own work Miraitowa963 (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh well; I'm gonna COM:AGF Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Signed complaint mangione - arrest photo.jpg

According to Wikisource this file is free because it was relased by US federal government, if it is free there why it can't be free on commons? --Wikitalovin1 (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

ps (if the file is not free at all it must be deleted also from Wikisource). Wikitalovin1 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
"Deleted: per nomination. No indication that Altoona police have waived their copyright and Pennsylvania does not automatically release government works to public domain." – Abzeronow closing the first request
 Oppose and delete from Wikisource (s:Wikisource:Copyright policy § Fair use prohibits fair use) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: I don't think Commons admins have the authority to delete content locally hosted on Wikisource. You would have to initiate a deletion discussion at s:Wikisource:Copyright discussions to have it deleted there. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 13:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
@Howardcorn33: of course I know
Perhaps we can wait for this one to close before taking action on the Wikisource file Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
English Wikisource should delete it, but that's a matter for them. The photograph is not a federal government work, but a work of the Altoona Pennsylvania Police Department. Abzeronow (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Undelete. I have trouble seeing the copyrightable subject matter here. The guy who took the photograph didn’t design the building, or lay out the interior; Mangione picked his outfit that day, not the photographer; and nothing of the composition of the shot is unique (at least that I can see). Just because someone took a photograph doesn’t automatically imbue that photograph with a copyright; there has to be some sort of creative choice beforehand to justify it. (See Burrow-Giles, which discussed the creative choices informing the composition of this photograph.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
    See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Luigi Mangione. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

TE(æ)A,ea., I'm not sure I understand your comment. In Burrow-Giles, the Court found that photographs have copyrights. As far as I know, except for Bridgeman, there is no US case law that says otherwise for photos that were actually taken by humans. The mere act of pushing the shutter button at a moment is enough creativity. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

  • (Jameslwoodward): But that’s not what Burrow-Giles said. The Court recounted how the photograph came “‘entirely from [Sarony’s] own original mental conception, to which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression,’” and that, because of these creative choices, the photograph is “an original work of art, the product of plaintiff’s intellectual invention,” and therefore eligible for copyright. In fact, what matters is not the “act of pushing the shutter button,” but the creative choices; the Court favorably cited a case in which it was held that the person who designed the composition for a photograph, and not the person who actually pushed the shutter button, held the copyright. The Court also disclaimed copyright in such photographs as “involve[] no originality of thought or any novelty in the intellectual operation connected with its visible reproduction.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose That may all be true, but as far as I know, in the 130 years since Burrow-Giles, there have been no cases except Bridgeman in which the Court denied copyright for a photograph made by a human. Also, while Burrow-Giles dwelt on creativity, the current USCO Circulars use the word "original", but creativity is not mentioned. In long lists of things that have copyright, there are a variety that have little creativity. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Hello,

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

Files:

Categories:

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

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

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

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

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

Any questions, I am ready to help.

Thank you for your time.

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

File:Moonbase Alpha Logo.jpg

The game was published by NASA, a US government agency, making the game assets public domain. While Unreal Engine 3 and RAD Game Tools are proprietary software (as described in the deletion request), neither their code nor interface are depicted on the cover.

Various games made with proprietary engines (for example, Unity games) have logos and screenshots on Commons that are free to use, such as Alto's Adventure, Outer Wilds and Rain World.

Pinging deleting admin @Abzeronow. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 06:57, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Being published by NASA is not the same as being developed by NASA. For it to be in the public domain, it has to have been created by a government employee in the course of their government work. If NASA commissioned the creation of the game, but didn't purchase the copyright to it, or to the art in question, it's not PD-Gov. What do we know about who developed the game and made the art? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Whoever created this patch art probably didn't intend to release it into the public domain either, but the fact is that is was published by NASA counts. Publisher copyright usually takes priority over individual copyright due to contract obligations. Notice how File:Celeste box art full.png is credited to the publisher Maddy Makes Games and not the person who created the cover. Same for the files in categories for games I linked above.
Regardless, the assets were likely created using NASA's public domain photography. Also, one of the developer companies is literally owned by the US Army, another US government agency.
Edit: An important note is that NASA didn't just commissioned the game, they published it. See Steam page. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ih-portal.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It was deleted by mistake. this is my own work, I add {{own}} to source and there are a license template. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 14:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment: Uninvolved Commoners may wish to refer to Commons:AN § User:Εὐθυμένης makes many incorrect deletion tags for more information. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
 Support The file was tagged for not having a source, which was incorrect. It was deleted for not having a license, which was also incorrect. If anybody suspects funny business or out of scope, feel free to nominate for deletion. Thuresson (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
 Question @Ibrahim.ID: Why this image is in scope? Ankry (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Images of Stadio San Nicola

Hi everyone. I'm writing in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

They were all deleted in 2013 after two DRs (1, 2). They all depict the en:Stadio San Nicola, designed by en:Renzo Piano. The stadium was built between 1987 and 1990 and it was commissioned by the Municipality of Bari (see here). Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 2011. It's a building visible from the public space, so there's no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Sei Ami Nei Ami stills

Per ticket:2026032910021557. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

All files uploaded by User:Simuliakrai

Per ticket:2026032910021164. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

File:FPPICTURE.jpg

Kindly undelete the file as I will be tagging it with {{cc-zero}} to release it into the public domain.

Thanks!--Aultrition25686 (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@Aultrition25686: How did you acquire the copyright to this photo? Thuresson (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2026 (UTC)