Commons:UDR

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)
 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Aigaleo Flag.png

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

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

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

Hello,

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

Files:

Categories:

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

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

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

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

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

Any questions, I am ready to help.

Thank you for your time.

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

File:Moonbase Alpha Logo.jpg

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

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

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

Being published by NASA is not the same as being developed by NASA. For it to be in the public domain, it has to have been created by a government employee in the course of their government work. If NASA commissioned the creation of the game, but didn't purchase the copyright to it, or to the art in question, it's not PD-Gov. What do we know about who developed the game and made the art? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Whoever created this patch art probably didn't intend to release it into the public domain either, but the fact is that is was published by NASA counts. Publisher copyright usually takes priority over individual copyright due to contract obligations. Notice how File:Celeste box art full.png is credited to the publisher Maddy Makes Games and not the person who created the cover. Same for the files in categories for games I linked above.
Regardless, the assets were likely created using NASA's public domain photography. Also, one of the developer companies is literally owned by the US Army, another US government agency.
Edit: An important note is that NASA didn't just commissioned the game, they published it. See Steam page. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 17:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Publication by a federal agency is not enough to send something to the public domain; only creations by federal agencies are automatically in the public domain.
I can't see the VRT email for File:Celeste box art full.png, but it can be presumed that Maddy Makes Games demonstrated sufficient evidence to show that, if they did not author the image, they held copyright over it or were given the legal rights to sublicense it to another entity. There is no such evidence that NASA owns the copyright and has released said copyright. Based5290 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)


Undelete File:Social isolation.jpg

Dutch Wiktionary, WikiWoordenboek used the file "Social isolation" as an illustration of the Dutch word "mobieletelefoonverslaving". On 18 June 2025 it was proposed to delete this file from Commons with the stated reason "Ai generated". WikiWoordenboek was properly notified that day, and I argued to keep the file, referring to COM:INUSE. On 26 June 2025 it was kept for this reason.

On 24 February 2026 Dronebogus made a new proposal to delete this file from Commons with the stated reason "Awful looking AI slop". This time WikiWoordenboek wasn't notified. When Prototyperspective argued to keep the file, referring to COM:INUSE, Dronebogus twice attempted to delete the picture from WikiWoordenboek and was reverted both times. Dronebogus saw no reason to create awareness on WikiWoordenboek of their proposal to delete the picture on Commons or even state their reasons in an edit summary. On 28 March 2026 User:Pi.1415926535 deleted the file with the reason "incredibly poor quality". I politely asked Pi.1415926535 to undelete, but they instructed me to make this request here "and let the community decide".

In this case the relevant community to make a decision is WikiWoordenboek, as Dronebogus showed by his failed attempts. Commons' editors do valuable work, but deciding on the most appropriate way to illustrate the meanings of Dutch terms, including the suitability of AI-generated images for this purpose, is better left to the WikiWoordenboek community. As for the Commons community, it has made clear decisions by way of COM:AI and COM:INUSE. Of course one may advocate to change these decisions, but if we want to work together we should adhere to guidelines and official policies in the meantime. As Social isolation was in realistic educational use, I request undeletion of this file so WikiWoordenboek can use it again. MarcoSwart (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@MarcoSwart: This file has severe generation artifacts endemic to LLM-created images: inhuman faces, extra limbs, distorted perspective, and body parts that meld into each other. Can you detail why such a file was considered educationally useful on Dutch Wiktionary, and why it was preferred to the thousands of images of people using smartphones on Commons that do not have LLM generation artifacts, particularly the images available in this category? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
That's a matter for the WikiWoordenboek community to judge (my succinct contribution to that judgment was made here). Commons is neither the place to discuss the nuances of Dutch or the specific considerations using pictures in dictionaries. It however is the place to apply its own policies and guidelines. There are good reasons not to use Commons as a project censoring other projects, however much you may dislike some files. MarcoSwart (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
This seems like an easy case for undeletion, it was in use by Dutch Wiktionary, and we don't overrule them. Abzeronow (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
I also think it should be undeleted – could not find a fitting better image in Category:People with smartphones and for this subject an artistic illustration would be better. However, the image really was of low-quality. Nevertheless it should not be deleted but replaced with a better image or a better version be uploaded as a new revision of the file. It's illustrative and explanatory even with the misgeneration issues which can't even be noticed at the image's thumbnail size which is how most people would see it. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted above, it is incredibly poor quality, showing a woman with five fingers and an unseen thumb, shoes on a man that are not a pair, a weird hand on the left, and so forth. While "In Use" is good policy, it should not be taken to an extreme -- where a significant number of experienced editors here find an image embarrassingly low quality and one or two people on a WP have not bothered to find an alternative, we should not keep the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Who cares if a finger is missing when this is viewed at thumbnail size though. Your claim that there is a better/equivalent alternative is unsubstantiated. If you could, you'd have a valid point. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
File:Visitors Watching Smartphones after Event 20140705.jpg
File:Diverse_people_using_phones.jpeg
File:Ignoring Each Other (33390897436).jpg
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
You are of course entitled to your opinion on the quality of any image. But "quality" is dependent on the purpose of a project. Dictionaries use images in a different way than an encyclopedia. Dutch is a different from English. A realistic photograph of people using phones is not conveying the meaning of "mobieletelefoonverslaving" in the way the uncanny image "Social isolation" does. You are in fact proving the point that the Commons editors are not in a position to decide for all projects whether an image is suitable or not. And that is precisely the rationale behind COM:INUSE. MarcoSwart (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Also of these only the first is suitable but I see no urgency to decide for another project that they must use this and it's debatable whether the photo is better than an/the artistic illustration. (2nd is people who are total strangers on commute; 3rd is just two people). The right way to go about it would be to bring the arguably better file up during a DR, and maybe getting the file in use replaced. Another issue to mention with using a realistic photo is that it kind of shows people in a dignity-concerning way and is overrealistic. Nevertheless, the first of these photos is a good point and while I still support undeletion and still think the deletion was incompatible with important policy, this substantially weakened the case for it. Basically I see no urgency or need to delete the file so I see no need to delete at all cost a second or Nth best image about the subject. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg

Per {{Simultaneous US publication}}, we generally consider images simultaneously first published in the United States to have a country of origin of the United States, regardless of where the photo was actually taken. en:File:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg demonstrates several US publications which must be at least simultaneous given the date the photo was taken. See also Based5290 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support undeletion and reopening the DR: the simultaneous publication argument was not raised there. Ankry (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ralph Nader 2000 Oval.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: They provide proof, an image extraction notice and the photo they extracted it from which is hosted ON WIKIMEDIA! Benadrylchallenge (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support This was deleted for not having permission although the source is File:Ralph Nader 1999.jpg. Obviously User:Krd should not be involved with deleting files on Commons. Thuresson (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose A third pointless work by Benadrylchallenge. I see no reason why we need an image of Ralph Nader in a green oval. We have more than 80 pictures of Nader and I can't see any educational use for this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:David Cobb Oval Portrait.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: They provide proof, an image extraction notice and the photo they extracted it from which is hosted ON WIKIMEDIA! Benadrylchallenge (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support This was deleted for not having a source although the source is spelled out clearly, File:David Cobb on fire.jpg. It would be a public benefit to not have User:Krd delete files. Thuresson (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
 Oppose I see no reason to keep this. It takes a blurry image of a man and crops it into a green oval background. We have several much better pictures of the subject, so I see no educational use for this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:LaDuke Oval Portrait 2000.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: They provide proof, an image extraction notice and the photo they extracted it from which is hosted ON WIKIMEDIA! Benadrylchallenge (talk) 05:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support This was deleted for not having a source, although the source is clearly listed as File:Reception (4099192018) (cropped).jpg. It is becoming more and more apparent that User:Krd should not have the privilege to delete files on Commons. Thuresson (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I see no reason why this adds to our educational purpose. It is the same size as the image from which it is taken with the background changed to a garish yellow oval. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Fishing.1101.jpg

File:Fishing.1101.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

This file has been deleted with many others as personal, but this file is good example of amateur fishing (sorry if I am wrong). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm convinced that all aspects of fishing can be illustrated without using photos of partially nude people. Thuresson (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

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

File:類延峰2026.png

I would like to request the undeletion of the file “File:類延峰2026.png.”

This image was uploaded with the consent of the subject, and it reflects his personal choice to have this specific photo used on his Wikipedia page. The file is intended solely for identification and informational purposes within the article, and its use aligns with the subject’s preference for how he is represented publicly.

Given that the image is directly related to the individual and supports the completeness and accuracy of the article, I kindly ask that it be restored.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsun2088 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose We need a free license permission from the copyright holder (presumably the photographer who made the original photo used). See VRT. And do not reupload deleted images or you may be blocked. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 7 April 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 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Aksel Bech 2025.jpg

A Facebook post has been made that confirms CC BY-SA 4.0 license.TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not a selfie, so the license does not seem to be granted by the photographer. If copyright has been transferred, the actual copyright holder may need to prove that using VRT procedure. Ankry (talk) 12:38, 7 April 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 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

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

File:tim mander.jpg request undeletion

Hi team,

Request undelete for tim mander.jpg

This is his official portrait on the parliamentary website. Unaltered. https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Members/Current-Members/Member-List/Member-Details?id=951395001

This seems to be provided under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License.

 Comment Non-commercial licenses aren't acceptable on Commons. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done As well as non-derivative ones. No valid reason for undeletion. Ankry (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

This image provides a visual record of a notable Maranao digital strategist and cybersecurity educator. It is intended to illustrate an upcoming or existing biographical article regarding his contributions to digital strategy in the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abfiphco (talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Please give actual file name. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: No file name provided. --Yann (talk) 08:05, 7 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 Mr Djoul.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2026032310011462. Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

P.S.: yes I have noticed that there were two attemps to upload. It is partly my fault, because I left the ticket unanswered for too long. Mussklprozz (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
No problem. Ankry (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Pr Jean Verne (années 1950) Col. Famil.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2026040110004705. Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: What is the declared license? Ankry (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
@Ankry: cc-by-sa-4.0. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mussklprozz: note, the image seems to be signed by the photographer. Ankry (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Covers of books by Adrián Daumas

Please restore:

We have permission from the graphics designer per Ticket:2026031710011152.

Thanks, Mussklprozz (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Muzeum Fotografii w Krakowie.jpg

It seems that agreement sent to VTRS is valid, but the VTRS agent who managed this ticket forgot to put the relevant template. See ticket:2026022010003077, Polimerek (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Polimerek: FYI. --Yann (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Kaina Bernd.jpg

Prof. Bernd Kaina asked me to upload his photo to his wikipedia page. I am his secretary and the information contained on this page was submitted by me years ago with his consent. If you want to verify this, please send a message to Prof. Kaina, he will confirm it is as described. Regards, Paula Vinhais --Paulavinhais (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Paulavinhais: Hi, Sorry, but it doesn't work exactly that way. We need a permission for a free license from the copyright holder, who is by default the photographer, not the subject. If the copyright was transferred, which can only happen in writing, we will need a proof of than. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:21, 7 April 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 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)