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 • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
128 copyvios • 666 duplicates • 2 adverts • 14 selfies • 96 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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harry Topham.jpg

These appear to be cropped images from an anonymous UK group shot from 1895 and the another group shot circa 1900 when these players were on the team. The consensus was to keep, they were deleted, then restored, then apparently deleted again. They should be restored. --RAN (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Hosting them here with false authorship / licensing is pointless. As nobody wanted to fix this information, their undeletion is also pointless. Following the recent restoration, neither the user requesting the restoration nor any of the users supporting the action did so for several months. Ankry (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I rather support keeping these files. However the license, the date, the source, and the author should have been fixed after undeletion, and they weren't. If neither the uploader or you are able to do it, why requesting undeletion again? Yann (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to notify me if you want me to fix them. I only noticed them undeleted and then deleted again when I posted this. I will fix them if they are undeleted. But someone has to message me that they are available to edit again. --RAN (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VFC will do cut and pastes across a list of files -- which can be a gallery or a category, among others. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never used VFC, can you do it, once restored? It looks like I fixed File:RHurtley.jpg, and a few others, then could not figure out how to automate the process, back at the original nomination. --RAN (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jameslwoodward: Will you use VFC to make the needed changes, at the last deletion I worked on a few by hand and it would be easier automated. I have never used VFC before. See above where they will restore if fixed within 24 hours. --RAN (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Interwiki prefix titles and all associated redirects

I created this page in the past and redirected technical redirects from Wikipedia to this page, because Meta has the same. I changed the target of the previous redirect Real to Commons:Interwiki prefix titles because for technical reasons, "C:Real" on English Wikipedia redirects to this wiki, and I did the same for C: The Contra Adventure. For technical reasons, interwiki hard redirects aren't allowed. I don't see any other redirects from ENWP that could do this, but we could do this to pages on other wikis, too. Faster than Thunder (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I do not think that this page needs to be undeleted: it may be recreated if it is in COM:SCOPE.  No opinion in this matter, however. Ankry (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interwiki prefix titles on Meta is an operational page, and "Allowable page/gallery/category content" includes "Operational pages, such as templates and the like, including Commons-operational program listings." The Commons page got deleted with the reason, "That's not the way it works," and redirects to that page were deleted as cross-namespace redirects. Faster than Thunder (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issues with having such a page, it is a net-positive and not disruptive to help those accessing our sites.  Support. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Popeye-floor-flusher.jpg

As said copyright on Bluto was not renewed  REAL 💬 ⬆   16:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Abzeronow and Krd: as the deletion nominator and the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My information at the time said that Bluto's copyright was in fact renewed. Abzeronow (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: In Commons:Character copyrights, Bluto is mentioned as "not renewed". So? Yann (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Character copyrights can be difficult -- they don't expire all at once usually. Each time a new cartoon or episode or movie or whatever uses a character, and adds more details to their backstory or changes a drawing style or things like that, it sort of creates a new derivative work of the character. The copyright to the new details lasts 95 years from that date. So, characters don't expire all at once -- they expire bit by bit as each work that added detail or changed things expires. The original Mickey Mouse movie has expired, but lots of later details and appearance changes have not. I don't know how reliable it is, but https://pdsh.fandom.com/wiki/Bluto seems to say the original appearance comic was not renewed. But, it sounds like the character was altered in 1933, and those don't seem to be listed in the "public domain appearances". So if there are significant 1933 changes still under copyright, and this image incorporates those, there would be a problem. If this is the 1932 original, it would seem to be OK. I don't really know a lot about the history of that character. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alejo Igoa 2024 Retrato.jpg

I kindly request the undeletion of the file File:Alejo Igoa 2024 Retrato.jpg.

This image is a portrait photograph that I **took myself**, and I am the copyright holder. At the time of upload, I released the image under the **Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)** license, allowing for free use, redistribution, and modification, including for commercial and educational purposes.

The image was intended for use on the Wikipedia page of Alejo Igoa as an infobox profile photo, which is a valid and educational use consistent with Commons policy.

I am willing to re-upload the image if needed, clearly marking the license and providing all required information.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Alexrod1 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexrod1, the file was deleted as a personal photo from a non contributor. There is only one WP article on Alejo Igoa, Alejo Igoa, but the photo there shows black hair. The subject image shows a blond. However, I also note that the subject image was removed from that article when the image was deleted. Are the two images the same person? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment, he has some blonde hair on newer images, see his instagram account. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 23:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found the image. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 00:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, yes, it is the same person. He uses black hair and also blond hair as someone commented above. Could you undelete the image please? Let me know if it is possible. Thank you so much in advance. Alexrod1 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I think we can restore this, as it was deleted from a WP:ES article and is therefore not a personal photo from a non contributor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 917ph

"According to Articles 41 and 42 of the Copyright Act of South Korea, under the jurisdiction of the Government of the South Korea, a work made for hire or a cinematographic work enter the public domain 70 years after it has been made public. (30 years before July 1987, 50 years before July 2013)". So films published before 1957 should be in the public domain.  REAL 💬 ⬆   20:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@999real: According to COM:South Korea and {{PD-Korea}} non-retroativity of 2013 law applies if the author died before 1953. It is not clear if the same rule apples to works for hire. Does the law explicitly state that if copyright expired before 2013, it was not restored also in other cases? Ankry (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it sounds quite clear:
1987 - This Act shall not apply to those works or parts of such works in which copyright has been expired in whole or in part, and which have not been protected by the provisions of the former Act before the enforcement of this Act.
2013 - 제3조(적용 범위에 관한 경과조치) 이 법 시행 전에 종전의 규정에 따라 저작권, 그 밖에 이 법에 따라 보호되는 권리의 전부 또는 일부가 소멸하였거나 보호를 받지 못한 저작물등에 대하여는 그 부분에 대하여 이 법을 적용하지 아니한다. (This Act shall not apply to works, etc. for which all or part of the copyright or other rights protected by this Act were extinguished or were not protected pursuant to previous provisions prior to the enforcement of this Act.)  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of the Sancti Spiritus Province.svg

I wrongfully nominated this file for deletion. The coat of arms is also the CoA of the city of Sancti Spiritus.

The file got deleted for both "wrong authorship and license" and "Cuban government works are perpetually copyrighted". This specific CoA was created 21 Feb 1911 by the Sancti Spiritus City Council ([2]), although the actually oval shield of the file was taken from File:Escudo de Sancti Spíritus (1823).jpg, made 3 March 1823 also by the city council, either way it falls under Template:PD-US, and for Cuba the Template:PD-Cuba in the Anonymous section, since the people that were apart of either council at the time are unidentified, so it would be +50+1. Once reuploaded I will fix the authorship and license.

For the "Cuban government works are perpetually copyrighted", the Cuban copyright law only states that works by the "Estado" (state), which is the central government of Cuba. The law doesn't mention any local government (including city council) works.

CubanoBoi (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose That's not my reading of the law. Article 46:

"El período de vigencia del derecho de autor perteneciente a las personas jurídicas es de duración ilimitada. En caso de reorganización, el derecho de autor pasa a la persona jurídica sucesora, y en caso de su disolución al Estado."
"The copyright term of legal entities is unlimited. In the event of reorganization, the copyright passes to the successor legal entity, and in the event of its dissolution, to the State." Google translation.

A local government is a legal entity and therefore the works have a perpetual copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minecraft Marketplace logo.png

Deleted as clear violation (F1), despite clearly being a pd-textlogo.

The font is too simple to be copyrighted, the rectangular shape and gold gradient don't adhere to TOO either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabmasterars (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Mojang Studios were US based, I would support that. By as they are Swedish, I have doubts. Ankry (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Info See COM:TOO Sweden where the text logo for en:Entombed (logo here) was considered by a court of law to be above TOO. Thuresson (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that the above example is not helpful here: the Minecraft logo is much simpler than the Entombed's one. However doubts remain. Ankry (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ric Flair Big Gold NWA 1988 colored.png

@Abzeronow This was deleted because of the following copyright registrations made in 1992 ( Commons:Deletion requests/Professional wrestling magazines and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Sismarinho):

  1. V2833P041 for GC London Publishing, which covers the following titles:
    1. Inside wrestling
    2. Victory sports series
    3. World boxing
    4. Wrestling superstars
    5. The Wrestler
  2. V2833P043 for TV Sports Inc / GC London Publishing
    1. KO magazine
    2. Pro wrestling

but this was from "Wrestling's Main Event" which is not one of the listed magazines. I am also not sure that these were registrations at all, they are listed as "Recordation" not "Registration" and "Notes": "Assignment of copyright" between 2 parties. There would have been 4 years of valid copyrights to transfer since 1989, plus whatever issues were published with a valid notice.  REAL 💬 ⬆   23:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hasan md shahriare profile pic.jpg

I am Hasan Md. Shahriare, a published researcher and CTO of Magnetism Tech Limited. My Wikidata item is Q135092463, which references my peer-reviewed IEEE publication (Q135179996).

I am both the subject and original photographer of the image. I re-uploaded the photo with a valid license (CC0 1.0) and added a neutral caption for Wikimedia-wide educational use, not self-promotion. The image is intended for use in my Wikidata item and possible future biographical content on Wikipedia and other projects.

I request that the deletion be reconsidered as the image supports an existing, notable Wikidata item with academic context and satisfies COM:SCOPE and licensing guidelines.

Thank you.

--Hasanshahriare (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Automatically in scope per COM:INUSE on Wikidata: d:Q135092463. The page is currently nominated for deletion with one keep !vote stating that it fulfills d:Wikidata:Notability#3 (fulfills a structural need), and I tend to agree; he is the author of d:Q135179996, which is inherently notable per d:Wikidata:Notability#2 as a publicly available scholarly work. Therefore, I expect the WD entry to be kept, and this image can be readded to that page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait here for a decision in Wikidata. Ankry (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral Just wonder, that who captured your profile picture? If that's just yourself then there's a concern called COM:SELFIE on restoration. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, copyright is another issue to be resolved if the Wikidata item is kept. On-wiki licensing per the "Own work" declaraion does not apply: (1) to photos that are not in the original camera resolution, (2) to photos without EXIF metadata, (3) to photos published elsewhere prior to upload to Commons, (4) to photos of identifiable (non-anonymous) authorship. At least few of the requirements are violated here. In any of the mentioned cases, a free license permission from the photo copyright holder through VRT may be needed unless the licensing can be proven basing on earlier publication. So even if it is undeleted, I will nominate if as {{No permission}}. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg

This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain just like the current Rassemblement National logo on wikimedia. --Ryegun (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg. Thuresson (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this logo is considered to meet the threshold of originality, why are similar, unlicensed logos (kept under the PD‑textlogo rationale) treated differently? Commons policy (e.g. COM:TOO, COM:L, COM:LOGO) requires files to be free in both the source country and the U.S. If this file is copyrightable under that standard, shouldn’t the same reasoning apply to comparable cases? I’d appreciate clarification on which specific elements here are deemed original and how that differs from other retained logos. Ryegun (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not simply geometric shapes. Sources are: [3] [4]
SVG derived from: Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg. France has a lower ToO than Italy. Abzeronow (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a few aspects that seem somewhat nebulous in that deletion request. I can't view the deleted file as such, so please tell me if I'm missing something. From what the uploader says, their file File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg is essentially a copy of the file File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg, with only the colour green changed to blue and the letters MSI at the bottom changed to FN (the result looking something like this). Whatever the copyright status of the basic design of the original file (File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg) might be, most people would probably say that the small changes (colour and letters), are not copyrightable as such, in Italy nor in France. One argument of the nominator of the DR seems to imply that the basic design, which is essentially identical in the two files (excepted for the small uncopyrightable changes mentioned), would be below the threshold of originality in Italy but would be above the threshold of originality in France. I'm not sure that we can really make such a distinction between those two countries. It would seem more consistent to treat those two quasi identical files in the same manner. If File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg is PD-textlogo, then so should the other file. Anyway, another question is why France would enter into consideration in relation with this design and Commons policy. The design being of Italian origin, and the changes being uncopyrightable, then logically the country of reference for the possibly copyrighted work, i.e. the design, is therefore still Italy. A third question is, in the hypothesis that the design would be copyrightable, what would be the year of expiration of the copyright? Probably not the years mentioned in the DR. According to File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg, the author of the design would be Giorgio Almirante, a MSI founder whose life years are 1914-1988. So, if that attribution is correct, and if the design is even copyrightable anywhere, be it in Italy or in France, then the year of expiration of the copyright would be 2059. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Oppose. I have no idea why the Italian version is accepted on Commons, but this is certainly complex enough to have a copyright in France. Now if it was created before 1955, it may be in the public domain in France, but that remains to be proved. Yann (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of Movimento Sociale Italiano. Yann (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But for the policy of Commons, the only two relevant countries for a work of Italian origin are the United States and Italy. So, the only question is if it is freely usable or not in the United States and in Italy. That it (and any minor variation of it) might be freely usable or not in China, France, Egypt or other countries does not enter into consideration for Commons. It seems that the original was created circa 1947 (it:Fiamma tricolore). Contributors of Commons have made various slightly different redrawings. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree. So PD-France may be OK, but PD-textlogo is certainly not. Idem for the Italian version. Yann (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hon. Florida P. Robes.jpg

Official House of Representatives portrait, should be under Template:PD-PhilippinesGov. Link to the portrait is here. 👦 00:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Yann: as the deleting admin
  1. At upload the author of the photo was declared to be unknown, so it is unclear how can you claim that he or she is an officer or employee of the Government of the Philippines and not eg. a contractor?
  2. The template applies to work by an officer or employee of the Government of the Philippines (being the executive power) while the webpage belongs to the parliament (being the legislative power): it is unclear whether the copyright exception can be applied here
  3. The above doubt is also raised due to the "© HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES" claim at the bottom: if the content of the page was PD by operation of law, it would not be copyrighted.
Summarising:  Oppose per the above doubts. Ankry (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment There was no license, and author "unknown". I have no idea if PD-PhilippinesGov applies or not. Yann (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The image is published under the website of the Philippine House of Representatives, which is part of the government of the Philippines. Hence Template:PD-PhilippinesGov should have been used by the uploader, but it seems he/she wasn't aware of it. The official in the photo was the congresswoman of the lone district of San Jose del Monte in 2022, with her older portrait in 2019 available here uploaded under the same license. 👦 20:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)the[reply]
Being an official photo does not automatically mean being PD. The abovementioned copyright claim by the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES raises a reasonable doubt as per COM:PCP about this webpage content copyright status. This may mean eg. (1) the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES is not a part of government within the meaning of copyright law, or (2) the content was made by a third party, not by a government employee and copyright was transferred to the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES in a contract that does not made the content Public Domain, or (3) the declaration was just a mistake. I do not think that we can assume that it was the third case without clear evidence through eg. official declaration by a webpage owner emailed to VRT or without clear evidence that the author of the photo (the photographer) was a government employee. If another photo has the same legal issues, it is not an argument to undelete this one. Ankry (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RA 8293, Chapter V Sec 176 clearly states that "No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines." How is the House of Representatives not a part of the government of the Philippines? Furthermore, if you go to the current Congress website, there is no mention of the copyright anymore. 👦 03:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Published on a website of is not the same as made by a member or an employee of. Do you feel the difference? Moreover, the copyright declaration suggests (if referring to the statement above) that it was made by someone else, not being a work of the Government of the Philippines. So an evidence is needed. This argument would be invalid if it was a selfie. And it is still unclear to me if the term "Government of the Philippines" used in the copyright act applies to all pillars of power in democracy (judicial, legislative, executive) or only to the latter one (an evidence or a legal opinion would be welcome). Remember that this is still only my personal opinion, opinions of others may vary. Ankry (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There is no evidence that the photographer was an employee of the government and the copyright notice strongly suggests that it was not. Elected officials often use outside professional photographers for their official portraits rather than a staff photographer who almost certainly it not as competent. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Epstein Final Mugshot (in better quality).jpg

There is no policy against AI upscaled photos--Trade (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Epstein Final Mugshot (in better quality).jpg. Thuresson (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I don't see any reason to overturn the deletion request. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't really responded to what i said... Trade (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Community members are bound with community decissions and no new rationale that would make the arguments used in the DR invalid were provided. So no reason to reopen it. Ankry (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"no new rationale that would make the arguments used in the DR invalid were provided." I just did provided a rationale against what was said in the DR yesterdays when i made this. You have responded to it or told me why it was supposedly wrong. Just pretending i did not said anything at all
Again, simply stating the fact that the file were deleted at some point in the past (like everything else on this page) is not a rationale either
"community decissions" It was one single user who wanted the file deleted and then made another comment stating that he considered upscaling to be bad and then one single admin who went ahead and deleted it citing the before mentioned user. There was neither a "community" nor a "discussion" involved here. It's worth pointing out that when the nominator was calling the file inaccurate he was explicitly referring to the concept of AI upscaling as a whole, not this file specifically.

There are 2000 upscaled files on Commons. I could nominate each and every single of them with the same reasoning and it would be just as valid as what happened here Trade (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: I also agree that upscaled files are usually useless. Yann (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also something Commons have no prohibition against. Meaning people are allowed to upload them if no fault can be found with them (something the nominator explicitly did not brought up) Trade (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The DR argument is excellent -- the AI has added details to the face that do not exist in the original. The image would be rejected as personal art if it had been done by hand. It is ludicrous to suggest that we should accept the imagination of an AI when we routinely reject the imagination of non-notable human artists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:World's Largest Rubber Duck - NAIAS 2022.jpg

I received permission in writing from Craig Samborski, the owner and proprietor of the World's Largest Rubber Duck, to continue using the image of the duck on Wikimedia Commons. I screenshotted that email exchange: [5]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42-BRT (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@42-BRT:
  1. This permission does not allow you to grant the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license on the photo as you did.
  2. Per policy permissions need to be sent by copyright holders to the VRT team directly.
Ankry (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Also note that permission from the "owner and proprietor of the World's Largest Rubber Duck, to continue using the image of the duck on Wikimedia Commons" is not sufficient for two reasons. Permission must come from the copyright holder, who is not usually the owner, and the permission must be for any use anywhere by anybody, not just Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michael Brynntrup 1984.TIF

Hi,

please undelete the above mentioned file (Michael_Brynntrup_1984.TIF).

As stated before (when I first uploaded the image): I, Giovanni Mimmo, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (legal code).

Thank you. Gionomineo Gionomineo (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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