Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page

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

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 1 reason • 2 subpages) • 0 malformed
8 copyvios • 187 duplicates • 5 selfies • 1 other
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:Guillermo Francos - Retrato Oficial 2024.png

This image comes from the official portal *Mapa del Estado* (https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/), which belongs to the Argentina.gob.ar portal. In the "About" section of Argentina.gob.ar it is expressly indicated that the published content can be copied and redistributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, the same license through which I uploaded the images to Wikipedia Commons.

For this reason, I believe that the files do not violate any copyright regulations and I request that should be undeleted. Expressly the source and license are as follows:
- Source: https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/ministerios/Jefatura-de-Gabinete-de-Ministros/48/detalle
- Portal licensing policy: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca
KmiKC16 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the same case with these other portraits that I have uploaded, as I detail them below:

KmiKC16 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have undeleted these files. Could someone speaking Spanish confirm that the license is valid please? If that is the case, they should be {{Licensereview}}. Yann (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support @Yann: per Yann, but i speak in Spanish but im not a licensereviewer (https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca) but in Spanish says:Por supuesto. Podés copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato y adaptarlo para cualquier propósito, incluso comercial, siempre que cumplas con los términos de la licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional. También podés compartir un trámite, una noticia o una página en tus redes sociales. La información de Argentina.gob.ar es pública, es de todos nosotros. (ENG:Of course. You can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and adapt it for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you comply with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY-4.0). You can also share a procedure, a news story, or a page on your social media. The information on Argentina.gob.ar is public; it belongs to all of us.) AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca is for content from https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ (the actual T&C is here https://www.argentina.gob.ar/terminos-y-condiciones). These images were taken from https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/, a different website. Günther Frager (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't vote either for or against this request, since I was the one who originally nominated the files for speedy deletion. However, to give my opinion: as Günther Frager mentioned, I requested deletion because the files were taken from mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar, which is not the official government website. Therefore, the CC-AR-ArgentinaGobAr license, nor any of the licenses listed in Category:License tags of Argentina, would apply as far as I am aware. Franco Brignone • Talkpage 11:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/ is an official service that depends on the Jefatura de Gabinete de Ministros (under the national government) which content is part of what is published in Argentina.gob.ar, as seen at https://www.argentina.gob.ar/desregulacion/mapa-del-estado, I believe that it is reasonable to consider that it's content is covered by those policies. KmiKC16 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think gob.ar is not a government website? @Franco Brignone Bedivere (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere, "Which is not 'the' official government website." I never claimed it was not government-managed; it is a subdomain, not the main site. As Günther Frager pointed out in the comment below, even subdomains of the official site can operate under different licenses that may conflict with the free license stated on argentina.gob.ar. Assuming that every subdomain automatically has the same license requires more careful consideration, both for Argentina and for other countries with similar cases. This issue perhaps deserves a more detailed discussion, not necessarily in an undeletion request. As I mentioned, I do not believe a free license would apply, but that is just my reasoning when adding the deletion tag. Regards, Franco Brignone • Talkpage 06:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two different webpages and they don't have the same content (one has photos the other does not). Besides assumptions are not real evidence Take a look at https://casarosada.gob.ar it has a slightly different license. It has a CC-BY 2.5 while https://argentina.gob.ar CC-BY 4.0. Even better, take a look at https://cursos.argentina.gob.ar/ that is a subdomain of https://argentina.gob.ar, it has an incompatible CC-BY-NC license! To avoid headaches we should stick to website with known licenses, argentina.gob.ar has plenty of material, e.g. https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/styles/cuadrada/public/2024/04/francos_1.jpg (found at https://www.argentina.gob.ar/jefatura/) . Günther Frager (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Günther Frager you might have a fair point. Still, I believe these images are free to be copied and redistributed since we are talking about the official portraits of Argentinian ministers. I will search information to back this belief. However, as I do not possess that evidence now, you may delete these images. I will request another Undeletion if I find proof of what I am claiming. Regards. KmiKC16 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Any more opinions about this? Yann (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the terms of Argentina.gob.ar apply to Mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar. This is because the "State map" is published as a sub-site of the Argentina.gob.ar website. The National Direction of Organizational Design linked in the Mapadelestado site is located at Argentina.gob.ar. Furthermore, jefatura.gob.ar redirects to Argentina.gob.ar. To me it is pretty clear the license does apply to this website. Bedivere (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, Argentina.gob.ar does contain official portraits, although slightly different to the ones at the Mapadelestado website. See for example: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/styles/cuadrada/public/2016/03/francos.jpg and https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/back/imagenes/perfil/001.png Bedivere (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have requested a {{Licensereview}} of these files. Yann (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:57528 at Chunxilu (20250403173810).jpg

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

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

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

Various Pokémon Jet images taken before 2012

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA B767-381 JA8578 Pokemon-Jet98.jpg, images taken before 2012 that any amendments to Japanese copyright law in 2012 would not apply unless they were specifically made retroactive. So old COM:DM Japan law still apply. 6D (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken (by using Google Translate), there's nothing as "Old De minimis law in Japan", I checked https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/8881 (titled as "Copyright Act (Act No. 48 of May 6, 1970, as amended up to Act No. 65 of December 3, 2010)", closest to the claimed amendment in 2012. But I think that "2012" may be a typo - the next amendment visible in the WIPO database is in 2015, which indeed has a content as quoted on COM: DM Japan.
As there was nothing limiting the IP rights of rightholders in regard to De minimis before 2012/2015, and afterwards only if the use made of copyrighted materials does not prejudice the lawful exploitation of IP material, a restauration of these images isn't sensible (COM:PRP. And the latest closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA B767-381 JA8578 Pokemon-Jet98.jpg seems bold, maybe too much so, in retrospect (@Abzeronow: what do you think?)... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was relying on the previous DR closes and the comments made by Infrogmation. Perhaps it was a bold close, but I didn't think at the time that I should overturn decisions made by Jcb and Ellin Beltz. Abzeronow (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I think the pokémon of All Nippon Airways is being the De minimis in Japan who taken the photo is not copyright violation. 114.8.218.232 06:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you're not saying why you think so, this kind of voting is rather pointless. It's not a good argument. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "does not prejudice the lawful exploitation of IP material" is a common FOP restriction that Commons allows, and this section of law reads more like a FOP article than DM. I think a more relevant restriction is the one requiring the copyrighted work to be "minor components" of the article being photographed. This would be hard to justify if the whole plane is painted as pikachu. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jet2Logo.svg

After THJ v Sheridan case in 2023, TOO UK has significantly risen since the deletion, Per the logo as it appears on Wikipedia, it appears to be below TOO. 6D (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support this logo it’s below new UK TOO ({{TOO-UK}}),the logo consists a J colour red (inside a J it’s a icon of airplane for example this (File:Black airplane 3 icon.png),combined with this icon of airplane is not surpassed of the threshold of originality. (Google translator)
AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BAAG-StAAG Bahia series (F.MG-0001 to F.MG-0003)

https://www.ag.ch/staatsarchiv/suche/detail.aspx?id=303168

|1=Files deleted automatically due to unclear license |2=Please restore the following files which were deleted by AntiCompositeBot:

These images are part of the Bibliothek und Archiv Aargau (BAAG-StAAG) collection "Mittelschweizerische Geographisch-Commercielle Gesellschaft" (https://www.ag.ch/staatsarchiv/suche/detail.aspx?ID=2361). I currently work with this project, and these files were part of a **test upload using OpenRefine** to connect our institutional catalog with Wikimedia Commons.

The photographs date from **1885** and are **public domain** due to their age and the fact that the author has been deceased well before 1955. The original upload included {{PD-old}} / {{PD-mark}} tags, but the bot flagged them because the license was not properly rendered in the wikitext (it was included only in the structured data).

All metadata — including creator, date, and institutional source — were correctly provided in the structured data fields via OpenRefine.

I request that these files be **restored** so that we can manually add the correct {{PD-old}} or {{PD-scan}} license tags and complete the project upload.

Thank you for your help and understanding! --Bibliothek und Archiv Aargau (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support These show "1885" on their face, so they can be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support but  Comment I'm a bit confused. There was 2 deletions: one for missing license (that could easily be fixed and AFAIK it was fixed) and an other one for file corruption (which I do not see). @Johnj1995 and Túrelio: before I grant the undeletion, could you tell us a bit more what was the problem so the Archives can fix it? (when I look at the deleted file into the history, I can see it without any problem). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up the request, which was duplicative and confusing. It is possible that the file problem came from someone who can't see TIFFs, but the three files look good to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that after the 1st deletion the file desc page was recreated without a file having been uploaded. So Túrelio deleted it as file page without file.  Support undeletion. --Achim55 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oreocookielogo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This logo is above as "COM:TOO US" however given that, "File:Oreologo2001.png" is being restored to Commons not a under fair use as File:Oreo Cookie logo.png is being deleted at Wikipedia and has been deleted is file available on Commons. So, I should be undeleted at Commons and restored instead. 114.10.47.194 14:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support As a general rule, anything that is solely text and not long enough to have a literary copyright, cannot have a US copyright. That includes words in fancy fonts. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The plastics shed logo.png

I am the owner of The Plastics Shed Ltd and the creator of the logo in question. I uploaded the file myself and hold full copyright. I am releasing this logo under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0). This file was deleted under CSD F10, but it is not a personal photo — it is an original company logo that I am freely licensing for use on Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Please restore it so I can add the correct {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} license template.

Theplasticsshed (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is a very small, new this year, company, out of scope for Commons and WP:EN, see https://open.endole.co.uk/insight/company/16260055-the-plastics-shed-ltd. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Out of COM:SCOPE per Jim and the deleting admin. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CDO 50th OMNIBUS WHITE BG FA.jpg

This image shows a lineup of CDO Foodsphere products and is relevant to the company's history and product diversity. It was uploaded to support the Wikipedia article on CDO Foodsphere. The image is not promotional and is used to illustrate the company's product range. It should be undeleted for use in the article.--SEOpraktiser (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Nothing said above addresses the problem here -- that all of the packaging is copyrighted and the image infringes on the copyrights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khawaja_Ahmadullah_Wani.jpg

request for Undeletion as i have license of that photo and am providing open license to everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri historian (talk • contribs) 09:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri historian: This is obviously a picture of a picture. Please upload the original picture with EXIF data if you are the original photographer. Otherwise we need a formal written permission from the copyright holder via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zimbabwe $50m 2008 Reverse.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deleted in error as a result of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:العمله_1000.jpg: I think the nominator only meant to nominate "File:العمله_1000.jpg" for deletion. --Minoa (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Minoa: Has that bill been demonetized? Per COM:CUR Zimbabwe, that's the only way it's allowed here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image was the reverse of File:Zimbabwe $50m 2008 Obverse.jpg, a bearer cheque of the second dollar that existed from 2006 to 2008. That bearer cheque expired on 30 June 2008. --Minoa (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anna Todd.jpg

Hello,

My name is Erin Gross and I am Anna Todd's assistant. I do have her permission to use the photo that was uploaded. It is a casual photo that her husband took of her. With so much disinformation that was on her page we are trying to correct the information and the picture we erased was a very old picture.

This reflects her currently.

--Mylifeaserin (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Erin gross[reply]

@Mylifeaserin: We need a formal written permission the husband who is the copyright holder, unless the copyright was transferred in writing. In that case, we need a proof of that. Pease see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken Deletions & Some Contestation

Hello,

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

Files in question:

Reasons for undeletion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Oeuf rue deGaulle 018.jpg

Deletion reason is absurd. "This is a generic shape that doesn't look copyrighted but because an 'artist' made it must be copyrighted". -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 03:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a sculpture, and French ToO is "bears imprint of personality of the author". I'm inclined to be safe and keep this deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muroran Aquarium(40848993703).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An entrance or a gate is part of the larger architecture and utilitarian to me, and not a separately erected art object for people to enjoy viewing. So the entrance itself can be kept in my opinion, if not the smaller objects attached to it. As I mentioned in the DR, partial masking might be necessary, but the amount would be much less than 50% in my estimation. I believe User:Jameslwoodward doesn't think so according to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Muroran Aquarium(40848993703).jpg. (I made my argument there too, but it might not have been clear enough. This time I hope it's clearer.) What do other people think? whym (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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