Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

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
4 copyvios • 24 duplicates • 2 adverts • 70 selfies • 4 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:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín.jpg

The reason for deletion was: I don't think the original photo is in the public domain in the United States (which is required on Commons) even if it is in the public domain in Argentina. I doubt the photo even belongs to that Argentinian newspaper, so I doubt it is in the public domain in Argentina either

Also:

The photo should be PD in USA. It was published in some American newspapers during that time without author and copyright notice. For example, The Boston Globe [2] on 14 February 1984, The Evening News [3] on 13 February 1984, Standard-Freeholder on 24 December 1984 [4].

Ping @Turkmenistan and @Ur Nan123 for discussion. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo from Associated Press who publish this photo at their web site with the following credit: "Soviet Politburo member Konstantin Chernenko is seen, 1983. (AP Photo)". The location is said to be Moscow, Russia. (ap.org). Thuresson (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AP images published between 1964 and 1977 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain. By at least 1981 AP began including copyright notices on some photos.' But this one doesn't have.
I guess it should be {{PD-US-1978-89}} Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson ? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It is not possible to say for sure that this photo is public domain in the country of origin. It is probably not by an Associated Press photographer since the photographer is said to be anonymous. Thuresson (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson country of origin - you mean USSR / Russia? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be Boris Yurchenko who has worked for AP. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boris Yurchenko (Q23901745) died in 2010 so his works are not public domain in Russia. Thuresson (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilkes Barre Downtown.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I was wrong to tag it with the {{Duplicate}} tag. It appears the supposed duplicate file, File:Wilkes Barre Panorama.jpg, contains a different file that was overwritten in breach with COM:OVERWRITE. I'm planning to revert the file to the original, different version should "Wilkes Barre Downtown.jpg" be undeleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of us is confused -- none of the files mentioned above have a deletion tag or have ever been deleted. The subject file is widely used. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the file was originally uploaded as File:Wilkes Barre Downtown.jpg and then overwritten with a different file, and then deleted as a dupe, before a redirect was created. I think he wants to try undeleting it and then reverting to the original version. Curiously, File:Wilkes Barre Panorama.jpg was also uploaded as one file and then overwritten. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JWilz12345, given the confused file status here, I'm not sure what you want done. Since the subject file is not deleted, if there is nothing else you need here, please close this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nard, you're probably right, but JWilz12345 is active on a daily basis, so it's better to actually get them to tell us what to do lest we guess wrong. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward@Nard the Bard correct Nard, I have some hunch that "Wilkes-Barre Panorama" image was originally different, and the redirect "Wilkes-Barre Downtown" was originally the current version of "Panorama" image (it's visible in the file history of "Panorama"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anna Eynard-Lullin Bern.jpg

This file was initially flagged at Commons_talk:AI-generated_media#Possible_AI-generated_images with User:MHM55 being concerned that all of User:Beeckfrau's images (mostly outdoor photos of statues) were AI generated. It was then put up for DR, and deleted.

MHM55's concerns about the file are that the timestamp is wrong, that the bust is known to be on display in Geneva yet the filename contains the word "Bern", and that the size of the books is "not realistic".

The DR discussed whether the image might be AI generated: two users said it was "clearly AI-generated" and "clearly a fake image", only singling out "details in the lower part of the statue which do not exist" (although the nature of these details wasn't stated). Other users, including one who said they'd "seen a lot of AI-generated images" (and myself, I've also seen and deleted a lot of this on Commons), didn't think it looked like AI at all. I also don't think that any of Beeckfrau's other images look AI-generated, and MHM55 didn't give any further reasons for thinking so.

Unless there is some giveaway clue that the Anna Eynard-Lullin image was generated by AI, I think the concerns can be explained by Omphalographer's theory that the bust could be a replica. This would resolve the questions of why it was in Bern instead of Geneva and was of an unexpected size. But it could also just be that the filename is misleading (the uploader forgot which library they took it in, or meant something else by the word "Bern") and the reference books on this Geneva Library shelf are unexpectedly larger or smaller than one might think.

Since there don't seem to be any other freely-licenced images of this bust or this person on the internet, Commons would benefit from hosting one if the image is genuine. I don't think we had enough discussion to be able to decide that it was definitely a fake. Belbury (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose

  1. A very similar, but not identical, bust appears here with ARR.
  2. All of a random sample of similar images from this uploader show EXIF with Camera=Oppo. This has no useful EXIF.
  3. Contrary to "Since there don't seem to be any other freely-licenced images ... of this person on the internet", we have Category:Anna Eynard-Lullin with 21 files including paintings, photographs, and sculpture. We do not have an image of this bust.

I therefore think it very likely that this is an AI image based on the bust at (1). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on other images of Eynard-Lullin! That makes this less important.
The similar bust was mentioned in the DR and does seem to be the only other reference image to compare it to online. From memory the bust is identical (including the crack across it), the texture of her clothing looks a little different (which may be the lighting; its contours appeared identical) and the pedestal had been swapped out for a different one. From my understanding of AI image editing, if you asked a current model to redraw the same bust but on a bookshelf with different lighting and a different pedestal, other alterations would creep in - and you would have to manually apply other filters to the output, to give the appearance of a pixelised low-light camera image. Belbury (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After further examination of both images under high magnification, I am almost certain that the two photographs discussed above are the same bust. There is a small defect just above where the fold in the cloth that goes down from left to right hits the fold that surrounds the bust. That appears in both images. The subject image shows significant pixelization typical of AI work and, of course, the subject image is missing most of its base. Since the uploader has a history of uploading AI work, I think we must close this as not done and I will do so unless someone can provide a good reason not to do that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the user actually has any history of uploading AI content. The only discussion I'm aware of is the discussion at the AI media talk page where User:MHM55 said they were putting all of User:Beeckfrau's statue images into Category:Unconfirmed likely AI-generated images to check, apparently largely because of their "impossible" timestamps. I checked the images and removed them from the category as they didn't appear to be AI generated, and MHM55 said OK. I am not a specialist in this regard. Belbury (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alternative flag of Guadalajara 2.svg and File:Alternative flag of Guadalajara 3.svg

Not out of scope since both images exist at https://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/images/m/mx-jc!e1.gif and https://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/images/m/mx-jc!b2.gif, firstly, and they can be used in an article to illustrate municipal symbols of Guadalajara, a big Mexican city. Both images are supported by photographic evidence, and the illustrations themselves conform to real photographs. Flagvisioner (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-11#File:Alternative flag of Guadalajara 2.svg and File:Alternative flag of Guadalajara 3.svg. Thuresson (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"FOTW is 'generally considered unrealible'" is not a statement which applies here. I'm sourcing the drawings based on photographs on the site, not information. A photograph of a more current flag can't be faked like a historical flag. Since the photos are clearly more modern and clearly visible in more public spaces in these photos, it is clear they are at least somewhat used in reality. They are unofficial so they should not replace a header image, but serve well to illustrate the evolution of the flag in physically used forms. Flagvisioner (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dravedian Arc - Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (Greco-Roman map adaptation).jpg

Hello, this is another image file Trimtrent has acted rudely and deleted without properly explaining what alterations I need to make, including several others that I spent considerable time creating, uploading, and describing for the purpose of educating the public and waived my copyrights to make these freely available.

Bizzarely the deleted image file in "subject field" was adapted from an existing commons File:Periplous of the Erythraean Sea.svg and I Mention the commons author and licence when I used his original work ie stating it belongs to "George Tsiagalakis / CC-BY-SA-4 licence" and here I adapted it for my academia research project and I too also shared it for the public issuing it as CC-BY-SA-4.0 as I consider the public would benefit from and appreciate. I chose to share it early on Commons, even before formal publication and peer review of my research, which naturally takes many months. I respectfully request that this and my other images be reinstated. If any of the text in the Description section needs to be removed or adjusted, please advise me accordingly so that I can make the appropriate changes in line with Commons’ requirements. Kind regards, Jeeva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeeva S Sk (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This file is a crop of the file you state with the addition of a legend that says the present day locations of cities depicted on the map and an illustration of a ship, and the legend moved up within the crop and made smaller. Abzeronow (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but whats wrong with that as the author has provided it on the basis of CC-BY-SA-4 and my version adds extra educational information to that image. Plus there are many other Perilous of the Erythraean Sea adaptations by other users and uploaded onto Commons - so why cant mine? Jeeva S Sk (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not the place for your personal research. If you continue to upload such files, you will be blocked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeeva S Sk see the reply from the deleting administrator directly above. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Administrator: Pi.1415926535, the new file I uploaded yesterday after previous one deleted by you I have removed all mention of my research paper based on the advise provided and just uploaded a new revised image of Perilous of the Erythraean Sea created by George Tsiagalakis with CC SA-BY. 4.0, with just additional new educational info which is commonly know and image of an Indian Ship construction by Radha Kumud Mukhopadhyay (1912, which is now available as public use). And both the new image file, or my description of the image uploaded last night, makes no reference to my research paper and uploaded for public education purposes. As I clearly don't understand. Can I ask are you saying any images on CC cannot be altered by another user in anyway even though proper source attribution is provided for source and the uploading-user becomes the author of the new altered version but obviously meets commons requirements and is uploaded without any copyright restrictions and free to use by others for their altered version?
Please do kindly explain how I can work around this difficulty as its difficult to work out what changes I need to make for my new images I wish to share with the public. Jeeva S Sk (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Rohde deep state in America.png

I think that the image does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection because it consists only of simple geometric shapes and texts and also because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. It is simply two arrows crossed and few texts. These are just words stacked on top of each other, arranged according to their standard positions (which is common-property information) on the Y and X-axis. It’s essentially like math: functional, not artistic. And since it’s neither artistic nor original, anyone has the right to arrange them that way on a graph. The words in the picture are just stacked on a graph based on their commonly understood meanings (which nobody owns). They don’t form a single sentence. Anyone can and has the right to arrange them that way. The placement and arrangement of the words is not even complex, sophisticated or original. Therefore, it is not protected.

By "arranged according to their standard position," I mean that terms are placed on the graph based on their commonly perceived associations. For example, everyone knows that "Military-Industrial Complex"—a term used to describe the deep state in the U.S.—is typically framed negatively by liberals, so we position it accordingly on the graph. The same applies to the term "Deep State," which is often used critically by conservatives. This logic extends to the rest of the terms. As for the use of graphs: displaying information visually for easier comprehension has been done for decades and is neither creative nor original. Super ninja2 (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose A similar request for this image was not done in August. Asking again without any new information wastes people's time. Please do not do it again or you will be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only one voted in the precious discussion so I thought I should give another chance to more ppl to participate.
Please do not do it again or you will be blocked from editing here
According to what rule? Also, who said this violates any rule? Super ninja2 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated requests for undeletion probably count as spamming. Though you did provide a reasonable explanation, so I don't think the vote counts as spamming, just don't start a third discussion if the current one fails.
Also, looking at your logs, you have uploaded a disproportionate amount of files that were later deleted. That can also get you blocked, so please check the licenses for external files and ensure that your photos don't contain any derivative designs (unless they're de minimis). Your recent contributions do seem better and you look like you're acting in good faith, so just remember to check before you upload stuff and you'll be good. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 14:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Alfred Goldammer

In 2023 these files were deleted by Fitindia "per nomination". The reason given by Adamant1 was: "Stamps of Germany are copyright until at least 70 years after the death artist." But this is wrong. In Germany stamps that don't name the designer are copyright until 70 years after publication (see {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}). So most of these stamps are out of copyright in Germany. Adamant1 furthermore wrote: "At least unless their copyright status was renewed by the URAA in the meantime." He is right in that none of these files is in the Public Domain in the United States. But to those uploaded before 1 March 2012, {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} applies, which means they should only be deleted on copyright holder's request. So I request to undelete all files that show pre-1955 stamps that don't have Goldammer's name on them and that were uploaded before 1 March 2012. Thank you. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Do we restore files to which {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} can be applied after they were deleted anyway? --Rosenzweig τ 15:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose
First, the basic premise of this request is incorrect. The artist, Alfred Goldammer, is named (obviously!), so pma 70 does apply and they will be under German copyright until 1/1/2042.
Second, while we have agreed not to go back and delete files subject to URAA that were uploaded before 2012, I see nothing in policy that would allow us today to restore a file that was still under URAA no matter when it was originally uploaded.
Third, I note that several of these files would still be under German copyright even if the 70 years since publication rule applied.
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It is known that Goldammer designed these stamps. But according to German copyright law the rule 70 years pma only applies if the designer is named on the stamp. See {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}. But Goldammer is not named on many if not all of them.
(2) This is the important point. You could say that no files under URAA may be uploaded now, so we also shouldn't undelete such files. On the other hand: If any administrator can delete any pre-2012 URAA files and noone can object and ask for an undeletion, then the rule that these file shouldn't be deleted is toothless.
(3) I mentioned that my undeletion request is only for pre-1955 stamps, for stamps published more than 70 years ago. Most of the stamps in this deletion request are older than 70 years, but a few are not. I did not request their undeletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. The publication of German stamps is often an official act. Back when the Bundespost was a government authority, the stamp publication took place in the official gazette, the Bundesanzeiger AFAIK. So, even if the designer is not indicated on the stamp itself, it's easily assumed that it was named in the Bundesanzeiger. You would have to demonstrate that the Bundesanzeiger published the stamps without naming the designer to open the applicability of §138 KUG. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, according to German law, it does not depend on whether the name of the designer was published somewhere. It does depend on whether it was printed on the stamp. If not, the stamp is "ein Werk [...], das den Namen des Urhebers nicht angibt" (a work that doesn't indicate the name of its author, § 5 KUG). See de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Sonderfall: Juristische Person als Urheber (bis 1965). (By the way, the official gazette was Amtsblatt der Deutschen Bundespost, not Bundesanzeiger.) -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Robert Weemeyer is correct here about PD-Germany-§134-KUG. That is a somewhat weird exception from an older German copyright law (from the early 20th century, applicable only to pre-1966 works), and if no (human) author was named on/in the work and a Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (like the Deutsche Bundespost) was named, that corporate body did become the legal author, even if the actual person who created the work was known or became known later.
That kind of flies in the face of the current principle in German copyright law, namely that only human beings can be authors, but that older law (actually two laws, KUG and LUG) thought otherwise.
So these pre-1955 stamps really are in the public domain in Germany. But they are not in the US.
Which brings me back to my initial question: Do we restore files to which {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} can be applied after they were deleted anyway? Many more cases are potentially affected, if not now, then over the next years. --Rosenzweig τ 17:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert Weemeyer: As I see it, there is no hard Commons rule to not delete any files with Not-PD-US-URAA. The template, as I remember, was a stopgap to keep the files while the fate of the URAA was still uncertain in the US courts, and then until it was decided what to do with these files when the URAA was found to be valid and constitutional. There were huge debates, and like several other problematic types of files, the old URAA files were never cleaned out thoroughly, because there's barely enough manpower (and womanpower etc.) for the current affairs. So we still have a lot of them, and because the big cleanup never happened, I have refrained from deleting valid Not-PD-US-URAA files (uploaded before March 1, 2012) for now. That could change though. The general idea though is that we want less of these files, not more, which is why the template is not allowed for uploads after March 1, 2012. And restoring such files which were deleted is kind of counterproductive for that goal. --Rosenzweig τ 20:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we agreed -- reluctantly in my case -- that we would not go through and do mass deletions of pre 2012 URAA files, but, as I said above, there is nothing in policy which allows us to restore them if they happen to be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A question to the administrators: How often does it happen that heirs of authors ask for a deletion of a file which is under copyright in the US, but in the public domain in its source country? Is this really a problem? -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is: COM:CARES. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Policy (COM:PCP #1) explicitly forbids that line of reasoning. And yes, while it is very rare, there are cases of people overseas enforcing the URAA copyright on works that are PD in their home country. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The tag {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} is used for file uploaded before 2012 and it is meant to review them and it doesn't mean they cannot be deleted, see Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review. The status quo seems to be don't delete them, however there is nothing that impedes their deletion (see previos link). The only restriction is not to make mass deletion as deletion criteria is not straightforward (laws in 1996 are not always the same as today's law, for example France has 50 years pma in 1996). The rationale to keep the old images seems to be: "the upload was legal because it was uploaded before the supreme court decision, please ask for deletion if you are the copyright holder". The images could have been uploaded without infringing the law 13 years ago, but today we know they are not in the public domain in the US, so it makes no sense to restore images that doesn't satisfy COM:L. It is irrelevant with this UDR, but I have to point out that I don't agree with the status quo as files tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} were not meant to be untouchable, they were meant to be reviewed. Moreover, users cannot actually reuse them (the end goal of Commons) as they cannot claim in 2025 that their reuse was made before the supreme court decision. Günther Frager (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: consensus is not to restore at this time. Can be restored when US copyright expires. --Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Bekasi.svg

This file was deleted following the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Bekasi.svg. However, around the same period there were several related CfD discussions initiated by the same nominator, using the same rationale, and concerning the same type of content. In those cases the subjects were the flags of Indonesian provinces, cities, and regencies. The outcomes of those discussions were clear keeps, please look up the following CfDs for the details:

The reasoning applied in those discussions is directly relevant here. The file for Flag of Bekasi Regency appears to have slipped through without wider community attention, as no editors participated in that DR, which then resulted in an unchallenged deletion.

Several subsequent DR discussions on similar files have also been closed as keep, following the precedent set in the cases above, such as:

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Banyumas.png
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Kebumen.png
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Nabire.png
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Banggai.png
  5. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Sidoarjo.png
  6. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Jayawijaya.png
  7. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Bulungan.png
  8. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Merauke.png
  9. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Landak.png
  10. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Manokwari.png
  11. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Mamuju.png
  12. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Kulon Progo.png
  13. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Sleman.png

Given the consistent consensus to keep comparable files, and the lack of community input in the Flag of Bekasi Regency discussion, the same reasoning should apply here. I request that the file be restored in line with the established precedent. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Taun taun.png

I can't see deleted files, but this was apparently part of a patent (Per the DR Commons:Deletion requests/Star Wars images) and later was drive by tagged as no source and deleted. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 06:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: withdrawn by requestor. --Abzeronow (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images of Category:Dassault Rafale at Paris Air Show 2025

See 4X-AHC Martin Harrison.jpg DR and File:Louvre at night centered.jpg, COM:DM France say: French case law admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza:

  • Because the Court has noticed that, as it was shown in the incriminated images, the works of Mr X... and Z... blended into the architectural ensemble of the Terreaux plaza, of which it was a mere element, the appeals court correctly deduced that this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public.... Attendu qu’ayant relevé que, telle que figurant dans les vues en cause, l’oeuvre de MM. X... et Z... se fondait dans l’ensemble architectural de la place des Terreaux dont elle constituait un simple élément, la cour d’appel en a exactement déduit qu’une telle présentation de l’oeuvre litigieuse était accessoire au sujet traité, résidant dans la représentation de la place, de sorte qu’elle ne réalisait pas la communication de cette oeuvre au public ...

French case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable (CA Versailles, 26 janvier 1998, Sté Movie box c/ Spadem et a.):

  • It can be considered as an illicit representation of a statue by Maillol, the broadcasting of a commercial in which it appears, as it was not included in a film sequence shot in a natural setting—which would explain the brief and non-essential to the main subject, appearance of the sculpture, which is set in the Tuileries gardens, but used as an element of the setting. 6D (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg

The Swiss Supreme Court ruled that this photo was below TOO. Commons' policy has evolved since this file was deleted, COM:TOO states that, in an example of a UK work: "Note that Commons policy on the country of origin requires this logo to be judged by UK standards". This is consistent with how we treat other similar questions, like FoP, where the copyright law of the home country of the photo only is followed. (See also Commons:Unprotected works where it is clear only the home country's law is contemplated). -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pages you link to are not official policy. Commons:Licensing, which is offical policy states "When uploading material from a country outside the U.S., the copyright laws of that country and the U.S. normally apply." Thuresson (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kiarostami-1940.jpg

We have always relied on Occam's Razor for determining where an image has been published. If a person lived their life in a country, that is the most reasonable place where it was first published. We have literally thousands of images where we do not not know where an image was first published, and relied on Occam's Razor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 04:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kiarostami-1940.jpg Abzeronow (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also we don't rely on assumptions in determining a country of origin because assumptions are dangerous legally. We rely on evidence, which was not provided, only assumptions that disregard European photographers. Abzeronow (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost every image prior to exif date capturing the date, is an estimate. And we are using evidence, since we know that a person lived their life in one country. Any portrait image, we estimate where it was taken and where it was made public. --RAN (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyright vests with the photographer, whom we do not know. The sources are not Iranian. So where is your evidence that this was first published in Iran? Creation is not publication and we don't know the actual first publication of this image or the nationality of the photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The subject was active and renowned in many places. Although Iran would be the best choice for country of origin if one had to make a choice, it is at best a 50/50 bet and certainly nowhere near beyond a significant doubt. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Octavian Enescu (Bobo).jpg

This deletion is based on what makes a photograph "art" as opposed to just commercial photography. The law does not protect commercial photography, just images classified as art. See File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg where the photographer uses a set, costumes, and elaborate poses, we would all agree, that this is art. Another clue is that it resides in an art museum. Pointing the camera with good lighting and pressing the shutter release, is something a monkey can do. See: File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg. --RAN (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the photograph is artistic, not documentary. It was obviously taken in a film studio. Abzeronow (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop linking to random images, and show us the evidence. This is a Romanian law, and the links to the older law don't load for me. Even then, just because a word is usually translated "art", if there is one in the appropriate legislation, doesn't mean that in the legal and textual context it's embedded in, it is best translated as art. And "images classified as art" has me reaching for the template {{Who}}, because the second paragraph of w:en:Art starts "There is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art..." Questions about where the fine line is put is going to take Romanian-specific legal literature or case law, or, preferably but likely unavailable, a clear explanation in the law itself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Octavian Enescu (Bobo).jpg, one of the users in the DR said "The notion of "artistic photographs" within the meaning of decree D321/1956 which is invoked here refers to all photographs that are not technical. Portraits have always been considered artistic photographs because the photographer has always had a great intellectual contribution: establishing the position of the subject, the positions of the main light, the secondary light, the ambient light, the contour light, etc. See the photo." Abzeronow (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Please remember that copyright law uses very broad definitions -- software is copyrighted as literary work. This is certainly art, as no monkey ever carefully arranged the lighting used here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Clindberg: @Yann: I pinged two people with copyright knowledge. The questions is: Is all commercial-photography art? If the legislation was meant to protect all commercial-photography, why did use the phrase "art-photography" instead of "commercial-photography". Is everything art? --RAN (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard for me to say what the specifics of that old law was, or what may have been lost in translation. As a general thing, the "simple photos" laws in many European countries were usually differentiated more about snapshots of scenes not under the photographer's control, i.e. more documentary type of photos, versus photos where the photographer had control over the scene. Studio portraits were generally not "simple", as the photographer had control over all aspects and they were more photographic alternatives to painted portraits. Something like passport photos were probably simple though. I think Italy did decide that carefully-framed landscape photos (say something like Ansel Adams) were photographic "works", i.e. not simple. It's possible to read the Romanian law in that way, but specific examples usually help a lot more as the lines may have been a bit different between countries. If there are no specific examples available, I'd probably hedge towards saying that studio photographs were the more "artistic" type. Commercial photography which is just documenting public scenes, may still be simple. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Los Angeles Metro Bus 4134.jpg

Please Come Back My File

I want image undeleted because He noticed it deleted. It's My Fault, I bring back My image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoCal Metro Transit (talk • contribs) 08:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This probably concerns File:Los Angeles Metro Bus 4134.png. Yann (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation: Yes, it is taken at the same place, but it doesn't seem to be the same picture.
@SoCal Metro Transit: Could you please upload the original picture with EXIF data, and without watermarks? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Los Angeles Metro Bus 4134 (B).jpg

Please Come Back My File

I want image undeleted because He noticed it deleted. It's My Fault, I bring back My image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoCal Metro Transit (talk • contribs) 08:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This probably concerns File:Los Angeles Metro Bus 4134 (B).png. Yann (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation: Yes, it is taken at the same place, but it doesn't seem to be the same picture.
@SoCal Metro Transit: Could you please upload the original picture with EXIF data, and without watermarks? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dien vien Thanh Sơn.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is cropped from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpE0GYhzAd8, which have CC license, and have been manually reviewed by an image reviewer. The user who nominated my file (Lubinh123) is assuming that the copyright holder is Vietnamese Television (VTV) and not the channel. This is a false statement and is a contradiction, because in fact VTV owns this channel and there is no evidence that this is a fake channel. However, recently a LTA recreated this page with vandalism content, so if restoring, please only restoring non-vandalism version. Nvdtn19 (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:57528 at Chunxilu (20250403173810).jpg

See Undeletion request of the ATENU773 at Austin Station, Jordan Rd (20190322095050).jpg, the blurring the ad can fix the problem. It doesn’t affect the photo too much. Also the ATENU773 image are undeleted, so why not this image? 6D (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ATENU773 image was clearly useful without it. As I said last time, if other users think this would still be useful blurred, I'll undelete it myself. The copyrighted portions seem to be the point of the photograph in my opinion. Abzeronow (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not even the file title have the copyrighted portions name. So it is useful even without this. (Delete the description after undeletion) 6D (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SingDuall images

VRTS Please restore the files per ticket:2025112410700587 for permission verification. JJPMaster (she/they) 16:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think these images are out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I agree. I also wonder about the VRT for the last image. Lawrence E Maynard is the author of Singular Duality, so my guess would be that he is the uploader of these files. It's a formal portrait, not a selfie, so needs a license from the actual photographer, not Maynard. JJP, are you completely satisfied with the license you have seen? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: The image was made under a work-for-hire agreement which grants the subject of the photo a license to use it. However, it is unclear whether they are permitted to sublicense it. I have contacted the customer to provide clarification. JJPMaster (she/they) 21:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you -- a license to use the image is very different from a license that allows the licensee to freely license it. The former is very common, while the latter is very rare. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glenn Close (1992 Venice Film Festival) 01.jpg and File:Glenn Close (1992 Venice Film Festival) 02.jpg

Please undelete those two files. The deletion requests Commons:Deletion requests/File:Glenn Close (1992 Venice Film Festival) 01.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Glenn Close (1992 Venice Film Festival) 02.jpg had very weak reasons, no supporting facts, only a vague impression of the nominator. Not sufficient justification for the deletion of those photos by a photographer who contributed hundreds of valuable photos. Those two deleted files are the original files from which three non-deleted files are extracted: File:Glenn Close (1992 Venice Film Festival) 01 (cropped).jpg, File:Glenn Close 1992 Venice Film Festival.jpg and File:Glenn Close 1992 Venice Film Festival (cropped).jpg. One of the extracted files was even uploaded by the nominator of the deletion after the deletion of the original file, showing the inconsistency. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per request. --Abzeronow (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=1120634274"