Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page

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

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 1 reason • 5 subpages) • 0 malformed
265 copyvios • 197 duplicates • 1 advert • 9 selfies • 90 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Current requests

File:Sia – Reasonable Woman cover art.png

I would argue that the arguments in the DR for deletion were flawed:

  • User:LeftRightRightLeft's nomination "We need a fair use image 'stead!" seems to imply that the file page on the English Wikipedia should include something like w:Template:Non-free album cover instead of {{YouTube CC-BY}}.
  • User:Heylenny first argued that the photograph was not a work for hire belonging to the record label, but rather an independently authored work requiring special licensing. Heylenny later argued that, because the cover contains the text "All rights reserved," that it can never be relicensed (unlike many files officially relicensed via COM:VRT).

The CC BY licenses on Warner Music New Zealand's YouTube channel (an official subsidiary of Warner Music Group) have been found many times to be legitimate (see COM:DR/File:Dua Lipa samples from 5 songs.webm, COM:DR/File:The Evolution of Cardi B.webm, COM:DR/File:Ed Sheeran – Shivers sample.ogg and COM:DR/File:Dua Lipa – Dua Lipa cover art.png). Thus, this file should be reinstated. (As I said in the DR, if the point was to question the validity of the YouTube channel's CC BY licenses, that should be discussed at COM:VP or COM:VPC [or perhaps even w:WP:RFC/Spongebob Squarepants is now freely licensed!] but not in a DR nor a UR.) JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian municipal coats of arms

I request review and (partial) undeletion of the files deleted as result of this request without a proper discussion. Although the request was actually mentioned by a third user in one of the unofficial communication channels of the Slovenian Wikipedia community, the requester or involved Commons administrators could have notified the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion. Since these files are actively used on the project, such a notification could have helped ensure that relevant comments were made already during the deletion discussion.

Generally, coats of arms are exempt from copyright law in Slovenia, see Template:PD-Slovenia-exempt. One might argue that some images were "independent creations" (as per the earlier discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of coats of arms of Slovenian municipalities). However, (1) it is highly debatable whether such works can be considered original if they only follow the textual description; and (2) the requester did not verify the actual source of the images. The link he cited is dead, and deleting files originating from dead links could have far-reaching consequences for the project. One of Commons’ goals is to preserve free media, and losing it due to link rot seems counterproductive. In the case of dead links, the assumption should not automatically be that the files are problematic. Fortunately, there are initiatives such as the Internet Archive that help us verify sources.

While some images indeed have come from third-party websites (which are now also dead, for example for Žirovnica), in several cases the files are direct reproductions of official heraldic acts. For example, the deleted coat of arms of Žužemberk (cached copy of the file information page) cites http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc20.html#si-zv as the source. This in turn cites Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Žužemberk, št. 8/00, which is an official municipal document. See the archived source. This is an official document, which means that in addition to the copyright exemption, it is also considered informacija javnega značaja (information of public character). Under Slovenian law, such materials must be publicly available and freely reusable, since official acts cannot be restricted by copyright in a way that prevents public access.

Therefore, even if a particular depiction were argued to be an “independent creation,” its publication within an official act places it firmly in the public domain as information of public character.


The files that should be reviewed are:
* File:Coat of arm of Hrastnik.png

I propose to:

  • Undelete the deleted files to allow the community to review them carefully on a case-by-case basis, using archived sources (e.g. via Internet Archive)
  • Subsequent edits by CommonsDelinker on Slovenian Wikipedia should also be reversed where the files are restored (see sl:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker)

Best regards, --Miha (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smihael: Maybe, it would be better to upload images that are clearly covered by the exemption and request undeletion only if the upload is prevented due to being binary identical with the deleted ones? Ankry (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So due to an overly narrow interpretation of copyright and lack of notice to the affected community, valuable files were lost and now others must dig through archives or search for alternatives to replace them. This is counterproductive — these files should be restored in good faith, and the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester and judged on an individual basis. In general, coats of arms are exempt from copyright protection in Slovenia, and the claim that these are copyrightable individual interpretations is doubtful at best, if not outright flawed... What definitely was flawed, is the deletion process itself, as it wrongly assumed that all files from a certain dead link were problematic. Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down: are we just going to delete thousands of imported images simply because their licenses are no longer easily verifiable? -- Miha (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. First, we cannot manufacture discussion. The DR was open for three and a half months. All of the uploaders were notified and no  Keep appeared there. We get about 10,000 new files every day and around 1,500 of them must be deleted. Most of this work is done by 20 Admins. We simply do not have the human resources to even think about "notifi[ng] the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion".

As for "Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down", this is why we have License Review -- so that there is a record of the license status of files that might otherwise be a problem. As far as I know, none of the uploaders requested license review for any of the files.

Also, please note that "the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester" is backward. Commons clear policy is that those who would keep a file must prove that it is either PD or freely licensed.

Finally, I examined a random dozen of the files before the deletion and found none that qualified for use on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The more pressing question is whether all coats of arms published on official pages of Slovenian municipalities are public domain or only those that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances. --TadejM (t/p) 10:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Those are in fact different legal questions, and I think we should not be conflating them.
  • First (copyright): coats of arms, when adopted as official municipal symbols, generally do not qualify for ordinary copyright protection in Slovenia — they are treated as official symbols or public emblems rather than ordinary works. The question of derivative versions is separate: such variants usually do not cross the threshold of originality, as they only follow the wording describing the coat of arms. If there are substantial differences, we should anyway avoid them to prevent confusion.
  • Second (access / source of the file): The doctrine of informacija javnega značaja (the right of access to public information) requires that documents held by public authorities — including municipal graphical identity or coat of arms files — be made accessible and reusable, unless a statutory exception applies. This principle is recognized in the Constitution (see https://e-kurs.si/komentar/kaj-je-informacija-javnega-znacaja/) and is implemented in the Access to Public Information Act (ZDIJZ). ZDIJZ applies to all state bodies, local government bodies, and related public law entities, requiring them to provide access and re-use of public information (including works created by them or acquired from others) unless specifically exempt (for example: national security, personal data protection, internal deliberations, trade secrets) regardless of the medium or format in which the information is stored. Thus, whether the coat of arms was published in Uradni list or only on a municipal website is irrelevant under access law — what matters is that the public authority holds the file and that it is not subject to a statutory exemption.
  • There remains the separate question of how the coat of arms may be used to prevent misuse. That is regulated by municipal acts (usage ordinances, design rules, prohibitions), and is separate from copyright concerns. On Wikimedia Commons, you will often see notices such as despite the copyright status, additional restrictions may apply (e.g. photos of cultural heritage, local usage rules). So potential presence of usage restrictions does not automatically invalidate a file’s eligibility on Commons as long as the file itself is not under copyright protection.
To sum up: the version of the coat of arms found in municipal materials can generally be used without issue, because it has already been published by the public authority, is publicly available, and is effectively exempt from copyright under Slovenian law. Therefore, the requester should check which of the files were sourced from official documents and at least restore those!
In my view, the first part of rationale also covers coat of arms images sourced from elsewhere: even if they are derivatives (and not mere copies of versions found in municipial documents), they typically do not cross the threshold of originality and so do not attract separate copyright. If you accept this logic, then all the files in this discussion should be restored. That said, it is of course a better policy to gradually replace them with versions directly sourced from official documents, and even better if redrawn in vector format (so quality and fidelity are improved). But that is no justification to leave the files deleted in the meantime. -- Miha (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow doubt that all municipal coats of arms are copyright exempt in Slovenia. For example, this page cites the Municipality of Grosuplje as the copyright holder. --TadejM (t/p) 10:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there are solid sources to claim that. Article 9 of the ZASP (Copyright and Related Rights Act) lists official legislative, administrative and judicial texts among non-protected creations (i.e. not covered by ordinary copyright). A study, commissioned by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency and co-authored by the Institute for Comparative Law at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, explains that although ZASP uses the term official texts, in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes to, official texts—explicitly including drawings of the state coat of arms, municipal coats of arms, flags, traffic-sign drawings, urban plans, and the anthem (see section 2.1.2 Nejasnost pojma uradna besedila, pp. 27–28).
While it's true that some municipalities (as in your example) present themselves as copyright holders, this mostly reflects a widespread misunderstanding of basic copyright principles. Many people — including public officials — are generally un(der)educated about copyright issues and often use “copyright” loosely when they actually mean that it is legally protected by special rules. Again, such claims do not override the copyright status of the works. -- Miha (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes". This would mean that only those municipal coats of arms "that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances" qualify as copyright exempt. --TadejM (t/p) 13:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so we at least agree that the municipal coats of arms, which are sourced from official sources are not protected by copyright.
I checked https://web.archive.org/web/20091208063825/http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc.html and this already concerns many deleted coat of arms. On the first page alone, I found that most of the files were indeed sourced from official acts, including:
  • Ajdovscina
  • Beltinci
  • Benedikt
  • Bistrica ob Sotli
  • Bled
  • Bloke
  • Bohinj
@TadejM Please, go through the remaining files and undelete those coming from official acts.
As for the other files, I still believe they are also unproblematic. In most cases, they likely come from official acts through intermediaries, but this is not the key issue. What matters is the official nature of the symbol, not its intermediate source. To clarify, any faithful depiction (which was as far as I can remember the case for all deleted files) of a coat of arms does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Since these symbols are not original designs, they do not qualify for copyright. -- Miha (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, other coat of arms can be easily sourced from official sources. Redirects can be made to resolve any deadlinks caused by this deletion. --Miha (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images could be undeleted if directly taken from an official document (ordinance, see e.g. Vrhnika) but not if the official document contains only a blazon. It will take time to check all of them. Regarding the threshold, these images are quite original and at least some have been designed by a professional company (Heraldika d.o.o); I'm not certain why they would fall below a TOO. --TadejM (t/p) 17:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really see a problem here. If you look again at the study I cited above, it is clear that once a coat of arms is part of an official document (including annexes to ordinances), it falls under the category of official texts within the meaning of Article 9 ZASP. That means two things: (1) they are not subject to ordinary copyright, and (2) this applies regardless of whether the drawing was created in-house or commissioned from a third party. The study itself explicitly references Copyright and Related Rights Act with a commentary by Trampuž, Oman and Zupančič. I am trying to obtain a copy of that commentary, which should clear up any remaining doubt on this point.
As for your Vrhnika example. The act you are citing above is no longer in force. The updated Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Vrhnika (13.2.02) removes any ambiguity: Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati (the coat of arms and flag cannot be copyright-protected) and that Izvirnike grba in zastave občine Vrhnika v vseh oblikah hrani Občinska uprava občine Vrhnika (the originals in all forms are kept by the municipal administration). In legal terms, that is equivalent to annex publication. Under ZDIJZ, the official source file can be requested directly from the authority and freely reused.
And even if the earlier act with the poor-quality scan were still valid, that still would not magically make faithful reproductions reach TOO. If the emblem is prescribed and published in an official act (as it is), then any accurate reproduction is non-copyright under ZASP and cannot be treated otherwise. Period. -- Miha (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What the actual ordinance really says about Vrhnika is that "Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati [po drugih osebah] brez dovoljenja občine" (the coat of arms and flag must not be copyright-protected [by other parties] without a permission of the municipality). In any case, as the image of the coat of arms was previously published in the Official Gazette, it is copyright-exempt. A similar clause is contained in the ordinance issued by the Municipality of Preddvor: "avtorske pravice si pridrži občina" (Copyright is retained by the municipality).[1] --TadejM (t/p) 09:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going through the list of deleted images and will undelete those that are exact images copied from official publications. For example, File:Trbovlje.png is an exact copy from https://www.e-obcina.si/vsebina/uradni-vestnik-zasavja-st-112015. --TadejM (t/p) 10:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now undeleted some as per the above. --TadejM (t/p) 17:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Miha (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guillermo Francos - Retrato Oficial 2024.png

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

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

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

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

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

File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg

As a user keen on flags, I suppose that File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg should not be deleted.

One of the reasons explaining why File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg should not be deleted is that according to the original statement of this file, the design then was derived from that from Vexilla Mundi, and Vexilla Mundi allows the designs there to be used in non-commercial websites.

In this page is the description of this file before deletion: https://web.archive.org/web/20250828195257/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg

Moreover, I object to Safes007's reason to delete this flag. It seems to me that once a flag is released into the public domain, minor changes to it do not infringe on the original version's copyright; what's more, the flag of the Cocos Islands has been used in emoji icons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9BBWMJ (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, from my point of view, File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg should be restored.

@9BBWMJ: Do you believe that this flag is in the public domain, and if so, why? Thuresson (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the page describing the Australian Symbols booklet has a Copyright and Disclaimer page with a CC-BY 4.0 International license. YIIBUGRADIO (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page you cite contains an Australian Symbols booklet which clearly states "This work is copyright. Apart from use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth, available from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet". So no, this shouldn't be restored. Bedivere (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given @Jameslwoodward's comment above, what do you think of this one? I closed this as not done but then I saw your comment in the other thread thinking otherwise. Bedivere (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The situation with the Capitol Territory Flag is ambiguous. We have the booklet with a clear and explicit copyright notice and the web site describing the booklet in detail including an image of the flag. The web site has a CC-BY license. It is a fixed rule of legal interpretation that ambiguity may always be construed against the writer, so on that basis we can accept the image.
That doesn't help with Cocos(Keeling) because the flag is described but not pictured on the web site, so the only illustration we have of the flag is clearly marked with a copyright notice. The note above about Vexilla Mundi covers only NC uses, which, of course, we do not permit.
A final consideration is that the Australian Government paid A$20 million to free the Aboriginal Peoples flag from copyright, so it seems that they want the flags to be free. Not withstanding that, however, I think we are stuck with a clear copyright notice on the only source we have. This is probably a bureaucratic screwup, so could probably be fixed by someone here interested enough in the situation to write a letter. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my part, I would prefer to delete only when we copy an actual drawing from elsewhere, not when someone makes their own drawing/SVG based on the description. If we are copying all the specific curves and lines, that is an issue to me. Much like heraldry (and Commons:Coats of arms), often it's just the particular drawing which has a copyright, not the overall idea of the flag. There could be some gray areas, but when it comes to governmental flags at least, which often has a description or drawing in the law (which is PD-EdictGov in the US), I would more limit it to the particular drawing. We should not copying particular drawings from elsewhere, but I don't think it means we can't have any flag at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: Do you suggest that any of these versions of Aboriginal flag may be free in Australia? Ankry (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Private flags (which the aboriginal flag was) would be a bit different as there is likely not a written description to start with. Particularly in Australia, where the threshold is so exceedingly low. Official flags, unless they are copying specific lines or another drawing, probably OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: Carl, generally I would agree with you, but perhaps Australia is a special case. Using your argument, anyone could have made a copy (on paper or cloth) of the Aboriginal Flag from the time of its creation until 2022 when the government spent A$20 million to acquire the copyright. I think we did not keep any copies of that flag until 2022. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Australia definitely has a low threshold of originality so any private flag, I'd say stay away. This flag is meant to be an official government flag. If not slavishly copying lines, I'd probably think those are OK. Maybe it would still be considered Crown Copyright -- Australia does have a really low threshold, so yes I would tread carefully. Just don't think that copyright can cover any drawing somewhat matching a description (though the aboriginal flag would be far, far below the TOO in the U.S.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montage of photos of all the murdered Nova festival participants.jpg

Requesting undeletion based on the concept of Commons:De minimis. Each photo in the montage is a low enough resolution to be able to be considered de minimis. This image is similar to the case of the photo of the skyline of the Georgian city of Batumi, in which the country has no Freedom of Panorama, making each builing in the photo copyrightable. However, with the resolution of each building low enough, the contribution of each building is considered de minimis, and the image can be stored on the Commons. Green Montanan (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't think FoP applies because it can be used only in cases where the copyrighted work is placed in public with the permission of the copyright holder. I doubt very much that the creator of this montage has a license from every photographer. The precedents here for accepting images like this, made up of many smaller copyrighted images, are mixed. We have accepted some and deleted some. I read de minimis to mean where an average observer would not notice if the questionable item were deleted or blurred. That would require deleting all of these images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not request undeletion based on FoP - I made the requrest based on de minimis, and the area of any copyrighted image within the field of view of the photograph is indeed tiny. Commons:De minimis actually shows an example very similar to the image in question. Green Montanan (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a bit different; you could blur all those screens, and it wouldn't change the basic nature of the picture. I'm really uncomfortable with any use of de minimis when it's the complete image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the same is true with the image that I am seeking to undelete. You could blur out all the images of the faces, and it wouldn't change the basic nature of the picture. Green Montanan (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You blur out all the screens in Virgin America airplane interior.jpg and still have "Virgin America airplane interior"; how can you blur out all the photos in Montage of photos of all the murdered Nova festival participants.jpg and still have "Montage of photos"?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You would have sticks with the names of the victims and the word "murdered" above the blurred photos. Green Montanan (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Party Parrot.gif

I am not sure if the image is the weaving parrot from cultofthepartyparrot.com. If it is, the GIF image originated from a Github repository, and the original artist is Geiger Powell. Given by a certain news source. And in the repository, the licence notice suggested that Powell has given permission for unlimited use and adaptation of the gif. Thus, it should be relicensed with either {{Copyrighted free use}} or {{PD-author}}. Also, please undelete File:Original Party Parrot.gif and File:Party Parrot.svg, and relicense them with proper licenses by providing notice. Thank you. --Saimmx (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saimmx: Why is this image useful in a Wikimedia context? Thuresson (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Famous meme  REAL 💬 ⬆   16:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add one to en:Sirocco (parrot)#Other media appearances. Saimmx (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides en:Sirocco (parrot), I believe the parrot is also useful in en:Internet meme. Saimmx (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Antoine Favre again

Sorry about that... The client had sent several tickets concerning that person, now all merged into Ticket:2025081110004441. And I did my best to get confused and produce a mess. :-(

I had accepted permission for File:Antoine_Favre_ONU_1959.jpg. However, the permission was for Antoine_Favre_(juge), which was deleted on Sept. 11. Can the first one please be deleted and the second one restored?

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mussklprozz: I undeleted the photo. These are two versions of the same image; same copyright. Ankry (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no file named "Antoine Favre (juge)". You might be thinking either of File:Lt-col Antoine Favre.jpg, a photo from an unidentified author, to which you added a permission apparently from ProLitteris (whose permission might be questioned outside of Switzerland, considering that that Swiss organism may have juridiction in Switzerland to bypass the ordinary Swiss copyright, but not necessarily jurisdiction in other countries to bypass the copyright law of the United States and of other countries), or of File:Antoine Favre.jpg by Gaston de Jongh, for which the uploader said that he has a permission from the Tribunal fédéral suisse, which he might have forwarded or not to VRT. "Antoine Favre (juge)" is the generic title given to the deletion request that includes five files. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: In the deletion request, the uploader says that he forwarded a permission from ProLitteris (fwiw) specifically for "File:Antoine_Favre_ONU_1959.jpg". It was not clear what he communicated for "File:Lt-col Antoine Favre.jpg", given that his argument was that it is in the public domain. Are you saying that the ProLitteris permission was for "File:Lt-col Antoine Favre.jpg" but not for "File:Antoine_Favre_ONU_1959.jpg"? Also, did ProLitteris really claim to issue a universal free license or a license usable in Switzerland? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh la la :-/
About File:Lt-col Antoine Favre.jpg, the client argued that the image is in the public domain according to art. 31, al. 1 de la Loi fédérale sur le droit d'auteur (LDA) suisse ; auteur inconnu, diffusé il y a plus de 70 ans dans un cadre familial (art. 31.1 of the Swiss federal copyright law; unknown author, image relesed more than 70 years ago in a familiar setting). I had not accepted this, answering to the client that the image needs to be in the public domain not only following Swiss, but also international copyright.
Later came several emails for File:Antoine_Favre_ONU_1959.jpg, with an attachment from the Swiss organization Pro litteris. The claim that they can grant licences for orphaned old Swiss images, and granted a cc-by-sa-4.0 licence. (They charge a small amount for that). I accepted that claim, and their permission.
But then I confused the two images, and put the licence tag in the first file rather than in the second one.
Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mussklprozz: Thanks for the reply. So, to be clear, from what you just wrote:
  • You did not accept to validate File:Lt-col Antoine Favre.jpg but you placed a validation tag on it. So, why are you still leaving the validation tag on that file if you do not accept it?
  • You accepted to validate File:Antoine_Favre_ONU_1959.jpg but you did not place a validation tag on it. So, why are you still not placing the validation tag on that file if you accepted it?
Also to be clear: You are saying that that CC BY-SA 4.0 license for File:Antoine_Favre_ONU_1959.jpg, as an orphan work, is clearly issued in a letter written by ProLitteris, despite the fact that their role about orphan works seems inconsistent with it? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asclepias They explicitly put cc-by-sa in their letter to the client, with no time limitation. If they make an exception to their own policies, it is up to them. It is not our job to enforce their policies. Mussklprozz (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not their work. They can't do anything they want with it. Someone cannot license rights that they don't have in the first place. Or license more rights than they have. It is Commons' job to refuse whitewashing. ProLitteris has a limited delegated power to manage orphan works in Switzerland under the Swiss law and regulations. The rules in document TC 13 are authorized by a Swiss Federal Commission. They allow issuance of licenses for reproduction, under conditions. They specify that "Modifications to the work are not authorized" (except minor listed ones). They also specify that "Unless otherwise stipulated, the license is valid only for Switzerland". Even then, since each country has its own copyright law and rules about orphan works, ProLitteris has no jurisdiction to manage orphan works outside Switzerland, unless a country adheres to the Swiss system (a possibility for Liechtenstein, apparently). If they issued a CC BY-SA license beyond their power, it's not valid. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the validation tag between the files now. Mussklprozz (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the files are online at this time, I suppose that this section will soon be closed. However, opinions from more users could be useful in the deletion request. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: see Commons:Deletion requests/Files on Antoine Favre (juge). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Timmah Blaq Profile.jpg

Dear Wikimedia Commons Team,

I am writing to respectfully appeal the deletion of my picture that was removed for copyright reasons. The image in question is my original work, taken and owned by me, and I have full rights to it.

It appears there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the copyright status. I kindly request that the picture be restored, as I am the rightful creator and copyright holder. If additional verification or permission is required, I am more than willing to provide confirmation to prove ownership.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

 Oppose Per policy, previously published images cannot be on-wiki licensed as Own work. VRT permission needed. Ankry (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 38 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Redoan Rony.jpg

Dear Wikimedia Administrators,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am writing to formally request the undeletion of the file "Redoan Rony.jpg" (previously deleted from Wikimedia Commons). I understand that the file was deleted for reasons that likely involved concerns regarding copyright or other issues, and I am happy to provide clarification or make necessary changes to ensure that the file complies with Wikimedia’s policies.

If there was an issue related to copyright or attribution, I am more than willing to resolve it promptly. Please let me know the specific reason for the deletion so that I can take appropriate action, such as providing the correct licensing information, acquiring permissions, or making any other necessary adjustments to meet Wikimedia's standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the situation and to contribute to the Wikimedia community. Please let me know if you require any additional information or if there are steps I need to take to facilitate the undeletion process.

Kind regards, Shariful Islam (Shariful1q) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shariful1q (talk • contribs) 05:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, stop reuploading it, [[File:Redoan rony.png]] Plutus 💬 🎃 — Fortune favors the curious 07:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It is an image taken from Facebook and you had no right to upload it here. It is also out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hans Carl Bryld.png

I uploaded this file (a photo) to Wikimedia Commons in the first half of September 2025 but on 19 September I received a message from User:Yann that he had marked the file as a candidate for possible deletion with the “explanation” that the file does not contain the necessary information on its copyright status or there is contradictory / unclear information on the copyright status. However such purely general remarks do not provide an ordinary contributor to Wikipedia like me much guidance as to which additional information and possible solutions that might be necessary. Accordingly on 22 September I stated in a response to Yann that it would be most helpful if he – as the initiator of the deletion process - would have the kindness to specify his problems regarding my upload and may be even indicate possible solutions but I did not receive any response to my invitation. On 28 September I discovered that the file – without further notice – had been deleted the previous day by User:Krd. About the photo: It originates from the photo archives of the national Museum of Danish Resistance 1940-1945. See link: https://samlinger.natmus.dk/fhm/asset/266866 . Therefore the photo presumably was taken more the 80 years ago. In its webside the national museum states that according to Danish law concerning copyrights the rights to a photograph remain with the photographer for 50 years after the photo was taken meaning that photos taken during the years of the German occupation of Denmark are no longer covered by copyright unless the photo can be considered to constitute a genuine work of art which is – in my opinion – definitely not the case for the photo in question. In addition the national museum have stated that there are “No known rights” to the photo. Accordingly I have considered the photo to be in the public domain and therefore used the license tag {{PD-Denmark50}} in the upload to Wikimedia Commons. My request is to have the photo undeleted – or at least to get a specific reason why this is not possible.Moj1948 (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose If the image was published before January 1, 1946 and the Danish "not genuine work of art" rule applies, then the image is, indeed, PD in both the USA and Denmark. If either of those is not true, then the image has a US copyright. It is up to you to prove that they are both true. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your swift response. If I understand you correctly the issue at steak here is whether the image has a US copyright – i.e. not whether the image is in the public domain according to Danish law. To meet the first condition you mention – proof that the image was published before January 1, 1946 – is impossible and therefore likely to solve the matter with a deletion. But I have not seen this condition being applied to the many other similar old images that have been uploaded to/accepted by Wikimedia Commons with the license tag PD-1996 that I have used as well – I can refer for example to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aage_Schoch.jpg . I do not quite understand why this condition must be applied to my image and not to the many other similar images. Regarding the second condition you mention – proof that the Danish “not genuine work of art” rule applies - it is to my understanding not a question of proof but rather of the best possible prediction of which discretionary decision relating to the issue of artistic merit a Danish court would most likely make in relation to a specific image. In this respect I can refer to the extensive discussion on the image of Aage Bohr – see link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aage_Bohr.jpg – an image that was retained in Wikimedia Commons as I understand it because the predominant opinion was that the image was not considered to be a work displaying the photographer’s own intellectual creation and reflecting his personality. The same is definitely the case concerning the image of Hans Carl Bryld. In the light of these remarks I do hope that you will reconsider your opposition to undelete the image in question.Moj1948 (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Denmark#Photographs It was 25 years from creation on 1996  REAL 💬 ⬆   16:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The description says Most likely the photo is taken during the German occupation of Denmark (9 April 1940 - 4 May 1945). Do we have any evidence that this is not the case? Yann (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My presumption as the uploader that the photo is taken during the German occupation of Denmark is justified by the fact that the photo is incorporated by the national Museum of Danish Resistance in its archive collection of photos from the occupation. This archive contains 9 photos of Hans Carl Bryld. It is unlikely that the national Museum should have included photos of him after the occupation. He was arrested just after the liberation in May 1945, subsequently convicted for treason and imprisoned until 1950 where he was release after pardon. He disappeared from public life and died in 1959.Moj1948 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The work is clearly PD in Denmark so the only thing we discuss is if there is a tiny risk that this is still copyrighted in the US. Since the photo is related to the national Museum of Danish Resistance I agree that it is most likely taken during the war and published right after. Especially because the person was imprisoned in 1945. I do not think we should demand a bullit proof evidence. The Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle says "significant doubt" so it is not enough that someone can find a case where the photo in theory could stille be copyrightet. There should be enough to indicate significant doubt. --MGA73 (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the second page of https://samlinger.natmus.dk/fhm/asset/266866 it says 'Fotograf: "Fædrelandet"'. According to the Danish Wikipedia (a collaboratively written online encyclopedia that anyone can edit - so you should not necessarily trust) it says that Fædrelandet was a newspaper published until 4 May 1945 https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A6drelandet_(1939-1945), i.e., the annotation for the image seems to indicate that the photo was from before 4 May 1945. — Fnielsen (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reliable source in the Wikipedia article of the information on the date of closure of the national socialist newspaper "Fædrelandet" is page 495 in the book "Dansk Nazisme 1930-1945 - og derefter" (in Englishː Danish Nazism 1930-1945 - and afterwards) by the Danish researcher John T. Lauridsen 2002 ISBN 87-02-00548-4. In the same book page 482-483 it is mentioned that Hans Carl Bryld was excluded from the Danish National Socialist Party on 11 March 1944. Accordingly it is most likely that the national socialist newspaper had published the photo before that date.Moj1948 (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elon Musk nazi salute.jpg

Ce JPG a été importé de FLICKR et était déclaré libre de droit : [2] Il est nécessaire pour comprendre de quoi parle l'article où il est inséré [autour du salut d'Elon Musk]. Il semble qu'il y ait des pro-Musk qui veuillent le censurer.

 Oppose a quick scroll through their uploads makes it clear that this is a flickrwashing account. Among other giveaways, they have several recent images with watermarks from various other authors. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per TSC. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Embem of Nyanasamvara.svg and File:ตรา ออป.svg

See undeletion file this:

  • Embem of Nyanasamvara.svg
  • ตรา ออป.svg

Ayakln (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Even if created by you, these files are derivative works, so we need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the permission. Yann (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 38 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undeletion of Traktorodetal files

Hello,

I kindly request undeletion of the following files, previously uploaded by me (under the account MarkTDG, now blocked):

Reason for request: These files are original works created by my company and are intended to illustrate a neutral encyclopedic article about the Russian company "Traktorodetal". I (as user Krio100) confirm that I hold the rights to these images and agree to release them under the Creative Commons license (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Please restore these files, so they can be used in the draft article.

Thank you for your attention.

--Krio100 (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Relevant DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MarkTDG. Yann (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I can find any article about Traktorodetal on Wikipedia, so this is for now out of scope. Also I suppose that the copyright is held by the company, and in this case, we need a confirmation of the license by email (COM:VRT). Yann (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doris Miller - Pioneering Women.png

The deletion request states "I see nothing in the journal which published this image that this is free of copyright."

This image comes from the article "Pioneering women of the International Society of Biomechanics" by Steele and Challis in the Journal of Biomechanics (Volume 152, May 2023). The article in question was published under "Open Access" in the Journal of Biomechanics and is licensed under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) which permits non-commercial use. This license is:

For these reasons I request that the image be undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingstoncurler (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I suggest you read Commons licensing policy. NC and ND are not permitted here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:London Superloop roundel.svg

In light of the recent relaxation of COM:TOO UK I believe that the logo is no longer under copyright in the UK as it is based on the roundel that is used across TfL networks (e.g. File:Underground.svg and File:Buses roundel.svg) and may not meet the "author’s own intellectual creation" criteria. S5A-0043🚎 08:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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