Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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.

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)
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)
 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)
@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.
As stated in the official interpretation of the retroactivity clause by the NPC (the legislative authority of China):
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)
Also, for unlawfully published works, it is also easy to discover when those were not.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:57, 7 April 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: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)

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)
Pinging other admins (apparently, there's more than one who got invloved in the deletion) @Túrelio and @The Squirrel Conspiracy. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:25, 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)

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

File:Frida Kahlo - Autoportrait dédié à Léon Trotsky.png

First publication was exhibition in 1938 at Julien Levy Gallery in New York City. Trotsky abandoned the portrait in 1939, and Kahlo kept it until 1940, when Clare Boothe Luce convinced Kahlo to give her the painting, where it was returned to the United States and held in Luce's living room until 1988, when it was loaned to a museum. There is no record of any other publication until after the museum acquired it. It was published in the USA, before 1989, without a copyright notice, and no other place. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. Since there is no evidence to the contrary, I think we must assume that this was painted in Mexico and therefore had a Mexican copyright from the moment of creation. Mexican copyrights last 100 years pma. Kahlo died in 1954, so this will be under Mexican copyright until 1/1/2055. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Under Commons rules, works first published in the USA can be treated as US works, regardless of where they were made, per Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_US_and_non-US_copyright_law -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 15:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
While COM:L does say, "The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published", note the word "generally". In a case like this, where the work was created by a Mexican, with a Mexican subject, it seems clear that the Mexican copyright predated any possibility of a US copyright. Also note that the painting is dated November 1937. The work did not go to New York until a year later and was obviously seen by various people in that year. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a painting created in Mexico, according to your source and the signature on the painting (Frida Kahlo in Saint Angel, Mexico). According to COM:ART The underlying work of art must still be in the public domain in both the US and the country of origin. and it isn't in Mexico, yet. --C messier (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

COM:ART is a policy for application of Bridgeman v Corel, it does not address the application of copyright in general. COM:L is the correct policy to cite here. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
COM:L leads to COM:ART for more details (it is in the last sentence of the section). COM:ART it isn't just for Bridgeman v Corel. There is a section below that for other countries (COM:ART#Other countries). C messier (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
 Comment If it was first published in USA without a copyright notice, it would be in public domain in USA and OK for Commons. However, we need a strong evidence for that, as it is not the default case. Any information from a museum? Yann (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
I think the "first published" rule is intended for cases where there is some doubt over the country of origin -- a British photographer takes a photograph in Nepal that is first seen in an American magazine. In a case such as this -- clearly created by a Mexican person in Mexico and exhibited in Mexico (certainly privately and perhaps publicly) for a year before it appeared in New York -- I think that we must say that the country of origin is Mexico. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Well, the point is exactly that: if it stayed private until it was shown in USA, it was first published in USA. Not obvious, but it is a possibility. Yann (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Also, since the argument above relies on the Berne Convention definition of "country of origin", we should also use the Berne Convention definition of "publication":
"Article 3:
(3) The expression "published works" means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication . [emphasis added].
By that definition it may not have been published until after March 1, 1989. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
By that definition we could never publish anything on Commons. Yann (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
It would be harder in some cases, yes, but we can't follow the Berne Convention when it helps us and ignore it when it does not. We must either obey it or not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Well, until now we have used the US definition of publication most (all?) of time. Why should we do otherwise now?
Nard's argument lacks evidence, but it is quite plausible. Yann (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
My point is that Nard can't have the Berne Convention rule that says that the place of first publication is the country of origin and then ignore the Berne Convention rule which says that the exhibition in New York in 1938 was not publication.
I certainly know that there is much about copyright that is not logical, but I fail to see how we can ignore the fact that this was painted in Mexico by a Mexican artist and first exhibited in Mexico (certainly privately, possibly publicly). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Also, we should not forget that it is a policy of Commons for the painting to be in PD both in US and the country of origin (COM:ART#Other countries). C messier (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
If the first publication of this painting was in the US, then the US would be the country of origin for our purposes. The question of "first publication" of a painting is notoriously tricky though, so we should have very strong evidence for that, especially in a high profile case like a Frida Kahlo painting. Unless we get such very strong evidence, we should assume the country of origin is Mexico IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 15:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I mean. Yann (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. If reliable evidence of first publication in USA without a copyright notice is available, please request again undeletion. --Yann (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Files by Renamed user c65d0c50abae01d9e87c128f272c0451

I see almost all of the files uploaded by this user were deleted as File source is not properly indicated in 2024 (this doesn't include some previous uploads that the user thought they were PD). They were all marked by the same user who apparently didn't believe they were own work. The user claims to be own work and that removed metadata to protect personal information. (See Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2024/09#Adding_source_tag_for_a_large_amount_of_images)

and many many more. (I will add the other here if these are undeleted). --C messier (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Info 5 files (except this one (3 Mpx)) are 0.5-1.5 Mpx; far too low for 2022-2024 original photos. Non original photos should have a source provided. Ankry (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
@Ankry: source for these files above is claimed to be own work (and could not find solid evidence of that being untrue, I remember tried to reverse search some of them and returned no result). C messier (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Per policy, "Own work" as a source is accepted for unpublished original photos. If a photo is not original, the uploader may be requested to provide its source. Ankry (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The same must be true of the above as well (don't remember them if they are 2D or not). --C messier (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support these 5 as they are high resolution. Ankry (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
@Ankry: can you check if there are other high resolution images uploaded by the user but deleted? Lack of EXIF/metadata alone should not be a reason to doubt ownership if it is eg. a 12 Mpix file. There are some editing programs that just strip them out (like Photoshop). And a file larger than eg. 3 Mpix is not one that can be grabed from instagram and other social media because they published them in smaller sizes (and if it is published elsewhere it is usually easily found with reverse image search). C messier (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
No. My time resources dedicated for Commons are limited and this request is out of scope of this page. Ankry (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Chlöe Swarbrick NB 4-3 (cropped).jpg

was deleted as no permission but is a derivative (direct crop) of a photo that presumably has permission since it hasnt been deleted, nor all the other photos uploaded by that person on behald of the green party TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chlöe Swarbrick in 2025. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Not done, per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ігор Рудник вибори.jpg

Подаю запит на відновлення даного файлу, оскільки дане зображення не є рекламним об'єктом. Це виборча агітаційна візитівка 2015 року давності, додана до статті Української Вікіпедії Page:Рудник Ігор Андрійович як візуальний зразок та доказ політичної діяльності об'єкта статті. Це зображення не рекламує нічого, бо: А) воно більше не актуальне; Б) воно не є рекламою, а передвиборчою агітацією. Прошу Вас відновити цей файл у Вікісховищі та повернути його в попереднє місце розташування у вище згаданій статті.

Sending a request for given file undeletion, for given image is not an advertisement. It is an election campaign business card from 2015, added to an Ukrainian Wikipedia Page:Рудник Ігор Андрійович as visual example and evidence of page object's political activity. This image does not advert anything, because: A) it is not relevant anymore; B) it is not an advertisement, but an element of election campaign. Asking you to recover this file in Wikimedia Commons and return it to previous location in mentioned page.

Oleh Rudnyk (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose If it was published prior to its upload to Commons, it cannot be licensed on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

An election campaign card is an advertisement of a particular sort. Did he win the election? Is the subject notable? If not, it is out of scope. If so, it may be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:59, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

No, he did not win the election. You can check it here. And the subject of the image is notable, for it proves that he was actively taking part in the Kyiv City Council election campaign of 2015. Please, let me know if these responses satisfy your requests. Oleh Rudnyk (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
It is not clear if activity in the city council warrants notability. Maybe, we should wait until a Wikipedia article about him is accepted? And "Own work" licensing is not acceptable in this case. Ankry (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Okay, let's wait. And I'm already waiting for a written consent from author of the photos (page object, of course) to use his works on Wikimedia Commons. The problem is, I am a newbie redactor and author on Wikipedia, and I don't know how to send or attach his written consent to Wikipedia for you to see that I did not steal his photos. Maybe you can help me? 😭 Oleh Rudnyk (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
The actual photographer must send a free license directly themselves using VRT. Note that a license "to use his works on Wikimedia Commons" will not suffice -- the license must allow any use by anybody anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
The free license was just sent to VRT by me on behalf of the author (the author asked me to do that because he is old and not very familiar with modern technologies). And note that the license was written under CC BY-SA 4.0 license, so there should be no problems with that. Am I right or wrong? Oleh Rudnyk (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Generally, VRT does not accept forwarded licenses as it would be very ease to forge one and we see many attempts. As Ankry suggested above, which you accepted, we should wait until there is an independently written article on the subject accepted on WP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Well, sorry to dissapoint you (kidding), but the license I sent yesterday was just approved by the VRT. One simple problem that they asked me to provide names and links of the files the author wants to share copyright of. So, my case is not "general", I guess. Oleh Rudnyk (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
You must have written a very convincing request. However, the scope question remains, so I, for one, will not restore the files. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, it was convincing, because it was signed by the author himself using qualified electronic signature (in ASIC-E file format).
So, regarding the scope question, I repeat: he did not win the election (2 times) and the election campaign business card was used in that article for one and only purpose - to represent the visual evidence that he took part in the election campaign to the Kyiv City Council of 2015. And thus the subject of him being a candidate to the Kyiv City Council in 2015 is, in fact, notable comparing with the political part of his biography, for the Kyiv City Council is not just some random city administration in Ukraine, but the capital administration. And, saying again and again, there should be no problem with publishing this business card on Wikimedia, because it is not relevant anymore since 2015. The main function of the advertisement is to be relevant - when it is not, it just becomes a part marketing (or political, in this case) history. And I don't think that history of any kind is forbidden on Wiki, otherwise Wiki would not be an encyclopedia. Thanks. Oleh Rudnyk (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Pierre-Georges Arlabosse.jpg

 Comment File:Arlabosse.png is in use on 28 pages..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I can fix that JayCubby (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

File:1948年三毛流浪记 大公报.jpg

per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=1182351221#Several_Chinese_pictures, similar pre-1949 Chinese works were already deemed PD under ROC law and not subject to URAA, so this file should be treated consistently. --JaydenChao (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Das Wappen von Heinrichsort im Landkreis Zwickau besteht weiterhin als inoffizielles Ortswappen.

Hallo, Das Wappen ist ein inoffizielles weiterhin verwendetes ortswappen. Es soll weiterhin auf der Wikipedia Seite verfügbar sein. Das Wappen kann bestätigt werden durch die ortschronik Heinrichsort.

Lg Fabian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolo Dachs (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment The post does not name a file and this is the editor's only contribution to Commons, so there is nothing for us to do here..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I guess this is about File:Wappen Kuber Tillmann Sänger.png (also previously uploaded as File:Wappen Kuber by Tillmann Sänger.png), which was deleted several times per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Kuber by Tillmann Sänger.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Kuber Tillmann Sänger.png. I kept it the first time because I thought it might have been an official coat of arms and therefore in the public domain, but as written above, it is apparently an inofficial coat of arms and therefore protected by copyright. If it was indeed official at some point, we would need sufficient evidence.
@Jolo Dachs: War das denn jemals ein offizielles Ortswappen, also offiziell verliehen (mit Bekanntgabe in einem Amtsblatt o. ä.) von Landratsamt, Regierungspräsdium, Ministerium oder dergleichen? --Rosenzweig τ 09:27, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Fotos and book covers by Verónica Velasco Barthel

Please undelete

list of 17 files

We have permission per Ticket:2026040410006225.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: These files never existed on Commons. Yann (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
@Yann: Désolé. :-/ Mais merci pour tes efforts.
J'ai écrit au client pour lui demander de nous indiquer les noms de fichiers corrects. Mussklprozz (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Kundelfingen Wikipedia und Mühle Willisdorf Wikipedia; Wiederherstellung Bilder

Kundelfingen Wikipedia und Mühle Willisdorf Wikipedia

Hallo

Viele Bilder wurden in der letzten Zeit gelöscht, einige davon über 100jährig. Dies obwohl alle nach schweizerischem Recht gemeinfrei sind (Begründung unten). Ich bitte dringend um möglichst unverzügliche Wiederherstellung. Mein Fehler:  Ich habe nicht selbst aufgenommene Bilder fälschlicherweise teils als „mein Werk“ bezeichnet da aufwendig reproduziert und bearbeitet.

Nach Mitteilung des für die Schweiz zuständigen Administrators sollen auch Bilder mit Legenden unwiderruflich gelöscht worden sein! Für mich ist dies nicht nachvollziehbar.-

Bei allen gelöschten Bildern – viele davon aus meinem persönlichen Familienbesitz – handelt es sich um einfache dokumentarische Amateuraufnahmen ohne hohes Qualitätsniveau und ohne irgend welchen individuellen Charakter. Die Bilder sind absolut unproblematisch (aus historischer Landwirtschaft und Mühlengewerbe) jedoch von hohem historischen Wert. Ein etwas erfahrener Adminisitrator wird dies leicht erkennen können. Sollen diese, nach Art 29 a des Urheberrechtsgesetz der Schweiz gemeinfreien bzw nicht geschützen  Bilder, erst beim Erreichen des Alters von 100 Jahren bei Wikipedia veröffentlicht werden, besteht die hohe Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass das Bildmaterial dann nicht mehr verfügbar bzw für immer verloren ist.-

Beide Artikel sind Schweizer-Themen; daher bitte auch die gesetzliche Regelung der Schweiz - wie bei Wikipedia ausdrücklich festgehalten (s unten)-  respektieren.

Gemäss Vorschlag von Nakonana werde ich betr Kategorien Ergänzungen vornehmen sobald die eintfernten Bilder wieder eingefügt sind.

Danke, Gruss Cunolf

Begründung

zunächst einige Anmerkungen aus

Wikipedia: Bildrechte

Aufgrund der Größe Deutschlands dominiert in Diskussionen das Deutsche Urheberrecht, man ist jedoch grundsätzlich bemüht auch das Urheberrecht der Schweiz* und Österreich zu berücksichtigen.

* Bundesgesetz  (Schweiz)

über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz, URG, Stand am 1. Juli 2025) =

Art. 29

1 Ein Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt, sobald es geschaffen ist, unabhängig davon, ob es auf einem Träger festgehalten ist oder nicht.

2 Der Schutz erlischt:

a. 50 Jahre nach der Herstellung für fotografische Wiedergaben und mit einem der Fotografie ähnlichen Verfahren hergestellte Wiedergaben dreidimensionaler Objekte, wenn die Wiedergaben keinen individuellen Charakter haben;

Anmerkung: Alle verwendeten Bilder in den beiden Artikeln haben keinen individuellen Charakter! „Kein individueller Charakter“ bedeutet im schweizerischen Urheberrecht: Die fotografische Wiedergabe ist rein sachlich-technisch, austauschbar und weist keine persönliche, schöpferische Prägung der fotografierenden Person auf.

Fehlt diese persönliche Prägung, gilt die Aufnahme nicht als Werk, sondern nur als fotografische Wiedergabe mit dem kürzeren Schutz (50 Jahre ab Herstellung).

b. 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Urhebers oder der Urheberin für alle anderen Werke.

3 Muss angenommen werden, der Urheber oder die Urheberin sei seit mehr als 50 beziehungsweise 70 Jahren24 tot, so besteht kein Schutz mehr.

4 Auf fotografische Wiedergaben und mit einem der Fotografie ähnlichen Verfahren hergestellte Wiedergaben dreidimensionaler Objekte sind die Artikel 30 und 31 nicht anwendbar, wenn die Wiedergaben keinen individuellen Charakter haben.25

23 Eingefügt durch Ziff. I des BG vom 27. Sept. 2019, in Kraft seit 1. April 2020 (AS 2020 1003; BBl 2018 591).

24 Berichtigt von der Redaktionskommission der BVers (Art. 58 Abs. 1 ParlG; SR 171.10).

25 Eingefügt durch Ziff. I des BG vom 27. Sept. 2019, in Kraft seit 1. April 2020 (AS 2020 1003; BBl 2018 591).

Wer ist der Urheber/Rechteinhaber?

Um die einfachen Fälle kurz zusammenzufassen:

·       Der Urheber ist zunächst derjenige, der das Werk geschaffen hat. Bei einem Foto ist das derjenige, der die Aufnahme gemacht hat, bei einem Gemälde ist es der Maler usw.

·       Wenn der Rechteinhaber gestorben ist, so sind in der Regel seine Erben die Rechteinhaber.

Entfernte Bilder mit Legenden von Kundelfingen bitte bei Wikipedia wieder einfügen:

·      Aufnahme um 1890 Datei:4 Wilhelm Spiess.jpg  {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} Fotograf unbekannt, aus Familienarchiv im Besitz von Cunolf

·      Zeichnung vor 1900 Datei: KH Dampfdreschsatz Basadingen.pdf {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} 1)

·      Aufnahme um 1901 Datei:2 Kundelfingerhof 1901.jpg {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} Fotograf unbekannt, aus Familienarchiv im Besitz von Cunolf

·      Aufnahme um 1908 Datei:KH Quellabfluss vor 1909 hoche Aufl.jpg {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} }} Fotograf unbekannt,  Quellenangabe im Text: : J. Engeli: Die Quellen des Kantons Thurgau. 1913. Mitteilungen der Thurgauischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, XX. Heft (ETHZ E-Periodica)

·      Aufnahme um 1910 Datei: Kundelfingerhof, Quellweiher um 1910.jpg {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} }} Fotograf unbekannt, aus Familienarchiv im Besitz von Cunolf

·      Aufnahme um 1910 Datei:Neuhof kurz nach Erstellung.jpg {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} }} Fotograf unbekannt, aus Familienarchiv im Besitz von Cunolf

·      Aufnahme um 1916 Datei:6 Kundelfingerhof um 1916.jpg {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} }} Fotograf unbekannt, aus Familienarchiv im Besitz von Cunolf

·      Aufnahme um 1920 Datei:16 Gemüsetransport mit LKW um 1920.jpg {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} }} Fotograf unbekannt, aus Familienarchiv im Besitz von Cunolf

·      Aufnahme um 1920 Datei:Hofeinfahrt mit Waschhaus um 1920, Kundelfingerhof.jpg {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} }} Fotograf unbekannt, aus Familienarchiv im Besitz von Cunolf

·      Aufnahme um 1929 Datei:1. Hermann Spiess.jpg Fotograf unbekannt, aus Familienarchiv im Besitz von Cunolf, Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht der Schweiz, (Stand am 1. Juli 2025) Art. 29. Abs. a {{Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe}} {{PD-Switzerland-old-70}} {{PD-Switzerland-old-70}}

·      Aufnahme um 1929 Datei:5 Hermann Spiess 1866-1930.jpg  Fotograf unbekannt, aus Familienarchiv im Besitz von Cunolf, Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht der Schweiz, (Stand am 1. Juli 2025) Art. 29. Abs. a {{Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe}} {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years |1= }}

·      Aufnahme um 1930 Datei: Gutshaus um 1930, Kundelfingerhof.jpg {{Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe}} {{PD-Switzerland-old-70}} }} {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years |1= }} aus Familienarchiv von Cunolf mit Besitz der Bildrechte, Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht der Schweiz, (Stand am 1. Juli 2025) Art. 29. Abs. a

·      Entstanden 1943 Datei:KH Aquarell Hulftegger v Westen.jpg  {{PD-Switzerland-old-70}} aus Familienarchiv von Cunolf mit Besitz der Bildrechte, Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht der Schweiz, (Stand am 1. Juli 2025) Art. 29. Abs. a {{PD-Switzerland-old-70}}

·      Aufnahme um 1950 Datei:8 Kundelfingerhof um 1950.jpg {{Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe}} aus Familienarchiv von Cunolf mit Besitz der Bildrechte, Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht der Schweiz, (Stand am 1. Juli 2025) Art. 29. Abs. a {{PD-Switzerland-old-70}}  }} {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years |1= }}

·      Aufnahme um 1956 Datei:Mähdrescher Marsey Harris Clipper.jpg {{Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe}} Fotografin (wahrscheinlich Helene Spiess-Hotz) unbekannt, aus Familienarchiv von Cunolf mit Besitz der Bildrechte, Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht der Schweiz, (Stand am 1. Juli 2025) Art. 29. Abs. a {{PD-Switzerland-old-70}} }} {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years |1= }}

·      Aufnahme um 1965  Datei:13. Elise Spiess 1901-1988.jpg {{Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe}} Fotograf unbekannt, aus Familienarchiv von Cunolf mit Besitz der Bildrechte, Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht der Schweiz, (Stand am 1. Juli 2025) Art. 29. Abs. a }} {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years |1= }}

·      Eigene Aufnahme von Cunolf um 1970 File:Kundelfinger-Bach.jpg

·      Eigene Aufnahme (Cunolf) 2000 Datei:14 Kundelfingerhof um 2000.png

·      Eigene Aufnahme (Cunolf) 2018 Datei: Kundelfingerhof (2018).jpg

1) Bild wurde vor 1900 durch die Fa Rauschenbach geschaffen, wiedergegeben von Peter Bretscher, Kunsthistorisches Museum des Kantons Thurgau Frauenfeld, nachfolgend die EM an mich vom 15.12.255mit Genehmigung zur Weiterverwendung des Bildes:

„Guten Tag Herr Spiess

Gerne können Sie das in den «Bäuerlichen Arbeitsgeräten» verwendete Bild der Rauschenbach-Dampfmaschine verwenden. Beiliegend ein Scan in besserer Auflösung. Im Anhang auch eine Abb. der von der Dreschgenossenschaft Basadingen höchstwahrscheinlich zusammen verwendeten Dreschmaschine, da i.d.R. ein kompletter Dreschsatz erworben wurde. Es handelt sich um das im selben Rauschenbach-Prospekt von 1883 auf der Folgeseite (einzig) abgebildete und zugehörige Modell.

Das Bild befindet sich nicht in meinem Besitz. Es ist – als Farbfotokopie – Bestandteil eines Ordners mit historischen Basadinger Aufnahmen, zusammengestellt von Christian Keller, Basadingen. Sein Ordner wurde am 16.06.2023 im Museum kunst + wissen, Diessenhofen, gezeigt und Herr Keller hat mir erlaubt, Handy-Fotos von einigen seiner Fotografien zu machen.

Freundliche Grüsse und meine besten Wünsche für die kommenden Festtage

Peter Bretscher

Peter Bretscher , Zur Lindenmühle, Strehlgasse 4, CH-8450 Andelfingen, Tel.  078 681 29 81 peter.bretscher@bluewin.ch „

Entfernte Bilder von Mühle Willisdorf mit Legenden bitte bei Wikipedia wieder einfügen:

(am Anfang Aufnahmejahr)

Die meisten Bilder sind aus dem Archiv der Mühle Willisdorf.  Der Besitzer Max Bachmann (* 1939)  info@muehle-bachmann.ch hat mir die Bewilligung erteilt, alle Bilder und Dokumente aus dem Archiv für Wiki zu benutzen. Mein Fehler:  Ich habe sie fälschlicherweise als „mein Werk“ bezeichnet da aufwendig reproduziert und bearbeitet. In der Folge meine Angaben als Korrektur für die Berechtigung:

·      1880 Datei:MW Katharina Bachmann Forster.jpg {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} Fotograf unbekannt, aus Archiv Mühle Willisdorf

·      1925 Datei:MW Bau des Stauwehrs 1925.jpg {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} Fotograf unbekannt, aus Archiv Mühle Willisdorf

·      1932 Datei:MW Lieferwage vor Mühle DSC01674.jpg  1)

1)     {{Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe}} {{PD-Switzerland-old-70}} aus Mühlenarchiv Max Bachmann (Genehmigung für Bildverwendung liegt von ihm vor), Willisdorf, Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht der Schweiz, (Stand am 1. Juli 2025) Art. 29. Abs. a

2)     {{Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe}} }} {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years |1= }}

3)     Fortograf: Max Bachmann *1939, Willisdorf, Genehmigung zur Verwendung liegt von ihm vor info@muehle-bachmann.ch

4)     Grafik selber durch Cunolf erstellt nach Grundlagen von Werner Hürbin (unter Mitarbeit von Marianne Bavoud, Stefanie Jacomet und Urs Berger): Römisches Brot; Mahlen, Backen, Rezepte. 1994. Amt für Museen und Archeologie des Kantons Basel-Landschaft, Römermuseum Augst (als Einzelnachweis aufgeführt) Cunolf (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose {{Bild-PD-alt-100}} is not a Commons-compatible license: it clearly states at dewiki that files should not be transferred to Commons. Also, {{PD-old-assumed}} does not apply to anonymous photos created after 1.1.1906, like File:MW Bau des Stauwehrs 1925.jpg. Do not mix requests with different undeletion rationale. Ankry (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:1935 NZ MPs.jpg

As this image was created in 1935 the copyright term (under the previous NZ copyright act of 1962) would be 50 years from creation, thus by 1985 it was PD. When the 1994 copyright act came into force it extended the copyright of works still copyrighted but did not apply to PD works, thus this work was PD in 1996 and did not have US copyright restored by the URAA. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

 Question Whether URAA applies (and can grant the PD status) or US copyright needs to be applied directly, depends on publication, not creation date. So when the image was initially published? Ankry (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Mosaic_Street_Art_-_Style_de_HanimaléMoz.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2026041310017036. Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: Please check the other ticket. --Yann (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:File 00000000fefc7206af1813206108edb5.png.

Я, участник Usmovie (Джордж Бонд), являюсь автором и правообладателем удалённого файла File:File_00000000fefc7206af1813206108edb5.png.

Это изображение — обложка моей собственной книги «Брайтон-Бич криминальная сага». Книга опубликована и доступна официально:

Мои права на изображение подтверждены официальной регистрацией в Агентстве по авторским правам США (US Copyright Office). Регистрационный номер: **1-15128008081**.

Файл был загружен мной для использования в статье Инкубатор:Джордж Бонд.

Прошу восстановить файл на основании моего авторства и наличия официального подтверждения прав (номер USCO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmovie (talk • contribs) 09:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Book covers cannot be licensed on-wiki. Free license permission via email form the actual opyright holder of the cover following VRT instructions is needed and an evidence that this cover is in scope of Wikimedia Commons. Neither Apple Books nor Google Play declares that the cover is under a free license. Ankry (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Maraş shooting 2026.png

COM:NETCOPYVIO obviously doesn't apply to files created by CCTV cameras. This is nonsensical

The fact that Yann have deleted every derivative crop of İsa Aras Mersinli, perpetrator of the 2026 Onikişubat school shooting.png while leaving the file that was actually nominated for deletion alonestrongly suggests the deletions are being done recklessly with no real thought being put behind it--Trade (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Actually this was copied X/Twitter. The deletion rationale is This is a screenshot from someone recording CCTV footage with their phone, therefore the CCTV license does not apply and it is eligible for copyright. The edge of the television and the wall is even clearly visible. Yann (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Twitter existing is completely irrelevant. COM:NETCOPYVIO explicitly require for something to be protected by copyright in the first place for it to apply Trade (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
 Oppose As 3 different users had access to this screenshot, I think, we need a free license permission via VRT from the person who was recording the CCTV footage. I see no other way to resolve its authorship. And the license needs to be granted by the author directly. Ankry (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
We already do. It's called "being ineligible for copyright protection in the first place" Trade (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment If I understand correctly, Yann is taking the position that the photograph of the screen, which had to be taken at a precise moment, has its own copyright separate from the possible copyright for the screen itself and that the photographer did not give a free license for it. I think Trade is taking the position that the screen has no copyright because it is CCTV and that Bridgeman applies to the photograph of the screen. I think it is a close call, but I would go with Trade. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Trey Trizzy Promo Photo 1.png - Freely licensed promo photo


This is a freely licensed official promotional photo of the notable music artist Trey Trizzy. It was uploaded for future use in a Wikidata profile and an upcoming biographical article about the artist. The licensing is appropriate for Commons.

Californiatrey (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose This appears to be a disk cover and there is no evidence of any free license. Since it not clear that he meets our requirements for notability, you should return here when there is an independently written article accepted on WP.

I also note that you claimed to be the actual photographer. You should understand that making false claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

**Jim, let’s clear this up right now and address your assumptions point by point.**
**1. Authorship and Copyright:** I do not make false claims. I am the sole copyright holder of this image. If the protocol requires me to send a formal declaration of consent to the VRT (Volunteer Response Team) to verify that I own the rights and am releasing it under a free license, point me to the exact email or form, and it will be handled immediately.
**2. The Image Nature:** This is absolutely not a "disk cover." It is an official, freely licensed promotional photograph created specifically for press kits, media usage, and digital archiving on platforms exactly like Wikidata.
**3. Notability and Scope:** Wikimedia Commons is a media repository, not English Wikipedia. Media hosted here is meant for educational and informational use across all Wikimedia projects—including Wikidata, which is exactly what this was uploaded for. I am building a structured, well-documented digital footprint in alignment with my verified presence across major streaming platforms, my official website (treytrizzy.com), and the upcoming April 23rd release of my 12-track EP, *The Consultation*.
I am doing the work to document a legitimate, growing catalog the right way. Let me know the exact VRT procedure you need to verify the copyright, and I will get it done. Otherwise, respectfully, please do not dismiss this file based on guesswork.
Californiatrey (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Images of Stadio Giuseppe Meazza

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

All these images depict the en:San Siro stadium. The first image was deleted after this DR in 2023. The second image was deleted after this DR in 2011. All the other photos were deleted with these two DRs in 2013 and 2016. The San Siro stadium was built in four different phases:

  • First phase. Built between 1925 and 1926. It consisted of 4 stands on each side. Commissioned by the A.C. Milan and designed by the architect en:Ulisse Stacchini (1871-1947, see here). It fell under Template:PD-old-70 in 2018.
  • Second phase. Built between 1937 and 1938. The 4 stands were transformed in a single stand all around the stadium. Commissioned by the Municipality of Milan and designed by Mario Perlasca, an architect who at the time was an employee of the Municipality (see here). It fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1959.
  • Third phase. Built between 1954 and 1955. A second ring of stands was added over the original one, increasing the capacity. It was commissioned by the Municipality of Milano and designed by en:Armando Ronca (1901-1970). See here. It fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1976.
  • Fourth phase. Built between 1987 and 1990. A third ring of stands was added over the previous two and it was built a new covering. It was commissioned by the Municipality of Milano and it was designed by the architects Giancarlo Ragazzi (1937-2017) and Enrico Hoffer (living), see here and here. It fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 2011.

Therefore, since 2018 the whole stadium is in PD in Italy. It's a building visible from the public space, so no issue with US copyright. Friniate (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)