Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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.

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

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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Academia Sinica Emblem.svg (edit: and maybe some of these)

The Academia Sinica is the preeminent academic research institution in the Republic of China, and is under direct administrative supervision of the Office of the President. It is not a "public utility company" or "state-run enterprise" in any way as Template:PD-ROC-exempt implied. In fact, there is a complete list of state-run enterprises given by the National Development Council, and only those should be bounded by the exception claimed by the PD-ROC-exempt template, so most of the files mentioned here and here were deleted unreasonably and unjustifiable, and would be considered ridiculous for anyone actually understands or lives in Taiwan. —— Eric LiuTalk 08:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am confused. On the one hand you say only the enterprises listed on the cited list should get the benefit of {{PD-ROC-exempt}} and that the subject is not on the list, and on the other hand are asking for restoration of the emblem.

Since the subject is not a state run enterprise, its emblem has a copyright which we must honor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"only the enterprises listed on the cited list should get the benefit of PD-ROC-exempt"??? No, what the hell! Have you ever looked into the template for once? Read it, I beg you, please! I seriously don't know what you are saying, as PD-ROC-exempt explains which kinds of media shall not be the subject matter of copyright under the law, and the statement below exclude state-run enterprises from those rules, making them not automatically in the Public Domain. (And geez, that's the reason why you deleted it in the first place! I've tried to prove the opposite, and you still get the same answer?) Since the Academia Sinica is a government agency and not a state-run enterprise, its works, according to the Copyright Act of the Republic of China, shall not be the subject matter of copyright. In simpler words, (1) works of "only the enterprises listed on the cited list" (your words) are not automatically free of copyright and should be examined, (2) Academia Sinica is not on that list, so its work should not be deleted because of that. In simplest words, the original reason the file got deleted ("The Copyright Act of R.O.C. does not cover public utility company's logo, thus, They shouldn't be in Public Domain.") is invalid. Maybe the file will still not be undeleted after all of these, and I'm personally so, so sad that no administrator that is Taiwanese or understand Taiwanese copyright law could give a hand. —— Eric LiuTalk 14:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"(The Copyright Act of R.O.C. does not cover public utility company's logo, thus, They shouldn't be in Public Domain.) per nomination. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)"
"Since the subject is not a state run enterprise, its emblem has a copyright which we must honor. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)"
Just why, why were these judgements could possibly made by the same person? They literally contradict each other! I'm going to hang myself on that big blue arrow of the Commons logo upper left at this point. Lastly, I apologize for any words not as quite polite as usual, since I'm in a really hopeless situation.—— Eric LiuTalk 15:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard the manner of answering, I would like to mention that the English translation of the Act shall not be seen to have the legal status. The original Chinese Act (Art. 17 of The ROC Office of the President Organization Act) used word "隸屬" which is equivalent to the meaning of "be subordinate to"; hence the Academia Sinica shall be seen to be a government organ. Pursuant to Articles 11 (& 12) & 15 of the Copyright Act of the ROC, I don't think Jim's statement shall be held and it's Jim's burden to prove that this case did not fulfil those articles; otherwise, it shall be recovered. -- (Dasze) 16:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(The reason I linked the English version of the laws instead of the Chinese originals is to let administrators understand them more easily.) —— Eric LiuTalk 16:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another try at it. Let's assume for this argument that the entity is a part of the government and therefore that {{PD-ROC-exempt}} might apply. Unlike the USA, where everything done by the Federal Government is free of copyright, most other governments, including Taiwan, limit their copyright exemption. {{PD-ROC-exempt}} lists five items that are not the subject matter of copyright:

  1. The constitution, acts, regulations, or official documents.
  2. Translations or compilations by central or local government agencies of works referred to in the preceding subparagraph.
  3. Slogans and common symbols, terms, formulas, numerical charts, forms, notebooks, or almanacs.
  4. Oral and literary works for news reports that are intended strictly to communicate facts.
  5. Test questions and alternative test questions from all kinds of examinations held pursuant to laws or regulations.
The term "official documents" in the first subparagraph of the preceding paragraph includes proclamations, text of speeches, news releases, and other documents prepared by civil servants in the course of carrying out their duties.

The only one that could possibly apply is #1 as expanded by the note at the bottom. However we have routinely found that logos are not documents -- a logo may appear on a document but it is not, by itself, a document. Therefore, whether or not the entity is a part of the government, its logo has a copyright.

I also note that the burden of proof here always lies with the person who wants to keep a file. It is up to them to prove beyond a significant doubt that the questioned image qualifies for keeping on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern and have sent a letter to the related authorities (the Intellectual Property Office of the Ministry of Economic Affairs) to ask about the correct interpretation of the respective law. Please wait for a little while more.
And if these pictures really aren't in the scope of PD-ROC-exempt, maybe they could be in the scope of the GWOIA. —— Eric LiuTalk 14:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg SupportI don't know well about Taiwan's copyright law but,if you say true,I agree Eric Liu's opinion. In general rule,government's works aren't protected of copyright when we use them to be known everyone. —— Luke atlasTalk 09:16, 11 May 2022 (JST)

File:Letter from the People's Mujahedin of Iran to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.jpg

The file was deleted in this discussion by Ellywa. They said the "The PD-Text is intended for logo's or short texts, not for an original letter." I have discussed the matter with them and still believe the file should be restored per (Template:PD-text). It's a simple text. --Mhhossein talk 18:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in my motivation to delete the file I also stated " The text of the letter is copyrighted imho. " Ellywa (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As a general rule, in the USA and most other countries, a single sentence may or may not have a copyright, but it is very unusual for two sentences not to be copyrightable, and a letter of this length certainly has a copyright. See USCO Circular 1, "Copyright Basics", where it says,
"Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:
• titles, names, short phrases, and slogans...."
Note that "short phrases" are not protected, which implies that anything longer is. Case law supports this.
I don't know the law in Iran, but its status in the USA certainly means it cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jameslwoodward: If the country of origin of this letter is Iran, then I see no rationale for copyright protection in US: Berne does not apply. Ankry (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, if the country of origin is US, what is the rationale? Was it published in US with permission of the copyright holder? Maybe, this document should be considered an unpublished document from Iran, so not protected in US? (Still unsure about copyright status in Iran, however.) Ankry (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A translation of the Iranian copyright law can be found here. Ellywa (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article 2 of the Iranian copyright law [1], only "scientific, technical, literary and artistic" texts are protected. --Mhhossein talk 19:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A letter would be a literary work. Agreed that there is no U.S. protection, so whatever the protection is for Iran would hold. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think we can consider an official letter as a "literary" work. It has nothing to with literature. So there's no protection from Iran. --Mhhossein talk 11:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pinging 4nn1l2 if he'd like to share his point on the status of the file according to the Iranian copyright. --Mhhossein talk 11:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • In general, copyright doesn't make distinctions based on artistic merit -- a child's scribble is copyrightable. If there is enough text to be copyrightable, then it's a literary work. People's letters have generally been considered copyrightable for a long long time. Whether Iran's law goes there, not as sure -- it seems to say Books, pamphlets, plays and all other literary, scientific and artistic writings are copyrightable. "All other literary writings" would seem to imply that, but it's also possible that it would only be commercially valuable stuff which was implied, though that would have been counter to other copyright laws even in 1970. On the other hand, this appears to be a letter between countries, and you could start arguing some {{PD-EdictGov}} territory (not that we need a U.S. rationale), or if the copyright owner was deemed to be the government, maybe it gets Iran's 30-year terms. Was this written in an official capacity? Was it made public at the time, or kept private? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Literary works" is usually construed very broadly in copyright matters. Computer programs are literary works. While I don't know the practice in Iran, it is certain that this would have a copyright in almost all countries.
I also note that it is very small, 321x424 pixels. Even magnified 4 times it is not legible. Therefore it has little or no educational use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: You missed something: this would be not protected in most countries (unless the country has a copyright-related treaty with Iran). Ankry (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean it that way -- I meant that under most (maybe all) copyright laws it would be protected if it had been written in that country. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not, so this goes OT. Ankry (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, in some European countries computer programs were considered not protected by copyright until explicitly mentioned in newer law. So it is obviously not clear how Iranian law treats such letters. COM:PCP? Ankry (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name any country in which a text document of this length would not be covered by copyright? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will provide you examples in private if you wish, as they would be OT here. Text length is not the only criterion to be considered in order to resolve whether there is copyright protection, or not. This is not a personal letter. Official (non-private) letters send by officials as their duty are often free of copyright. However, while this letter is definitely not a private one, I am not sure if such documents are considered free of copyright in Iran. Ankry (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lyliana Wray.jpg


We had sent authorization for this picture to be used. Personal authorization was sent (,) URL links, and other information that was requested. We are requesting this image not be deleted.

Thank you,

-- Georgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31gm31 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 May 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Lyliana Wray attends the Global Premiere of "Top Gun: Maverick" at the USS Midway Museum on May 4, 2022 in San Diego, California. (photo: Alex J. Berliner/ABImages) via AP Images" at Thuresson (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose authorization for this picture to be used is not a valid licese; see COM:L for our requirements. And the license need to be verified and accepted by the VRT in order to undelete. Ankry (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ivan Brezina

Picture is mine, I am the bearer of author rights. A also already send confirmation of my ownership to Michal Gregor, member of Wikimedia Commons, at <email redacted>. Ivan Brezina (I can't sign under my real name, because it is already in use by some other person, so I used "Franta Voprsalek" nick). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franta Vopršálek (talk • contribs) 04:01, 17 May 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info File:Ivanbrezina.png and File:Ivan Brezina.png have competing claims of copyright from different Wikimedia users; also previously published at Thuresson (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Franta Vopršálek: First, we cannot host images without a license. Second, for any image that has been published elsewhere without evidence of free license before its upload to Commons, our policy requires a written permission from the copyright holder. If the copyright holder is not an author, we also need an evidence of copyright transfer (eg. providing a copy of the appropriate contract). Third, authorship claim by multiple users may be also a problem that resulting more detailed evidence of copyright authorship being required, especially as authorship is non-transferrable. And fifth, as the image is not deleted yet, it is out of scope of this page at the moment. Ankry (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done image not deleted (yet). Ankry (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:PEGI Discrimination.svg

The image was deleted back in January of 2022 and I believe it was mostly in order to vandalize the Pan European Game Information (PEGI) page, as they didn't give a clear reason as to why this image should be deleted. Gold Luigi (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing an Administrator of deleting an image in order to vandalize a page is a serious charge. Christian Ferrer, who deleted this image, is a respected member of the community and it is absurd to think that he would commit vandalism. I suggest that before you make any more such false allegations, you gain more experience here.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image is copied from an image at The terms of use there say,

"The PEGI trademarks and logos used on this website are the exclusive property of PEGI and may not be used without PEGI’s explicit consent to do so."

PEGI, s.a. is a Belgian non profit company. The Threshold of Originality in Belgium is not summarized at COM:TOO, but this would be above the ToO in most countries. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose clearly above the ToO, therefore a permission from the copyright holder is needed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg Souk el belad är min bild

File:Souk el belatIMG 6336.jpg souk el belat
File:Souk el belat souk el belat

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouali béchir1 (talk • contribs)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not an original photo ("Google" as creation software in EXIF), so it cannot be licensed on-wiki. The author needs to follow the VRT procedure. And the image is not deleted, so out of scope of this page. Ankry (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Image not deleted - nothing to undelete. Ankry (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bryan Spinks.jpg

I have been given written permission by the photographer to upload this picture. --Jcs285 (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Top secret.png

The latest deletion request for this stated, "imho this is above threshold, due to the 'damaged look' of the stamp. It is not purely colored red. Not in use on the projects." This is not a valid reason to delete a picture. I'm using this stamp in a book cover design, and I would like it to stay in easy access for me and publishers. Thank you. --Wikicommonsgoat (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]