If you want to prove that you, or a person you are representing, has indeed released under a free licence a file deleted for lack of compatible licencing, do not come here. Instead, contact the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) if you are the copyright holder; otherwise, direct the person you are representing to contact the VRT.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Then Neutral as I do not know where the text in NOP Slovenia not consisting with the legal act content originates from. Ankry (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
This interpretation of the law is provided in: Trampuž, Miha (1997) (slovene) Zakon o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah: s komentarjem, Gospodarski vestnik. --TadejM(t/p) 19:13, 21 April 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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
@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.
1984 Trial Regulations on the Protection of Book and Periodical Copyright
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.
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:
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.
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: The 1991 Copyright Law did, in fact, restore protection to works that had "expired" under the 1984 Trial Regulations. The NPC's official interpretation specifically uses the 1984 Regulations as an example of how the 1991 Law's "life plus 50 years" term overrides the previous "life plus 30 years" term.
比如，1984年文化部颁布的《图书、期刊版权保护试行条例》，规定著作、译作的作者享有的使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为作者终身及其死亡后三十年。假如某翻译者是1950年去世的，按照文化部的条例，该译作的翻译者不再享有使用权和获得报酬权，但依照著作权法，该译作的翻译者仍然享有使用权和获得报酬权。因为著作权法规定，公民的作品，其使用权和获得报酬权的保护期为作者终生及其死亡后五十年，到1991年6月1日，权利的保护期尚未届满。Translation: For example, the 1984 Regulations stipulated that the term of protection... shall last for the author's lifetime plus 30 years. If a translator died in 1950, they would no longer enjoy these rights under the Ministry of Culture's 1984 Regulations. However, per the 1991 Copyright Law, the translator still enjoys these rights, because the new law extended the term to life plus 50 years, and as of June 1, 1991, this new term had not yet expired by June 1, 1991.
Additionally, Berne 18(2) is inapplicable here because the PRC was not a party to the Berne Convention until 15 October 1992, over a year after the 1991 Law established these protections domestically. Therefore, the domestic restoration of these rights in 1991 did not conflict with any international treaty obligations at that time. Teetrition (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Furthermore, the 1984 Regulations were highly restrictive in scope. Per Article 2, protection was only extended to works "lawfully published by Chinese publishing entities." (我国公民创作的文学、艺术和科学作品，由国家出版单位印制成图书出版或在期刊上发表，其作者依本条例享有版权。) This means many works that did not meet these specific administrative requirements might not have been covered by the 1984 Regulations at all. In such cases, or where the publication status under the 1984 criteria is unclear, we should follow COM:PRE and apply the "life plus 50 years" term as established by the 1991 Law. It would be an enormous evidentiary burden to prove a work was "lawfully published" under the 1984 administrative standards just to argue for a shorter, expired term. Teetrition (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
I'll check everything once I have the time to do so, but it is no be so difficult to prove a work was "lawfully published" under the 1984 administrative standards: pre-1978 works were basically made always by state owned corporations, so: films by Changchun, Shanghai, Bayi, etc; works published by the publishing house making Renmin Ribao, Renmin Huabao, etc; books published by University publishing houses or Sanlian/Joint Publishing (Mainland branch), CCTN/Peking TV and Radio Peking, and many others were obviously "lawfully published" (they were state-owned corporate works). And the facto, any works PD by 1991/1996 would have been published by a state-owned corporation. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
@TaronjaSatsuma Sorry but do you have any further comments on this issue? It's been a month since your last comment. Teetrition (talk) 06:05, 13 May 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)
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.
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.
Hello, just following up on this request. Please let me know if you need any additional information or clarification. Thank you. Beto Amaral pm (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Support Images are educationally useful (at least on Wikidata) and should be undeleted if no other problems (such as with copyright) exist. Pinging deleting admin @Lymantria. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
I undeleted the one that I deleted. --Lymantria (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
@Túrelio and @The Squirrel Conspiracy You can review this undelete request regarding my images. If you have any questions, I'm here to help. Thank you. Emigma Sonhador (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
If you disagree with this deletion, please create a new thread for it here, as the deletion reason is unrelated to the other logos' deletion. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
@Yann @Jameslwoodward, do these photos have to be undeleted specifically by the deleting admin? Because Squirrel hasn't been active on Commons since May 1 and I'm not sure how long his wikibreak will be. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 16:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The works in the DR cited above are anonymous photographs, so their copyright term was publish plus fifty years. This is a cartoon drawing by Zhang Leping (1910-1992), so it will be under Chinese copyright pma plus 50 or until 1/1/2043. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
per , 著作物用官署學校公司會所或其他法人或團體名義者，其著作權之年限為三十年。(English: For works published under the name of a government agency, school, company, association, or other legal entity or organization, the term of copyright shall be thirty years.), newspaper publications are typically issued under the responsibility and name of the publisher, which may indicate corporate authorship under Article 7. JaydenChao (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
This is a signed drawing, so it was published under the name of its creator, albeit probably in a periodical of some sort. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi! I assume it's a Sanmao comic strip. I came here to bring more difficulty to the decision.
I asked an AI about what @JaydenChao: pointed about, the government work. More especifically, I asked about the author role on the propaganda team of the KMT government:
Zhang Leping joined the "Anti-Japanese Cartoon Propaganda Team" (also known as the "National Salvation Cartoon Propaganda Corps"). This was a government-organized effort, as the corps was placed under the Third Section of the Military Affairs Commission of the GMD government, which was the government of the Republic of China at that time. He was appointed as the deputy leader of this team, working alongside notable figures like Ye Qianyu. The team's mission was to travel across various provinces to use art as a medium for public propaganda against the Japanese invasion
I asked the same AI and said: Zhang worked for "National Salvation Cartoon Propaganda Corps" from August 31 1937 to the spring of 1942, when Zhang Leping's branch of the propaganda corps was disbanded because of a lack of funding. Zhang Leping was noted as being the last member to stick with the team until the end, and continued his anti-Japanese propaganda efforts on his own even after the team dispersed
So, probably 1948 works must be deleted, but now Zhang Leping's works have a more nuanced timeline when it comes to copyright. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per Jim, remember that even Taiwan claims some rights after 1949 for this work, as it has signatures shown as main topic, the COM:SIG Taiwan applies which told me: Not OK unless very simple, you have to wait for 50 anniversary of the author's passed away date, and still wait for the next 1 January. --~2026-22385-04 (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
I have re-uploaded the high-definition photos! Will there be any issues with the newly uploaded photos......?II52tt52 (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
@II52tt52: I hope not, but you may be required to contact the Volunteer Response Team to verify your ownership of the photos
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused: I don't know what VRT could achieve here. This is a job for a license reviewer. - Alexis Jazzping plz 21:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
if these photos are higher quality, then there is no need in restoring the lower quality ones. Oppose restoring the deleted files, Support keeping the newly uploaded ones. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 16:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I never received any notice of the proposal to delete this image. It is not a personal or low quality image as claimed, but a valuable illustration of Faraday's Law of Induction, which I was about to add to that article--Loodog (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I find it confusing, in that it moves too fast and the timing is wrong -- the field appears before the magnets. We have many images that do a much better job of this. It is, as noted, personal art of a non-contributor. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
1. Well, let me take another look. No... I confirm that the timing is correct. Remember that the electric field swirls are not proportional to the magnetic field but to its time derivative. The B field goes like sin(omega*t) so the E field swirls go like cos(omega*t), which is necessarily ~~pi/4~~ pi/2 ahead of the field in its phase. I can link you the colab code; it's really just taking time derivatives this way so there's not much to mess up.
2. As for the many images, the fact that none of the images linked are animated was what led me to create this gif to illustrate to a student of mine. I just thought that once I'd generated the gif, it would be valuable to a larger audience than just the one person I made it for.
3.On the issue of the image moving too fast, that's a reasonable take and I can easily modify the code to slow it down to whatever pace works better for illustration purposes.
Thank you for your time in reading and considering my response. Loodog (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm also puzzled by your labeling of me as non-contributor. I've been contributing significantly to Wikipedia and Wikipedia projects for 18 years. Loodog (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Timing: The field appears before the arrows, which is backwards. Or perhaps I don't understand your symbolism -- note that I studied electrical engineering at Cornell...
As for Non-contributor -- 23 uploads over 19 years does not look like an active Wikipedian to me. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
2. Explain which field you mean. Maybe you're concerned that the electric field doesn't assume an initial condition of B(t=0)=0. The electrical field will be exactly pi/2 ahead of the magnetic field for reasons described above. When the magnetic field is 0, it is also in maximum change (sin(omega*t) has a max derivative when its value is 0), which is when the electric field will be maximum. Again, I can give you the colab code but the math it implements is very simple: derivative of sin is cos.
There are also some maps which were apparently based on open street map, which is available with a compatible license, deleted again as lacking source:
Pedido de solicitação de exclusão, Wikipédia commons
Solicito a revisão de exclusão para poder adicionar arquivos e poder participar do comitê consultivo da Wikipédia mais negros.
Atenciosamente Amador Madalena Maia de Contagem em Minas Gerais e
Peço deferimento --~2026-28256-09 (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
I request a review of the deletion so that I can add files and participate in the Wikipedia advisory committee for more Black people. Sincerely, Amador Madalena Maia from Contagem, Minas Gerais, and I request approval.
Also to notice: at this very moment of time there are three open undeletion requests about files from China, which seems to be a tricky country for Commons community. I believe this proves how mistaken was the speedy deletion of a file in use on several wikis. If someone wants to argue for deletion (I must insist, Template:PD-ROC-registered is properly documented and it was the result of months of debate) then they should ask for a regular deletion, or just open a debate about Chinese copyright. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Pinging deleting admin @Túrelio, who stated "The song itself is still protected by copyright, so a recording of it cannot be public domain". Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 14:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Opening a DR requires new arguments contesting the deletion reason. Note that per US law no sound recording may be PD before 2067. So we need a free license for any of them. Ankry (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Any argument is new when no argument was given for the deletion. CSD was not valid in this case, at least some time to defend the file should have been given. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Copyvio is always a valid speedy deletion reason. No arguments provided why the file is free in US. Ankry (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Original copyright lenghth under 1964 RoC copyright law expired before Taiwan's URAA date. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
As mentioned in its DR and its delinker log, the image was COM:INUSE in eu-wiki. COM:INUSE states, "It does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope". So, even though the image was deleted for being "out of scope", the image was actually "automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope".
Also, I am unsure why the DR was closed early, as it was closed only after a day the DR was created.
Anyways, I agree with @Bedivere that "a human made version can be created", but currently there are no images depicting this specific subject, so I think this image should be undeleted until a better replacement exists. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I remember that file. A couple of years ago someone in Basque Wikipedia experimented with AI in order to create files to illustrate folk creatures of the Basque Culture. File should be restored, as a human made version, even if feasible, it's not so obvious (folk creatures aren't in the wild to take a pic of them). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Indeed, it's not a democracy, but the only reason given for deletion is I don't like it, which is not a valid reason for deletion either. Theklan (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that perfectly. I'm also an admin here. What's your rational for deleting the image beyond the fact that you don't like it? Is there any binding copyright law expressed, any project scope policy we should be aware? The only reason given for deletion was that the poster doesn't like it.
Users closing deletion requests are expected to provide adequate explanation for their decision. In many cases, where there is little discussion and no disagreement with the request, no details are required. However the more complex a discussion, and the more users have argued for the opposite outcome than the administrator's decision, the clearer the explanation of the decision is required. In any event, administrators are expected to clarify or explain their decisions on request.
This is an evident case where all opinions given were to keep the image and you decided on the opposite. Theklan (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Where did I say that I did not like it? I just stated that it is an AI slop, which according to Wikipedia "is digital content made with generative artificial intelligence that is perceived as lacking in effort, quality, or meaning". My assessment as the closing administrator was that this file is of very low quality and its actual educational use is extremely limited, to say the least. Generating a random, unverified AI hallucination to represent a specific mythological creature does not inherently create an educational file just because someone uploaded it. Stating the previous does not mean that "I don't like it," nor did I close it based on personal preference. Bedivere (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
A file being in use on any project does inherently make it an educational file, though, per the policy at COM:INUSE. It also explicitly does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. Belbury (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
You can't say it's AI slop when it is in use on at least one project. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
You think that is random. The Wikipedia using it thinks the opposite. Do you have a background to know if this is random or useful? Theklan (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Yet another uncontested speedy deletion of a 91-year old Chinese work. Proposed by Prospectprospekt and deleted by Túrelio under the grounds of "previous consensus": Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scenes of City Life (1935).webm.
The film is in PD under both 1944 RoC copyright law and current 1991 PRC copyright law (50 years had passed by 1991, according to article then 59, now 66).
Previous consensus:
Mickey Mouse appears 21 minutes in. Undelete on January 1, 2024 (It was deleted on 25 December 2023). AFAIK, Mickey Mouse is already PD in the US.
Two American songs appear in the background: en:The Maine Stein Song (a 1904 song which seems to be recorded in 1930) and Whistling in the Dark with a registry of also 1930. So, 95-year old songs.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
OpposeTaronjaSatsuma does not seem to understand that copyright lasts a very long time. A 91 year old work can easily have a copyright that lasts another thirty years, although that does not seem to be quite the case here. According to the DR, Whistling in the Dark has a 1931 copyright which was renewed, so it will have a US copyright until 1/1/2027.
I think that in order to restore this, (a) we must wait until 1/1/2027 for the Whistling in the Dark copyright to expire and find out which Mickey Mouse movie this is. He is wearing white gloves, so it is 1929 or later. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Cartoon character at 21st minute of the film.First, @Jameslwoodward: I'd would be very grateful if you abstain of insulting fellow Wikimedians. I've never insulted anyone, AFAIK, and I don't deserve to be mistreated because I have a different point of view than yours.
Secondly, and unless I've missed something in the film, there is no Mickey Mouse at all in this film. There is a cartoony dog character, but this is no Mickey Mouse by any means (and thus, the first deletion was made with mistaken reasons).
About Whistling in the Dark, assuming it's true the reigstry of the very specific version displayed is from 1931, at least I'd be grateful if someone adds "Undelete in 2027" on the file, so it can be used in seven months. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
I probably could have phrased my comment better, for which I apologize, but, TaronjaSatsuma, you mention both "a 91-year old Chinese work" and "95-year old songs" in a way that strongly suggests to me that you believe those are reasons for the work to be PD. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment The character is not Mickey Mouse - multiple animation studios in the era had characters with vaguely similar appearance, including some that predated Mikey - so that should not be a factor. However if the audio was US recordings, they would not yet be PD per Commons:Hirtle_chart#Sound_recordings as the term is 100 years, which has not yet passed. -- 19:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
But after hearing both versions, I have my doubts: the song as played in the movie (around minute 61) has whistling during the whole play, and also much more harder trumpets. The voice sounds clearly American, but I'm unsure about it being the specific recorded version (at least the one I linked). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Also, I asked Deepseek about this issue (it was about 1990 PRC law, but the reasoning is the same):
The core of your question lies in a key provision of Chinese copyright law. As we discussed, Article 15 (now Article 17 in the 2020 revision) grants a "separate use" right to the creators of a film's components:
"The authors of the script, musical works and other works that are included in a cinematographic work... and can be exploited separately shall be entitled to exercise their copyright independently."
The crucial, legally defined meaning of "separate use" is using the component work completely on its own, detached from the film.
"Separate use" includes:
Publishing the film's script as a standalone book.
Releasing the film's soundtrack on a CD or streaming service.
Licensing the main theme song for a commercial
"Separate use" does NOT include: Broadcasting the film in its entirety on television, as a cinema screening, or on a streaming platform. In these cases, the music is being used as an inseparable part of the audiovisual work, not as an independent element.
Can someone clarify if this reasoning does apply (or not) here?--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Support, with at most the Maine Stein and Whistling song muted (and all other American sound recordings made before 1926 present in-film, if any). As a side note, the PD-recording template says that audio in films does not have to be muted. Does that apply to the use of recordings? CitationsFreak (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure why sound on a disc record and sound on a film strip would be subject to different rules, but I have no objection to undeletion in whole if the US audio copyright is as stated. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
In the US, movie audio was part of the movie from the start, but recordings on a disc record weren't copyrightable until 1972.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons not mentioned in my original rationale but rather found at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Prospectprospekt#Files uploaded by Prospectprospekt (talk · contribs) 2. One of the films listed there—Street Angel—was the subject of the court decision 朱心、袁牧女等诉北京东方影视乐园侵犯著作权纠纷案. One takeaway from this decision is that we cannot assume, absent strong evidence, that the screenplays of classical Chinese films were made for hire. This means that the default assumption should be that these screenplays are PMA+50, and if the screenwriter died after 1945, the screenplay as published in the film would have been restored by the URAA. Since this is the case here, a selectively muted version should not be uploaded until 2031. prospectprospekt (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Still, "Separate use" does NOT include: Broadcasting the film in its entirety on television, as a cinema screening, or on a streaming platform. In these cases, the music is being used as an inseparable part of the audiovisual work, not as an independent element.
I may be mistaken, but the film as a whole, under the provisions in article 17, once is PD is fully PD. That does not mean someone can take the movie and use the plot to film a remake. But the film, as a whole work, is PD. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
That doesn't strike me as free enough for Commons. It's basically a no-derivatives restriction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Maybe. But here we're talking about background music, so I guess every case will have some nuances. Also, some films will have their original script on PD, others maybe not...
That's why I like to discuss deletion and to use Speedy deletion as a default tool. With so old works, there are always nuances... TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deleted as "No license since 21 December 2025". I see in the uploader's talk page that it was tagged as a derivative work. However the church is about 1000 years old . C messier (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Pinging @Εὐθυμένης: for clarification their doubts. Ankry (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
@Ankry: I can't really remember, of course, the exact photo or what motivated me to propose it under this specific justification, however, maybe it was a case of a photo that looked like scanned material (from some other - copyrighted - source?), so that needed further clarification. But, then again, this is only a mere supposition of mine, since it has been quite some time since then, in order for me to remember exactly every single detail. 😕🤷♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 08:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Support This is a simple picture of an old church, and I don't see any reason not to assume that it is own work. There was no reason to tag it as "No source". Yann (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Support I understand the thought that led to deletion. My first reaction when I saw this image was that it was a model. The trees look like models and there is something odd at the upper right corner. However the image here shows the trees and explains the upper right corner. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:An Amorous History of the Silver Screen (1931).webm. File uploaded by Prospectprospekt and deleted by Abzeronow.
RoC copyright law of 1928 had a 30 years after publication copyright lenghth, RoC copyright law of 1944 included movies and gave 10 years after publication, and PRC's copyright law of 1990 gives 50 year after publication copyright term for movies. PRC 1990 did restore copyright for some works, but explicitally said it did not extend copyright for works whose term had expired. Anyway, the film was PD far before 1990 PRC copyright law was in effect.
It was assumed there was separately exploitable works. That figure exists in 1990 PRC copyright law, which does not apply to this file because the film was PD in the country back then. It was claimed the 1990 versions of PRC copyright did not recognize "work-for-hire", or did not clarify its copyright lenghth. But this movie was created during RoC, and RoC 1928 (and 1944) copyright did indeed recognize work-for-hire. So, undelete.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
Also, I asked Deepseek about the Copyright of a movie under Chinese law, and how it relates to the screenwrite, music, etc. seprarate copyrights:
When you broadcast the film as a complete work, your direct legal counterparty is the producer (制片者) of the film. The Copyright Law vests the economic rights to the cinematic work as a whole in the producer. Since the producer's economic rights have expired, the film's status as a public domain (PD) cinematic work is clear. Under this specific act, you are not directly using the script or the musical score as separate, independent entities (whether as a book, a standalone lyric sheet, or an audio track).
This is relevant for this discussion, but also for some other related to Chinese media happening right now. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
For all of these reasons, plaintiffs copyright infringement claim must be returned to the District Court to afford an opportunity for further development of the record and a sensitive aggregate assessment by the fact-finder of the fair use factors in light of the applicable legal principles
Now I doubt if that means 30 secs of artworks are de minimis, as said in the case; or wasn't because it's the District Court to rule about it.
Also, I asked Deepseek about the District Court and said
The district court granted summary judgment to BET and HBO, dismissing Faith Ringgold's copyright infringement claim because it found their use of her “Church Picnic Story Quilt” poster as set decoration on the sitcom ROC was protected as fair use
Fair use is irrelevant to us (No fair-use in Commons) but:
Amount and substantiality of the portion used: The court determined this factor supported the defendants. The segments showing the poster were brief, often only a partial view, and even when most of the poster was visible, it was not in exact focus
Effect on the potential market for the work: The court found this factor also favored the defendants. It reasoned that the television episode is not a substitute for purchasing the poster, so there was little likelihood of a negative impact on poster sales. The court also noted that Ringgold could not demonstrate a negative impact on her licensing market over the four years since the episode had aired
And, to add more confusion:
Based on this analysis, the district court sustained the defendants' fair use defense and dismissed the case. The Second Circuit later reversed this decision, finding that summary judgment was not warranted and that further fact-finding was required
The file that got deleted is our own logo. How can anyone claim that it is copyrighted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorn.leyssens (talk•contribs) 11:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Reason: was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files out of scope in the campaign, which was a broad request of many files by multiple different Flickr photographers which the nominator assumed were out of scope. This particular file I disagree with that judgement. It is illustrative of the culture and conditions of the time and place, in this case a young Kʼicheʼ Maya girl selling firewood on the street in Momostenango Guatemala. (If restored I shall add appropriate categories.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Necesito restaurar los archivos: File:Antonio Rivas.jpg y File:Antonio_Rivas_Congreso.jpg
Las imágenes están disponibles y son de uso público, pues pertenecen a la Cámara de Diputados y Diputadas de Chile, liberadas a través de la plataforma flickr.
Oppose I can't find the exact same image, but the series is (c) All right reserved. Yann (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
@DanielToska378: como el administrador Yann ya le dijo, la Cámara reserva todos los derechos a su fotografía
Y entonces, usted no puede decir que ella (la Cámara) permitió el acto de subir alguna de esas imagenes a Commons Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 12:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Please, someone is acting crazy by inventing non-existent copyright violations, false! It's not true! Some are even flagged for immediate deletion and the others are about to be deleted and/or because they would be copies of this file: false! false! false! It's not true!!! Please stop this out-of-control action! Sorry, but it's absurd that files are being deleted all at once and without real reasons. I ask for admin intervention, thank you. I left a message on the responsible person's talk page.
Another administrator (Túrelio) is deleting the files without verifying the truthfulness of the reasons. I understand that sometimes sources can be confusing and I don't doubt the administrator's good faith, but in fact the reason is false. It would be enough to look more carefully and not superficially.
Reply from GioviPen:
Hi MarioeMary, can you explain better what files these are, where you got them, what they depict and what they're used for? As for File:Bruce Lee as Kato 1967.jpg, which you indicated as the source, and then "own work" – to me it looks like they are AI-generated, so you should read COM:AIIP and understand what the guidelines say about it.
Intervention from Friniate:
Effectively, the reason for the immediate deletions seems off to me. It's said they are derivative works from File:Bruce Lee as Kato 1967.jpg, but no one seems to have any issue with that latter image. I think it would be appropriate at least to open a regular DR with all the proper steps, especially considering that image has been there since 2014... If no one intervenes anyway and the images get deleted, you can open a restoration request here. An admin will definitely reply there, which isn't guaranteed here (there are only three Italian admins and I don't even know if they're active).
Conclusion: I ask that the files be restored here (in Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests). Thank you MarioeMary (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
"It is not the task of the closing admin to engage in detailed legal or factual research in order to find a rationale to keep the file. Under the rules of evidence we apply here, the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept." – Commons:Deletion requests §Overview
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused Sorry, but I don't understand your answer. If File:Bruce Lee as Kato 1967.jpg is PD, how can be derivative works of it made by a commons user be under copyright? If somebody thinks that the original image is under copyright then they should open a DR about it, deleting only the derivative works doesn't make any sense... Friniate (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Friniate. There is no copyright issue with these files, so I undeleted them. These are not eligible for speedy deletion. Now, the usefulness of recreation of old pictures can be debated, but that requires a specific deletion request. Yann (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I request the restoration of the file since the copyright violation is clearly false; it would be enough to look more carefully at the source MarioeMary (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Enter the Dragon wa premiered in the US two weeks after it did on Hong Kong. IDK if it was published without the copyright notice, but it falls into the 30-days clause. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
@MarioeMary: and can you do all of us uninvolved users a favour and directly supply us with the source? Non-administrators do not have the privilege of looking through the revisions of a deleted page Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 09:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The file is a reproduction of the opening frame from the film Enter the Dragon. It is a copy of this image. The source is File:Enter the Dragon.jpg. After that, I removed the text "Enter the Dragon" and added a drawn tree and the text A WARNER BROS INC. - CONCORD PRODUCTIONS INC.
@MarioeMary: in your defence, I do see a presumable (though unreadable) notice of complete copyright at the bottom Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 12:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
It's also possible to ask Meta AI on Messenger or WhatsApp what's written inside a faded image, and it's able to read it without problems even with images like this. MarioeMary (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I don't understand the issue here. It is either (a) a 1973 movie with a clear and correct copyright notice, under USA copyright until 1/1/2069 or (b) an editor made fake which is out of scope. Either way we should not restore it. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, but as reiterated above, I don't understand your answer. If source (File:Enter the Dragon.jpg) is PD, how can be derivative works of it made by a commons user be under copyright? If somebody thinks that the original image is under copyright then they should open a DR about it, deleting only the derivative works doesn't make any sense... MarioeMary (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment There is no copyright issue with this file. I can understand the use for replacing the low quality File:Enter the Dragon.jpg. However adding a copyright notice seems misleading to me. Yann (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I agree adding a copyright notice is misleading. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I request the restoration of the file since the copyright violation is clearly false; it would be enough to look more carefully at the source MarioeMary (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The file is a reproduction of the opening frame from the documentary. It is a copy of this image in the background, I inserted a drawing similar to the original, and then I pasted Bruce Lee with the help of artificial intelligence, pasting a Bruce Lee similar to this one and the text 司公限有(港香)業電和協 司公限有(港香)業電天嘉 製攝人同 PRODUCED BY BRUCE LEE'S FELLOW WORKERS IN GOLDEN HARVEST (HK) LTD · CONCORN PRODUCTIONS LTD
Anyway, to fix it by removing the work done with artificial intelligence, I could zoom in on the reproduced image and publish only the dedication present in the text. MarioeMary (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I repeat: Anyway, to fix it by removing the work done with artificial intelligence, I could zoom in on the reproduced image and publish only the dedication present in the text MarioeMary (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose If I understand correctly, this is a fake made by MarioeMary. There's no educational use for misleading fakes. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
From File:Bruce Lee as Cheng Chao-an.jpg to File:Bruce Lee as Cheng Chao-an (cartoon).webp it was made without the help of artificial intelligence, using only a simple obsolete program for converting photos into drawings. Google is full of these online programs, and has been for a long time—anyone can search and find them. Then, for the step from File:Bruce Lee as Cheng Chao-an (cartoon).webp to File:Li http://Tsung.png, I used artificial intelligence only to change the clothing (this is a technical setting that any non-admin user can easily forget but re-enable. You can overlook it as a slip-up, considering that I could have cut out the outfit 👗 and placed it myself, but it would have cost me two days. I assume the rationale for the ban concerns the image of the person, not a jacket, a tie, a shirt, a tracksuit, a garment... worn by the actor in a film, and especially within a drawing that my 14-year-old niece does better 😊) MarioeMary (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose If I understand correctly, this is a fake made by MarioeMary. There's no educational use for misleading fakes. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment I undeleted this file. There is no copyright issue, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
"a simple old program that converts photos to drawings"
I honestly have serious doubts about the lack of artificial intelligence here; what is this magic software you're using? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 10:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose If I understand correctly, this is a fake made by MarioeMary. There's no educational use for misleading fakes. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment I undeleted this file. There is no copyright issue, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose If I understand correctly, this is a fake made by MarioeMary. There's no educational use for misleading fakes. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment I undeleted this file. There is no copyright issue, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose If I understand correctly, this is a fake made by MarioeMary. There's no educational use for misleading fakes. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment I undeleted this file. There is no copyright issue, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, now please leave me alone (not in a mean way) because I don't want to be in this discussion anymore Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 13:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose If I understand correctly, this is a fake made by MarioeMary. There's no educational use for misleading fakes. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment I undeleted this file. There is no copyright issue, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose If I understand correctly, this is a fake made by MarioeMary. There's no educational use for misleading fakes. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment I undeleted this file. There is no copyright issue, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
I request the restoration of the file because the copyright violation is clearly false; it would be enough to look more carefully at the source. It is not a work derived from copyrighted material from File:Bruce Lee characters.png (for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bruce Lee characters.png), but it derives from the file File:Bruce Lee as Kato 1967.jpg, and it was made without the help of artificial intelligence, using only a simple old program that converts photos to drawings. MarioeMary (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
From File:Bruce Lee as Kato 1967.jpg to File:Bruce Lee as Kato (cartoon).png it was made without the help of artificial intelligence, using only a simple obsolete program for converting photos into drawings. Google is full of these online programs, and has been for a long time—anyone can search and find them. MarioeMary (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose If I understand correctly, this is a fake made by MarioeMary. There's no educational use for misleading fakes. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment I undeleted this file. There is no copyright issue, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Dear all, I wrote this paper myself and forgot to cite the source. I apologize for that.
I would like to request that the file be restored, and I will provide the necessary information.
After the original nomination for deletion I have updated the image and on the second version the person was not generated or modified using AI. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Not done: No, you don't. --Yann (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Portraits of members of the European Court of Auditors
Official-ish portraits of each of the 27 members of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) were uploaded in May 2025 and swiftly deleted due to improper licensing. However, they are all sourced from the ECA's website, whose copyright notice explicitly states "Unless otherwise indicated (e.g. in individual copyright notices), the content of this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. This means that you may reuse the content, provided that you give appropriate credit." Unless I am missing something here, these files should thus all be available under CC BY 4.0. Procrastineur49 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I would Love my page (Jeffrey S.S. Johnson-Actor) to be restored
hello.
my name is Jeffrey S.S. Johnson. I am from Southboro, Mass. & have had the pleasure of being a working actor in Los Angeles for over 25 years as of this writing.
I've got over 50 credits om IMDb as an actor alone, along w/ several directing, producing & music credits. Long story short, I've been around...
I think my Wikipedia page was created in 2010 or so, when I starred in the Faith-Based "Letters To God". We were Top 10 in the country opening weekend. It was a thrill & an honor. And I Loved the fact that "I had a Wikipedia page!!" It meant a lot to me. It meant a lot to my agents. It meant a lot to my family. For a guy from a small town to have this kind of "success" was a pretty big fricking deal.
I've continued to work in film & TV/commercials over the years, quite a bit in the voiceover world, including being the voice of T-Mobile for 13 years, & presently on camera as the "Cowboy" spokesman in the current (2026) ALDI Grocery store campaigns.
Look, I don't like having to prove myself like this, but, truth told, it hurt my feelings when my page was taken down. I have no idea why. Whose feelings did I hurt? Sure, I understand I'm not Matt Damon, or Jack Kennedy, or Norman Rockwell, & it may be a stretch to put me in the "famous people from Massachusetts" category, but to take down the entire page...? It seemed a bit harsh.
It would mean a lot to me if it could be "undeleted". & I know it would mean a lot to my Mom. My knowledge of the process is slim to none, so any advice is welcome.
I am including my IMDb page. I am quite proud of what I have been able to accomplish over the years. I feel like I did my small town proud.
lemme know... hugs & kisses-jj --Iamjevmon (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)--Iamjevmon (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This is about something that is not a page or file on Commons. Thuresson (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, you seem to be asking in the wrong place - if it was a page on English language Wikipedia, you need to ask there on https://en.wikipedia.org . (This is Wikimedia Commons, for free licensed images and files). Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
English: The deleted image File:Calcinhão.jpg is available on Google Images and is in the public domain, posing no copyright issues or offensive to those who viewed it. I request the restoration of the image and its return to the pages where it was inserted.
Português: A imagem que foi deletada File:Calcinhão.jpg está disponível no Google imagens e é de domínio público, não tendo problemas com direitos autorais ou ofendendo aqueles que a visualizaram. Peço a restauração da imagem e o retorno dela para as páginas em que ela foi inserida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BDTHAS (talk•contribs) 19:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Being found on Google is not relevant wrt copyright. Screenshots of current movies violate copyright. Your source-entry for this image was .... . --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Good afternoon. The image, even though it's a screenshot, is available on Google Images as I said before. I didn't post the image on Google Images, I only downloaded it and used it as a visual reference. As far as I know, this image is not copyrighted. Could the image be un-deleted, please? BDTHAS (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Not done: Obvious copyright violation. Please read COM:L and the warning on your talk page. --Yann (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
Doing… --Yann (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment File:Arlabosse.png is in use on 28 pages.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Midjourney_AI_bertsioa.png?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Midjourney_AI_bertsioa.png){kind=link}
_-_Midjourney_AI_bertsioa.png){kind=link}
Done: grandfathered from URAA (original upload was in 2010). --Abzeronow (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Not done This file IS NOT deleted. JaydenChao (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)![File:Logo Harmonie "De Ware Vrienden" Zolder.jpg](./File:Logo_Harmonie_"De_Ware_Vrienden"_Zolder.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
