Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

If you want to prove that you, or a person you are representing, has indeed released under a free licence a file deleted for lack of compatible licencing, do not come here. Instead, contact the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) if you are the copyright holder; otherwise, direct the person you are representing to contact the VRT.

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)

I have examined the first dozen of these including two that have been restored. None of them are sourced from a municipality and none of them has a correct license. Note that while CoA created by a government may not have a copyright as discussed in great detail above, those created by persons other than the government have copyrights both in Slovenia and in the USA. I see no reason why my closure of the DR was incorrect. Those files that have been restored should be deleted and this should be closed as Not Done. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Plaque on one of the buildings of the Chung Wah School, installed in March 1986 to commemorate the generosity of the donors whose donations enabled the erections of five additional classrooms, in Honiara, Solomon Islands.png

Requesting undeletion, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1278#Restoring_of_2_articles_I_had_previously_created

 Comment Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plaque on one of the buildings of the Chung Wah School, installed in March 1986 to commemorate the generosity of the donors whose donations enabled the erections of five additional classrooms, in Honiara, Solomon Islands.png. Yann (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yann Thank you. I understand it will depend on the evaluation of the copyright. Vincent Mia Edie Verheyen (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:The Route.jpg

• + File:Heritage Official Poster. Small.jpg

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

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

• File:Taghi Rahmani.jpg
• File:Siamak ghilichekhani.jpg

Hanooz 18:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

SDSS images

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

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

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

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:IC 1101 (SDSS III).jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:IC1127-SDSS.gif
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:M78 sdss.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0002 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0060 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0157 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0252 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0364 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0400 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0407 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0459 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0523 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0530 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 0584 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 821 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1020 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1062 SDSS Aladin.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1474 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1488 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1491 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1496 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1539 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1541 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1542 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1552 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1568 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1576 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1580 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1586 SDSS.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1587 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1588 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1589 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1590 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1593 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1594 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1604 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1607 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1609 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1610 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1614 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1615 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1620 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1628 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1635 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1642 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1643 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1645 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC 1924 SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC3550-SDSS.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:NGC5929-5930-SDSS.gif
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:PGC 53372 SDSS.jpeg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikisky.org-NGC16-SDSS.gif

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

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

Actually this is the relevant part, not the part about the SDSS website: All SDSS data released in our public data releases are considered in the public domain. So SDSS image data is in the public domain actually, not CC-BY. That includes, for example, the SDSS data available through Aladin, which I think is the source of most of these images. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Gloucestershire_County_Council_Banner_of_the_Arms.svg

There is discussion of this file on Wikipedia at en:Wikipedia:Teahouse#Previous Revisions of a Non-Free File Being Deleted.

It is not clear which version of the file was deleted from Commons, how it was described, on what basis it was thought to be a copyvio, or by whom. Please can it be undeleted, even if temporarily, so that the missing information can be determined, and if necessary a deletion discussion opened? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:

File history on Commons:

• 10:31, 7 December 2025 . . Zxilef (talk | contribs | block) 10,000 × 6,667 (109,872 bytes) (Made the Horseshoe thickness not be too exessive.)
• 20:56, 6 December 2025 . . Zxilef (talk | contribs | block) 11,339 × 7,559 (96,918 bytes) (Uploading a self-made file using File Upload Wizard)

File information with first upload:

==Summary==

DescriptionUndeletion requests/Current requests	This flag is the flag of the Gloucestershire County Council, and was (apparently) used as a flag for the whole county before the Severn Cross was chosen.
Date	7 December 2025
Source	Own work
Author	Zxilef

Other information

Originated from the blrry photo that Vexilo found and uploaded in 2008. I upscaled it and am now uploading an SVG version.

Tagged as a copyvio on December 27 with the following info:

• This file was moved here using FileImporter from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gloucestershire_County_Council_Banner_of_the_Arms.svg

Commons deletion log:

• 10:31, 28 December 2025 Gnangarra talk contribs block deleted page File:Gloucestershire County Council Banner of the Arms.svg (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1)

Thuresson (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

That makes no sense. first entry in the history is "20:56, 6 December 2025 ", but you say "File information with first upload: Date 7 December 2025"

Please undelete the file so we can see what actually happened. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Also "the blurry photo that Vexilo found" is not supported by the history on Wikipedia, where Vexilo described the file as "own work". The image is not a photograph. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose There is no current discussion about this file at the English Wikipedia Teahouse, so undeleting is pointless. Thuresson (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

There was (and it was archived while still unresolved) when I made my request.

I still wish to see the image and its file page in order to untangle the mess at en.WP. The delay in enacting my request is lamendtable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: {{Temporarily undeleted}} Yann (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Bandera Región Ica.svg

File was deleted for being fictional though there are two sources confirming that it is being used officially within government capacity. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 08:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The first cited site does not show the flag. The second shows something that might be this flag, but it is a private blog, not a government site. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Site is currently down but the government site shows that it is indeed the flag (the same image and text is also featured here). The second source is also from a local news website within the department with it detailing the inaugural ceremony featuring the incumbent governor at the time. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 03:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Fry1989, The Squirrel Conspiracy, and George Chernilevsky: Other people involved. Opinions? Yann (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually request below about File:Bandera Región Ica.png concerns the same flag. Yann (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Shod soočenja (17 Januar 2014) (12000611303).jpg

Restore the original image. Top half of the photo was cropped out due to FOP, now Category:Prešeren Monument (Ljubljana) is PD. --Sporti (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The sculpture is PD, but the pedestal may not be: "The Prešeren Monument in Ljubljana, a late Historicist bronze monument of the poet France Prešeren at Prešeren Square. The sculpture is work by Ivan Zajec (1869–1952) from 1905, the pedestal is work by Max Fabiani (1865–1962) and the stonemason Alojzij Vodnik (1868–1939)." Is the stonework above the Slovenian ToO? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Well even if you discount all the sculptural and stonemasonry work which is both PD maybe, but it is also partially blocked by protesters. --Sporti (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Aratro - Arnaldo Pomodoro.jpg

There is an authorization from Arnaldo Pomodoro Foundation, so for next WLM I will try to upload again. Davide Mauro (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose (see below; besides the fact that I can't read Italian...)

If you request undeletion here, you don't need to insist that you will re-upload the file at the next Wiki Loves Monuments

If you insist that you will re-upload the file at the next Wiki Loves Monuments, you don't need to request undeletion here Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk · contributions · he/him) 18:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

It was me who suggested to Davide to ask for a temporary undeletion here. The wording of the authorization linked by Davide from the Arnaldo Pomodoro Foundation is unclear for the photos uploaded outside WLM and for the photos uploaded before 2018 (the date in which the authorization was given). This was the reason why per PCP the photo was deleted in the first place. But of course there's an obvious workaround from this situation: it's sufficient that Davide uploades the photo within the next WLM contest. At that point the photo would undoubtedly fall under the given authorization and therefore we could keep it.

The problem though is that Davide (if I understood correctly) hasn't the image anymore on its computer. Therefore he'd need a temporary undeletion in order to download the image, save it on its computer and then upload it again in September. Friniate (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose The link at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aratro - Arnaldo Pomodoro.jpg for the authorization mentioned above is dead. Without having the text of the authorization available, I don't think we can keep this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward Here it is. But anyway, this is only about a temporary undeletion, don't we usually let users download their images that got deleted for FOP-related reasons so that they can use them for various reasons? Even if there wasn't this authorization but Davide wanted to upload this image on a project that allowed fair use (he doesn't, this is just an example), we usually would agree to temporarily undelete the image so that he could save it on his computer, why can't we do the same thing now? Friniate (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Codas and Friniate: {{Temporarily undeleted}} Yann (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Réjean McCormick portrait.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: I contribute massively, but not by writing articles, but by building Architect. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_Wikipedia/Tools/abstract-wiki-architect But I would agree for a more neutral image description. Réjean McCormick (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

In the end, the picture was mainly to give a human touch. Réjean McCormick (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

ok, I understand about the licence, and I understand the criteria for contribution is not only contribution but acknowledged contribution.

The above is in response to a comment of mine that was left hanging by the inappropriate deletion by Nitinjeet Sahu.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you the actual photographer? Is this a selfie? If so, I  Support restoration. If not, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. This is not a selfie, this is a picture I purchased 37 years ago from the school photographer.

I will wait for more acknowledgement, I guess in a few months, then upload a picture I fully own the rights.

Thank you for the opening, this is appreciated, Jim :) Réjean McCormick (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

If this is a yearbook picture from 1988, you might check to see if the book has notice -- many of them did not. If that's the case then it is {{PD-US-1978-89}}. If that's not the case, then I doubt you can get a license from the photographer, so I suggest you upload an image where either you have the right to freely license it or where the photographer is willing to send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

---

 Oppose As noted at your previous request for similar images, which was denied, the translation you quote is inaccurate. The law includes the words "permanently located", see wikisource:th:พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. 2537. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: This appears to be a comment about a different request, about File:2023 Thai-election loudspeaker cars IMG20230417151027.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Below, I have restored an improper deletion of the request which left my comment attached to the wrong request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

File:The Mad Doctor (1933) - computer colorized titles.webm File:The Mad Doctor (1933) - original titles.webm File:The Mad Doctor (1933).webm

Mickey Mouse and Pluto are public domain so it must be undeleted inmediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Nuevo Doge (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose the first one since it is a 1990s colorization, and colorization have their own copyrights. Abzeronow (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

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

File:Tomalatuna.png

Boa noite.

Este ficheiro foi corretamente creditado e publicado por um sócio ativo da associação correspondente (TomaláTuna), foi permitido o uso por diversos sócios da associação, além de que nos pertence e faz parte do nosso património. Este e outros ficheiros publicados por esta conta que remeterem à associação TomaláTuna são de nossa autoria e tem a nossa permissão para fazer parte da biblioteca de ficheiros da wikimedia commons.

Apelo a desfazerem a remoção do ficheiro.

Obrigado. --CuícaLevi (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Translation into English/Tradução para o inglês

Good evening. This file was correctly credited and published by an active member of the corresponding association (TomaláTuna). Its use was permitted by several members of the association, and it belongs to us and is part of our assets. This and other files published by this account that refer to the TomaláTuna association are our own work and we have permission to include them in the Wikimedia Commons archive. I appeal to you to undo the removal of the file. Thank you.

Por favor, veja o aviso grande e em negrito no topo da página. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

topo da página Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder or the actual designer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Arif Havas Oegroseno, Ambassador, Mission of Indonesia to the EU (7280855166).jpg

And also other similar images:

• File:Arif Havas Oegroseno, Ambassador, Mission of Indonesia to the EU (7280964486).jpg
• File:Arif Havas Oegroseno, Ambassador, Mission of Indonesia to the EU (7280966000).jpg
• File:Arif Havas Oegroseno, Ambassador, Mission of Indonesia to the EU (7280968126).jpg
• File:Arif Havas Oegroseno, Ambassador, Mission of Indonesia to the EU (7280969310).jpg

Earlier this day I was trying to upload these image from its original source in Commons when I discovered that the images had already been uploaded before but was deleted. Looking back at the rationale I don't see why the images are out of COM:SCOPE, since the subject has clearly passed the notability threshold (the deputy foreign minister of Indonesia) and the license used for the images were clearly compatible for Commons. I hereby request these images to be undeleted for the sake of common interest and override the original uploader's deletion request. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 17:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Info As far as I can understand it was deleted because the Flickr license was claimed to be incorrect, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Gleamlight. Thuresson (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Lyo and Merly, 2010 Summer Youth Olympics mascots, Singapore.jpg

It only depicts costumes (which is allowed), nothing else. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Costumes covering the body are utilitarian and do not have copyrights. Masks, on the other hand, are not utilitarian and therefore have copyrights. We cannot restore this without a free license from the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Source of file? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 16:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Apparently transferred from enwiki. Abzeronow (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair use over there (w:File:Lyo and Merly.svg) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Wait I think I got the wrong image Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2026年1月生誕イベント.jpg

I request undeletion of this file.

This photo was taken by myself during a fan photography time where photography was explicitly allowed. I am the photographer and the copyright holder.

The file was deleted because it was considered a promotional/press photo, but this is incorrect. Please restore the file. HYGS (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose: you asked for the deletion of that same file right here and called it a... "wrong upload method" (?)

And now you want it undeleted? No Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 23:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose Copied from [2]. Yann (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

revert Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:"Forgotten photos of Russo-Turkish War"

1. These pictures were all taken pre-1880 (see file names)
2. According to the museum that held the exhibition, authors of these photos are: a) Russian photographer Alexander Ivanov, and b) Franz Duschek (w:bg:Франц Душек) born in Budapest around 1830 - died in Suez 1884, court photographer of Prince Carol I of Romania.
3. Deletion request was created by PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs). 'nuff said, I believe.

I can now track down individual photos from that batch, but I do not believe it is really needed, since authors are not "unknown" anymore. -- Wesha (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The deletion request was a good amount of time before her global ban; I kind of see the last point as a personal attack

She didn't even create the request herself Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 23:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Whitney Reynolds Skyline.jpg

I saw that the image was deleted because it was not provided a ticket, I would like to obtain the right permissions so that the image can remain on the website. Thank you, BoatsandTrains (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder, please email our permissions verification team (VRT).→

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ware & Brookfield Street Railway Trolley Car in Massachusetts (Original, Unenhanced Version).jpg

Certain works that were neither published nor registered for copyright as of Jan. 1, 1978, entered the public domain on Jan. 1, 2003, unless the works were published on or before Dec. 31, 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbarbershop (talk • contribs) 09:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

References