Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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.

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)

@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)

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)

 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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have now undeleted some as per the above. --TadejM ^(t/p) 17:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Miha (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín.jpg

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

Also:

• File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín (restored).jpg
• File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín (restored 2).jpg

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

Ping @Turkmenistan and @Ur Nan123 for discussion. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a photo from Associated Press who publish this photo at their web site with the following credit: "Soviet Politburo member Konstantin Chernenko is seen, 1983. (AP Photo)". The location is said to be Moscow, Russia. (ap.org). Thuresson (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

AP images published between 1964 and 1977 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain. By at least 1981 AP began including copyright notices on some photos.' But this one doesn't have.
I guess it should be {{PD-US-1978-89}} Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Thuresson ? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose It is not possible to say for sure that this photo is public domain in the country of origin. It is probably not by an Associated Press photographer since the photographer is said to be anonymous. Thuresson (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Thuresson country of origin - you mean USSR / Russia? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it can be Boris Yurchenko who has worked for AP. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Bon o bon.jpg

This is under the threshold of originality so it must be undeleted inmediately

— Preceding unsigned comment added by El Nuevo Doge (talk • contribs) 05:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose The ToO in Argentina is very low. This probably exceeds it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Wilkes Barre Downtown.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

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

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

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

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

Not out of scope since both images exist (https://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/flags/mx-jc-gu.html at the bottom where images are linked), firstly, and it can be used in an article to illustrate municipal symbols of Guadalajara, a big Mexican city. Flagvisioner (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose For the reasons stated in the DR: They're not official flags - they weren't used, and no one is going to put them in articles in place of the real flag, and FOTW isn't a reliable source regardless. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

"FOTW isn't a reliable source" Tell me, what isn't a reliable source here? A photograph of a flag in use? (considering I mentioned they are linked there). Here's the images I was mentioning https://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/images/m/mx-jc!e1.gif and https://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/images/m/mx-jc!b2.gif do show the flags.

They were used as the images clearly show. I never said anyone was going to put them in place of the real flag. I stated they "can be used in an article to illustrate municipal symbols of Guadalajara, a big Mexican city." Consider the fact many big cities are notable enough to have articles on their municipal symbols on Wikipedia, such as New York City and Chicago as some random examples. An article relating to the municipal symbols of Guadalajara can use these. I don't know the context regarding the first image (though it does appear to be inside some kind of corporate/municipal building); the second one is certainly a public official. Even though they weren't adopted officially, they were used as alternative municipal flags; as another example, the more commonly seen vertical triband wasn't adopted by law but used very often. Flagvisioner (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Logos with the Latvian flag

• File:EuroLetoniaTextileAnterior.svg
• File:EuroLetoniaTextile.svg
• File:Eurovision Song Contest heart Latvia Textile white.svg
• Eurovision 2026 heart - Latvia (textile).svg
• File:Eurovision 2026 white heart - Latvia (textile).svg

Deleted despite not being part of deletion request. The flag also wasn't technically discontinued according to Latvian law. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I fail to see how these are in scope. They were never used by Eurovision, and we've been steadily culling the fake/fan Eurovision flags as out of scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The reason stated upon their deletion was that they were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Eurovision heart flags of discontinued flags. However, these 5 files did not appear in the DR, and were deleted by you after the discussion on your own volition. As I already explained to you before (and you apparently ignored it), these are not "fake/fan" flags, these are Eurovision flags containing the flag of Latvia; not a "weird alternative version" as you put it. As there was no DR on these files, I ask that they be undeleted. If you think they're out of scope, make a DR on them. I  Support restoring them. ImStevan (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, the 2004 and 2015 ones were actively used. The 2026 is simply a continuation, as it is still a flag that is used to date interchangeably with the digital one. ImStevan (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The Latvia flags are at Category:Heart-flags of Eurovision (Latvia). I've yet to see a convincing reason why we need another set, in the wrong color (and it is the wrong color, these are digital images), on this project. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

...because, as I am now stating for a third or a fourth time, this flag was used (in digital spaces) 2000-2018, and because, again, there was no discussion regarding these files. ImStevan (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Joplin Tornado - May 22nd, 2011.pdf

This is not copyrighted in whole, or even in part, and is (still) in use on enWS, which has different copyright rules to this place. This request is for a temporary undeletion so that it can be re-uploaded locally. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It does use a non-free photo that I had deleted. But I don't know if enWS's policies on documents that contain 1 unfree photo. Abzeronow (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Anna Eynard-Lullin Bern.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

 Oppose

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

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

My mistake on other images of Eynard-Lullin! That makes this less important.

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

File:Rachel Claire Levin.jpg

the image is a public domain. free to use for everyone. the person in the photo knows this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhrkhxn (talk • contribs) 17:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Your words above say that is not true. In any event we need to know the actual photographer and the reason the image is free to use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Wakil Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Indonesia Didit Herdiawan.jpg

kenapa bisa terhapus apa yang saya langgar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alviarts (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Not own work, no evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

My boss told me to change it seriously, if it keeps getting deleted it will be a problem for me Alviarts (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

how to believe you all? Alviarts (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose When they upload the image, User:Alviarts said that the author was unknown. When it was tagged with "no license", they changed that to a claim of {{Own}}. Such acts make it difficult to believe anything this user says.

I also not that the User uploaded the image a second time after it was correctly deleted. This is the only upload from this User. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I really work in this ministry, please don't delete it again, I have proof that it's true, I'm told to change it. Alviarts (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Alviarts: We need a permission for a free license from the copyright holder, who is by default the photographer. If the copyright was transferred, which is only possible in writing, we will need a proof of that. So if your organization holds the copyright, please ask a legal representative to send the permission via COM:VRT with the required documents. Yann (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Fermín Bello y Jesús Peredo cantando "Soy zapatista del Edo. de Morelos" por Marciano Silva.webm

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Fermín Bello y Jesús Peredo cantando "Soy zapatista del Edo. de Morelos" por Marciano Silva.webm (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: According to Mexican copyright law, the performed song "Soy zapatista del Edo. de Morelos" is already in the public domain since the author died before 1952. Until 1982, works were protected by copyright for a period of 30 years after the author's death, meaning that the song in question entered the public domain in 1974, 30 years after the death of Marciano Silva.

• See Article 23 of Mexico's Federal Copyright Law from 1963. ErickTErick (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• That is what {{PD-Mexico}} seems to say. @Túrelio: -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 04:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Sacred sparks

Unfair deletion of logo The sacred sparks is a game-creating team and this logo has been put for speedy deletion if being used by its image address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadhaJiKoDaas (talk • contribs) 06:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Concerned file is File:Sacred Sparks Logo.png, deleted per CSD F10 (personal photos by non-contributors). Yann (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Etem LOGO.png

This is the true logotype. You can find in official page of ETEM

https://etem.com/en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stsiougkos (talk • contribs) 16:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 Question What is the educational use of this file? What is the notability of this organization? Yann (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

• https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CqGpCtMxP2k

The flag have been used to satirize Israel in the real world which means it's in scope--Trade (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I'm pretty sure that a request was declined for this exact file less than a month ago on copyright grounds. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-10#File:Israeli Flag except star is replaced With Poop.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

"Putting it on the flag probably isn't copyrightable, not in the US."

Are we just gonna ignore that part? Seems pretty relevant to me. That was never adressed by the closing admin Trade (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

But you did not cite copyright as a deletion reason at any point in the discussion Trade (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Israeli Flag except star is replaced With Poop.jpg (including the comments that have been deleted). Thuresson (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

No comments were deleted, a name was redacted. Abzeronow (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Closing admin did not adress anything said by the redacted user. Hence the decision to delete the file and change the reasoning form DR to CSD G3 wholly inappropriate Trade (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Vele di Scampia.jpg

Hi everyone. I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Vele di Scampia.jpg. The image was deleted in 2013 after this DR. It depicts some skyscrapers, now demolished, built between 1962 and 1975, designed by the architect it:Francesco Di Salvo and commissioned by the Municipality of Naples (see here and here). Therefore, they fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1996. They were buildings built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Weak  Support. Unlike in most countries, Italy's copyright law doesn't restrict the kinds of works that are subject to special government terms. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Portrait George Pozer, Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, Parc de l'île Pozer, Canada.jpg

Das besagte Bild File:Portrait George Pozer, Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, Parc de l'île Pozer, Canada.jpg habe ich selbst fotografiert, bin somit Urheber dieses Fotos. Das Portrait steht auf einem öffentlichen Plakat in einem öffentlich zugänglichen Park in Saint-Georges-de-Beauce in Kanada, das die abgebildete Person George Pozer behandelt. Das Portrait selbst ist also nicht mein eigenes Werk sondern lediglich das Foto davon, also eine Reproduktion.

Könnte man sagen, ob unter diesen Vorraussetzungen das Bild auf WIKIMEDIA lizensiert werden kann. Oder muss ich mich an die neben dem Portrait genannte Organisation in Kanada (Société du patrimoine des Beaucerons) wenden, die eventuell eine schriftliche Freigabe erteilen könnte? Ich habe die Kontakt-Adresse in Saint-Georges-de-Beauce gefunden.

Zudem sehe ich auf der Wikimedia-Seite zum Thema Lizenzen, dass es erlaubt ist, eine Person des öffentlichen Lebens zu zeigen. In unserem Fall ist es die abgebildete Person, der damals bekannte Geschäftsmann und Millionär George Pozer, geboren am 21. November 1752 in Willstätt/Baden, gestorben am 16. Juni 1848 in der Stadt Québec. Damit ist der Herr schon vor 177 Jahren gestorben. Ist das eventuell relevant für die Lizenzierung sowie für die Entlöschung des Bildes? Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Marc-Lautenbacher: Bonjour, Cela dépend de quand date ce portrait et qui l'a fait. N'étant pas administrateur, je n'ai pas accès à l'image supprimée. S'il s'agit d'un portrait «récent», il est vraisemblablement sous droits d'auteur. Par exemple, un portrait de Pozer (contexte) a été peint par Hugues Nolet-Voyer, né en 1948 et apparemment toujours vivant. Ce portrait ne peut pas être reproduit sans l'autorisation du titulaire des droits d'auteur, qui est probablement le peintre, à moins qu'il ait cédé ses droits aux descendants de George Pozer qui lui ont commandé le portrait. Le portrait peint par Nolet-Voyer semble vaguement inspiré par un portrait plus ancien, dont une reproduction a été publiée dans ce livre en 1927. Il est plutôt probable que ce portrait soit dans le domaine public, mais il faudrait quand même essayer d'en trouver l'auteur, la date et l'origine. Je ne sais pas si l'un de ces portraits est celui qui est reproduit dans votre photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. This looks to me like a photograph, but since the subject died in 1848, while that is barely possible, it is unlikely. Most portraits are painted while the subject is living, so this is almost certainly almost 200 years old. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Does that mean that the image shown in the deleted file is not one of the two images linked above? If the image in the file is a photograph, there is no problem. If it is the reproduction of a painting or another type of artwork, it depends when and by whom the original was made. Portraits of George Pozer seem rare, which may explain why his descendents commissioned the painting shown in the first image linked above, painted some 150 years after the death of the subject. The origin of the second image linked above, published in the 1927 book, is unclear. Since you seem ready to consider the image in the file public domain and to undelete the file, it would be good to undelete it at least temporarily, so that non-admins could look at it. If nobody finds an objection, it could remain undeleted. It can be noted that at least one website seems to confuse two persons, with a text about this George Pozer but with a photo from maybe circa 1900, possibly of his grandson George A. Pozer. If the image in the deleted file looks like circa 1900, it might be a photo of the grandson. -- Asclepias (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Protests opposing Bolivarian Revolution in São Paulo, Brazil 45.jpg

Main subject is the person, copyrighted part of banner are probably De Minimis ; and if not, restora to crop the banner --Wilfredor (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose There are plenty of similar photos in Category:Protests opposing the Bolivarian Revolution in São Paulo. Commons Delinker log indicates that this photo was not in use. Thuresson (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

For someone who is not from Asia, all Chinese people look very similar Wilfredor (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The banner is the only reason the image is in scope and occupies half the image. It certainly fails any test of de minimis. Without the banner, the image would be worthless -- an unidentified woman hold up a pole and a second woman with her face obscured. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Plate with a knot pattern from Italy, 1520-1540, tin-glazed earthenware (maiolica).jpg

I don't understand why the file was deleted. I took the photo and released my photo.

HIART — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiart (talk • contribs) 23:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

File:First_Ariane_launch.jpg

The license of this image has been officially updated by ESA, please check

https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2000/09/First_Ariane_launch

Please undelete and notify me, thanks

Thanks

--OApopcult (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Valentin Delhaye avec Marine le Pen.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Valentin Delhaye avec Marine le Pen.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Il s'agit bien de lui 212.83.155.57 13:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Small size, no EXIF data, probably copied from social media. Yann (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Marlena Karwacka 13.05.2024.jpg

A proper agreement from author has been sent to VTR. See: ticket:2025102410005867. Polimerek (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Mihai Tarna.jpg

Own work please restore, thanks :3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seblepro123 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose, the source has a copyright mark: Realitatea.md ©. Toate drepturile rezervate. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Hwasong-20.jpg

User Ziv has been repeatedly filing reports without properly verifying the copyright holder. I will rebut each claim one by one. If you look at the bottom of the photo, you can see a logo identical to Korean Central News Agency, which indicates that the Korean Central News Agency is the copyright holder. I don’t understand why the license is being challenged — North Korea’s public broadcasters are all state-run institutions. Therefore, the {{PD-KPGov}} license is appropriate, since these works are managed by the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klgchanu (talk • contribs) 17:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC) Klgchanu (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Hypersonic Missiles,The Front Line of the Arms Race (Defense Prime Episode 82) (Defense Media Agency).webm

User Ziv has been repeatedly filing reports without properly verifying the copyright holder. I will rebut each claim one by one. This user said 'The video footage uses images not taken by the Korean Central News Agency.' This is not a North Korean video — it is a video produced by a South Korean government agency. KFN is an official YouTube channel managed by the Defense Media Agency. If they had checked the source even once, this situation would never have happened. They filed the report without verifying the source at all. And this is not the only file affected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klgchanu (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC) Klgchanu (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Launching Ceremony of the Jang Bogo-III Batch-II 1st Ship, Jang Yeong-sil.webm

User Ziv has been repeatedly filing reports without properly verifying the copyright holder. I will rebut each claim one by one. This user said 'The video footage uses images not taken by the Korean Central News Agency.' This is not a North Korean video — it is a video produced by a South korea navy. This video from Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) official YouTube channel. If had checked the source even once, this situation would never have happened. They filed the report without verifying the source at all. And this is not the only file affected.
Klgchanu (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:화성-16나형.png

I admit that I was mistaken about the copyright holder of this file. North Korea has two state-run broadcasting stations, and I confused it with the other one. The copyright holder should be changed to “조선중앙텔레비죤 – Korean Central Television.”

However, there is absolutely no issue with the license. All North Korean state-run broadcasters are government-affiliated organizations. Therefore, the {{PD-KPGov}} license is appropriate, as the materials are managed and published by the government.

It would have been sufficient if Ziv had simply updated the copyright holder, but they did not. This user continues to report files without properly verifying the sources of works from both South Korea and North Korea.

It appears that reported the file by claiming that a South Korean work(offical youtube channel, korea navy) was actually from North Korea, which suggests that they filed the report without properly verifying the source.

I apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Klgchanu (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:미싸일총국 신형극초음속중장거리탄도미싸일시험발사 진행.webm

I admit that I was mistaken about the copyright holder of this file. North Korea has two state-run broadcasting stations, and I confused it with the other one. The copyright holder should be changed to “조선중앙텔레비죤 – Korean Central Television.”

However, there is absolutely no issue with the license. All North Korean state-run broadcasters are government-affiliated organizations. Therefore, the {{PD-KPGov}} license is appropriate, as the materials are managed and published by the government.

It would have been sufficient if Ziv had simply updated the copyright holder, but they did not. This user continues to report files without properly verifying the sources of works from both South Korea and North Korea.

It appears that reported the file by claiming that a South Korean work(offical youtube channel, korea navy) was actually from North Korea, which suggests that they filed the report without properly verifying the source.

I apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Klgchanu (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Hwasong-19.jpg

I admit that I was mistaken about the copyright holder of this file. North Korea has two state-run broadcasting stations, and I confused it with the other one. The copyright holder should be changed to “조선중앙텔레비죤 – Korean Central Television.”

However, there is absolutely no issue with the license. All North Korean state-run broadcasters are government-affiliated organizations. Therefore, the {{PD-KPGov}} license is appropriate, as the materials are managed and published by the government.

It would have been sufficient if Ziv had simply updated the copyright holder, but they did not. This user continues to report files without properly verifying the sources of works from both South Korea and North Korea.

It appears that reported the file by claiming that a South Korean work(offical youtube channel, korea navy) was actually from North Korea, which suggests that they filed the report without properly verifying the source.

I apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Klgchanu (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)