Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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.

Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Commons deletion (policy)

• Regular deletion (candidates)

(Missing: 2 timestamps • 0 reasons • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed

• Speedy deletion (candidates)

231 copyvios • 199 duplicates • 9 adverts • 129 selfies • 16 others

---

• Media without a license
• Media without a source
• Media missing permission
• Orphaned talk pages

---

• Deletion log
• Undeletion requests

---

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 | +/− Wikinews: en | no | pl | +/− Wikibooks: en | it | +/− Wikisource: fa | fr | +/− Wikiversity: en | +/− Wikivoyage: en | fa | fr | ru | zh | +/− Wikiquote (regarding images): he | +/− 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.

Instructions for administrators

Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for them if you want to, or leave it to them to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file. In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed. The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done." When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived. When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading"). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Flag of Lunda Tchokwe.svg

This file was just deleted because it doesn't fit in TOO Angola, but the symbol in the middle is the traditional lusona symbol for antelope footprint. [1] Other than that the graphic consists of just simple rectangles and circle. Therefore the deletion was incorrect. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, although COM:Angola also notes that "Traditional learning and use are treated the same as literary, artistic and scientific works." I will admit that my knowledge of African symbols like this is lacking so I won't oppose restoration here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it before, but the pattern probably already existed in colonial times and Portuguese law, where folk patterns are not protected, may apply. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Possibly. I might need to try to find someone who is an expert on Angola and then temporarily undelete to get their opinion. (if someone else thinks I should reverse my deletion, I'll also do so.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: to see if they can assist. Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow and Swiãtopôłk: My apologies. Somehow I missed the notification. I will look at this tomorrow and get back to you. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've temporarily undeleted the file to help this discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Abzeronow. The justification for the deletion was that it is "copyvio – found elsewhere", with a link to where it was found. The flag is going to be found/ seen elsewhere because it is widely used by the movement for independence of the Lunda-Cokwe (one of a number of spellings in Portuguese) Lunda-Chokwe (in English) people as one of their symbols. For background, they are considered a separatist movement by some, a term that the Lunda-Chokwe reject, as they do not see themselves as part of Angola, as they maintain that because at one point Portugal had conferred on their region/ Lunda Kingdom the status of protectorate (Protectorate of Lunda Chokwe), they should not have later been lumped together with the rest of Angola as a unitary country (the same argument is used by the Cabinda independence (separatist movements). Their leaders and activists are imprisoned or routinely arrested, cited here, under "Arbitrary arrests, torture and other ill-treatment" and more recent news here (in English). A number of court cases are ongoing (in Portuguese). Use of the flag can be seen here (in Portuguese) in an article by Voice of America (VoA) Portuguese Africa service, which is a fairly reliable source when it comes to matters Angolan. Here is another (in Portuguese), this time from the Portuguese Catholic Church broadcaster, Rádio Renascença. Hope this helps. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: Yes, but I need to know if Lunda-Chokwe has a copyright on this flag or if the lusona depicted is actually a public domain symbol or a copyrightable expression of traditional learning. I'd also appreciate it if we had a better idea of what the threshold of originality is in Angola. I agree with you that this is within scope, I need to know if the flag is public domain or not. Abzeronow (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Antrag zur Wiederherstellung von File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

im Frühjahr 2014 habe ich von einem Plakat des Kameradenkreises der Gebirgstruppe die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht kopiert und in die jeweiligen Artikel der Divisionen eingefügt. Dabei habe ich bei jedem Divisionsabzeichen fälschlicherweise (damals war ich Anfänger bei Wikipedia) als Urheber den Kameradenkreis angegeben.

In der Beschreibung aller Divisionsabzeichen muss es richtigerweise heißen: - Quelle: Archiv Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe - Autor: unbekannt, da heute für alle Divisionen nicht mehr nachvollziehbar - Lizenz: Dieses Bild stellt das Wappen einer deutschen Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts dar. Nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG (Deutschland) sind amtliche Werke wie Wappen gemeinfrei. Zu beachten: Wappen sind allgemein unabhängig von ihrem urheberrechtlichen Status in ihrer Nutzung gesetzlich beschränkt. Ihre Verwendung unterliegt dem Namensrecht (§ 12 BGB), und den öffentlichen Körperschaften dienen sie darüber hinaus als Hoheitszeichen.

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg und auch die der übrigen 12 Gebirgsdivisionen, falls die auch schon gelöscht worden sind.

Mit Dank im Voraus für Ihr Verständnis und Ihre Bereitschaft helfen zu wollen -- Jost (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: I am the deleting admin. Jost, can you cite which statute or decree these patches are part of? (and I've discussed similar cases with Rosenzweig on my talk page.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: These patches were worne as an official part of the uniform. Each mountain division of the Wehrmacht have had their own patch. The patches were created by the staff of the division and were approved by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH). I have read your dicussion with Rosenzweig. Jost (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@JostGudelius: Ob die Bundeswehr oder ihre Untergliederungen wirklich Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, finde ich zumindest zweifelhaft. Müsste man evtl. mal bei de:WP:URF klären. Aber unabhängig davon sind auch Gemeindewappen usw. deshalb gemeinfreie amtliche Werke, weil sie mal in einer amtlichen Verlautbarung bekanntgemacht wurden. Die ZDv 37/10 hat bspw. diverse Verbandsabzeichen. Ist das hier auch so? Wenn ja, wann und wo? Oder hat das irgendjemand inoffiziell erstellt? --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Es handelt sich hier um die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht. Diese Abzeichen wurden wahrscheinlich von den Divisionen geschaffen und vom Kriegsministerium bzw. Oberkommando des Heeres genehmigt. Urheber und Genehmigungsprozess sind heute nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Ob Streitkräfte Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, kann ich nicht belegen - ich bin kein Jurist. Sie sind aber eine vom Staat beauftragte Organisation/Körperschaft mit einem Auftrag und klaren Rechtsrahmen, der mit der Verfassung / dem Grungesetz beginnt.Gruß --Jost (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Deine Frage bezüglich der ZDV 37/10, die diverse Verbandsabzeichen enthält, trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Diese Verbandsabzeichen werden bei allen Verbänden, die eines Artikels bei Wikipedia würdig sind, in der Info-Box ohne Probleme eingefügt. Das gleiche muss auch für die Verbandsabzeichen der Verbände der Wehrmacht gelten; sie haben von ihrer Entstehung und Genehmigung her das gleiche Procedere und den gleichen Status. Sie sind offizielle Abzeichen/Wappen einer deutschen Behörde/eines Verbandes der Wehrmacht und m.E. gemeinfrei. Ich bitte Dich, dies @Abzeronowzu erklären und darauf hinzuwirken, dass die Löschungen der Divisionsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht rückgängig gemacht bzw. unterlassen werden, damit wir uns in Zukunft diese Diskussionen ersparen. Dein Englisch ist weitaus besser als das meinige, bitte mach es. Ich werde inzwischen Quelle und Urheber in den Beschreibungen der Verbandsabzeichen bearbeiten/korrigieren. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Ich übersetze das mal: Du weißt demnach nicht, ob besagte Grafik mal in irgendeiner Vorschrift bekanntgemacht o. ä. wurde. Du vermutest es nur. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig:zunächst mal herzlichen Dank, dass Ihr weiter mit mir kommuniziert und versucht, mir zu helfen. Inzwischen habe ich heute nach heftiger Recherche folgende Aussagen und Quellen gefunden, die belegen, dass meine Vermutung (Erfahrung aus langjähriger Tätigkeit in den Streitkräften bei der Truppe, in Stäben und im Ministerium) durchaus richtig ist und auch bei Wikipedia und Commons bearbeitet wurde. Siehe:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verbandsabzeichen_1._Gebirgs-Division.png in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht?uselang=deDivision.png?uselang=de.

Mützenedelweiß, Ärmelabzeichen und Verbandsabzeichen (für Fahrzeuge und Gerät) der 1. GebDiv wurden vom Oberkommando des Heeres mit Verfügung vom 2.Mai 1939 eingeführt; siehe in: Thomas Müller, Verheizt - Vergöttert - Verführt, Die deutsche Gebirgstruppe 1915- 1939, Veröffentlichung des Bayerischen Armeemuseums Band 16, 1. Auflage 2017, S. 68. Die Divisionsabzeichen/Truppenkennzeichen der Wehrmacht wurden vom OKH endgültig legitimiert mit Befehl Nr. 21 vom 16.Februar 1944 (OKH GenSt d H Org Abt II/31 180/44); siehe in: W. Fleischer, Truppenkennzeichen des deutschen Heeres und der Luftwaffe, Dörfler-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3895554448.

Ich meine, das reicht Ich bitte Dich und @Abzeronow, die Verbandsabzeichen der 1.GebDiv (Edelweiß) und der 3.GebDiv (Narvikschild) wiederherzustellen. Gruß --Jost (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Jost, Ich habe Ihre Aussagen über Google Translate gelesen. Da ich kein Deutsch spreche, habe ich mich auf Englisch verständigt. Aber ich werde bei Bedarf maschinelle Übersetzung verwenden. (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: I hope you can although translate my answer to @Rosenzweig. I think all doubts are now cleared up. Greetings --Jost (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Because there are potentially many more cases like these, I think we should get to the bottom of the matter. I've started a thread at de.wp's equivalent of the copyright village pump (at. de.wp because I feel more people who know German law will particpate there): de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Militärische Verbandsabzeichen Deutschlands. Hopefully a consensus can be reached there. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosenzweig. I can use Firefox's beta translation feature on that page so I'll follow along as best I can (I won't post there since I know so very little German) Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll reiterate something Rosenzweig said there here, there is no rush on this, if it is found by dewiki legal experts that these are lawfully in the public domain, I can restore them myself. These cannot be in the public domain as "anonymous works" because 1.) German copyright law for pre-1995 works and 2.) URAA if these were not seized by the Office of Alien Property Custodian. Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: @JostGudelius: It's been 3 weeks since any comment at dewiki and this request has been stale. Since I am the deleting admin I don't want to close this request. But I'm not seeing any consensus there or here for me to reverse my deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: I'd be fine with closing this request here for now and open a new undeletion request if there is a positive result at de.wp. But Jost will have to decide. We've had undeletion requests that were open for months. --Rosenzweig τ 19:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Rosenzweig and Abzeronow, till now I don't get any answer by the Military Archive and I think they will not answer in future.

I don't understand why the divisional insignia of the mountain divisions are deleted, while hundreds, maybe thousands of insignia of troops around the world exist on Wikipedia.--Jost (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Jost, different countries have different laws. In my country (the United States), works by the federal government are public domain. For Russia and Ukraine, army emblems would fall under state symbols that are exempt from copyright. Germany appears to be more complicated, and I have a mandate to respect Germany's copyright laws. I don't wish for this to be remain deleted either, but unless I have a legal leg to stand on for it, I just cannot restore it now. Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Russian Paralympic Committee flag (2021).svg

This file was deleted because the original uploader didn't provide sufficient evidence that the file was in the public domain or with a free licence. However, a user on zh-wp gave evidence that the logo was proposed by International Paralympic Committee (IPC) (per Paralympic document). We can assume that the IPC created the logo since there's no other information about the designer. We can, therefore, use pd-textlogo by COM:TOO Germany (since the IPC is based in Germany) to deal with the logo and the special emblem, per №.N at the deletion request.

Here's the original text:

这个标志最初由国际残奥委会推出[2]。原设计者不明的情况下可以认为是国际残奥委会的作品，技术上可依据国际残奥委会总部所在国德国的原创性门槛来处理。（以下信息皆仅用于本讨论作为参考）另外，合理推测俄罗斯残奥委会的标志中明显的俄罗斯国旗元素，是国际残奥委会推出这个special emblem的原因之一（俄罗斯在东京奥运可以直接使用俄罗斯奥委会标志，因为俄罗斯奥委会标志的俄罗斯国旗元素相对没那么明显），同时这个special emblem原设计者是俄罗斯籍的可能性也很低。

— User:Liu116, in: 檔案存廢討論#File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg

--Saimmx (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Candidplatz - Flickr - iEiEi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Candidplatz Subway Station Munich.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich 5 Feb 2021 23 40 02 810000.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich 5 Feb 2021 23 40 10 378000.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich subway station Candidplatz.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:München - U-Bahn-Bahnhof Candidplatz (Bahnsteig).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:München - U-Bahn-Bahnhof Candidplatz (Farbgestaltung).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz9.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

I'm asking for a deletion review of files that I had deleted in October 2023. I had essentially felt that the interplay of colors had pushed it to a level that would have been copyrightable. Recently a few similar files to ones I had deleted were kept by User:Infrogmation, and I was essentially asked to reexamine my decision. I want to see if I had missed some reason why these would be too simple for copyright as User:IronGargoyle says since I'd like stay on the same page as my colleagues. Abzeronow (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Question Why would this place not being covered by Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama? Yann (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

From what that page says, many commentators consider that subway stations are interior spaces and do not meet the requirement for FoP of being public streets, ways, or open spaces. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, but that's weird. There is nothing more public than a subway station, in the common sense of the word. Yann (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but German law appears to treat them as indoor spaces @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no exact definition in the actual law, and apparently there are no court decisions if places like train station halls and subway stations are “public” as required by the law. About half of legal commentators are in favor of it, half are against it (de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80). --Rosenzweig τ 08:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think that when there are several possible interpretations of the law, we should use the most favorable for Commons. Yann (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

COM:PCP says something else IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not what PCP says. We should not use PCP to be more royal than the king. If several legal commentators say that a work is OK, we should use that. Yann (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know about this, but there has been a big discussion in the past about artwork and creative designs in subway stations in Germany. As a result, as far as I understood at the time, the precautionary principle was invoked, among other things. The decision should be to delete if the design is creative enough to be worth protecting. And this is exactly the question that arises at this subway station. Different administrators have decided differently. I think there should be a unified decision. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I won't go against the consensus, and I will let another admin decides, as if we can't use the FoP provision, I don't know if these are OK or not. But my opinion about interpretation of COM:PCP remains. Yann (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

To me, half of the commentators saying it's not allowed definitely meets the threshold for significant doubt but I'm not a lawyer. FoP would make this easier I'd agree. I also agree with Lukas that decisions like this should be unified if possible. (which is why I asked for a review). Abzeronow (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow@Asclepias@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann reading about "legal commentators" reminds me of the situation of COM:FOP Japan. In fact, there are mixed insights from lawyers and other legal commentators there. Several Japanese lawyers contend that commercial use is allowed under the Japanese Article 46 rule, while few others argue that buildings must be subject to the non-commercial restriction, based on the analogy that buildings with sufficient architectural properties must be treated as artworks. The prevailing majority of the legal commentators there agree that use of Japanese buildings in commercial photos are legal, under the Japanese FoP.

Roughly how many of the German legal commentators agree that German FoP covers subway architecture, and how many do not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Of the ones named at de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80, 11 are against fop being applicable in such cases, and 7 are in favor if I counted correctly. So my initial quick estimate of half/half was apparently a bit off. --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Back to the original question about originality: As I see it, there's nothing very original about both the architecture and the coloring in this subway station. I'd say they are below COM:TOO Germany, which is higher than in other countries like the UK. I also think the coloring is below COM:TOO US, so I  Support undeletion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the subtleties of German FoP, but I think it likely that the architectural detailing around the pillars is sufficiently creative to have a copyright in both Germany and the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: But per COM:FOP US, photos cannot be derivatives of architectural works in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 12:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow@Asclepias@Jameslwoodward@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann apparently, there is a legal advice Wikimedia Deutschland received from lawyer Philipp Hellwig, way back 2023. It might be of relevance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

It's about the applicability of FOP in subway stations in Germany. The conclusion (C. I.) is on page 5: Keine Geltung der Schrankenbestimmung, FOP is not applicable in such cases. C. II. also says photographers might violate house rules, though per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography, that is not the primary concern of Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 09:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I remeber that some similar cases were kept, but I really don't know what the correct answer is here. I try to avoid these cases :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Logo RFC.svg

This logo was deleted because of the griffin in the flag. The griffin is copied from the coat of arms of the city of Rostock which is public domain by German law. Aleph Kaph (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Aleph Kaph: The griffins are dissimilar, please explain. Thuresson (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not an exact copy of the outline of the city's griffin but it's very similar. Laying the two shapes over each other shows that there is some distortion but the shape of the tail, the head, the wing and each leg is copied, even the individual pointy ends of the tail, the fur at the lower front leg, or the placement of the pointy ends of the feathers in the wing. The biggest difference is that RFC's griffin is missing the three pointy protrusions to the front.

I don't know if that qualifies the RFC logo as public domain or eligible for Commons, I just wanted to provide a source for the griffin shape as that was named as the reason to delete the file. Aleph Kaph (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

Also

• File:Kloster-Garnstock Seitenaltar.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Del Req)

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg. The nominator mistakenly gave the link to the German FoP template here, but Category:Kloster Garnstock is located in Belgium, which has slightly-lenient FoP rule than Germany.

It appears it shows some work inside the church. Likely it is eligible; as per Romaine at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/12#Mini-Europe, FoP-Belgium was "based on how it is in the Netherlands". Per Romaine again here (with respect to the Dutch FoP rules in churches as per a government opinion), "if a church has opening hours and anyone can freely access and walk inside, it is a public place, if a church is only open with services then it is not." Kloster Garnstock is a Catholic monastery, and Catholic churches typically have set opening and closing hours, unlike a few Protestant churches which are only open to their congregations during worship hours. Therefore, this image file likely falls under {{FoP-Belgium}} and needs to be undeleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Per COM:FOP Belgium, “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public.” If a Catholic church has opening and closing hours just like a museum, it would appear to not be permanently open to the public, just like a public museum. --Rosenzweig τ 10:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. These days there are very few buildings that are open to the public 24/7/365. Surely "permanently open to the public' should be read as "open to the public daily except major holidays" or something similar. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Even subway stations are closed at night these days (i.e. German case discussed above). Yann (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

"open to the public daily except major holidays" was obviously NOT what the Belgian FOP lawmakers intended if “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums”. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Geertivp: who could grant us some insight into Belgian FoP. Abzeronow (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Morocco animated.gif

I reupload a file because is violation of copyright and I edit to new summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikolaIlincic5 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Túrelio: as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Bensdorp kakao.jpg

Hello. This picture was taken by me, with my own camera. I am not sure if the license was correctly applied. Please correct the license if possible. Thank you for your help. --R9363 (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

There wasn't a license applied to the photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

how can we know what is the license you are going to use to release that photo? that's your choice in the first place. I'm not sure of the educational use of the image. Bedivere (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose With no description and no categories, I don't see any educational use of this file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@R9363: Please indicate what is the license of the file, give a description and in which categories it should be placed. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Info This photo was used in nl:Bensdorp. Thuresson (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

---

 Done: @R9363: please add description and license. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Dogal portraits by Domenico Tintoretto

I would like to present these files that portray some Doges of the Republic of Venice. these portraits are all part of the set of portraits painted by Domenico Tintoretto:

• File:Giovanni I Partecipazio.png
• File:Portrait of Doge Orso I Partecipazio.png
• File:Orso II Partecipazio.png
• File:Pietro Partecipazio.png
• File:Portrait of Doge Angelo Participazio.png
• File:Portrait of Doge Obelerio.png
• File:Cristoforo Moro.png
• File:Pasquale Malipiero.png
• File:Nicolò Marcello.png
• File:Portrait of Doge Pietro I Orseolo.png
• File:Portrait of Doge Pietro III Candiano.png
• File:Portrait of Doge Pietro IV Candiano.png

(Category:Portraits of Doges of Venice (series by Domenico Tintoretto - Doge’s Palace))

two files in this list were recently restored by @Abzeronow Wiltronius (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

For transparency sake, this user had emailed me about undeleting those two files and I had discussed the matter with User:MGA73 before making the decision on that. Abzeronow (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Abuse is not a reason for deleting files or refusing undeletion. Commons care about if files are usable and free. If an abuser have given false information about copyright etc. then we can ofcourse delete because the copyright claim is doubtful. But if there is no reason to doubt that the files are actually free then we should keep the files. --MGA73 (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Unfortunately restoring files that were created by a blocked long term abuser when requested by the same long term abuser (whose new incarnation, Wiltronius, is now subject to a {{Checkuserblock}}) simply encourages more of the same behavior. The only hope we have of stopping A3cb1 from their continued harassment is to make it useless. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2020/04#Request_for_comment:_Deletion/undeletion_of_uploads_by_banned/blocked_users "I count 20 support and 83 oppose votes. This may be a little bit off in either direction as a few votes are not clear, anyway the result is clear. Result: Block/ban evasion/sockpuppetry on its own is not a valid reason to delete media or reject a request for undeletion." seems very clear to me. --MGA73 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I would agree to restore these files only if requested by a user in good standing, not by a sock. But usually, it is often better to upload afresh from the source. So basically I agree with Jim. A3cb1 is quite good as trapping other people to support them. I also fell for that. Yann (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Why is uploading again better? It will only require more space. Besides there was a discussion with clear concensus so we should follow that or start a new discussion to see if concensus has changed. --MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

It's better because it doesn't encourage a long term abuser -- both the uploader of the files and the user making this request are A3cb1. I have spent many hours sorting through my share of their 251 sockpuppets. I'd rather spend my Commons time on useful things. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Files by A3cb1 can be restored when the restoring admin verifies (!) that the files are free, without trusting any of the user's or sock's claims, as the user has been proven to intentionally make wrong claims all the time, and to support their wrong claims by e-mail. Paintings of history figures can be old or can be contemporary art. Krd 05:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. And downloading a file and reuploading it will not make it better. If admin verify that the file is free then just undelete it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@MGA73: Well, I am not going to do that. It would just legitimate this LTA. Yann (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 202354425@N02

On Yann's recommendation, I request the undeletion of all images I have uploaded, as the Flickr account is genuine, as evidenced by the email address.--Deva1995 (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Deva1995, I don't understand what you mean "evidenced by the email address". What email address and where? Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 01:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The email on the account matches the email on the website Deva1995 (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The web site has very clear and very restrictive copyright conditions at https://partidulaur.ro/termeni-si-conditii-de-confidentialitate. The Flickr page looks like license laundering. Also note that the copyrights to the individual images belong to the actual photographers and while the political party probably has a license to use them for its political purposes, it is very unlikely that it has the right to freely license them as required here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Gelöschte Dateien. Skizzen über die Von Graben Familie

Guten Tag!

Ich beantrage hiermit die Wiederherstellung unterstehender Datein. Diese wurden gelöscht, weil ich, der Uploader, ca 1 oder 2 Jahre nach dem hochladen der Bilder aufgrund der illegalen Verwendung von mehr als einem Konto auf Wikipedia gesperrt wurde.

All diese Uploads haben aber die Genehmigung des Erschaffers > https://www.matthiaslaurenzgraeff.com/kontakt/ und sind die einzigen vorhandenen Darstellungen der Familie von Graben (in historisch adäquaten Posen, Gewändern, Begebenheiten).

Datein: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Drawings_of_the_Von_Graben_family_by_Matthias_Laurenz_Gr%C3%A4ff

Danke!

Mit einem freundlichen Gruß, Gelöschter Benutzername (Donald1972)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.119.83.238 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

In english:

Good afternoon!

I hereby request the restoration of the files below. They were deleted because I, the uploader, was banned from Wikipedia approximately one or two years after uploading the images due to illegal use of more than one account.

However, all these uploads have the permission of the creator > https://www.matthiaslaurenzgraeff.com/kontakt/ and are the only existing representations of the von Graben family (in historically adequate. 91.119.83.238 22:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The files were nominated as out of scope spam “uploaded by a globally locked user”. --Rosenzweig τ 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Content Translation new-dashboard.png

From Commons:Help desk#File:Content Translation new-dashboard.png - I haven't given this enough look but for what is apparent, this should fall under {{Wikimedia screenshot}} - hence deletion seems out of order. What do fellow admins say? _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 00:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like a Wikimedia screenshot to me. Abzeronow (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Undelete it. It's clearly licensed and marked appropriately. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 01:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Why is this or most other screenshots of WP pages in scope? Why not just link to the actual page? Even if the page is changed, every version of it is always available in the history. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Demonstrating an error, which may be transient. Demonstrating a template transclusion, which may be transient. Use in Wikipedia articles. Use in documentation, help pages, etc. Use in WMF blog posts. Demonstration of a particular skin. Demonstration of the effect of being logged in, or out. Demonstration of the effect of being a new editor; autopatrolled (or not) and admin (for not) or of having some other user-right. Demonstration of a certain user-language preference. Demonstration of a certain system-language preference. Demonstration of the use of particular gadget, or user script. Demonstration of a user CSS. Demonstration of using a particular browser, or browser-plug-in. Cropping to just a part or a page. Demonstration of a certain operating system. Demonstration of a certain screen resolution. Demonstration of a certain window size. Demonstration of how something used to look. Demonstration of a proposed change. Inclusion of annotation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Seems Dyolf77 has undeleted and uploaded one with certain parts blurred. Those images could have been checked on Commons, if available here under a free license? For example File:Change in Average Temperature With Fahrenheit.svg, File:Biochar pile.jpg, among others. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 17:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

This image is a screenshot of a Wikimedia test project, under development, that demonstrates a design of a new feature to be shown in several wiki talkpages. It is not the current feature and may be different in the future, so that's why we can't link to the actual page. Thanks! — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 09:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

My question was about the DW part. The poritions that you have blurred are available on Wikimedia Commons under a free license, mostly. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 10:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Aafi, yes they are free, but we have to give a seperate credit of every single image, that's why I blurred them to avoid that (images are not very essential for the sake of the demonstration). — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 10:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The image is or was in use, so it's in scope. There can be many reasons as listed above to have a selection of that type of an image -- though we certainly wouldn't need one of every article. Unsure where the images come from, but not sure they needed redaction, particularly if they are already Commons images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

---

 Done: Already undeleted. In use, therefore in scope. --Yann (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:14 Heimer og folk i Stiklestad-s328.jpg

I have spoken with the creator and owner of the photo. He is also the person who originally gave permission for it to be used in the book, as the photo was specifically made for that purpose. He has now given me permission to use the photo in this Wikipedia article as well. I was considering uploading it again with the correct credits, but I'm not allowed to do so since it has already been uploaded and deleted previously.

--Pederw95 (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that the photographer must provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Fossils (25226023079).jpg

I am requesting that this file (Asset ID: 8bd4778c-8864-45a7-bb53-d23a14fb2ef3) be undeleted because in its online metadata in the NPGallery Digital - Asset Management System, it is written:

"PhotoCredit: NPS Photo by Cassi Knight, Paleontology Guest Scientist Constraints Information: Public domain:Full Granting Rights"

This means it is Public domain and qualifies for addition to the Wikimedia collection. It offers a different example of fossil stromatolites from the Bass Limestone, in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Paul H. (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose On Flickr, it has a PDM. We do not accept the PDM unless the actual photographer uses it. In this case the photographer is a "Guest Scientist" which means they are not a Federal employee. I suspect that there is actually no free license from the actual photographer -- that the PDM and the declaration on DAMS is just what the NPS uses for all its images because the vast majority of them are from Federal employees. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Stanley A. Dunham, Grandfather of Barack Obama, 1947.tif

The deleting then-admin (INeverCry) has been office banned, so discussion is out of the question. It has the same source, most likely, as File:Stanley Armour Dunham in 1947.jpg, but is possibly much better quality. I can't tell from the 640px thumbnail TinEye has archived. JayCubby (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The source might be http://homepeanuts.gq/r307219.php but the Wayback didn't get that in time :( JayCubby (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The file was claimed as an own work. Abzeronow (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Based on the user's other contribs and interest in Dunham, it might be a scan in their personal collection? JayCubby (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The subject image is a studio portrait from Sanders Studio, Ponca City OK. The 2016 newspaper article cited as the source of File:Stanley Armour Dunham in 1947.jpg says that their image, which is the same photo, came from the Dunham family. Dunham was born in 1918, so he was 29 at the time of this photo. Therefore this is not a high school or college image and may not have been published until the 2016 article. Unless someone can come up with a pre-1990 publication, we must assume it is still under copyright. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stanley Armour Dunham in 1947.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Logo SMKN 1 Blitar.svg

Dear Wikimedia Commons Administrators,

I am writing to formally request the undeletion of the Logo SMKN 1 Blitar that was previously removed. I am the original uploader and creator of the file, and I have the necessary rights to publish it.

As someone working on the school's official social media, I uploaded the logo to Wikimedia Commons so that it can be easily accessed and used by students, teachers, and the school community. Currently, there is no proper logo available, and restoring this file would help in maintaining a consistent visual identity for the school.

If any additional documentation or permissions are required, I am happy to provide them. I kindly ask for a review of this request and appreciate your consideration.

Best regards, Abdullah Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdllhli (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 March 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 Policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder, presumably the school, send a free license using VRT. I note that your reason for wanting the logo on Commons is not consistent with our rules -- Commons is not Facebook. I see no reason why you need a copy of the logo here -- presumably anyone who wants it could simply take it from the school's web site -- except, of course that the web site has "Copyright © 2025. SMKN 1 BLITAR. All Rights Reserved". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

File: University of Tokyo logo, basic, horizontal.svg

Dear Administrators: This file was uploaded before 2010.This logo is componented by just leafs of a Ginkgo tree. I believe this logo's has too simple shapes to have copyright. According to here, This logo is a slight improvement on the coat of arms created in 1948 and is the same, so I believe it is not copyrightable. Thank you. Luke atlas (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:President Joe Biden presenting the Collier Prize for State Government Accountability award.jpg

The White House Correspondence Association has submitted an email approving the use of this photo. I'd also like to rename it to: President Joe Biden congratulating the Collier Prize for State Government Accountability award winner.jpg

Thanks so much! --Kapparently (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)March 26 4:18pm

This will be restored if and when COM:VRT approves permission with this file. Abzeronow (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Info Deleted with the file name File:President Joe Biden congratulations the Collier Prize for State Government Accountability award winner.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Suzy Carrier postcard Paris nº 4 Pathé.jpg

The file is PD-France and is not copyrighted in the US.

Filipe46 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Except it is copyrighted in the US, as the DR established.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I suggest you read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suzy Carrier postcard Paris nº 4 Pathé.jpg again. The URAA clearly applies to this 1948-50 work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Photos by María Herrera

Please undelete

File:Manifestaciones del 9 de enero del 2025 en Juliaca 01.jpg

and all the following ones through

File:Manifestaciones del 9 de enero del 2025 en Juliaca 31.jpg

We have permission per Ticket:2025031010010953.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Mussklprozz: They were not deleted, but permission received added. --Yann (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Scuola dell'infanzia poggibonsi.jpg

Hi everyone. I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Scuola dell'infanzia poggibonsi.jpg. This image was deleted in 2013 after this DR. It depicts the it:Scuola dell'infanzia di Poggibonsi, a kindergarten in en:Poggibonsi, designed by it:Mario Ridolfi. It was commissioned by the Municipality of Poggibonsi and it was completed in 1964 (see here). Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1985. It was built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)