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 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 [2] -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.[3]
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]
In general, permanent public placement we have treated as publication, provided that happened since 1978. Yes, American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister was not definitive, but that was over a temporary exhibition, and that decision even allowed for a temporary exhibition to be "publication" if copying was allowed. If something is permanently in public, there is no prohibition on photography etc. The Chicago Picasso was ruled PD using some of that logic, as that involved a temporary exhibition of a model of the statue (with no notice), combined with photographic promotional material (with no notice). COM:PACUSA, the guidance that the WMF game, pretty much says Publication requires placing the statue in a public location where people can make copies (if before 1978). That is pretty much the policy that Commons uses -- so the final unveiling would be the last possible date of U.S. publication. It sounds like models existed from the early 1920s though, so it's very possible it was published earlier. Trying to nail down what constituted U.S. "general publication" is a fruitless task -- different judicial circuits had their own definition, but I don't think there is any chance to consider this unpublished. But it's very possible that it was published before then, as well. Secondly, we routinely keep works covered by FoP in foreign countries, even if a U.S. copyright would exist. If this is now PD in its country of origin, I don't see the real difference in keeping such photos -- they are likely much less risky than keeping ones covered by FoP. Given that the only possible reason for deletion to me is the URAA, and I think that has a lot of gray areas, I think I'd lean Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 3 February 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)
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)
The sculpture is PD, but the pedestal may not be: "The Prešeren Monument in Ljubljana, a late Historicist bronze monument of the poet France Prešeren at Prešeren Square. The sculpture is work by Ivan Zajec (1869–1952) from 1905, the pedestal is work by Max Fabiani (1865–1962) and the stonemason Alojzij Vodnik (1868–1939)." Is the stonework above the Slovenian ToO? . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well even if you discount all the sculptural and stonemasonry work which is both PD maybe, but it is also partially blocked by protesters. --Sporti (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was me who suggested to Davide to ask for a temporary undeletion here. The wording of the authorization linked by Davide from the Arnaldo Pomodoro Foundation is unclear for the photos uploaded outside WLM and for the photos uploaded before 2018 (the date in which the authorization was given). This was the reason why per PCP the photo was deleted in the first place. But of course there's an obvious workaround from this situation: it's sufficient that Davide uploades the photo within the next WLM contest. At that point the photo would undoubtedly fall under the given authorization and therefore we could keep it.
The problem though is that Davide (if I understood correctly) hasn't the image anymore on its computer. Therefore he'd need a temporary undeletion in order to download the image, save it on its computer and then upload it again in September. Friniate (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@JameslwoodwardHere it is. But anyway, this is only about a temporary undeletion, don't we usually let users download their images that got deleted for FOP-related reasons so that they can use them for various reasons? Even if there wasn't this authorization but Davide wanted to upload this image on a project that allowed fair use (he doesn't, this is just an example), we usually would agree to temporarily undelete the image so that he could save it on his computer, why can't we do the same thing now? Friniate (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The photographs in question are official portraits published under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0), as explicitly stated on the source page (https://www.ihaveto.be/2026/01/brice-cornet-portraits-officiels-du-ceo.html). They were produced and made available for academic and public reference purposes, in particular at the request of higher education institutions wishing to have royalty-free illustrations for author reference materials and teaching aids.
As the person depicted, I can confirm the authenticity of the files and the authorization for distribution under a free license. The identity of the author of the photographs and the license are clearly stated on the original page.
Furthermore, the existence of independent authority identifiers (in particular the BnF identifier: 17166033z) attests to the public and documentary use of these visuals in an encyclopedic and bibliographic context.
If additional information is required (details about the author of the photographs, confirmation of the license, or other), I am of course willing to provide it in order to remove any ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bricecornetverviers (talk • contribs) 06:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
This was deleted because we do not host images for non-contributors (38 total edits on Wiki projects).
I also note that the license given is not the license shown on the source page, so it is a copyvio.
Finally, I think it unlikely that the owner of the source page actually has a license from the actual photographer that allows them to freely license this image.
Legal Basis
Thailand's Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994), Section 37 explicitly states that photographing (or drawing, filming, etc.) an artistic work openly located in a public place does not constitute copyright infringement, except for architectural works. Election posters qualify as artistic works (e.g., designs, images) displayed publicly on roads, so photography falls under this exception.
Section 37. A drawing, painting, construction, engraving, molding, carving, lithographing, photographing, cinematographing, video broadcasting or any similar act of an artistic work, except an architectural work, which is openly located in a public place shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the artistic work Link: https://www.ipthailand.go.th/images/3534/2564/Copyright/Copyright_Act_ENG.pdf
--Per Meistrup (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As noted at your previous request for similar images, which was denied, the translation you quote is inaccurate. The law includes the words "permanently located", see wikisource:th:พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. 2537. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a yearbook picture from 1988, you might check to see if the book has notice -- many of them did not. If that's the case then it is {{PD-US-1978-89}}. If that's not the case, then I doubt you can get a license from the photographer, so I suggest you upload an image where either you have the right to freely license it or where the photographer is willing to send a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As noted at your previous request for similar images, which was denied, the translation you quote is inaccurate. The law includes the words "permanently located", see wikisource:th:พระราชบัญญัติลิขสิทธิ์ พ.ศ. 2537.
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am the subject of the photograph and the copyright holder of the image. The image was uploaded by me and is released under a free license for public and encyclopedic use.
The image is not intended for personal promotion or private use. It is used solely to illustrate a biographical article in the Wikipedia draft “Nitinjeet Sahu”, which is written in an encyclopedic and neutral manner.
The subject has received coverage in independent reliable sources, including regional newspapers (Sambad and Dharitri) and recognition by the International Book of Records, establishing notability beyond personal use.
I confirm that I irrevocably release this image under a free license and understand that it may be reused by anyone under the terms of that license.
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.
Oppose
This appears to be a formal portrait and not a selfie. It would, therefore, be very unusual for the subject to have the right to freely license the image. Almost all licenses for formal portraits allow the subjects to use the image but do not allow them to freely license it.
Buen día, la edición y restauración a color de la imagen es mía, no tiene nada que ver con la otra imagen con la que se compara (de hecho esa es otra restauración de la misma foto antigua), le paso el link donde yo ya había compartido mi propia edición en Instagram, les pido por favor que reconsideren restaurar mi imagen para su uso en Wikimedia Commons, saludos cordiales.
Este ficheiro foi corretamente creditado e publicado por um sócio ativo da associação correspondente (TomaláTuna), foi permitido o uso por diversos sócios da associação, além de que nos pertence e faz parte do nosso património. Este e outros ficheiros publicados por esta conta que remeterem à associação TomaláTuna são de nossa autoria e tem a nossa permissão para fazer parte da biblioteca de ficheiros da wikimedia commons.
This file was correctly credited and published by an active member of the corresponding association (TomaláTuna). Its use was permitted by several members of the association, and it belongs to us and is part of our assets. This and other files published by this account that refer to the TomaláTuna association are our own work and we have permission to include them in the Wikimedia Commons archive.
Earlier this day I was trying to upload these image from its original source in Commons when I discovered that the images had already been uploaded before but was deleted. Looking back at the rationale I don't see why the images are out of COM:SCOPE, since the subject has clearly passed the notability threshold (the deputy foreign minister of Indonesia) and the license used for the images were clearly compatible for Commons. I hereby request these images to be undeleted for the sake of common interest and override the original uploader's deletion request. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael(marhata)17:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[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".
.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 
.svg){kind=link}
Doing…: per Nard, Prosfilaes, and Carl Lindberg. --Yann (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(12000611303).jpg){kind=link}
_(12000611303).jpg){kind=link}
_(12000611303).jpg){kind=link}
Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Done: FYI Mussklprozz: update permissions please. signed, Aafi (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Info As far as I can understand it was deleted because the Flickr license was claimed to be incorrect, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Gleamlight. Thuresson (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)