On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.
This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.
Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.
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.
if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
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.
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.
Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for them if you want to, or leave it to them to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file.
In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed.
The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done."
When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived.
When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading").
Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.
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.
@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.
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]
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.
@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'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The reason for deletion was: I don't think the original photo is in the public domain in the United States (which is required on Commons) even if it is in the public domain in Argentina. I doubt the photo even belongs to that Argentinian newspaper, so I doubt it is in the public domain in Argentina either
The photo should be PD in USA. It was published in some American newspapers during that time without author and copyright notice. For example, The Boston Globe [2] on 14 February 1984, The Evening News [3] on 13 February 1984, Standard-Freeholder on 24 December 1984 [4].
This is a photo from Associated Press who publish this photo at their web site with the following credit: "Soviet Politburo member Konstantin Chernenko is seen, 1983. (AP Photo)". The location is said to be Moscow, Russia. (ap.org). Thuresson (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AP images published between 1964 and 1977 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain. By at least 1981 AP began including copyright notices on some photos.' But this one doesn't have. I guess it should be {{PD-US-1978-89}}Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is not possible to say for sure that this photo is public domain in the country of origin. It is probably not by an Associated Press photographer since the photographer is said to be anonymous. Thuresson (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text in the centre is not complex enough to be above TOO;
COM:TOO Germany contains a clear example of a logo being denied protections regardless of it having stylised text
It is my understanding, based on articles such as this, that Monster energy drink were denied protection in German courts for their brand's font/typeface in 2024/2025. This also shows that stylised fonts/typeface do not push a logo above TOO in Germany. The Monster font is arguably more complex/stylised than the one featured in File:Logo WFV04.png.
Sorry, the french word "maquette" appearing in several of these file names literally means "model". The Destinus drones indeed may be the actual devices, but I tend to expect that a producer of military drones would rather exhibit life-size models of his creations instead of the actual machines for security purposes. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A full size model should look like the real thing, but we don't know what's inside. Also I note that this is highly finished and all stainless steel, which seems odd for a piece that will be used once. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: le nom du fichier dit carrément que c'est une maquette, comment une maquette peut être le vrai engin?!
Additional question: there's an article, fr:Zéphyr (fusée) providing a range for the size of the actual rocket engine. I do not recall if there were any references in the image from which one could deduce the size of the depicted device, but an engine made for a 19m rocket is quite probably larger than comfortable to fit into an exhibition stand. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Grand-Duc Le nom du fichier est une erreur : pour rappel, c'est moi qui l'ai donné. Il y a aussi une autre erreur de copier coller avec "sur son pas de tir". Quant à la taille du moteur (7 moteur sur un disque de 1,5 m de diamètre), elle est cohérente. Artvill (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honnêtement, ce n'est pas ce que j'appellerais une maquette. C'est peut-être un prototype, ou une (re)création à la même échelle, mais cela a probablement une utilité et n'a pas un nouveau droit d'auteur. Yann (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I'd like to hear the opinion of @Clindberg in regards to possible IP rights and COM:MODELS. It's about an exhibit shown at the Salon du Bourget (en:Paris Air Show). That exhibit is meant to display the propulsive subassembly of a en:small-lift launch vehicle (the fr:Zéphyr (fusée)); Artvill clarified that the device is probably at an 1:1 scale. At the moment, we don't know for sure whether it's a non-functional model, a prototype or an actual working rocket part. What are your thoughts about the image's ability to get hosted here? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full sized models of real devices means they are not art. The current policy at COM:MODELS is wrong and fails to capture all the nuances of the law, especially newer cases like Meshwerks v Toyota in the US and Brompton Bicycle v. Chedech/Get2Get for EU/France. These are full sized models of real objects, so indistinguishable from the original that we are arguing over whether they're models or the real thing. No new art=no copyright. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 00:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is the Canadian National Vimy Memorial, designed by Walter Seymour Allward (d. 1955). The memorial was constructed in France by the government of Canada following a bilateral treaty, and was unveiled in 1936. The files deleted as part of numerous Vimy Memorial deletion requests were primarily on the basis that:
The memorial is a copyrighted work of sculpture, and
It is located in France, which does not provide a general Freedom of Panorama for such works.
I note that:
None of the original deletion discussions or closing rationales identified a specific United States copyright expiry date for the memorial;
The “Undelete in 2032” categorization was added subsequently and does not reflect a date established through deletion discussion;
As of 1 January 2026, Allward’s works have entered the public domain in France (life + 70 years); the memorial is firmly in the public domain in France and by Canada.
With respect to the United States, mere public display does not in itself constitute “publication”. Obviously, photographs and postcards of the memorial exist (inclusive of stamps and pre-paid postcards issued by France in 1936), and it would have been widely photographed after its unveiling, but there is no documented distribution of copies to the public in the United States with the author’s consent. Architectural works are protected only if the building was constructed on or after 1 December 1990. Buildings constructed before that date are not protected in the United States as architectural works. In respect to the precautionary principle, I have searched the US Copyright Office Public Records Portal, the Virtual Card Catalog (as this is a pre-1978 subject), and the URAA Notices of Intent to Enforce mentions of “Vimy Memorial” as a published work and I could not find any entry. If the work is treated as unpublished for US term purposes, its copyright term would follow the author’s life plus 70 years.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Vimy Memorial is a sculpture, not an architectural work. Yes, it's now public domain in France but the sculpture is still under US copyright until 2032 (1936 is the widely agreed date of "publication"). Abzeronow (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't agree that the date of publication in the United States is widely agreed. It is clear for other jurisdictions, most notably France, Canada and the United Kingdom, but unclear for the United States. Certainly, no demonstrated publication or distribution in the United States in 1936 let alone one with the author’s consent. There does appear to be a basis to consider this an unpublished work for US term purposes.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a key distinction being blurred here between public display (eg. representation) of works and publication of the work itself under US copyright law. Under the law for pre-1978 works, publication requires the authorized distribution of copies of the work itself, not merely the existence of photographs or other representations. Photographs, postcards, stamps are derivative works and do not constitute publication of the underlying sculpture. Likewise, absent of any evidence that physical copies of the memorial were distributed to the US public with the sculptors authorization, publication has not taken place.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support First published 1920-1921 in plans and models. The sculptor later created half sized models between 1925-1930 in his studio, which were published (the definition of published under the 1909 Copyright Act was making copies, which the sculptor literally did). The large scale version is an *exact* slavish copy of the models, which has no new copyright in the US. See File:Vimy Memorial - half finished statue and plaster models.jpg for a side by side comparison of the half sized model with the final product. Also [5] -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 19:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support With respect to the US, public display that makes no attempt to prevent copying, at least pre-1978, would be publication. I'm not sure just making copies was enough, but with the photographs at the time, and distribution of plans and models, it seems pretty clear they were published pre-1930 in US terms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This 'Plaster half-size working model' is also a 1925 to 1930 scale model by the sculptor, Walter Allward. I am not a copyright expert to say if it meets the US definition of a copyright notice or 'publication' sadly as I am not a copyright expert but the 1925 to 1930 date may or may not be important. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In thinking about this remember that in the USA, architectural drawings have had copyrights for many years, but that buildings have had copyrights only after 1990. This shows that each instance of a work has a separate copyright unless it is an exact copy as out of a mold. In the same line, my father painted a copy of Monet and his copy has a copyright of its own. And, until Bridgeman (and still so in some countries), a photograph of a 2D work had its own copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is the application of URAA depends on whether the work was published or unpublished. If the memorial is treated as unpublished, URAA dos not introduce a fixed publication term and the US term of life+70 years applies. Therefore it's my understanding that per COM:URAA & COM:US, this matters is still determined based on whether there is demonstrated evidence of publication of the memorial itself, not its derivatives.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Under US law, and, therefore, for the purposes of the URAA, a work is published when it is unveiled unless photography is forbidden and enforced. This work is clearly published. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
17 U.S.C. § 101 states: “Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.[6]
The Copyright Office Compendium (Third Edition) applies this definition directly to statues and sculptures. Section 1906.1 (“Offering to Distribute Copies or Phonorecords to a Group of Persons”) states:“For example, publication occurs when the copyright owner of a statue offers to sell copies of that statue to a group of museums for the purpose of publicly displaying the work, even if no copies are ultimately sold.”— Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (Third ed.), § 1906.1
Accordingly, I don't see any statutory support for the claim that a sculpture becomes published upon unveiling and would appreciate the appropriate references that support this position.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes — I appreciate the engagement, but there is no identified policy/case law support being proposed beyond identifying perceived weaknesses in my argument. I would welcome a more precise identification of how a fixed US publication date is established in this case.
I have reviewed COM:PACUSA, and I think there is a distinction being blurred in how that guidance is being applied here. COM:PACUSA notes that publication of a statue under pre-1978 US law may occur when it is placed “in a public location where people can make copies” with examples such as display in Golden Gate Park. However, that language is illustrative rather than conclusive. It does not mean any outdoor monument is automatically published for US purposes on the date of unveiling, nor that public placement alone fixes a specific US publication date. While the memorial was placed in an unrestricted public setting with no measures taken to prevent copying, American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister is clear that such circumstances may support an inference of publication, but do not automatically establish that publication occurred absent evidence of surrender of control through distribution or other publication acts. Once again, in this case, there does not appear to be evidence that tangible copies of the memorial itself were distributed to the public. Accordingly, even if publication is inferred in principle, I remain unclear on what basis a specific publication year (such as 1936) is being relied upon.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No there were already existing half sized models before 1930. Which had photographs circulated of them. They were published. They were then publically moved to France to use as models for the full sized version, which I’ve proven by linking to several photos of the models alongside the full sized version under construction. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk)
Things have changed since 2020, per COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tiến Quân Ca, on the first of January 2023, the laws on use of national symbols, including the national anthem, were amended in Vietnam to disallow the ability of intellectual property rights to conflict with usage.
However, there needs to be some updates, I'm not sure if {{PD-VietnamGov}} is adequate to use given the current text, as it is only relevant to state documentation, not national symbols. Additionally, the hatnote in the category in question still says that the anthem is still subject to copyright law. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Border Roads Organization was formed in 1960, therefore the flag most probably had been in use from that time.
Also under Template:GODL-India all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India, all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, adapt, publish (either in original, or in adapted and/or derivative forms), translate, display, add value, and create derivative works (including products and services), for all lawful commercial and non-commercial purposes, and for the duration of existence of such rights over the data or information.
The file is shared by the government here through BRO official X account - https://x.com/BROindia/status/1426843795488854019 and the uploader has modified it, which is allowed according to the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) of the Government of India. Therefore the file is free to use and should be undeleted. Soap Boy 1 (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
GODL-India doesn't apply to government emblems or flags. But if it can be shown that this flag was in use before 1965, I suppose we can undelete. Abzeronow (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow, that stamp itself needs to be deleted as it is a copyvio. Stamps are protected for 60 years from publication per the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. Stamps are exempted from GODL both bcoz they are artistic works and not just government records and per 1957 act exemption in GODL. Also, these stamps are published by Department of Posts and its own website, India Post, doesn't operate under GODL-India. You can also see COM:India#Stamps. GODL-India can be applied only if the stamp is sourced from a government website which operates under that policy (ex - PMIndia, PIB, etc) They never release any stamp under it. Shaan SenguptaTalk17:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But is the BRO logo over 60 years old? Evidence of early use seems to be scant, but that could just be that locations where it would have been used (to adorn buildings and vehicles or in internal documentation) doesn't have a lot of documentation online. And if so, and the symbol is PD, then wouldn't the stamp also be PD? -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on the uploader/nominator who wants it undeleted. Till now 1985 is the earliest trace we've got. Also, what I think is if we get any trace of logo being 60 years old, that would make the logo PD, not sure the same can be said about the stamp though. It might still have some distinct artistic work, or perhaps it could be considered De minimis. Either is possible. Shaan SenguptaTalk04:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Logo/crest is different from first version by Emilio Coutaret (1901) and first modification by Rául Felices (1928) found here (first one is in the public domain and probably the second one is too).
It was later anonymously modified for a second time for the institution more than 50 years ago as can be seen in a 1940 publication in this site or in a 1937 publication in this site. This SVG file is clearly an identical, faithful recreation of the 2D work first found in 1937 so I don't think it will apply for "threshold of originality" or that it could be copyrighted.
I will modify the description and use "PD-Art", "PD-AR-Anonymous" and "PD-1996" tags for licensing.
"PD-Art" because it is a "faithful reproduction" of a 2D work.
"PD-AR-Anonymous" because it was published anonymously more than 50 years ago in Argentina.
"PD-1996" because it was already anonymously published in 1937 as clearly documented here, entering in the public domain in Argentina in 1987 (before 1996 as required by the URAA to not restore copyright in United States), therefore entering in the public domain also in United States. --MensSana2026 (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The flag looks slightly different from the Internet Archive link. The red doesn't look firey enough for me, and the blue (and yellow) St. Andrew's cross has different proportions. I suppose this could be corrected if undeleted though. I think there is a good case for this fictional flag to be in scope though. Abzeronow (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any mention of the flag in en:Aristasia, and I'm of the opinion that we already have vastly too many fictional flags that are probably not in scope. The existence of an entity doesn't necessarily mean that any imagery related to that entity is within scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Aristasia.guide, one of the websites used as references in the Aristasia article, contains images of the flags. [12]
[13] mentions the existence of Kadoria and other nations in Aristasia.
I am the author of this photograph. I took this picture myself at Plaza Las Palmeras (La Guaira), where the statue is located. I hold the full copyright and I release this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. The previous deletion was due to missing permission info, which I will correct immediately by adding the Own work template upon restoration.
Español: Soy el autor de esta fotografía. Tomé la foto yo mismo en la Plaza Las Palmeras (La Guaira). Poseo los derechos de autor y libero la imagen bajo la licencia CC BY-SA 4.0. Solicito su restauración para añadir la plantilla Own work y la licencia que faltaba.--Orion Pérez Touceda (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This file was deleted due to missing copyright info.
Origin: This is original raw footage recorded personally by my father, Maurizio Pérez, in December 1999 using a home video camera. It is NOT a TV broadcast nor material from a news agency.
Rights: I am the direct heir and custodian of the original physical tape/file from the Pérez Touceda family archive.
License: I explicitly release this video content under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. I request restoration to add the correct Own work source and author details.
Español: Este video es una grabación casera original hecha por mi padre, Maurizio Pérez, en 1999. NO es material de televisión ni de noticieros. Pertenece a mi archivo familiar privado. Como dueño de la grabación original, libero el contenido bajo licencia CC BY-SA 4.0.--Orion Pérez Touceda (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: This image was deleted due to missing permission info.
Origin: This is a historical photograph from my private family archive (Pérez Touceda). It depicts the family house destroyed after the Vargas tragedy (1999).
Author: Taken by my father, Maurizio Pérez, circa 1999/2000 to document the damage.
Rights: I am the custodian of the original physical archive (prints/negatives) and I hold the rights to release this content.
License: I explicitly release this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. I request restoration to add the correct Own work template.
Español: Foto histórica del archivo familiar (1999) mostrando la casa destruida tras la tragedia. Tomada por mi padre. Como heredero del archivo, libero la imagen bajo CC BY-SA 4.0.--Orion Pérez Touceda (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Previous deletion from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gina Pareño (1971).jpg, this photograph was qualified under PD-Philippines-1972 not registered until the following year, also qualified under US public domain per this statement. It lacked individual copyright marks, or not officially registered within the publisher as print mediums in the Philippines are explicit not registered within copyright laws and in the U.S before November 1972.
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 edits11:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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
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.
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)
This went through: round 1 of deletion, restoration; then round 2 of deletion, restoration, and just now deletion again, but the debate was isolated to a talk page on the last round without input from others. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gheorghe Surdu în tinerețe.png. The debate is over {{PD-RO-photo}} and interpreting: "non-artistic photographs were not expressly protected by copyright. Artistic photographs taken between 1956 and 1996 are protected by copyright for a limited term, as follows: 10 years since issuance for the author of an artistic photographic series. 5 years since issuance for the author of an isolated artistic photograph." The discussion is also debating the difference between commercial photography and art photography. --RAN (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Glrx @Abzeronow @Incall My attempt to restore this PNG file was not only rejected, but Jameslwoodward even submitted a malicious retaliatory deletion request for the SVG file of the 1991 Karelia flag. I hope yours can evaluate this behavior fairly and impartially, thanks. Sorry, I don't want to disturb yours. Boston Mayflower (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it is either retaliatory or malicious to add a DR to an SVG file that is identical to the subject file which has already been correctly deleted. I do know that making strong ad hominem attacks is a good way to get blocked from editing here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Jim is trying to retaliate for your request or act maliciously. If you have evidence that this particular flag was used, we can restore it. Abzeronow (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow Beginning on August 9, 1990, the Karelian ASSR declared state sovereignty and was renamed to the Karelian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Karelian SSR was renamed to the Republic of Karelia on November 13, 1991, and remains a federal subject of Russia, see this article. The Karelian flag based on the RSFSR flag continued to be used until 16 February 1993 when it was replaced by the current flag. Boston Mayflower (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally need it, but I thought that useful files were as a rule kept per policy regardless of who posted them. For example, a proposal to delete a slew of uploads by Livioandronico went down in flames. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only defense we have against LTAs is to refuse to keep anything they upload in the hope that they will stop trying. They are a major nuisance, most of which happens out of sight of editors who are not Checkusers.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How do you all respond to my points? When are files by long-term abusers automatically deleted and when are they not? And is this the only exception to the rule of not speedily deleting files previously kept in deletion request threads? User:Krd seems to speedily delete files that either were kept in deletion request threads or have open deletion request threads they don't close or post a deletion explanation to all the time. I don't like opaque or irregular processes, though I recognize they could be necessary sometimes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much else to say. It's not the greatest or the happiest approach of all but it was deemed necessary, and in the cases it's needed to be done (which can be counted on one hand) it's been successful. Files can still be reuploaded by users in good standing. Bedivere (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This file was deleted nearly three years ago, in March 2023; the reason given to me was that "Owning the camera does not make you the copyright owner, that is held by the actual photographer." This was an actual cropped image of my friend's son and Bosnian football manager Amar Osim taken in the town of Hrasnica, on the outskirts of Sarajevo in June 2019. The license is okay to use as is this image is my own work. Taken on my phone, by me as the photographer. Bakir123 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support In the DR OP wrote "this is an actual cropped image of my friend's son and Osim" and this claim was interpreted by the nominator, who is not a native English speaker, as "image by my friend's son". Thuresson (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This file was deleted under CSD F10.
The image is intended for encyclopedic use and depicts the subject of a Wikidata item.
The subject now has a Wikidata item and the file will be used as image (P18).
The uploader is the author of the photograph and the file is released under a free license (CC BY-SA 4.0).
Please restore the file.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidKovacs001 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This file is my own work (created 2025-09). It is an informational two-panel cartoon/infographic comparing small business workload “without AI” vs “with AI assistants”. It is not a personal photo/selfie and not intended for private use.
AI generation details (per Commons:AI-generated media):
Model/tool: "nano banana" via aistudio.google.com
Prompt author: (me)
Prompt used:
"A colorful viral cartoon comic panel, meme-style, with bright colors and bold lines. Theme: “Can small businesses survive without AI?”
Left panel (Without AI): A small shop owner in flip-flops, sweating and struggling to run a marathon labeled “Business Survival.” He looks exhausted, carrying piles of papers, phones ringing, with angry customers behind. Caption: “Without AI: running uphill in flip-flops.”
Right panel (With AI): Another small shop owner cruising past easily on an e-bike, with a friendly robot assistant (ChatGPT-style logo) riding alongside, handling messages, ads, and customer chats. Customers look happy, sales chart going up in the background. Caption: “With AI: smooth ride to growth.”
Style: colorful viral cartoon, bold lines, exaggerated expressions, funny but clear, designed to spread fast on social media."
If restored, I will ensure the file page is neutrally described, properly categorized, and tagged as AI-generated (e.g., {{PD-algorithm}} and appropriate categories/templates).
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
I would like the file restored in accordance with the posting by the Amazonense Football Federation, which holds the visual identity rights. The logo has some imperfections that need adjusting.
Sorry I guess I misunderstood what you meant. I own the iNaturalist account to where this observation was posted. The observation had (unbeknownst to me) a CC-BY-NC 4.0 license at the time that I uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons. This was automatically flagged by INaturalistReviewBot and the image was deleted shortly after. Seeing this, I changed the license of the photo to CC-BY 4.0 in my iNaturalist account and tried to re-upload the image (see https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/287820698, at "Copyright Info and More" it now says CC-BY 4.0). The Upload Wizard blocked me from doing this, saying I need to submit an undeletion request. I just stated the reason in the request, since I thought the context information would automatically be included, hence the lack of context in the original request. Decoder pr0 (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Godellernate proceeded to vandalise the page using (for some reason) speedy deletion templates, which I reverted (why vandalism? read the parameter values in the diffs)
Just to note that the above user is w:WP:NOTHERE (see their talk page, where there are three notifications of File:Voice by Shuvo being nominated for speedy deletion, twice as a .png and once as a .jpg)
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".
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png){kind=small}
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)
Support Full sized models of real devices means they are not art. The current policy at COM:MODELS is wrong and fails to capture all the nuances of the law, especially newer cases like Meshwerks v Toyota in the US and Brompton Bicycle v. Chedech/Get2Get for EU/France. These are full sized models of real objects, so indistinguishable from the original that we are arguing over whether they're models or the real thing. No new art=no copyright. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 00:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Info Slight variation of File:Agricultural-Industry-Electronics-Foundation-Logo.svg. Thuresson (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
-20260129002600-File:Gheorghe_Surdu_în_tinerețe.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Not done: file may be reuploaded by any user in good standing. this particular file will not be restored. --Bedivere (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Done: per Thuresson, we can AGF as this is plausibly an own work and nomination was based on a misunderstanding. --Abzeronow (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
