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
57 copyvios • 10 duplicates • 92 selfies • 240 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

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

File:The Route.jpg

The user had contacted VRT users before (see: {{RaftFilms Permission}})

Not sure but as far as I can remember these two images had been published on Commons for the first time so netcopyvio is not valid.

Hanooz 18:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support {{RaftFilms Permission}} appears to be valid and is present on the first file, so this deletion seems to be a mistake. As far as I can see, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem with the other two. Note that the copyright watermark in File:Taghi Rahmani.jpg must remain -- from the text of the CC-BY license:

Section 3 – License Conditions.
Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions.
a. Attribution.
1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
A. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:
....
ii. a copyright notice;
....

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per Jim; please close Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done per discussion. Taivo (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS images

Images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) were once non-free many years ago, but are now under CC-BY (https://www.sdss.org/collaboration/#image-use). SDSS images that were deleted in the past should be restored.

Note that SDSS is different from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), which allows non-commercial use only; see Commons:Village pump#Digitized Sky Survey. There seems to have been confusion between DSS and SDSS in some old deletion requests, so some of these images might still be non-free.

Deletion requests found with "SDSS", there are surely more:

SevenSpheres (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Although I  Support this line of reasoning, note that we must verify that each image is currently posted with the new license. Any images that do not exist on the current site have only the old license and must remain deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the relevant part, not the part about the SDSS website: All SDSS data released in our public data releases are considered in the public domain. So SDSS image data is in the public domain actually, not CC-BY. That includes, for example, the SDSS data available through Aladin, which I think is the source of most of these images. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They also told Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We provide all images on a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) in there website Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Jameslwoodward), I did a google search on "have Sloan sdss images always been public domain".
Annoyngly, google now seems to use AI to summarize and try to interpret results, meaning I couldn't link to it. More annoyingly, the same search provides a slightly different answer, each time. But, one time, it provided an explanation for why some of its earliest images were not (immediately) considered "free". In its earliest years, as a courtesy to researchers, images were not made available under a free lisence, right away, so researchers wouldn't worry about being scooped, until after they published their paper. Once the grace period was over, and researchers were presumed to have had time to publish their papers, then all images were considered free. If I understood what it was saying, all images uploaded to their official website are considered free, even from the early years, when their mages were not initially free. Those initially unfree images weren't supposed to be uploaded to their website, until the grace period had passed.
If I understood it, any non-free images someone here acquired, through industrial espionage, or a leaker, would now be considered free, because the grace period expired over fifteen years ago. Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. Before 2017, SDSS images were under a non-commercial license. In 2017 this was changed to a free license. Compare the old SDSS image use page with the current page, and see the old update to the Commons category and undeletion request from that time. There was certainly no "industrial espionage, or a leaker" involved here. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, SDSS images are in public domain Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miklavž na Dravskem polju.png

The image of the coat of arms has been published as part of an official text (see [1]) and thus meets the criterion at COM:NOP Slovenia exempting from copyright "municipal coats of arms" that have been published as part of official texts. --TadejM (t/p) 16:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The cited page has "© 2022 Lex Localis" and Section I, Articles 2 and 3, of the decree have a variety of restrictions that amount to an ND license. There is nothing like a free license there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Lex localis nor the municipality can claim copyright on materials that are exempted from copyright per the Slovenian legislation (cited on COM:NOP Slovenia). --TadejM (t/p) 13:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The act mentions explicitly only text of legal acts, not images. Ankry (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion directly contradicts COM:NOP Slovenia, which is based on scholarly sources. --TadejM (t/p) 21:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I would trust COM:NOP Slovenia and what a Slovenian would say about their country's laws. Abzeronow (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bonn Zoological Bulletin

For example:

The journal is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License per https://zoologicalbulletin.de/content-policy. --Geohakkeri (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per nom Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 16:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support same Wikisquack (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:1350balkans.png

Map was accidently misunderstood as EU5 map while it wasn't.

Person that deleted the map apologised. Full discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneZeta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polserb (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there the youtube video and the reddit post if different need to be under a free license, and I explained how to do that. However given that the comments there unanimously point out its inaccuracies, I'm undecided - it's very hard to map everything accurately, as even if modifications were made there might be further issues (and I can't view that deleted file, but the reddit post turned up as an exact match). HurricaneZetaC 23:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to point that reddit post is about year 1337, while map presented year 1350 with Serbian Empire at it's peak and several border differences so some of mistakes mentioned are off. I can eventually change map style and fix incorrect border and then upload it as new file. I am just unsure is that allowed Polserb (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Polserb,
You are allowed to upload any file that is in the COM:Scope and under a free COM:License.
One could argue that the file is not in the project scope if it contains errors.
Best, Wikisquack (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Files deleted by Minorax

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: At Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06#Requesting a Large-scale Courtesy Deletion of Personal Images of Myself several admins had responded and nobody was concerned about this. Greg said I have a hobby where I meet (take photos and get signatures) various "celebrities" of film, TV, music, sports, etc. there.

He could have used a tripod, which wouldn't be too far-fetched if you're going places specifically to take photos with celebrities. Even if someone else triggered the shutter, it's likely a case of m:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership#The Example of the Third Party Photographer (in a nutshell: human tripods don't get copyright). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Greg2600. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose But most of the time the person who pushes the button gets the copyright, see m:Talk:Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership#Disagreement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your "most of the time" case is actually an exception. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment
Hello @Alexis Jazz,
In your answer on Wikilegal, you mentioned a potential joint authorship. Even in that case, such pictures would require the agreement of all authors in order to publish them under a license.
Best, Wikisquack (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very selective reading of what I said. Jameslwoodward's situation is special. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Several Chinese pictures

Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peng Dehuai (1948).png and others: Mistakenly deleted because of alledged URAA restoration: All of those were made before 1991 (and most of it, before 1949) so it must had felt under the 著作權法 (民國33年) [Copyright Law of the Republic of China (1944)]:

Photographs and Sound Recordings were protected for 10 years after publication. That means copyright must had expired before URAA could restore anything.

Files affected:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:大音乐家马思聪.jpg: The discussion says it was made 1947, clearly under 1928/1944 law and PD by 1957.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:岸信介拜會嚴家淦院長(朱正祺攝).jpg: Unknown date, probably PD before 1996.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:李俊仁肖像.png: Same case as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:王炳南.jpg: Same case as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:穿制服的少女 (陳敬輝, 1940年代左右).jpg: title says 1940, cleary PD by 1951 (or 1971 if official work)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:黃炳松肖像.jpg: unknown date, likely candidate to be restored.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣經國特使覲見泰王.jpg: Same as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣桂琴肖像.jpg: Same as above
File:Puyi's sister Reginald Fleming Johnston in Kew.jpg: from the 1930s. If it was an official work, then PD before 1970, if just a picture, PD by 1950 the latest.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong in Xibaipo.jpg: Likely made in 1948-early 1949, so PD by 1960.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maozedong.jpg: Unknown date, likely to be PD.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:大澳橫水渡 WKYP 19620429.png: Same as above.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Desheng 1952.jpg: Made in 1952, PRC did not have a Constitution until 1954, so I'm assuming 1928 law still is valid.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Ailing 1954.jpg: Made in 1954, same rationale as above (depends on what was before, Constiution or pic).
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enlai-Yingchao (1963).jpg: Made in 1963, but PRC had no copyright law of its own, under same rationale: PD by 1974.
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1958 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1959: Even if made during PRC, the 1928-1944 copyright law was never substituted.

There are many more cases, I'll check it out.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing… --Yann (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China, The People's Republic of China government does not recognise the legitimacy of the Republic of China, and Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China is retroactive. Therefore laws of the ROC is not relevant and TaronjaSatsuma's claim is most likely incorrect. Pinging @Teetrition for input. Wcam (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wcam. For works created in mainland China after October 1949, ROC law is no longer applicable; instead, the PRC Copyright Law (1990) should be applied because of its retroactivity. Teetrition (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Teetrition and Wcam: Could you please explain and give a link to the relevant laws. This should be documented somewhere on Commons. Thanks for answering. Yann (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article 17 of the Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference formally abolished all laws, decrees, and the judicial system of the "Kuomintang reactionary government" (the ROC government). While the text includes the qualifier "which oppress the people," this should not be interpreted as allowing certain ROC laws to remain valid.
In fact, this article constitutes a total repeal of the ROC legal system. This interpretation is supported by the Directive on the Abolition of the Kuomintang's Complete Book of Six Codes, which explicitly categorized the "Six Codes" (the entire ROC legal corpus) as inherently oppressive. Therefore, no ROC statutes survived the transition to the PRC's legal jurisdiction.
From another perspective, if ROC copyright law had remained valid in mainland China from 1949 to 1990, there would have been no need for the PRC Copyright Law to include provisions regarding its retroactivity. The very existence of such retroactive mechanisms implies a legal vacuum, rather than a continuation of ROC law. Teetrition (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

（六）请你们与政府及司法干部讨论我们这些意见，并把讨论结果报告我们。

I don't believe the Directive can give us any clue about this, considering it's not even a law.
(also, to provide some guidance, check this discussion where the proposal of the RoC-Registered template was born.
For the post-October 1949 Mainland scenario, the question is "when" did the RoC law expire.
  • Is the expiration date the proclamation of the PRC in 1949?
  • Is the expiration date the creation of a Constitution in 1954 (it's 1954?)
  • Given the non-existence of any copyright law until 1996, was the RoC law the one to consider prior to 1991 (even if 1991 was retroactive)? NOTE: under international law, copyright should never be considered non-existent
  • Can we agree that at least any work created before 30th September 1949 is under RoC law?
That's why I asked for any court ruling anything on this regard, to have some kind of guidance (I hate when Commons users became judges on Copyright issues, which I believe happens sometimes here) TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1st October 1949 is the proclamation of the PRC, but the PRC did not have a constitution of its own until 1954. Which date should we take? there is any court ruling anything on this regard? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The enactment of the 1954 Constitution is irrelevant to this issue, as the PRC government had already promulgated numerous edicts prior to that year. For instance, the Regulations of the PRC on Punishment of Counter-revolutionaries was enacted in 1951.
Furthermore, Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, adopted on September 29, 1949, served as the de facto Constitution. Official sources have confirmed that the Common Program functioned as the interim constitutional law during that period. [3] Teetrition (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Teetrition: Thanks for all the details. So, in short, only pictures from before October 1949 might be OK? Yann (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree on pre- proclamation should be a safe terrain (Proclamation of PRC, 1st October 1949).
Even if I insist on asking if there is any judicial precedent on any kind of court, be it Chinese or international, ruling on this issue. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Still, changing a Constitution means nothing.
  • Spain have had several regime changes by 1987, and still they used the same XIX century copyright law under all of those different regimes.
  • Current copyright law in Iran is from the Sha's time.
RoC copyright law the last copyright law in China in the 1950s-1980s. They don't having any kind of copyirght protection or recognition is not an issue of changing the laws, but because of their very specific understanding of Communism. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Indeed, 1950 Conference resolution and 1984 regulations are considered to be valid texts and seminal to copyright in China.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found some legal base under PRC law:

  • 1950 Publishing Conference Resolution is considered the first legal work where copyright is mentioned (there was an administrative recognition of copyright as something which exists, but there is no term)
  • 1994广电部 608号文 confirms 1950 as the strating point of copyright in China (for films) it states:

现对1949年10月1日至1993年6月30日期间国产电影发行权归属问题作出以下规定

October 1, 1949 (the date of the PRC's founding) is the starting point. Films from this date forward are treated as having 版权 (copyright) from the beginning, and they're considered to have copyright because they had distribution rights (1950 Resolution, which was for books). There a alot of nuances on this law, but at least we can consider 1st October as a safe date for under RoC laws works.

合同期限超过十年的（包括影片发行权永久性或一次性出售给中影公司的如《生死树》、《关键时刻》之类的影片），根据《中华人民共和国著作权法》合同的有效期限不超过十年的规定，从合同签订之日起按十年计算，合同期满后发行权归制片厂，必要时双方可以续订合同。

--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the (previous discussion on Chinese copyright laws, where the proposal of the RoC-Registered template was born, I believe we've reached a flaw on Commons guidelines. And probably it's not exclusive of China: because of the URAA restoration policy (Can I advocate for fully deprecate it?), we have policies and guidelines based on current laws, but, de facto, for Commons is 1996 law what is relevant.

In real world, the distinction between 1944 RoC law, 1985 RoC-Taiwan law and 1991 PRC law would be irrelevant, because any work post 1975 is PD under all three laws, making them reduncdant. But because of URAA, in Commons we should look at laws as they were, not as they are.

In short: First regulatory text on copyright in PRC is Trial Regulations on Copyright Protection of Books and Periodicals:

Article 11: The rights provided in Items (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Article 5 of these Regulations are enjoyed by authors for their entire life. After an author passes away, the lawful successor of the author or the Ministry of Culture Publications Undertakings Management Bureau protects them from infringements.

The rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to the lifetime of the author and thirty years after his death. These thirty years are to be calculated from the end of the year of death of the author; concerning joint works, these thirty years are to be calculated from the end of the year of death of the last passing away author.

Concerning photographs, the rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to thirty years, so be calculated from the end of the year of first publication.

Concerning works of which the copyright belongs to bodies, collectives, industrial or undertaking work units or other work units and collective, the rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, are limited to thirty years, so be calculated from the end of the year of first publication.

The rights provided in Items (5) and (6) of these Regulations, after the author passes away, will be inherited according to relevant inheritance legislation.

Concerning works already published before these Regulations take effect, of all those that did not yet exceed the periods of the second, third and fourth paragraph of this Article, the copyright holder still enjoys copyright over the remainder of the time period.

So, between 1949 and June 1991 the valid normative was 30 years after publishing/death or author, and the law was only partially retroactive, in the sense it guaranteed 30 years term for works created after 1949, but did not restore any copyright for works having its natural term of 30 expired by then.

Our guidelines in Commons apply 1991 law as a whole because, in a non-URAA world, any of the Chinese laws is irrelevant because anything older than 1975 is PD. But in the URAA world we created in Commons, older copyright laws matter.

What does Chinese 1990-91 copyright law say about restoring copyirght? Article 59:

第五十九条 本法规定的著作权人和出版者、表演者、录音录像制作者、广播电台、电视台的权利，在本法施行之日尚未超过本法规定的保护期的，依照本法予以保护。

本法施行前发生的侵权或者违约行为，依照侵权或者违约行为发生时的有关规定和政策处理。

This means the works falling in PD under the 1984 directive by June 1991 did not have its copyright restored.

Here there is an authoritative legal commentary on the 1990 Copyright Law with specific examples.

Which also aligns with Berne 18(2): A work that has fallen into the public domain in its source country through the expiry of a previously granted term shall not be protected anew.

And aligns with URAA (17 U.S.C. § 104A): restoration applies only to works that entered the public domain due to lack of formalities or lack of treaty relations, not to works that entered the public domain because their copyright term expired.

And the 1984 Regulations granted 30 years terms, not 50. So, Works in PRC created (or whose author died) between 1st October 1949 and 31 December 1960 (maybe 31 May 1961) were PD by the 1991 law (and therefore, had its copyright expired by URAA time).--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose because the s:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (1990) was retroactive and we cannot say that it didn't apply to works created before 1949. The first point follows from the plain meaning of Chapter VI, Article 55, which says that protection is granted to any qualifying work whose "term of protection as specified in this Law [my emphasis] has not yet expired on the date of entry into force of this Law." The second point follows because to say otherwise would be to deny—a la {{PD-RusEmpire}}—that the People's Republic of China is the legal successor to the Republic of China (1912–1949), something that I don't think we have the power to do. prospectprospekt (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The second point follows because to say otherwise would be to deny—a la {{PD-RusEmpire}}—that the People's Republic of China is the legal successor to the Republic of China (1912–1949), something that I don't think we have the power to do

This is your interpretation, not the Courts one. The second point follows, and clearly states "the policies and provisions" (notice it does not say law, it does not refer to RoC law, but to 1984 directive and 1950 Publishing resolution) are the ones to follow for anything happening before the 1991 law. The article has two full paragraphs, You cannot read paragraph 1 in isolation. Whatever the Russian Empire template says or the Russian law said is not only irrelevant, but offtopic to this issue.

You cannot apply the first paragraph retroactively to revive works that had already entered the public domain under the 1984 rules, it contradicts the very 1984 rules (article 11), Berne 18(2) and URAA (17 U.S.C. § 104A). Indeed, when Russia entered WIPO in 1995 they did it with a public reservation to article 18. They did it because Russian authorities understood that Article 18(2) prohibits reviving works whose term already expired. This is an international treaty, at the end Russia had to accept it. If China had intended to revive works that already fell into the public domain under the 1984 regulations, it would have needed to make a similar declaration or reservation—which it did not.

Let's do the URAA test:
  • If a Chinese work's 30-year term under the 1984 regulations expired before June 1, 1991. (Any infringements of copyright and the copyright-related rights or breaches of contract committed prior to the entry into force of 1991 law shall be dealt with under the relevant regulations or policies in force at the time when the act was committed.)
  • The 1991 law did not revive it (Berne Article 18(2); China Article 59(2))
  • Therefore, the URAA cannot restore US copyright for that work
TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

File:Dr. Dudley Allen.jpg File:Henry Picard.jpg File:Cat and Claret.jpg and File:Horace Chapman Rose.jpg have all been deleted from my uploads.

Ticket#: 2026020510007253

A user named Whyiseverthingalreadyused went and deleted four of my portrait images and many other images that I inserted into Wikipedia biographies, all in one day of vandalism. He also deleted some text I added. He somehow got the idea that I am not who I say I am, and am infringing on the copyright of the rightful artist.

I have so far uploaded 20 of my oil painting portraits onto Wikimedia Commons. All but three of them were also uploaded by me onto Wikipedia biography pages of the people featured in the paintings. So far the specific deletions that have been carried out by the user Whyiseverthingalreadyused are as follows:

File:Dr. Dudley Allen.jpg was deleted from my Uploads Page on Wikimedia Commons. It is one of the three that I had not yet uploaded to his biographical page because I also wanted to add some biographical information along with the picture and hadn't gotten around to it yet.

File:Henry Picard.jpg is another picture deleted from my Uploads Page, and also one that I had not yet uploaded to Picard's biography page.

File:Cat and Claret.jpg has also been deleted from my Uploads Page, and it has also been deleted from the biography page of William Marshall Wright, who is pictured in the painting along with his wife.

File:Robert B. Krupansky.jpg and File:Robert B. Krupansky Sketch.jpg were both deleted from the biography page of Robert B. Krupansky. Curiously, they were not deleted from my Uploads Page, though it is noted in my Uploads Log that the Krupansky Sketch is marked for deletion.

File:Horace Chapman Rose.jpg and File:Horace Chapman Rose - Sketch.jpg were both deleted from the biography page of H. Chapman Rose. The File:Horace Chapman Rose.jpg was also deleted from my Uploads Page, but not the Sketch.

File:Alexander Shabalov Smiling.jpg and File:Alexander Shabalov Contemplating.jpg were both deleted from the biography page of Alexander Shabalov. The pictures were not deleted from my Uploads Page. Also some significant biographical information about Shabalov's performance in Chess Olympiads that was added by me, was also deleted.

File:Marian K. Shaughnessy.jpg was deleted from the Wikipedia page on the Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing. The file was not deleted from my Uploads Page.

File:Dr. Tommaso Falcone.jpg was deleted from the Wikipedia page on Robotic Surgery. The picture was not deleted from my Uploads Page. The user Whyiseverythingalreadyused also made two more edits on that page on the same day, unrelated to my painting.

File:Dr. Irwin Marcus & son Dr. Randall Marcus.jpg was deleted from the biography page of Irwin Marcus. The picture was not deleted from my Uploads Page.

Can you please help?

Steven Seward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Seward (talk • contribs) 05:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We do not keep art unless both the subject and the artist are themselves notable. I think these are marginal on both counts. I suggest you return here when you have an article on WP:EN (written, as required there, by someone entirely independent of you) or other evidence that you are using these for more than just advertising. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A small correction, if I may: Of course we also keep art by notable artists where the subject isn't notable or even unknown (like in en:Portrait of a Man (Rembrandt, New York)). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen above, most of the files mentioned above have not been deleted from Commons, but merely removed from a WP/EN article. It is likely that two of the red links above actually should be:

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rechtswidrig entfernte Bilder in "Kundelfingen" und "Mühle Willisdorf" wieder herstellenerstellen. Siehe User talk: Cunolf

Auf Vorschlag von Gestumblindi (s unten, aus User talk: Cunolf) wende ich mit der Bitte an sie, alle entfernten Bilder der o erw Artikel nun definitiv wieder herzustellen. Die einzelnen Bildlisten mit Begründungen sind in den Diskussionen in User talk: Cunolf, vor der Eingabe von Gestumblindie, ausführlich ersichtlich. Nun nach veschiedenen Eingaben bitte ich sie eingehend, um Umsetzung. Danke; Gruss Cunolf--Cunolf (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years Hallo Didym und Cunolf; Cunolf hat sich in dieser Sache an Wikimedia CH gewandt, WMCH seinerseits hat mich als Commons-Admin kontaktiert und mich gefragt, ob ich mir die Sache mal anschauen kann. Soviel ich sehe, wären das, soweit anwendbar, eher Fälle für {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}}, da sich Cunolf auf diese Bestimmung beruft (Urheberrechtsgesetz Art. 29, Absatz 2a bis: Schutz für Fotografien "ohne individuellen Charakter" nur für 50 Jahre nach Herstellung). Das Problem ist, dass man über den "individuellen Charakter" im Einzelfall streiten kann, das ist nicht so einfach wie der Ablauf des Urheberrechts 70 Jahre nach dem Tode des Urhebers bei Werken mit individuellem Charakter. Bis zur Einführung dieses Schutzes 2020 waren Fotos ohne "individuellen Charakter" in der Schweiz ja gar nicht geschützt, und das Bundesgericht ist sehr weit darin gegangen, siehe en:Copyright_law_of_Switzerland#Lack_of_originality - selbst diesem Foto des mit Aktenbänden posierenden Wachmanns Meili wurde der individuelle Charakter abgesprochen, es war also nach damaliger Rechtslage in der Schweiz gar nicht geschützt (jetzt bis 2047, da es 1997 entstanden ist). Für einen formal korrekten Ablauf möchte ich Cunolf vorschlagen, über Commons:Undeletion requests alle Fotos aufzuführen, die aus seiner Sicht wiederhergestellt werden sollten, mit der jeweiligen Begründung und welche Lizenz anzuwenden sei (in diesem Fall wohl eben meistens {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}}). Gestumblindi (Diskussion) 15:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Danke Gestumbindi für deinen Vorschlag, den ich befolgen werde. Die entsprechende Liste mit Begründung ist übrigens auf dieser Seite weiter oben bereits hinreichend ersichtlich. Sollte doch eigentlich klar sein. Gruss Cunolf Cunolf (Diskussion) 12:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose No images are named. User:Cunolf has a number of deleted images:

File:KH Aquarell Hulftegger v Westen.jpg oil painting still under Swiss and URRA copyright.
File:Mähdrescher Marsey Harris Clipper.jpg photograph, also still under both copyrights.
File:KH Quellabfluss vor 1909 hoche Aufl.jpg. photo or painting, possibly PD
File:KH Dampfdreschsatz Basadingen.pdf line drawings. Probably under URAA copyright.
File:MW Fam. Bachmann 1947.jpg 1947 family photo. Probably under URAA copyright. Scope?

And several others. Cunolf claimed that he was the actual photographer of all of these, which is impossible for some, improbable for others. It is hard, therefore, to be sure that what he says is accurate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion to Cunolf which he quotes above was to request undeletion for the images he thinks should be restored as {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} (or other applicable license) listing each image individually with a reasoning and the proposed license ("über Commons:Undeletion requests alle Fotos aufzuführen, die aus seiner Sicht wiederhergestellt werden sollten, mit der jeweiligen Begründung und welche Lizenz anzuwenden sei"). This he needs to do himself. I agree that this blanket undeletion request is insufficient, as at least some of the deleted photos will not be eligible for restoration even under the proposed "50 years after creation for photos without individual character" Swiss regulation, as per Jim's examples. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grant Report SUPER SIGN.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: : Well this is awkward. I accidentally uploaded that file while mass exporting Meta files, and so I marked it for deletion as it was out of scope. Between the time of marking it for deletion and it actually getting deleted though, the local copy was deleted, meaning there is now a big ugly redlink in the transcluding page. Can someone temporarily restore the file so I can reupload it onto Meta‐wiki? ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 05:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anohthterwikipedian
Hello, I suggest you ask a Meta-Wiki administrator to undelete the local copy instead. Otherwise, Request temporary undeletion
Best, Wikisquack (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hugo Chávez Frías.jpg

Although the original Flickr upload is licensed as "All rights reserved", which reads:

"The content owner retains all rights provided by copyright law. As such, you cannot reproduce, distribute and/or adapt any part of the work without permission",

which would by itself would be grounds for removal, according to the Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras (Labor Law), of 7 May 2012, Article 325:

Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector—or financed through public funds—that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recognition,

permission to use this image is given by the previously mentioned law releasing works like it into the public domain.

As such, I believe that the photo should be reinstated, since the image was uploaded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' (a ministry of the Venezuelan government, making it part of the public sector) official Flickr account, with the image being, according to said account's profile, courtesy of the Presidential Press (also part of the Venezuelan government and public sector). thinqpad (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been recently uploading multiple Venezuelan media from official sources, so I like this proposal of undeletion (also related to this discussion, check Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by NoonIcarus).
For a Chávez portait, however, I'd like to ask: When was the file released on a Government-owned channel (Flickr, in this case)? Was it prior or after the May 2012 date? I'm not sure if the law is retroactive. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good question; to begin, the image was released in April 2012. Regardless, the law is retroactive, since all works previously made or owned by the Government were released into the public domain through it, including, for example, a previous portrait of Chávez. The copyright already belonged to the government; as previously mentioned, the law just served as a way to release the works it owned already. thinqpad (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So who is the photographer that has a legal right to be recognised for her or his work? Thuresson (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Government hasn't shared their name, all we know that the copyright currently belongs to it. They were the first to publish the image, after all. thinqpad (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no evidence at all that suggests that the photographer is a government employee or that the photographer was paid by the government to take the photo? Instead it may be a press photographer and the government does not own the copyright? Thuresson (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It says "foto oficial" and it's published by the Venezuelan cancillería. I believe it is safe to be assumed the "foto oficial" of the Venezuelan government was indeed made by a government employee (or it's a corporate work, anyway).
Indeed, because it is a Corporate Work, it even seems logical to me they don't share the photographers name (they don't need to).
To me the important question is if the (Labor Law), of 7 May 2012, Article 325 of Venezuela is retroactive or not. Questioning if an official portait published by the government could have been license-washed is not what I believe should be done in this conversation, In my humble opinion. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Who spoke of license washing? The photo is not licensed. The ministry states that it is all rights reserved, not free. The burden is on who claims that they know better than the ministry to present convincing reasons to contradict the statement, and prove that the photo is free in the United States and in its source country. Even in the hypothesis that the photo were uncopyrightable or otherwise free in its source country, no rationale has been offered for why it could be free in the United States. For the status inside Venezuela, as discussed in previous discussions, it seems a shaky theory to extract out of its context a bit of sentence from the Law on the Labour norms, and try to apply it to general copyrights. It seems that we do not have doctrine from Venezuelan legal professionals about that theory. (And I don't know if anyone has found what was the result of the constitutional challenge of that particular part of the Labour law.) -- Asclepias (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The ministry states that it is all rights reserved, not free

Where? {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} clearly applies here, and (Labor Law), of 7 May 2012, Article 325 has been applied in Venezuela, so, whether you like or hate the government, the law does apply. And any work in PD in the home country is also in the US, the exception were the works restored by URAA 1st January 1996, and this file was created after the date.

(And I don't know if anyone has found what was the result of the constitutional challenge of that particular part of the Labour law.)

Yes, the law remained: I couldn't find the exact rulings, but here is a 2024 text proposing changes to the law, antoher work critising the law, but pundits complaining does not make a law null. It seems obvious the Venezuelan courts are applying the law, otherwise there won't be articles critizing it.
So,  Keep the file, forward with undeletion. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Where?" At the source, of course, at the ministry account. It is the reason why there was a deletion and why there is this undeletion nomination here. It is copied and linked by the nominator at the top of the discussion. So, "whether you like or hate the government", the burden is to prove the opinion that the government is lying or wrong when it states that this photo is all rights reserved. About "any work in PD in the home country is also in the US", that's not how it works. A work that is copyrightable in the U.S. and is published after 1989 gets a copyright in the U.S., independently of its copyright status in other countries. A photo published in 2012 got a U.S. copyright. On the Venezuela side, thank you for the mention of the judgments. Are there links to online copies, by chance? Does one of the three contain something relevant for this issue? If so, I certainly would read it. The issue being if and how a bit of the Labour law outside of its immediate context could be invoked to trump the copyright law in matters of artistic copyright (not industrial process). -- Asclepias (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the constitutional aspect, I'm happy to just assume that the Labour law is constitutional. There's no need to go out of your way to find more about it. I was asking mostly in the possibility that a decision might also contain something that could bring some light about the opinion of the user who added the bit to PD-VenezuelaGov, which seems a stretch in the absence of at least doctrinal support. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:An illegal Cuban migrant beheads a motel owner in Dallas, Texas (10 September 2025).webm

The servers are located in the US. Commons should not be subject to non-copyright laws of Australia--Trade (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sj Gh4.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: cbv Bruno45654564 (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose: reason is nonsense + https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Sj+Gh4.gif Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 05:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
sulutil:Bruno45654564 also shows that the uploader is indeffed on en.wikt and blocked for two weeks on simple.wikt Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aigaleo Flag.png

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

It was licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 Miraitowa963 (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraitowa963: and where is the licence? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lilith Bardakçı giving a presentation on Lubunca in Boğaziçi University.webp

The image seems to be deleted due to copyright violations that are not there. As can be seen in the description of that post, it says that it is released under CC BY-SA 4.0 which is accepted by Commons.--1denizakdemir (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what is the post you mentioned? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well nvm
I just saw User talk:1denizakdemir § File copyright status; immediate  Support Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I informed 1denizakdemir about the issue. Instagram post's descriptions can be edited freely, and we don't know who the copyright holder is. I addressed VRT to the uploader for a valid and permanent permission. After this, I was planning to undelete the image. As an administrator, I am required to protect the copyright holders' rights. Kadı Message 13:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm, I think I AGF'd a bit too hard
 Oppose until VRT arrives Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 13:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@1denizakdemir, undeleted per VRT permission (2026032210002974). Kadı Message 09:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. This can be closed now. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Permission OK now. --Yann (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:RegistroDocumento202-2024.png

Respaldo seguridad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulsjil (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is a personal file from a non-contributor. The reason given above is not valid. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose: I know some Spanish; I searched wikt:respaldo and, in a computing-specific sense, it means "backup"
Neither am I all that inclined to AGF of their 58 deleted edits on Wikidata Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kwame Baah ......jpg

The photographer (Sarkodie Atta Philip ) has sent permission via the Wikimedia VRT system to release this image under a free license. Kindly restore the file once the ticket is processed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegacyEmpire (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. Nothing to do here. Once the VRT ticket is received, accepted and processed, the file will be automatically restored. Taivo (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Legimedia - Votre partenaire en droit social.png

Bonjour,

Je souhaiterais le rétablissement de cette image.

Je ne vois pas en quoi elle enfreint le règlement, puisqu'il s'agit seulement du logo de mon entreprise.

Merci de votre compréhension.

Bonne journée, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legimedia (talk • contribs) 11:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Legimedia: Bonjour, En quoi ce fichier remplit les conditions de notabilité de Wikimedia Commons ? Quelle utilité éducative a-t-il ? Merci de lire COM:ADVERT/fr. Yann (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:WALV-CD (2019).svg

The logo is in the public domain freely and was found on Logopedia. (https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/WALV-CD) OWaunTon (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support: per COM:TOO US, text is not copyrightable under American federal law
I might notify Fandom of a false CC–BY–SA claim Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michael Levinson - Independent Director and Strategic Advisor.jpg

The file was deleted under CSD F10 ("personal photos by non-contributors"). I am requesting undeletion for the following reasons:

The subject of the photograph is Michael Levinson, who served as Board Chair of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO), a statutory regulator under Ontario's Travel Industry Act, 2002, appointed by the provincial Minister of Government and Consumer Services. This is a documented public official role, not a private personal photo.

Independent, serious, publicly available references confirming the subject's public role:

  1. Ontario Public Appointments Secretariat (Ontario government appointee registry): https://www.pas.gov.on.ca/Home/AgencyBios/253?appointmentId=8827
  2. Ontario Office of the Auditor General — Value-for-Money Audit of TICO (December 2023): https://auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en23/AR_travelTICO_en23.pdf
  3. Travelweek (independent trade press), appointment announcement May 11 2021: https://www.travelweek.ca/news/tico-welcomes-new-board-chair/
  4. Open Jaw (independent trade press), appointment announcement May 12 2021: https://openjaw.com/newsroom/people/2021/05/12/tico-announces-new-board-chair-michael-levinson/
  5. Travelweek, departure announcement naming Levinson as outgoing Chair (February 2026): https://www.travelweek.ca/news/policies/former-westjet-vp-andrew-gibbons-appointed-chair-of-tico-board/

The image was uploaded to serve as the P18 (image) property for Wikidata item d:Q138568694, which documents this verified public official. The uploader account (m7evinson) was recently created specifically for this Wikimedia contribution. I am the subject of the photograph and the copyright holder, and I release this image under CC BY-SA 4.0.M7evinson (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I see no first page Google hits or WP:EN article for this Michael Levinson, so the scope question is certainly not obvious. However I also see that upload describes this as "Professional headshot of Michael Levinson". The uploader and requester, User:M7evinson, may or may not be the subject of the photo, but it would be an unlikely coincidence that he is the same person as the professional who took the photograph. I think it is out of scope, but even if my colleagues decide otherwise, I think it will require a free license from the actual photographer vie VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I want to address the scope concern directly —
there are in fact substantial independent references for this subject that
may not have surfaced in a basic search.
Michael Levinson served as Board Chair of the Travel Industry Council of
Ontario (TICO) from May 2021 to February 2026 — a ministerial appointment
under Ontario's Travel Industry Act, 2002. This is documented by:
  1. Ontario Public Appointments Secretariat (Ontario government's official
appointee registry):
https://www.pas.gov.on.ca/Home/AgencyBios/253?appointmentId=8827
  1. Travelweek (major Canadian travel trade publication), appointment
announcement May 11 2021:
https://www.travelweek.ca/news/tico-welcomes-new-board-chair/
  1. Open Jaw (independent trade press), appointment announcement May 12 2021:
https://openjaw.com/newsroom/people/2021/05/12/tico-announces-new-board-chair-michael-levinson/
  1. Travel Industry Today, appointment announcement:
https://travelindustrytoday.com/new-chair-for-tico/
  1. Travelweek, departure announcement February 2026 naming Levinson as
outgoing Chair after nearly five years:
https://www.travelweek.ca/news/policies/former-westjet-vp-andrew-gibbons-appointed-chair-of-tico-board/
  1. Ontario Office of the Auditor General — Value-for-Money Audit of TICO
(December 2023), an independent legislative audit of the organization he
chaired:
https://auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en23/AR_travelTICO_en23.pdf
  1. TICO–Minister Administrative Agreement (June 2024), signed by Michael
Levinson as "Chair of the Board" — a legal instrument co-signed with the
Ontario Minister:
https://tico.ca/files/Updated_TICO_and_MPBSDP_Administrative_Agreement_-_June_17_2024.pdf
Regarding copyright: the photo was taken during a TICO-organized
photo shoot. The photographer's name is identified in the file's
metadata. I am in the process of contacting the photographer
directly to submit a VRT release to
permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I expect to have this
confirmed within a few days.
I am the subject of the photograph (User:M7evinson = Michael Levinson).
M7evinson (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Per COM:VRT, "I am the copyright owner but my file has been previously published without a free license on a medium I can't alter" is a circumstance when "you must send an email to the VRTS system" (bold added). This image was previously here; here; etc. and the uploaded image includes EXIF data that say "Artist: lindsey macdonald photogra...", understood to be this photographer. Whether this subject is notable or not, VRT is mandatory and your representation at uploader of being the author is a demonstrable untruth ("I am the subject of the photograph (User:M7evinson = Michael Levinson)" ≠ Lindsey Macdonald). Эlcobbola talk 18:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding copyright: the photo was taken during a TICO-organized photo shoot. The photographer's name is identified in the file's metadata. I am in the process of reaching out to TICO to get the photographer's contact info so I can contact the photographer directly to submit a VRT release to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I expect to have this confirmed within a few days.
I am the subject of the photograph (User:M7evinson = Michael Levinson).
~2026-18009-18 (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have located the photographer's contact information directly
(Lindsey MacDonald Photography). I have sent an email requesting that
they submit the required VRT release to
permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I will update this request once
confirmation is received. M7evinson (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"I will update this request once confirmation is received" - Please read our instructions, critically, and do not. The top of this very page says, in "{{big|" letters, "If you want to prove that you, or a person you are representing, has indeed released under a free licence a file deleted for lack of compatible licensing, do not come here" (bold in original) and Commons:Undeletion requests includes "If you have already [followed the procedure for submitting permission evidence], there is no need to request undeletion here". The VRT member who processes the ticket will take the appropriate actions. Эlcobbola talk 19:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sinn Sisamouth c. 1966.jpg or File:Sinn Sisamouth Portrait 1960s.jpg

So, here I am, back with another undeletion request regarding a photo of Sinn Sisamouth. The following files were (if my memory serves be correctly) identical with the only different being resolution, so whichever is better should be undeleted.

Both were uploaded by @CiteMeToSleep: from this entry in the eLibrary of Cambodia. They are authorized and funded by the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport in addition to the Buddhist Institute.

They include a statement at the footer of their website that states: អ្វីៗទាំងអស់ដែលតម្កល់ទុកនៅក្នុង បណ្ណាល័យអេឡិចត្រូនិចខ្មែរ ជាសម្បតិ្តរបស់ខ្មែរទាំងអស់គ្នា សម្រាប់បម្រើជាប្រយោជន៍សាធារណៈ ដោយមិនគិតរក និងយកកម្រៃ ព្រមទាំង អាចឱ្យយើងខ្ញុំបានជួយប្រទេសជាតិ បានមួយភាគតូចផងដែរ។ this can be translated as "Everything stored in the eLibrary of Cambodia is the collective heritage of all Cambodians, intended to serve the public benefit without seeking or charging fees, and it also allows us to contribute a small part to the country."

Before talking about the concise rationale of deletion, I'd like to mention that there is a removal process if copyright is granted to an heir of whose materials are provided. This is because Article 19 of Cambodia's law of copyright and related rights states: In case of having no heir, this right will be subjected to the administration and governance of the state represented by the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts. Due to the deaths as a result of Khmer Rouge, a lot of artists's copyrights were transferred to the government, and later granted (like what happened to some of Sisamouth's songs).

There's several rationales to how the files are allowed on Commons: PD-CambodiaGov under "other instructed curriculars" or Copyrighted free use. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:VIA Samotsvety at SPIEF 2004.jpg

There is a ticket about it in VRT, but the best confirmation of an authorship is here (it is an official page where the photo was published at the beginning, it mentions the license and an author, so it should be License Reviewed). Анастасия Львоваru/en 19:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lilypichy.jpg

File:Lilypichy.jpg

Honestly, I was looking for images of kittens in the Commons library on Wikipedia, but I couldn't find any beautiful kitten pictures. I know that my camera quality may not be the best and that I'm not a photographer, but I treasure these photos in my personal archive because they represent my pets in the most beautiful and emblematic way. I took the time to upload them because I genuinely want to share them with the world. It seems a bit unfair that these lovely images are not considered for use in wikipedias around the world, especially when there are so few available in the archives that help us create content. If I'm mistaken in my thinking or in how I should use the foundation's resources, I would really appreciate any educational feedback on that. I don't want to keep making mistakes or waste time trying to share things I consider useful and beautiful. I apologize if this sounds offensive, but I believe that beauty, especially the beauty of nature, is one of the deepest treasures we can share, and that was my intention when uploading my images to Commons. Versión en Español: Asunto: Sobre Mis Fotos de Gatitos en Commons La verdad, estuve buscando imágenes de gatitos en la biblioteca Commons de Wikipedia, pero no encontré fotos bonitas de ellos. Sé que quizás la calidad de mi cámara no sea la mejor y que no soy fotógrafo, pero estas fotos son especiales para mí; las guardo en mi archivo personal porque representan a mis mascotas de la manera más hermosa y emblemática. Dedique tiempo a subirlas porque realmente quiero compartirlas con el mundo. Me parece un poco injusto que no se consideren estas lindas imágenes para ser utilizadas en las wikipedias de todo el mundo, especialmente cuando hay tan pocas disponibles en los archivos que nos ayudan a crear contenido. Si estoy equivocado en mi forma de pensar o en cómo debería usar los recursos de la fundación, agradecería mucho algún comentario educativo al respecto. No quiero seguir cometiendo errores ni perder tiempo tratando de compartir cosas que considero útiles y hermosas. Disculpen si esto suena ofensivo, pero creo que la belleza, especialmente la belleza de lo natural, es uno de los tesoros más profundos que podemos compartir, y esa era mi intención al subir mis imágenes a Commons. Zivv11 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2026 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zivv11 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Svetlana Kopylova portrait.jpg

ticket:2026020110002836 is finally approved. Анастасия Львоваru/en 19:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gatitos 1 mes.jpg

Honestly, I was looking for images of kittens in the Commons library on Wikipedia, but I couldn't find any beautiful kitten pictures. I know that my camera quality may not be the best and that I'm not a photographer, but I treasure these photos in my personal archive because they represent my pets in the most beautiful and emblematic way. I took the time to upload them because I genuinely want to share them with the world. It seems a bit unfair that these lovely images are not considered for use in wikipedias around the world, especially when there are so few available in the archives that help us create content. If I'm mistaken in my thinking or in how I should use the foundation's resources, I would really appreciate any educational feedback on that. I don't want to keep making mistakes or waste time trying to share things I consider useful and beautiful. I apologize if this sounds offensive, but I believe that beauty, especially the beauty of nature, is one of the deepest treasures we can share, and that was my intention when uploading my images to Commons. Versión en Español: Asunto: Sobre Mis Fotos de Gatitos en Commons La verdad, estuve buscando imágenes de gatitos en la biblioteca Commons de Wikipedia, pero no encontré fotos bonitas de ellos. Sé que quizás la calidad de mi cámara no sea la mejor y que no soy fotógrafo, pero estas fotos son especiales para mí; las guardo en mi archivo personal porque representan a mis mascotas de la manera más hermosa y emblemática. Dedique tiempo a subirlas porque realmente quiero compartirlas con el mundo. Me parece un poco injusto que no se consideren estas lindas imágenes para ser utilizadas en las wikipedias de todo el mundo, especialmente cuando hay tan pocas disponibles en los archivos que nos ayudan a crear contenido. Si estoy equivocado en mi forma de pensar o en cómo debería usar los recursos de la fundación, agradecería mucho algún comentario educativo al respecto. No quiero seguir cometiendo errores ni perder tiempo tratando de compartir cosas que considero útiles y hermosas. Disculpen si esto suena ofensivo, pero creo que la belleza, especialmente la belleza de lo natural, es uno de los tesoros más profundos que podemos compartir, y esa era mi intención al subir mis imágenes a Commons. Zivv11 (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

File:FamiliaSuperFeliz com - FSF.jpg

File:FamiliaSuperFeliz com - FSF.jpg Subject: About My Public Wikipedia: FamiliaSuperFeliz.com My public Wikipedia is called FamiliaSuperFeliz.com. If you take a moment to review it, you'll find alternative yet common materials and research focused on humanity, family, and happiness as the main pillars of knowledge we share in this MediaWiki module that we have created since August 2025. This wiki was born over 15 years ago but faded away due to lack of support. Now, it is being revitalized to promote knowledge that we believe is valuable for everyone, and in this process, I aspire to share the amazing and useful aspects of MediaWiki technology. Please support us in this endeavor; it’s clear that this is personal material promoting our Wikipedia. Although we currently have only a thousand publications, we are striving to create something of human value. While it may be personal at the moment, if we are allowed to grow, I assure you we can share a message that will not just be personal but global. In fact, this wiki is already ranked No. 1 on many web search engines for the keywords "Familia Super Feliz." Versión en Español: Asunto: Sobre Mi Wikipedia Pública: FamiliaSuperFeliz.com Mi Wikipedia pública se llama FamiliaSuperFeliz.com. Si se toma un momento para revisarla, encontrará material alternativo pero común y investigaciones centradas en el ser humano, la familia y la felicidad como los ejes principales del conocimiento que compartimos en este módulo de MediaWiki que hemos creado desde agosto de 2025. Esta wiki nació hace más de 15 años, pero murió por falta de apoyo. Ahora vuelve a renacer para promover conocimientos que creemos valiosos para cualquier persona, y en ese mismo proceso, mi anhelo es compartir lo genial y útil de la tecnología MediaWiki. Por favor, apóyenos en esta encomienda; es obvio que se trata de material personal que promueve nuestra Wikipedia. A pesar de que actualmente solo tenemos mil publicaciones, estamos tratando de crear algo con valor humano. Claro, ahora es personal, pero si nos permiten crecer, les aseguro que podremos compartir un mensaje que no será solo personal, sino mundial. De hecho, esta wiki ya ocupa la posición No. 1 en muchos buscadores de la web si buscan las palabras "Familia Super Feliz." Zivv11 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zivv11 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Er... see w:WP:Wall of text please
 Oppose together with Lilypichy.jpg and Gatitos 1 mes.jpg Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just nominated all of OP's live images for speedy deletion as the personal pictures of a non-contributor. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Victims of Communism Memorial 2.jpg

@Jcb: Should have never been undeleted in the first place per previous discussion found at Commons:Deletion requests/Goddess of Democracy images--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast: you forgot the mandatory colon in before the rest of the file link when naming this section; I've added it Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 23:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=1151099667"