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)

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

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. 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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Peace and Friendship stadium 2014.JPG

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Peace and Friendship Stadium; this had valid fair uses on various Wikipedia pages (as the depiction of an object which was directly discussed in the relevant articles); and the closer of that discussion did not react to my request to spare this bureaucracy, so there you have it. This should be restored and moved to relevant Wiki as appropriate; I assume that one can trace back from which pages on other encyclopedias than the English one this was removed (where it also was likely fair use), likely via the edits of the Commons bot. RandomCanadian (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @RandomCanadian: Commons does not accept Fair Use, see COM:L. Ankry (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: This is not a request to undelete this for use on Commons. This is a request to restore it in a temporary fashion so it can be moved to Wikipedia where fair use is accepted. RandomCanadian (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support temporary undeletion. But @RandomCanadian: , enwiki no longer applies fair use for images of unfree buildings from no FOP countries. Enwiki applies U.S. freedom of panorama for such buildings, thus w:Template:FoP-USonly. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restored temporarily -- please advise when this has been moved. Please do not close this UnDR without deleting the file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are other Wikis where this image is also used. I've restored a copy on english WP under a slightly different title ("File:Peace and Friendship stadium 02 03 2014.JPG"). Noting the others for the record in case the other wikis also want to use it:
RandomCanadian (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: mind doing the same treatment for File:Faliro_Sport_Pavillion.jpg and File:OAKA_Olympic_Velodrome.jpg (found via the history of w:Venues of the 2004 Summer Olympics)? Same considerations apply. RandomCanadian (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: ensure that all of them must be used. The fact that enwiki has accepted original-resolution images of unfree international buildings from no-FOP countries does not mean enwiki is an indefinite host for all images of unfree buildings, as it is not a media repository. Thus there are only four Burj Khalifa images there and a single image of Burj Al Arab. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: These all seem to be related to buildings and venues from the 2004 Olympics ([1] shows the Faliro pavillion being removed from multiple pages, including the page about the venue itself; [2] idem for the velodrome). RandomCanadian (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: in such case, then I Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletions of the two other files. Be sure to tag them with en:Template:FoP-USonly once they are transferred at enwiki. German Wikipedia also does seem to allow unfree buildings of no-FOP countries, but I cannot remember what is their relevant tag of it. Unsure about other Wikipedias though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blacked-out images

Per input by Kai Burghardt at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP in France. No copyright concerns on blacked-out versions of images. To quote their input: To qualify as a derivative work, you need to create a work. A solid black shape is not a work. There is hardly any creative/artistic process involved in creating that. Even if you claim it was a work, to be derived there still must be recognizable features, discernible clues of the original work present. Without any copyrightable traces of the source work, no violation..

In terms of scope, as these come from no-FOP countries, these are excellent illustrations on one of the effects of having no FOP in a country: censorship just to respect artists' / architects' copyrights.

From the Philippines

I excluded those whose mother files are suspected copyvios, and those whose buildings are from pre-1972 era. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.)

From UAE
From Luxembourg

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Plenty of photos to illustrate this subject at Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP. There is no real reason to add another 10 photos, 100 photos or 10 million photos of a black cube. Thuresson (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson: but there is nothing specific to the Philippines. All come from other countries. We need demonstrations about the disadvantage of having no FOP in our country. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable. But I do not think all 13 are needed for them. Do you intend to use all of them? Ankry (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: yep. Off-wiki on social media (of course, complying with attribution conditions). I support not restoring the UAE and Luxembourg ones. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plus I may use several of the Philippine-related images on Tagalog Wikipedia to illustrate the lack of freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Please add File:Hand of epigyny 2 Blacked Out.jpg to undeletion request. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: And when files are undeleted, will you add the category of countries without freedom of panorama to User:JWilz12345/FoP? Ox1997cow (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: my userspace subpage is intended to illustrate those from countries with FOP, excluding those without FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I am not convinced that you need the whole bunch for social media for educational purposes. Ankry (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: yet there is no such image specific to the Philippines. All of the existing ones are of other countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Yep. And I would support 2-3, but not 14. For educational purpose this should be enough. Not supporting more per COM:NOTHOST. Ankry (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: I chose five six instead:

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with Jim's doubts concerning scope, I think that his doubts concerning silhouette copyright need to be considered. So I leave the decision here to another admin. Or, maybe, you wish to upload images not showing sculpture shapes so exactly? Ankry (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from thinking these are out of scope, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restoration on copyright grounds. In of the cases above that I examined, the silhouette of the work is distinctive and almost certainly infringes on the creator's copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: but users who commented at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP in France think of otherwise (@Ralf Roletschek, Kai Burghardt, and Romaine: ). No distinctive features like style of windows, sculptural details, and façade details seen. Blacked-out representations of copyrighted works from no-FOP countries are also extensively used on comparison graphs like File:Tallest towers in the world.svg (containing Iran's Millad Tower) and File:Tallest Buildings in the World 2020.png (containing Burj Khalifa and Saudi Arabia's Abraj al-Bait Building), including Ox1997cow's derivatives File:Tallest towers in the world whether or not FoP.svg and File:Tallest Buildings in the World 2020 whether or not FoP.png. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Why not mention Lotte World Tower? Obviously, I marked that Lotte World Tower does not have freedom of panorama. (because there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea.) Ox1997cow (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church_of_the_Gesu_2019.jpg

Requesting undeletion for upload in the English Wikipedia for en:Church of the Gesù, Quezon City, since there is no explicit FOP in the Philippines.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0966_04.JPG

No FOP in the Philippines. For reuploading in the English Wiki main space for Solaire Resort & CasinoHariboneagle927 (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aditayadornkitikhun 2019.jpg

This picture do come have source, The Television Pool of Thailand is from NBT. --Thyj (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Originating from this video and deleted per this DR. Ankry (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torre de Manila (July 25, 2016).jpg

Requesting temporary undeletion. To be uploaded under fair use in the English wiki mainspace at Torre de Manila. There is no FOP in the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariboneagle927 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 30 October 2021‎  (UTC+8)

@Hariboneagle927: As the temporal image seems to work well, then BA candidate.svg Weak oppose this UNDEL request. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Makary

Files from Polish Category:Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe (National Digital Archives), which collaborates with Wikimedia. These files were hastily deleted, despite I had explained, that they had been marked as public domain on NAC new website, and I had made an effort to correct descriptions and categorize most of them. At the moment I can't identify all deleted photographs by their names, but they positively came from the NAC and are all in public domain, and if they are undeleted, I can check and link to appropriate pages. Contrary to given reason of deletion, for example File:1925 Rally Poland - Ralf-Stetysz.jpg is [3], described clearly as "domena publiczna" (public domain), File:1925 Rally Poland - László Ede Almásy.jpg is [4] - the same, File:1925 Rally Poland - Stanisław Nowakowski.jpg is [5] - the same, etc. It would save some work, if they are undeleted, instead of reuploaded. Pibwl (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @Pibwl: The photos are likely PD in Poland due to the Polish copyright law exception described in {{PD-Poland}}. But the photos uploaded to Commons neends to be free also in US. Please explain why are they free in US. I see the following possibilities (a) they were published in Poland begore 1.3.1989, (b) they were published anywhere before 1.1.1926, (c) the photographer died before 1.1.1951, {d} the photographer was a US government employee, (e) the photographer or their heirs granted a free license for the photos, (f) the photos are below US ToO, (g) for some reason they do not need to be free in US, (h) did I miss any possibility? Which one applies and what is the evidence? Ankry (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were taken by Polish photographers for press concern Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny and were taken over along with all assets of the concern by Polish state, and now they are published as public domain by state archive. We are acting in a good faith, and have no premise, that they might be not free. The photographs from NAC archive are published in numerous books and magazines in Poland, and I haven't heard about one case, that someone would try to challenge the licence. Probably they were also published before the war, since they come from press concern. Pibwl (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pibwl: There is no doubt that they are PD in Poland. But why they are PD (of free otherwise) per US copyright law, which depends strongly on the publication date? (Per US law, unpublished anonymous works become PD 120 years after creation.) See COM:Hirtle chart for details. Berne convention requires to apply local copyright law of each country separately; copyright status in another country is irrelevant (unless the rule of shorter term applies; but this does not in US). Commons policy requires free status evidence (see COM:PRP) we cannot rely on good faith declarations, especially based on another country law. How can NAC warrant that the photographer heirs would not execute their copyright in a US court against commercial reusers some day? Maybe, the Commons policies are too restrictive, but here we are. Ankry (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not PD Poland in this case, but we have a reason to assume, that copyright belonged to IKC, and hence a succesor of its assets is Polish state. We have free status evidence, because the archive explicitly confirmed so. And in a good faith, we have not a slightest premise to challenge it. This way we should delete milions of valuable photographs from the Commons, inlcuding these provided officially by the NAC, Bundesarchiv or other libraries (for example, like this File:Bild_101I-618-3945-20.jpg or File:Op een Nederlands passagiersschip in dienst voor troepentransport. Reddingsoefen, Bestanddeelnr 935-3295.jpg) - because how do we know, that the archive has rights to release the photograph under cc-by-sa licence, and the real author won't execute their copyright in a US court? The archive is not an author. Or how do we know in case of mass Flickr downloading, that the people, who put them on their pages, are real authors?... Or the users, who upload photographs directly to the Commons, are their authors? We should not split hair and search for problems, where there aren't Pibwl (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not oppose undeletion ot this photo. I just raised doubts concerning its US copyright status. IMO, the photo is not copyyrighted in Poland as made before 1994 and we have no evidence of copyright notice presence on the original photo (such notice was required by pre-1994 Polish copyright work for photos in order to be a copyrightable work and newer law did not change status of earlier photos). But feel free to correct me if I am wrong. NAC may have "first publication rights" for 25 years since the initial publication of a non-copyrighted photo, but these rights are irrelevant for determining the US copyright status (as not protected by Berne). Ankry (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg involved the deletion of an image of a notable airplane crash site which was within project scope. There were no copyright issues with the image. Privacy issues were raised, but I cannot find any policy-based reasons why this would have affected the image or justified its deletion. I contacted Rubin16, the deleting administrator who originally closed the discussion as "keep" but then reversed the closure to "delete". This reversal occurred after further petitioning by one of the discussants who most strongly advocated deletion. Rubin16 defended this reversal by saying that administrators are able to reverse their own decisions. I agree that administrators should be able to reverse their own decisions, but only if those reversals are still operating within policy. After asking what policy warranted this deletion I received no reply. I believe this deletion is not within policy.

Privacy issues on Commons are strongly based on protecting identifiable living people. The foundation for this on Commons is COM:IDENT. From my memory of the picture, there was a person far in the distance, but they were not identifiable. If the person was identifiable, a reasonable discussion could have occurred around whether the photograph was taken in a public or private place, but that was not the theme of the discussion. Instead, the issue was that the crash site was a private space which had been set aside by agreement of land owners and a group of crash victim families. The image is taken from a road and pictures some fields, trees and a fence.

Even if these images were taken in the course of the photographer trespassing (which I don't believe they were, given that they are taken from a named public road that is not gated), I am not aware of the Commons policy that justifies their deletion. If there is a policy I'm not aware of, fine. Right now though, I feel like this is crossing over into COM:NOTCENSORED territory. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted on the photographer's request. If the author thinks that they did something inappropriate or that they are afraid of some consequences of their photographing activity, we genarally support such deletion requests. So BA candidate.svg Weak oppose undeletion. Ankry (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 5-point test at the proposed guideline of Commons:Courtesy deletions: 1. Is it new? No, as far as I can tell from the English Wikipedia article history, it had been uploaded for a significant period of time. 2. Is it unique on Commons or is there something we can easily replace it with? I am not aware of any usable replacements. 3. Is it of good quality? Yes, it was a good quality image. 4. Is the image in use? Yes, the image was being used on at least English Wikipedia and possibly elsewhere. 5. Was there consensus for its deletion? No. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle I would love to have a guideline on courtesy deletions to guide cases like this. Unfortunately, the page you link to is poorly laid out, seems to be going nowhere, and to some extent is self-contradictory (the effects on the subject, author and uploader are not among the factors considered in courtesy deletions - this doesn't seem very courteous). Brianjd (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it depends on whether the photographer believes that they violated any law in taking that photo. If it's just a nice request from the property owner who doesn't want their image up, then we generally wouldn't grant the request. But if the photographer has a genuine fear of legal trouble, that takes precedence over having free content in our collection. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The statute of limitations for minor crimes and civil actions like trespassing is 2 years in Pennsylvania. That duration has passed (though again, I want to emphasize that there is good reason to think no crime was committed). Also, in the original deletion request, the uploader stated the desire to discourage others from visiting the site. No expression was made of personal fear that I saw. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of discussion about the uploader, but no attempt to notify them. I have left a message on their talk page.
Also, the file was not deleted solely based on the uploader's request. The closing admin left this comment at the DR:
thanks to @Brianjd I have performed additional review. According to Google Street view there seem to be no fences or barrier to enter the road. Satellite view shows that the road seems to be free to visit too. But I have found some evidence that the land plot was acquired by the families of crash victims and they declared it a private zone. So, while the area is restricted to be visited, the image is to be deleted
I was not petitioning the closing admin for a deletion. I was questioning their claim that this image:
seems to be taken from a public road
They cited a source that basically says the opposite (map attributed to OpenStreetMap, which says that the road is private). I also question the idea that a road must be public if there is no barrier across it: this isn't how we treat other kinds of property. But I don't really have any evidence that the road is private, so I suppose I have to accept the conclusion that it is public.
Let's discuss all the relevant factors here. Brianjd (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GA candidate.svg Weak support If we accept that the road is public, then by my own arguments early in the DR, the file should be kept. I did vote later on to delete this file, but I have since changed my view. I would now argue that, in the absence of a clear rule requiring deletion, balancing privacy concerns against educational uses is an editorial decision, which Commons should not interfere in if the file is in use. The English Wikipedia specifically opposed the removal of this image. Brianjd (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has emphasised, both here and on the closing admin's talk page, that there was no policy justifying the deletion of this file. Here, they also cited COM:NOTCENSORED. That guideline and the policy COM:PS#CENSOR require Commons to reject deletion requests based solely on users' objections, but this should not extend to legitimate privacy concerns. Therefore, those pages are not relevant here. Brianjd (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a public road, and merely happens to depict private property, then yes we should retain an in-use image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support undeletion if it's the family requesting deletion, Oppose undeletion if the uploader/photographer requested it - As noted above the road has a name and isn't blocked off in any way, shape or form so it would therefore be obvious to assume that this is a public road.
We should always respect families wishes but we should also try to remain neutral - we only had one image of this not a plethora of them and unfortunately whether the image is here or not people could still make their way to this location obviously unaware of the website.
As a way forward I believe it should be undeleted and if the photographer comes forward (with solid evidence) then fine but until then I don't really see a reason to have the image deleted. –Davey2010Talk 15:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per rubin16 below - Honestly I don't know if it's a public or private road but either way understandably uploader has changed their mind and given the uncertainty it's probably best it stays deleted. I wouldn't fancy legal ramifications either tbh. –Davey2010Talk 16:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle sorry for not answering you in my talk page, I was sick last week. In this case I believe there is no obviously right or obviously wrong decision that would be directly supported by local policies. From my point, it was a weak delete decision: yes, there is no map information (except from “private” description on OSM but it is not the best reliable source as OSM is edited by volunteers like Wikimedia projects). When I first kept the image I assumed that as there are no signs on the map and nothing like that, the road and area are actually public, not private, so we can keep the image. But further investigation shows that there is some evidence that the area is private as land was purchased by the families of victims and are managed by a trust now. This information along with the lack of other photos of this area make me assume that the place is actually restricted, otherwise, we would see more photos in media and other sources. And as the uploader asked to delete the image that seems to be taken from the private restricted area, I decided to change my decision and finally delete it. But, I would repeat, that both options are possible here, depending on the attitude of the closing administrator rubin16 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Postal Logo.png

It consists solely of type face. Compare File:Postal 2 logo.png. Regards Matt (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA candidate.svg Weak support as Running with Scissors is US-based but I would welcome other opinions. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Third Man (1949 British theatrical poster).jpg

This poster is public domain in the UK (and the US respectively). --Memorandum Nobilis (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Memorandum Nobilis: could you, please elaborate why is it PD in both countries? The uploader declared it copyvio, so we must be very caeful if overriding their decission. Ankry (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This poster is not self-copyvio, but it's under URAA in the US (for the film) and it's fine. Memorandum Nobilis (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is fine. (1) The poster is a devivative of the film. Is the film PD? (2) Every work uploaded to Commons should be PD in the country of origin and in the US. URAA is a part of US copyright system. If the poster is protected by URAA, we need either a written free license declaration from the copyright holder, or at least a declaration that they will not execute their copyright under US legal system in future. Ankry (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the poster remain copyright in the US (due to URAA) until 2045? Memorandum Nobilis (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]