Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page

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

Other languages:

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
84 copyvios • 187 duplicates • 3 adverts • 197 selfies • 166 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

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

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

Adding a request

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

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

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

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Current requests

Slovenian municipal coats of arms

I request review and (partial) undeletion of the files deleted as result of this request without a proper discussion. Although the request was actually mentioned by a third user in one of the unofficial communication channels of the Slovenian Wikipedia community, the requester or involved Commons administrators could have notified the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion. Since these files are actively used on the project, such a notification could have helped ensure that relevant comments were made already during the deletion discussion.

Generally, coats of arms are exempt from copyright law in Slovenia, see Template:PD-Slovenia-exempt. One might argue that some images were "independent creations" (as per the earlier discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of coats of arms of Slovenian municipalities). However, (1) it is highly debatable whether such works can be considered original if they only follow the textual description; and (2) the requester did not verify the actual source of the images. The link he cited is dead, and deleting files originating from dead links could have far-reaching consequences for the project. One of Commons’ goals is to preserve free media, and losing it due to link rot seems counterproductive. In the case of dead links, the assumption should not automatically be that the files are problematic. Fortunately, there are initiatives such as the Internet Archive that help us verify sources.

While some images indeed have come from third-party websites (which are now also dead, for example for Žirovnica), in several cases the files are direct reproductions of official heraldic acts. For example, the deleted coat of arms of Žužemberk (cached copy of the file information page) cites http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc20.html#si-zv as the source. This in turn cites Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Žužemberk, št. 8/00, which is an official municipal document. See the archived source. This is an official document, which means that in addition to the copyright exemption, it is also considered informacija javnega značaja (information of public character). Under Slovenian law, such materials must be publicly available and freely reusable, since official acts cannot be restricted by copyright in a way that prevents public access.

Therefore, even if a particular depiction were argued to be an “independent creation,” its publication within an official act places it firmly in the public domain as information of public character.


The files that should be reviewed are:
* File:Coat of arm of Hrastnik.png

I propose to:

  • Undelete the deleted files to allow the community to review them carefully on a case-by-case basis, using archived sources (e.g. via Internet Archive)
  • Subsequent edits by CommonsDelinker on Slovenian Wikipedia should also be reversed where the files are restored (see sl:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker)

Best regards, --Miha (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smihael: Maybe, it would be better to upload images that are clearly covered by the exemption and request undeletion only if the upload is prevented due to being binary identical with the deleted ones? Ankry (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So due to an overly narrow interpretation of copyright and lack of notice to the affected community, valuable files were lost and now others must dig through archives or search for alternatives to replace them. This is counterproductive — these files should be restored in good faith, and the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester and judged on an individual basis. In general, coats of arms are exempt from copyright protection in Slovenia, and the claim that these are copyrightable individual interpretations is doubtful at best, if not outright flawed... What definitely was flawed, is the deletion process itself, as it wrongly assumed that all files from a certain dead link were problematic. Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down: are we just going to delete thousands of imported images simply because their licenses are no longer easily verifiable? -- Miha (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. First, we cannot manufacture discussion. The DR was open for three and a half months. All of the uploaders were notified and no  Keep appeared there. We get about 10,000 new files every day and around 1,500 of them must be deleted. Most of this work is done by 20 Admins. We simply do not have the human resources to even think about "notifi[ng] the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion".

As for "Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down", this is why we have License Review -- so that there is a record of the license status of files that might otherwise be a problem. As far as I know, none of the uploaders requested license review for any of the files.

Also, please note that "the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester" is backward. Commons clear policy is that those who would keep a file must prove that it is either PD or freely licensed.

Finally, I examined a random dozen of the files before the deletion and found none that qualified for use on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The more pressing question is whether all coats of arms published on official pages of Slovenian municipalities are public domain or only those that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances. --TadejM (t/p) 10:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Those are in fact different legal questions, and I think we should not be conflating them.
  • First (copyright): coats of arms, when adopted as official municipal symbols, generally do not qualify for ordinary copyright protection in Slovenia — they are treated as official symbols or public emblems rather than ordinary works. The question of derivative versions is separate: such variants usually do not cross the threshold of originality, as they only follow the wording describing the coat of arms. If there are substantial differences, we should anyway avoid them to prevent confusion.
  • Second (access / source of the file): The doctrine of informacija javnega značaja (the right of access to public information) requires that documents held by public authorities — including municipal graphical identity or coat of arms files — be made accessible and reusable, unless a statutory exception applies. This principle is recognized in the Constitution (see https://e-kurs.si/komentar/kaj-je-informacija-javnega-znacaja/) and is implemented in the Access to Public Information Act (ZDIJZ). ZDIJZ applies to all state bodies, local government bodies, and related public law entities, requiring them to provide access and re-use of public information (including works created by them or acquired from others) unless specifically exempt (for example: national security, personal data protection, internal deliberations, trade secrets) regardless of the medium or format in which the information is stored. Thus, whether the coat of arms was published in Uradni list or only on a municipal website is irrelevant under access law — what matters is that the public authority holds the file and that it is not subject to a statutory exemption.
  • There remains the separate question of how the coat of arms may be used to prevent misuse. That is regulated by municipal acts (usage ordinances, design rules, prohibitions), and is separate from copyright concerns. On Wikimedia Commons, you will often see notices such as despite the copyright status, additional restrictions may apply (e.g. photos of cultural heritage, local usage rules). So potential presence of usage restrictions does not automatically invalidate a file’s eligibility on Commons as long as the file itself is not under copyright protection.
To sum up: the version of the coat of arms found in municipal materials can generally be used without issue, because it has already been published by the public authority, is publicly available, and is effectively exempt from copyright under Slovenian law. Therefore, the requester should check which of the files were sourced from official documents and at least restore those!
In my view, the first part of rationale also covers coat of arms images sourced from elsewhere: even if they are derivatives (and not mere copies of versions found in municipial documents), they typically do not cross the threshold of originality and so do not attract separate copyright. If you accept this logic, then all the files in this discussion should be restored. That said, it is of course a better policy to gradually replace them with versions directly sourced from official documents, and even better if redrawn in vector format (so quality and fidelity are improved). But that is no justification to leave the files deleted in the meantime. -- Miha (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow doubt that all municipal coats of arms are copyright exempt in Slovenia. For example, this page cites the Municipality of Grosuplje as the copyright holder. --TadejM (t/p) 10:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there are solid sources to claim that. Article 9 of the ZASP (Copyright and Related Rights Act) lists official legislative, administrative and judicial texts among non-protected creations (i.e. not covered by ordinary copyright). A study, commissioned by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency and co-authored by the Institute for Comparative Law at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, explains that although ZASP uses the term official texts, in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes to, official texts—explicitly including drawings of the state coat of arms, municipal coats of arms, flags, traffic-sign drawings, urban plans, and the anthem (see section 2.1.2 Nejasnost pojma uradna besedila, pp. 27–28).
While it's true that some municipalities (as in your example) present themselves as copyright holders, this mostly reflects a widespread misunderstanding of basic copyright principles. Many people — including public officials — are generally un(der)educated about copyright issues and often use “copyright” loosely when they actually mean that it is legally protected by special rules. Again, such claims do not override the copyright status of the works. -- Miha (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes". This would mean that only those municipal coats of arms "that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances" qualify as copyright exempt. --TadejM (t/p) 13:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so we at least agree that the municipal coats of arms, which are sourced from official sources are not protected by copyright.
I checked https://web.archive.org/web/20091208063825/http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc.html and this already concerns many deleted coat of arms. On the first page alone, I found that most of the files were indeed sourced from official acts, including:
  • Ajdovscina
  • Beltinci
  • Benedikt
  • Bistrica ob Sotli
  • Bled
  • Bloke
  • Bohinj
@TadejM Please, go through the remaining files and undelete those coming from official acts.
As for the other files, I still believe they are also unproblematic. In most cases, they likely come from official acts through intermediaries, but this is not the key issue. What matters is the official nature of the symbol, not its intermediate source. To clarify, any faithful depiction (which was as far as I can remember the case for all deleted files) of a coat of arms does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Since these symbols are not original designs, they do not qualify for copyright. -- Miha (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, other coat of arms can be easily sourced from official sources. Redirects can be made to resolve any deadlinks caused by this deletion. --Miha (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images could be undeleted if directly taken from an official document (ordinance, see e.g. Vrhnika) but not if the official document contains only a blazon. It will take time to check all of them. Regarding the threshold, these images are quite original and at least some have been designed by a professional company (Heraldika d.o.o); I'm not certain why they would fall below a TOO. --TadejM (t/p) 17:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really see a problem here. If you look again at the study I cited above, it is clear that once a coat of arms is part of an official document (including annexes to ordinances), it falls under the category of official texts within the meaning of Article 9 ZASP. That means two things: (1) they are not subject to ordinary copyright, and (2) this applies regardless of whether the drawing was created in-house or commissioned from a third party. The study itself explicitly references Copyright and Related Rights Act with a commentary by Trampuž, Oman and Zupančič. I am trying to obtain a copy of that commentary, which should clear up any remaining doubt on this point.
As for your Vrhnika example. The act you are citing above is no longer in force. The updated Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Vrhnika (13.2.02) removes any ambiguity: Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati (the coat of arms and flag cannot be copyright-protected) and that Izvirnike grba in zastave občine Vrhnika v vseh oblikah hrani Občinska uprava občine Vrhnika (the originals in all forms are kept by the municipal administration). In legal terms, that is equivalent to annex publication. Under ZDIJZ, the official source file can be requested directly from the authority and freely reused.
And even if the earlier act with the poor-quality scan were still valid, that still would not magically make faithful reproductions reach TOO. If the emblem is prescribed and published in an official act (as it is), then any accurate reproduction is non-copyright under ZASP and cannot be treated otherwise. Period. -- Miha (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What the actual ordinance really says about Vrhnika is that "Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati [po drugih osebah] brez dovoljenja občine" (the coat of arms and flag must not be copyright-protected [by other parties] without a permission of the municipality). In any case, as the image of the coat of arms was previously published in the Official Gazette, it is copyright-exempt. A similar clause is contained in the ordinance issued by the Municipality of Preddvor: "avtorske pravice si pridrži občina" (Copyright is retained by the municipality).[1] --TadejM (t/p) 09:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going through the list of deleted images and will undelete those that are exact images copied from official publications. For example, File:Trbovlje.png is an exact copy from https://www.e-obcina.si/vsebina/uradni-vestnik-zasavja-st-112015. --TadejM (t/p) 10:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now undeleted some as per the above. --TadejM (t/p) 17:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Miha (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've got access to the aforementioned commentary on copyright act. The exceprt (pp. 54-55) below discusses how the term "official text" should be interpreted and extended to include other categories.
Pojem besedila - Po vzoru Bernske konvencije zakon govori o »besedilih«, čeprav se v okviru uradnih pristojnosti in oblastvenih upravičenj pogosto objavljajo tudi druge kategorije avtorskih del, in sicer kot del uradnega besedila, kot njegova priloga ali pa samostojno (npr. dela urbanizma, kanografije, zbirke, baze podatkov). Tudi za take kategorije lahko velja, da so uradnega značaja in da je njihovo poslanstvo v čim večjem razširjanju. Z vidika njihovega namena se torej ne razlikujejo od zakonov, odločb ali drugih uradnih besedil. Temu ustrezno pojma »besedila« iz člena 9/1 tč. 2 ZASP ni mogoče tolmačiti samo dobesedno, temveč s primerno razširitvijo na druge kategorije del. Pogoj je, da gre za uradne kategorije (z vsemi značilnostmi tega pojma) ter da se taka interpretacija opravi glede na vse okoliščine primera in previdno. V dvomu bo merodajen predvsem uradni značaj dela: uravnavanja družbenih razmerij s to kategorijo avtorskega dela se ne da doseči le z uradno objavo, temveč tudi z nadaljnjim (za vsakogar) neoviranim in poljubnim reproduciranjem (Ulmer, § 30, II, 2; Schricker/Karzettberger, § 5, tč. 42).
I marked parts relavant for our discussion. Later on they discuss several examples and as already established by the aformentioned study, this also includes coat of arms. You can see that the intention of the exemption is to ensure that, among others official symbols, can be freely used and reproduced in order to fulfill their function. This supports my claim that it is the official nature of the coat of arms that matters, not where it is pusblished (in Uradni list or independently). Therefore the coat of arms from municipial sites should be fine. -- Miha (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:57528 at Chunxilu (20250403173810).jpg

See Commons:De minimis#Guidelines, images such File:4X-AHC Martin Harrison.jpg, File:AVBWU688_at_Jordan,_West_Kowloon_Station_(20190320170144).jpg and File:Dioikitirio 1.jpg can be considered de minimis, so the bus images may should considered de minimis because the advertisement on the bus are unavoidable part of the subject and illustrate the bus as a whole. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Museu Valencia de la Il·lustració i la Modernitat, interior.JPG where it focus more on the photographs hanging in museum that keeped because the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity. 6D (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Commons:Deletion requests/File:01739jfQuirino Highway Santa Monica Novaliches Proper Quezon Cityfvf 03.jpg which the ad occupies the upper half of the back side of the bus: too much to be "incidental" and the image specifically targets this side of the bus, this one is the advertisement only cover lower half of the bus and it also show front side of the bus, so even if the advertisement removed on image, this image can still useful to illustrate the bus right side. 6D (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone else thinks blurring the advertisement still makes it a useful photo, I'll undelete. Abzeronow (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are already plenty of other photos in Category:Buses in Chengdu. Thuresson (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only image for right side of Guangtong CAT6123CRBEVT before deletion, so it has some value even blurring the ad. 6D (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken Deletions & Some Contestation

Hello,

An admin deleted some of my uploads without a DR or Speedy DR; and through talking with him an others, I was told that this was the best place to go resolve this issue.

Files in question:

  1. File:Platform the world anti imperialist platform.png
  2. File:WAP FLAG.png
  3. File:Sol Rojo Red Sun.png
  4. File:PROGRESEMOS.jpg
  5. File:Inkari Islam.png
  6. File:SCWP'23.png
  7. File:Harakat Hezbollah Al-Nujaba Infobox Flag.png
  8. File:Sabireen Movement Infobox Flag.svg
  9. File:Alianza Popular de Bolivia.svg
  10. File:Free Socialist Party Marxist-Leninists (Germany).svg
  11. File:Federation of Parties of the Mexican People.svg
  12. File:Workers League for the Reconstruction of the KPD.svg
  13. File:Baqir Brigade Infobox Flag.svg
  14. File:Jordinian Democratic Peoples Party.svg

Reasons for undeletion:

These images are free use, per this organization's website[2]: "You are allowed to use and print the files freely"

All fall well below COM:TOO Andean Community and clearly fall under PD-textlogo, especially File:Sol Rojo Red Sun.png, which is a hammer and sickle.

All are intentionally faked symbols, for the purpose of being used in infoboxes, similar to File:InfoboxHez.PNG

Falls well below COM:TOO in the USA, using a simple silhouette of a wrench, the outline of the state of South Carolina, and text

Both are simple, and fall below COM:TOO in Germany

This upload was a vector of this upload, File:FPPM Logo (Mexico).png, which was uploaded with the tag (-> PD-Coa-Mexico).

This upload was a vector of this upload, File:Jordanian Democratic Peoples Party Logo.png, which is clearly appropriate to (-> PD-textlogo), using an outline of the country, and simple geometric shapes

Thank you, Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose

1 & 2 "You are allowed to use and print the files freely" says nothing about derivative works and is not irrevocable.
3 "File:Sol Rojo Red Sun.png, which is a hammer and sickle." No, it is a stylized rising sun, well above the ToO
4,5,6,9 Close, but probably above the ToO.
7,8,13 Intentional fakes have no place on Commons. If they are not derivative works, then they are misleading. If they are close enough to an original to be DWs, then they are copyvios.

 Support

10 & 12 Possibly below the ToO
11 & 14 OK

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thank you @JameslwoodwardI appreciate your feedback. I think some more information may be helpful for #1, #2 #3, #5, #7, #8, #9, #13
Per #1 & #2:
Commons accommodates both true public domain works and irrevocable, unconditional free‐use grants that are functionally equivalent to public domain. In the case of this file, The creator’s permission is perpetual and unrestricted. The website states, "You are allowed to use and print the files freely," there is no language limiting scope, duration, territory, or purpose. Under most copyright systems, an unconditional grant with no termination clause or language is fundamentally irrevocable for all practical purposes, it cannot be revoked retroactively to strip away already‐granted rights to copies in circulation. Commons policy recognizes PD‐release or self‐dedication with the same effect, Commons uses templates like (-> CC0) or (-> PD-self) to tag works the author has released under an unconditional, irrevocable license. What matters is that the rights holder has granted all freedoms that PD entails: no restrictions on copying, no restrictions on commercial or noncommercial use, and no restrictions on derivatives.
Per #3:
I think you may be ascribing movement or meaning from face value; the sun shape is a simple, repeating
geometric pattern, and it's not actually "rising", it's just there.
Per #5:
The design is not original, and clearly under TOO, it's a geometric shape (the plus) with the Emblem of Iran in the middle
Per #7, #8, #13:
Infobox flags are especially helpful to readers who rely on visual cues to help understand the article, which is especially useful when reading unfamiliar names. They have a place on Commons, which from what I've noticed from what's on Category:Infobox flagsreally stems from the Syrian Civil War, wherein hundreds+ (Armed factions in the Syrian civil war) of foreign armed militias were involved in the conflict for over 13 years, which made them extremely helpful at helping readers differentiate the various groups; this is why the Hezbollah infobox flag has been used on over 500 pages[3]. The files I uploaded serve the same purpose for smaller groups.
Per #9:
The only actually potentially copyrightable thing in this image is the hand, which I think is below the TOO threshold per Andean Community members; which states The logo for Lost Enterprises, which incorporated a stylized design of the planet Saturn was created and copyrighted in US (VAU586282), but was ruled below TOO in AC countries per 177-IP-2016[4] point 6.1 and Casación 1592 by Tribunal of Justice of Peru. Castroonthemoon (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding file 9, if it was registered in the US, then it doesn't fulfill the basic requirement of COM:L, namely to be in the public domain in the US (or have a free license). I doesn't matter if it is PD in another region of the world. Günther Frager (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 9 Definitely wasn't registered in the US, it's for this article
Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I undeleted 4 files per Jim. Yann (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Messenger Max (Android screenshot).jpg

What makes you think this image was copyright infringement? This image was recycled from another image "Messenger Max (AD banner).jpg", uploaded under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This is clearly indicated on the source website ("All materials on this site are available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.", in russian "Все материалы сайта доступны по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. "). Виталий Уайлд (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I love this file! Dndrnmn1-2Years (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose In the larger image, the six photos are arguably de minimis (although I would say they are not). In this cropped version, they are clearly a main focus of the image, so the image cannot be kept on Commons without a free license for each of the six. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be arguing something you haven't actually stated. You seem to be saying you don't believe the website releasing the image owns the rights, and instead it's a promotional photo from Max itself that is not properly licensed. If that is the case you should nominate the original as well. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 21:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the tiny photos are de minimis, the larger image appears to be below most ToO so I didn't look closely at its license.
  • I find it unlikely this and the "original" file are actually CC BY 4.0, as I don't think the news site these were "released" actually holds any rights to the image. However, the interface is pretty simple. If the images could somehow be blurred beyond recognition or even replaced, I don't think there's anything else copyrightable in this particular screenshot. Bedivere (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that a black page with six blurs has any realistic educational use? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The Creative Commons License statement on the metaratings.ru is unreliable apparently‌. A cautionary example is, they use two stock photos [5], [6] from Freepik in their article, but failed to credit the source. This could lead unsuspecting readers to use it following the invalid CC license. --0x0a (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suankularb Wittayalai School emblem.png

This logo was derived from the logo first used in 1932 (B.E. 2475), became PD before URAA --Wutkh (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BTCC logo.svg

File:Israeli Flag except star is replaced With Poop.jpg

There are several issues here.

  • The time frame between nomination and deletion was artificially and inappropriately short. This has been raised in the past with The Squirrel Conspiracy, the closing admin, and the general viewpoint in that discussion was that deleting a file in such a short time frame was to be avoided.
  • The nominating reason and supporting "votes" are invalid. We do not delete files for potential offence. Commons is not censored.
  • We have numerous images of similar style representing the viewpoints held by members of the public at large towards controversial countries and regimes throughout history. I don't think anyone would argue that Israel does not qualify as a public controversy, especially as of late. Are we to delete all similar images across the board, or does Israel deserve preferential treatment?
  • A country being accused of state-sponsored genocide on the world stage certainly meets the level of notoriety / public discourse that would make the image inherently within scope, as opposed to the ramblings of some random malcontent.
  • The claimed potential copyright status of elements of the image was addressed prior to nomination. If further doubts were held, the nominating user could have requested further clarification.

This reeks of censorship hidden behind technicalities. Fry1989 eh?

 Oppose I have no comment on the scope issue. However, the image comes from Reddit, which is ARR. Fry argues that the poop emoji is PD, but this version is different from those shown at Poop emoji, so I think that claim must be proven. There is also creativity in putting the poop on the flag. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The idea of the poop emoji is PD, renditions may not be. Despite Unicode, I don't think the copyright office is treating emoji drawings as lettering yet. Putting it on the flag probably isn't copyrightable, not in the US.
But for the scope question, no, Israel is controversial does not imply that some random alteration of the Israeli flag is in scope. Wikipedia would put it as notability is not inherited, and while our idea of scope is different, it's still true; not every image posted online against Israel is in scope just because Israel and objections to Israel are in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mehrin Marina Mehran.jpg

DONE BY ERROR --Zaraghassemi (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question This is very small, and seems to be a picture of a picture. Who is the photographer? When was it taken and/or published? Yann (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose First, note that Zaraghassemi was the uploader on October 15. On October 16 they nominated the image for deletion with "I want to public other". Now, on the 17th, they want it restored.
Second the image is a picture of a picture and the file has
|description={{en|1=in a exposition Tehran}}
which makes it clear that it is someone else's work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of File:Easthope2HPCrankcaseCoverAndClutchHousingDwg3055.png.

Hi,
I inherited Easthope2HPCrankcaseCoverAndClutchHousingDwg3055.jpg and Easthope2HPCrankcaseCoverAndClutchHousingDwg3055.png and want to restore as discussed at the Village Pump.

If the files are restored, I'll license as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}.

Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC) (Peter E.)[reply]

 Oppose The file says,

"The drawing was made by Tom H. Jermyn in employ of family business Easthope Bros. Ltd. Jermyn died years ago and I inherited the drawing from the owners, my grandfather and father."

The copyright was initially owned by the creator, Tom Jermyn. If, and only if, he had a formal Work for hire agreement with the company, then the company would be able to freely license the image. Whether your grandfather had that right depends on how the company was closed. If it went bankrupt and the assets were auctioned off, then one of the auction buyers, not your grandfather, has the rights. If, on the other hand, it simply closed its doors, paid off all its creditors in full, and the assets went to your grandfather, then he had the rights to the drawing.

Note that this was a Canadian company, so lack of notice doesn't help us. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Jermyn was a salaried employee. The drawings he produced as an employee belonged to him? To the company?
Beyond that is w:Fair dealing in Canadian copyright law. The parts depicted in the drawing are no longer commercial products. Interest is purely a hobby of individuals. Therefore fair dealing for private study applies. Correct?
Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterEasthope: I am fine with assuming that Tom Jermyn was an employee, and that the copyright is owned by the company. But fair use is not allowed on Commons. Yann (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be unusual, but not unheard of, for a draftsman to have a formal written work for hire agreement in place. Without one, the company had no right to free license the drawing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If he was a permanent employee, I would assume that his work was a work for hire. Otherwise, yes, it depends on the contract. Yann (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Łukasz Wabnic - Quick Shot Kickboxing pion.jpg

A proper agreement from author has been recievied in VTRS. See ticket:2025101610041753 Polimerek (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polimerek: There is no file by that name. Yann (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photos of Philipp Eng

Please restore

We have permission per Ticket:2025082810006551.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"