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 licensing, 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.
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 For works created in mainland China after October 1949, ROC law is no longer applicable; instead, the PRC Copyright Law (1990) should be applied because of its retroactivity.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.
@TaronjaSatsuma: File:岸信介拜會嚴家淦院長(朱正祺攝).jpg, between 1963 and 1972; File:蔣經國特使覲見泰王.jpg, around May 1969; File:大澳橫水渡 WKYP 19620429.png, April 1962? Though for the former two, ROC law applies, not Red China's (for the latter one, British HK law applies). —— Eric Liu（Talk） 02:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
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)
No further comments to add. I'd say the whole debate is dead by now. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
@TaronjaSatsuma So per my previous comments, the 50 yrs term in 1991 copyright law is retroactive even for those works whose copyright's expired per 1984 regulation. Do you agree? Teetrition (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
I vote blank, but we can close this thread. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 14:07, 26 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)
Republic of China works are not protected under Berne. The People's Republic of China's works are protected under Berne, so for non-WTO countries, mainland Chinese works will only be protected as PRC works. As the PRC claims to be the only successor to the Chinese government of the 1940s, and is formally recognized by virtually all nations, it seems wisest to accept their claim for mainland Chinese works and restrict using the ROC rules to works of Taiwan, which they have an actual physical claim over.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Request for Correction of Incorrect Undeletions
The following two cases were incorrectly undeleted. They are Hong Kong and Taiwan works that have nothing to do with the current debate whether the current PRC law is retroactive, and should remain deleted per their original DRs:
This photograph was taken in Hong Kong in 1947 and, under the then-applicable British copyright law, a published photograph was protected for 50 years from publication (expiring in 1997); it was still under copyright in its origin (Hong Kong) on the URAA restoration date of January 1, 1996, meaning its U.S. copyright was restored under URAA.
Creator Chen Jing-hui died in 1968, and Taiwan's copyright term extends 50 years post-mortem; his works were still under copyright in their source country on January 1, 2002 (the URAA restoration date for Taiwan), which caused the U.S. copyright to be restored under URAA.
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.
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)
You're welcome, everything fine on my side.
About the lenghth: yes. The movie itself would have fallen into PD 30 years after being released under 1928 RoC law for corporate works (in 1944 law, the movie itself was PD by 10 years lenghth), and under PRC law it is not only PD, but the separate rights are ineligible when airing the movie itself as it was released -and still, corporate work: 30 years length. Copyright in RoC was about registration, so no separated regustry for a script or a musical score to be expected.
The song is messy (because it was not a Chinese work) but still: 95 years old (if the term is 100, then it's 100), but you can see how a discussion about the file is correcting some false conclusions of the first deletion proposal, such as the so-called Mickey. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:26, 15 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 "cinematographic work" is PD, but the underlying screenplay is not that type of work and so (assuming that it was not made for hire) has a different term of protection. This is why the decision I linked to found that the "rights of the film Street Angel expired on ... 31 December 1987 [while] the ... rights of the script ... will expire on ... 31 December 2028." prospectprospekt (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Why are we assuming this film was not a corporate work, and the script expired +30 after publication? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 15:51, 23 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
Comment For public domain works, Commons requires them to be PD in both the US and the source country. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
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
Support per nom. JaydenChao (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
After the Supreme Court decision affirming the constitutionality of the URAA more than ten years ago, we had an informal agreement that we would not do mass deletions of URAA affected files. This arose because many of us are uncomfortable with the URAA's extending a copyright long after the copyright in the originating country has expired. However, the URAA is the law of the land and there is no "grandfathering" -- that is, any file that falls under URAA that comes to our attention can and should be deleted. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
If the consensus was to grandfather pre-2012 files, then it's the consensus what prevails. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
I didn't use the term grandfathering, and IDK if it's the specific term to be used or not, but AFAIK, the consensus of the 1st March 2012 was never changed. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
"Following a discussion at Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA and a subsequent unsuccessful review of the precautionary principle, it was decided that files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under U.S. and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle."
Note that the paragraph above cites Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, so it was established after the cited page. Also note that we have been regularly deleting URAA violations that were uploaded before 1 March 2012 including those that are the subject of this request. Many of us, including me, don't like it, but it is US law and there has been at least one successful prosecution under it, so we cannot simply ignore it and put users of our files at risk. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I'm not asking for an unconditional restoration of the files, I'm just requesting a reverse for the un-thoroughly thought out mass deletions (i.e. not with "careful evaluation", which were explicitly discouraged by Commons policy practices) made by several users. From there, we can re-examine the files, and determine which to delete under current URAA rules. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 05:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC),
I quite agree with Eric Liu. For URAA deletions, we need a real proof that the files are affected, so just an allegation. Yann (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
pre-1949 works must be considered under 1944 RoC copyright law, not the PRC's, that's why the deletion decision was contested. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Why? 1944 is irrelevant; the questions are was it in copyright in its home nation (as considered by the US) in 1996, and is it in copyright in its home nation (for Commons' purposes) now? For works published on mainland China, I can't see any reason why the PRC wouldn't be the correct nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Because the file was taken in China under the RoC government (so, RoC law) and the file had its copyright expired by both 1996 and 2002. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
I request that the photograph be restored, as it was cropped after it was submitted for deletion. However, I didn't have time to comment on the page, hoping the Wikimedia Commons administrators would notice. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Support The sculpture is no longer in the photo. User:Krd should not be involved in deleting files. Thuresson (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose No {{Licensereview}} was requested and the source site does not come up, so the license is unverifiable. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
I can not access the named site. I would guess that the Russian military has blocked access from the West. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
This was deleted as "exact or scaled down duplicate" of "Average per capita vegetable intake vs minimum recommended guidelines, 1961 to 2023, SOM.svg", which is clearly wrong somehow. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 08:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
@Túrelio: I think it would be acceptable to categorize the deletion of this short-lived accidentally created redirect as housekeeping. - Alexis Jazzping plz 17:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
But when it's redirecting to the wrong target, that's a problem that deletion will not solve. At least it's fixed now. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 18:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Reason: see previous discussion, pre-1949 China works or pre-10 July 1975 Taiwan works. I don't know why they were deleted. JaydenChao (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
the work is free and open under the GNU FREE DOCUMENTATION LICENSE 1.1 no invariant sections and no front back texts it says so on the first page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exed1960 (talk•contribs) 23:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Just in case that is wrong, are there any administrators who understand what an FDL 1.1 is? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 05:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose For FDL, see COM:L. While FDL would be permitted here for this work, the manual contains the following:
"You do not have the right to create derivative works of or make a profit via deadEarth without the prior expressed written consent of Anarchy inK Corporation."
That is inconsistent with Commons requirements and clearly overrides the boilerplate license. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Reason: per Category:Macanese FOP cases/kept. COM:MACAU does not mention buildings/architecture being protected works in any way. FOP for "works of art placed in public places" is explicitly allowed. JaydenChao (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
I deleted the last two. Text is not "a work of art", it is copyrighted as literary work. Does FoP in Macau actually cover it? First four have the issue that they are not permanently placed, they are temporarily displayed. Most jurisdictions (but not all) require it to be permanent. Also are casinos and restaurants "public places"? Abzeronow (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment Macau law does not explicitly distinguish between permanent and temporary displays. JaydenChao (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
OK, how does Macau law define a public place? Abzeronow (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment Macau law does not define what is a public place, but existing kept cases suggest that publicly accessible interiors are generally treated as public places on Commons. JaydenChao (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Missed the opportunity to state my case (didnt get an email). I have personally made a rendition of the flag in Inkscape based on photographed sources of . with exclusively and only using Public Domain designs File:KNLA Badge.svg made by user Albert Poliakoff (Under ((self|cc-zero))) and File:Flag_of_the_Karen_National_Union.svg made by Sshu94 (Under ((self|cc-by-sa-4.0))). Posted under self-CC. Due to the limited amount of pictures available of the group, I also took some creative liberties by hand (design, symbol, proportion, colors, and design constraint from reusing SVG assets stated in above) solely by using photos; such had made it fairly different to the actual flag of the Kawthoolei Army (the actual flag being: , ie. gradation, proportion, coloration, emblem being different). Due to the simplicity (consisting of simple shapes such as a canton], a half-circle, three stripes (with its base proportions from user Sshu94), and the public domain emblem design made by Albert Poliakoff derived from the KNLA, it should also be under PD-flag) and nature of fully reusing public domain designs made by other users in Commons, this deletion should be reverted. Other flags with the same or more complexity are seen listed PD under SVG flags of Myanmar. Kaliper1 (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Image, not sure why this was deleted per F10, it isn't made by the uploader nor depicts the uploader (User:Rose Abrams). The artist doesn't seem to be a low-profile individual. --HyperAnd[talk] 10:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
My intention with uploading it was simply the high quality and level of detail in the artwork. Rose Abrams (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Support The deletion reason does not seem valid. Ankry (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose F10 is badly named and can include not only images of the uploader, but personal images created by them. We do not keep art from non-notable artists. More important here is that the named source has very restrictive license rules (personal use only), so the CC-BY license is not valid. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
The source page clearly states CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Ankry (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
I am not the author, yes. The author was stated clearly on the file page, as were the license released. Rose Abrams (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Apologies, I missed the license on the very busy page. Nonetheless, it is personal art from a not-notable artist and is therefore out of scope. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Reason: The file was Speedy deleted (SD) by Túrelio as Copyvio, per , Macau's ToO is relatively high. (單純具紀錄價值之照片，尤其係文字作品、文件、商業文件、技術繪圖及類似物品之照片，均不受保護。 English: “Photographs possessing merely documentary value, especially photographs of written works, documents, commercial documents, technical drawings, and similar items, shall not be protected.”) JaydenChao (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment, not sure how this Article 149(2) relates to Macau having high TOO. The article is just simply stating photographs "documenting" other 2D works does not have additional copyright, similar to the concepts of {{PD-Art}} and {{PD-scan}}. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The two files have no upload information except a category -- no source, no author, no license. While {{SobreiraLic}} contains all of that, it apparently confused the bot that does patrolling. The template also has far more information, mostly not needed, than is required in a license template which could simply be replaced with CC-BY-SA. I might suggest that the template should be deleted -- I see that you have used it 461 times, but there are bots that will do the replacement. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm speaking about using the name of the files for uploading a new version, not about the license. The license and other data was forgotten because they were the first two files uploaded by the bot, as the name "A Guarda" could suggest, but was used (of fixed to be used) in other 3700 files. The name of the file I'm asking would be consistent with the one of other maps, which are expected to be automatically used in templates for those placenames. Otherwise I would be forced to upload it to the language project, which I consider absurd. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 18:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
The authorized scope is only within the scope protected under copyright. It does not include other intellectual property rights, including but not limited to the provision of patents, trademarks and administration's logo
This meant that logos of the government agencies are not included under the GWOIA. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Could you please explain why the names of different photographers are found in the Exif datas? We have Frank Kosterman for two images, Stanley Gontha for one and in one other deleted image uploaded by you File:Nick Verhagen in duel met Xavi Simons.jpg the name is Stefan Koops. Currently, the only option I see that each photographer send a ticket to COM:VRT explicitly agreeing to publication on Commons. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 04:52, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Not done: Per Ziv --- unanswered question. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files in Category:Monument to the Heroes of the Air
The deletion rationale was given as “URAA copyright”, which strikes me as odd. I don’t think this is a URAA case, but a FOP one. I showed, or at least tried to show, that FOP isn’t a concern here, since the artist credited as the author in the original documents from the period died in 1944, hence the sculpture has entered the public domain in Romania. Moreover, the US allows for FOP. So what exactly is URAA doing in this discussion? — Biruitorul (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
It's a sculpture, those would have their US copyrights restored. (If this were a building, you'd be correct, but US only has FOP for architecture, not 3D artworks.) Abzeronow (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
If the author died in 1944, there is no URAA problem: Romania has 50pma for authors who died before 1946. 1944+50+1 = 1995; 1.1.1995 is before the URAA date. Ankry (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Done: per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I think this was deleted by mistake. It was uploaded in 2008, and it has EXIF data, and it is of a decent resolution (6 Mpixels). All copies on the Net are more recent and smaller than Commons version. I see no reason not to assume good faith. Yann (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: I felt weird, judging by the decision of the uploader to title an apparent picture of a certain Brott couple (File:Boris and Ardyth.jpg) by the spouses' first names. Having checked their en.wp edits, I believe that they are a long-term COI editor about the couple. I cannot be certain that the Commons version was the OG; it may be the case that they illegally downloaded that one from a now-defunct page related to Boris Brott. The deleting admin Gbawden specifically mentioned the PCP when closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tapyram. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t·c·he/him) 12:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Hi: It was deleted rather instantaneously, with no discussion. The flag is NOT out of scope, as it can be used to highlight the flag of Hermosillo (in the template of place articles, where there is a flag option most commonly used in Wikipedia). It is NOT fake as there are numerous images documenting its use under the municipal government, such as . The PD-Coa-Mexico, as found on the respective page for the Nation's flag, covers the usage of municipal symbols; flags are NOT considered eligible for copyright protection. Flagvisioner (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Question If the flag is unofficial, then {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} does not apply. So what is the copyright status then? Was it used more than 95 years ago? Ankry (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
So why wouldn't it? "This file depicts the coat of arms, banner, or emblem of Mexico, one of its states, municipalities, or any other political subdivision... these coats of arms/banners/emblems are not eligible for protection under the federal copyright law." We know it is basically just a depiction of the Hermosillo municipal symbol, which was officially adopted by law.
Even with the case the flag is technically unofficial, you can't copyright it because it's used by the municipality as a "banner of the municipality". If a resident made up his own municipal flag, that would be eligible for copyright; this is not one of them. Flagvisioner (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Even if it is OK in Mexico to change the copyright status by de facto use (I am not convinced, however), we may still have a problem with US status. Was this emblem (1) PD in Mexico before the URAA date (1.1.1996) or (2) used as an integral part of any legal act (legal acts and their translations are PD in US)? Ankry (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
The symbol itself, it is known it was adopted in 1961 as articles show . Since there's not more complexity than the white background (as I think US law would interpret it), I think it would be fine. A bit strange to me how copyright law is, fine in the home country but possibly not the US... Flagvisioner (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
This is how generally most law works: the legal system of one country does not depend on the law in another country. The exceptions to this rule in copyright law are the rule of shorter term (rejected by US) and URAA. Ankry (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
According to zh:File:Taichung City Government LOGO.svg, it is an abstract logo of Taichung Park Lake Pavilion, with texts of "臺中市政府" and "Taichung City Government". It was copyrighted once, but it changed on 26 August 2025, when the government law, 臺中市市旗制式及使用要點, was released. The "Taichung Park Lake Pavilion" logo is therefore legalised, at least something below COM:TOO Taiwan since it looks the same as the logo in the law. The "臺中市政府" and "Taichung City Government" texts are below COM:TOO Taiwan. Also, shouldn't their AI file be seen as a resource that was released under the GWOIA? --Saimmx (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
What is the initial publication date? If post-1989, the lack of copyright registration or renewal is irrelevant. Ankry (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
@Ankry: she made multiple paintings with poppies, I can't see which one this is because the file is deleted. - Alexis Jazzping plz 08:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Same reasons as listed above for the Hermosillo flag file. They are PD because they are municipal symbols in Mexico used by their municipal governments. Flagvisioner (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
The government of Guaymas confirms their coat of arms was created in 1954 and Nogales in 1980 , in accordance with the discussion above. Of course, they have white backgrounds as usual. Flagvisioner (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose These are approximately 50x50 pixels hence unusable. Thuresson (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
Hm. 50x50 pixels? The images should have a height of 216px. Flagvisioner (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
The first illustration is appr. 150x100 pixels, the other one 75 x 100 pixels so unusable. Thuresson (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
That's rather odd, I was pretty certain they were 216px in height when I uploaded them. I can upload the images as they were intended if they are undeleted. Flagvisioner (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Your 216 px originals are not useful. Thuresson (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Maybe useful enough to illustrate in an infobox and for a user to discern what exactly it is, you don't think? Either way, the images of the coats of arms are big, so I could probably make a reasonable one that's 1000px big in height. Flagvisioner (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Not done: Images should be uploaded in the largest size available without upscaling. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
This piece of art created by me I feel was unfairly marked for deletion. Personally I do not feel that it was low quality nor do I feel like it was something like a selfie as I created it from photographing multiple protests and then editing them together to create this image in Photopea.--RatPhotograph (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
I see two issues here:
this is a COM:DW; for derivative works we require a evidence that the underlying work is also free. Per policy, the {{Own}} declaration can be applied ro original works only, not to DWs.
the scope issue: while the underlying photo is likely in scope, the created poster is likely not. We generally do not accept personal works by non-notable authors with rare exceptions.
Not done: Per Ankry- personal art from non-notable artist. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Coronation of George VI
Greetings. I would like to submit a request for the restoration of some photographs of the following event in 1937. where its source is the Royal Collection
Oppose No valid license provided: no evidence that the unknown photographer died more than 80 years ago as declared. Ankry (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Not done: Per Ankry. URAA copyright definitely, possible UK copyright. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
The above photographs of Maya Hawke performing at the Baby's All Right venue were uploaded by User:Bobbograph on 28 April 2026 (see upload log), with said Bobbograph also adding the second file to Maya's Wikipedia article on that date (see here). The photographs were credited to Bobbograph's real name of Bobby Nicholas III (albeit in the filenames rather than the actual "author=" field) and were described as being Bobbograph's own work. They were up for over a month without issue before being deleted as a supposed copyvio on 6 June.
It is my belief that the identification of these files as a copyvio was mistaken on the following grounds:
The "Bobbograph" username is identical to that used for Bobby Nicholas III's Instagram account. I have considered the possibility of Bobby being impersonated, but the fact that a photograph of Blondshell which was also uploaded by Bobbograph remains available as of this writing (File:Blondshell allthingsgonyc 2025 bobbynicholasiii.jpg) would appear to rule that out; if Bobby felt that he was being impersonated, then all of Bobbograph's uploads should have been wiped by now. Nor, in any case, would Bobby be relying on third-party copies of his work to support an impersonation claim.
The copyvio allegation regarding File:MayaHawke BabysAllRight BobbyNicholasIII 04-26.jpg was based on an identical photograph being used for a Northern Transmissions review of Maya's performance (see here). However, said Northern Transmissions review credits the photos therein to Bobby Nicholas III (both in terms of basic citation and in terms of filenaming) rather than to the publication itself, nor does it use any of kind of "for/on behalf of" verbiage. I did not encounter this particular file before becoming aware of its deletion, and so cannot comment on whether it was of a higher resolution than the one used in the Northern Transmissions review (all three photos there having a resolution of 1536x1152px).
The copyvio allegation regarding File:MayaHawke BabysAllRight BobbyNicholasIII 04-26 2500px.jpg was based on an identical photograph being posted by the "best of maya hawke"/"badpostmaya" X account (see here). However, the version of the photograph that is available at the X link has a resolution of 900x1200px if viewed as-is, and a slightly larger resolution of 1080x1440px if one appends a :4096x4096 modifier to the end of the direct image link. I do not recall the exact resolution of the photograph as uploaded here, but I do remember that it was larger than the one available at the X link, and in any case the fact that the file was explictly labelled as being "2500px" should be indicative.
As posted by "best of maya hawke"/"badpostmaya", the photographs were uncredited. Generally speaking, the "best of maya hawke"/"badpostmaya" X account is a Maya Hawke fan account that regularly (re)posts photographs of Maya without indicating the original source and/or photographer.
Most importantly, the Bobbograph Instagram account has a post featuring his photographs of Maya's performance (see here). The post's page source has a date value of "2026-04-12T13:22:09.000Z", while the "best of maya hawke"/"badpostmaya" X post has a later date value of "2026-04-12T16:09:32.000Z". The Northern Transmissions review has an even later date value of "2026-04-14T11:00:27+00:00".
The seventh photograph in that post, which would be the equivalent of File:MayaHawke BabysAllRight BobbyNicholasIII 04-26 2500px.jpg, is at a resolution of 1440x1920px; smaller, presumably, than what was uploaded here, but still larger than what was posted to the "best of maya hawke"/"badpostmaya" X account. I do not know which photograph would correspond to File:MayaHawke BabysAllRight BobbyNicholasIII 04-26.jpg and so, again, cannot comment on whether it was of a higher resolution than the one used in the Northern Transmissions review.
There is a snag in that the post claims the photographs were taken on behalf of Northern Transmissions ("[camera emoji] for @northerntransmissions"). At the same time, however, Bobbograph did feel able to upload the photographs here without mentioning this connection, and I have already mentioned that the Northern Transmissions review directly credits the photographs to Bobby Nicholas III without using any kind of "for/on behalf of" verbiage. I will not claim to know anything about how American copyright law operates in relation to works-for-hire or whether said copyright law would even count these photographs as being a work-for-hire.
This is not a critical undeletion request (there's more than enough recent photos of Maya Hawke on this site after all), and in any case I have no connection to Bobby/Bobbograph or Maya. I should also note that I have been unable to find the deletion discussions for these files, and I accept the possibility that said discussions (if they exist) could contain something that completely upends everything that I have set out above. I have already mentioned the potential work-for-hire issue; if, however, that does not turn out to be a fatal hurdle, and if any deletion discussion(s) that might exist does not contain any fatal hurdles either, then I see no reason why these files should not be restored. - Dvaderv2 (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Anyone can open an account with any unused username; we see such deception frequently. In order for these to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
My request for undeletion is becausae I need this file to stay on my page.
Tishkin Grigory Vladimirovich 14:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)14:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)14:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tishkinpoet (talk•contribs) 14:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
@Tishkinpoet Anyone can select a username that aligns with a real-world person. To verify the copyright, send a permission email to Wikimedia Commons staff following instructions at the following page: COM:CONSENT. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days.
. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Här finns marknadsplatsen för huskurer med torkade plantor som används för att bota olika sjukdomstillstånd. Du kan även hitta torkade djurarter som t ex kameleonter. Det finns också hemtillverkade tvålar och krämer av olika slag. Stenar (Tvall), som läggs i vatten att användas som schampo, kan du också köpa här. På marknaden är det mycket aktivitet och mycket roligt att beskåda. Hur de olika varorna fungerar får du själv bedöma. Folktron kan försätta berg!
Translation: "Here is the marketplace for home remedies with dried plants that are used to cure various illnesses. You can also find dried animal species such as chameleons. There are also homemade soaps and creams of various kinds. You can also buy stones (Soap), which are placed in water to be used as shampoo, here. There is a lot of activity at the market and a lot of fun to watch. You can judge for yourself how the different goods work. Folk beliefs can move mountains!"
Speedy close The file wasn't deleted; Benchir forgot to put the ".jpg" extension, causing the file to not render. Here is the file in question: File:Souk el blat.jpg
Está imágen no es mía pero es libre de copyright y puse fuente de dónde la sace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matias Burger Xd (talk•contribs) 22:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose I see nothing that makes me think that the Facebook page is freely licensed. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
I believe most of these that have been already deleted would fall under {{PD-Spain-photo}} 1971 is the cutoff for URAA restoration. --RAN (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
This file has been deleted under COM:PERSONAL in this DR. This photo depicts hot spring. Please sorry if I give wrong link, some photos from this DR are junk. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The primary subject is not a hot spring. Thuresson (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
This is the updated poster for The Six Billion Dollar Man. It was designed by Fable and commissioned by Charlotte Street Films LTE the production company behind the Six Billion Dollar Man which owns the copyright. I am an employee of Charlotte Street Films and have been tasked with updating the poster across the web. Therefore there is no copyright infringement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35078-71 (talk•contribs) 09:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days.
. .Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Doing… --Yann (talk) 22:52, 16 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 "
Support keep per Template:PD-US-extracted-audio. JaydenChao (talk) 11:04, 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)
Not done: Per Ziv --- unanswered question. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
.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}
.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}
Question If the flag is unofficial, then {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} does not apply. So what is the copyright status then? Was it used more than 95 years ago? Ankry (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
.jpg?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Info Also available at s:pa:ਤਸਵੀਰ:ਮਨੁਖ ਦੀ ਵਾਰ.pdf Thuresson (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
.png?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png?action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
