Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UNDEL)
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) • 1 malformed
103 copyvios • 4 duplicates • 1 selfie • 36 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

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

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

Adding a request

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

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

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

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

This photo was originally uploaded on the “Open Minister's Office”(열린장관실) homepage of the Ministry of Justice. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice three things.

  1. “COPYRIGHTⓒ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. REPUBLIC OF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.” — This claim is on every website of the South Korean government, even on the page of the KOGL. This is just a general disclaimer only.
  2. Logo of WebWatch in green color — A web standardization certification that has nothing to do with copyright. (It's like W3C or HTML5 logo)
  3. The KOGL Type 1 logo ({{KOGL}}, File:KOGL 1.svg) — It is clearly indicates that the entire content of the this subdomain of MoJ is released under KOGL Type 1. Please note “Open Minister's Office” homepage is separated from the original homepage of MoJ. It is only accesiable by click "법무부 소개" > "장관소개" from top menu and it will be open in new tab. You can obviously see that it's separated from the original site with diffrent logo, title and web design.

Average Pennsylvanian mentioned that he couldn't be sure because each photo didn't have the KOGL logo, which is not true. Here's an example of a misuse of the KOGL logo. This is the homepage of the Office of the President. It also displays the KOGL logo(File:KOGL wordmark (Korean).svg at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't say what kind of KOGL it is at all. In this case we cannot use the image unless there is KOGL logo and specified type on each page.--Namoroka (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antigua.news.jpg File:Antigua.news small icon.jpg

File: antigua.news.jpg File: Antigua.news small icon.jpg

Hi,

I noticed that the above files have been deleted for copyright reasons. However the owner of the images authorizes the use of them with credit and link. Both requirement have been met on the wiki page where there are used.

Please note that on antigua.news website there is this copyright message on the bottom of the page, which confirms what I wrote above:

“All contents of this site including images, texts and other assets are copyrighted and owned by Antigua.news. No contents of this site may be reproduced, altered, or distributed except you give appropriate credit and provide a link to the copyright holder, and indicate if changes were made.”

Therefore, I kindly request to undelete the images.

Thanks and regards.

--Mediascriptor (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The requirement for a link cannot be met in print use, so the permission cited is not enough for Commons. These are fairly simply and probably don't have a USA copyright. We know nothing about the Threshold of Originality in Antigua, but as a former UK colony it is probably very low, so these probably have a copyright there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can the requirement for a link be met in print by simply including a URL in the printout? I'd hope so. In this case, that's probably moot (in the U.S. sense) because of your salient point about COM:TOO Antigua, but it's still worth a thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Lunda Tchokwe.svg

This file was just deleted because it doesn't fit in TOO Angola, but the symbol in the middle is the traditional lusona symbol for antelope footprint. [1] Other than that the graphic consists of just simple rectangles and circle. Therefore the deletion was incorrect. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, although COM:Angola also notes that "Traditional learning and use are treated the same as literary, artistic and scientific works." I will admit that my knowledge of African symbols like this is lacking so I won't oppose restoration here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about it before, but the pattern probably already existed in colonial times and Portuguese law, where folk patterns are not protected, may apply. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I might need to try to find someone who is an expert on Angola and then temporarily undelete to get their opinion. (if someone else thinks I should reverse my deletion, I'll also do so.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg

File:Heinz Organic Tomato Ketchup (28723042688).jpg As per the discussion at [2] and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, we need to be consistent in our decisions. Pinging @Jameslwoodward, King of Hearts, Glrx, Clindberg, and Josve05a: involved people. Yann (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still object to this interpretation, but do not care at this point. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support My opinion is unchanged from the original deletion discussions,1 and 2. Takipoint123 (💬) 19:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak oppose IMO, we should be able to allow derivative works, including reasonable cropping. Unlike De minimis cases, where cropping to copyrighted items is mostly pointless due to their size and crop quality, the label here is prominent part of the photo. Same applies to File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, IMO. If the label quality was low or copyrighted parts were not fully visible, I would change my opinion. Ankry (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is similar to a FOP situation. The picture would be OK on Commons, even if a crop might not be. Yann (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support If it's the photo at https://www.flickr.com/photos/85567416@N03/37211095091, I would say it's directly in line with Ets-Hokin. Similar to de minimis, cropping to just the label may be an issue (it changes the "underlying work"). Though in this case, the only copyrightable parts of the label are the pictorial representations of the fruit and leaves, so that may be actual de minimis as well. But a pictorial label would still be "incidental" to the photo of the entire bottle regardless, per that ruling. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carl Lindberg: Yes, that's the file. The other one is this picture. Yann (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Commons applies the principle of Ets-Hokin since almost the beginning of Commons and keeps photos of whole bottles. It used to be specifically mentioned in the page Commons:Casebook (until a user modified the presentation of that page, commenting that they would reinsert it, but apparently they did not reinsert it in the proper section). Once in a while, some users request deletions without being aware of the previous discussions, and some admins have deleted files. The Ets-Hokin case was about a photo of a non-creative whole glass bottle of vodka. The tricky thing has been to try to know where to draw the line when extending the principle to images of other things. Files can probably be kept when they are free images of non-creative whole bottles of something. There doesn't seem to be a reason to distinguish glass bottles of vodka from glass bottles of other beverages, or from plastic bottles. It should probably not be stretched too far to other types of objects or to completely different types of situations. But the two files here are probably ok. Ankry mentioned a good point: although the images are ok, it is a limited exception to the idea that most Commons files are usually more modifiable. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antrag zur Wiederherstellung von File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

im Frühjahr 2014 habe ich von einem Plakat des Kameradenkreises der Gebirgstruppe die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht kopiert und in die jeweiligen Artikel der Divisionen eingefügt. Dabei habe ich bei jedem Divisionsabzeichen fälschlicherweise (damals war ich Anfänger bei Wikipedia) als Urheber den Kameradenkreis angegeben.

In der Beschreibung aller Divisionsabzeichen muss es richtigerweise heißen: - Quelle: Archiv Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe - Autor: unbekannt, da heute für alle Divisionen nicht mehr nachvollziehbar - Lizenz: Dieses Bild stellt das Wappen einer deutschen Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts dar. Nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG (Deutschland) sind amtliche Werke wie Wappen gemeinfrei. Zu beachten: Wappen sind allgemein unabhängig von ihrem urheberrechtlichen Status in ihrer Nutzung gesetzlich beschränkt. Ihre Verwendung unterliegt dem Namensrecht (§ 12 BGB), und den öffentlichen Körperschaften dienen sie darüber hinaus als Hoheitszeichen.

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg und auch die der übrigen 12 Gebirgsdivisionen, falls die auch schon gelöscht worden sind.

Mit Dank im Voraus für Ihr Verständnis und Ihre Bereitschaft helfen zu wollen -- Jost (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: I am the deleting admin. Jost, can you cite which statute or decree these patches are part of? (and I've discussed similar cases with Rosenzweig on my talk page.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: These patches were worne as an official part of the uniform. Each mountain division of the Wehrmacht have had their own patch. The patches were created by the staff of the division and were approved by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH). I have read your dicussion with Rosenzweig. Jost (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JostGudelius: Ob die Bundeswehr oder ihre Untergliederungen wirklich Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, finde ich zumindest zweifelhaft. Müsste man evtl. mal bei de:WP:URF klären. Aber unabhängig davon sind auch Gemeindewappen usw. deshalb gemeinfreie amtliche Werke, weil sie mal in einer amtlichen Verlautbarung bekanntgemacht wurden. Die ZDv 37/10 hat bspw. diverse Verbandsabzeichen. Ist das hier auch so? Wenn ja, wann und wo? Oder hat das irgendjemand inoffiziell erstellt? --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Es handelt sich hier um die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht. Diese Abzeichen wurden wahrscheinlich von den Divisionen geschaffen und vom Kriegsministerium bzw. Oberkommando des Heeres genehmigt. Urheber und Genehmigungsprozess sind heute nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Ob Streitkräfte Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, kann ich nicht belegen - ich bin kein Jurist. Sie sind aber eine vom Staat beauftragte Organisation/Körperschaft mit einem Auftrag und klaren Rechtsrahmen, der mit der Verfassung / dem Grungesetz beginnt.Gruß --Jost (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Deine Frage bezüglich der ZDV 37/10, die diverse Verbandsabzeichen enthält, trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Diese Verbandsabzeichen werden bei allen Verbänden, die eines Artikels bei Wikipedia würdig sind, in der Info-Box ohne Probleme eingefügt. Das gleiche muss auch für die Verbandsabzeichen der Verbände der Wehrmacht gelten; sie haben von ihrer Entstehung und Genehmigung her das gleiche Procedere und den gleichen Status. Sie sind offizielle Abzeichen/Wappen einer deutschen Behörde/eines Verbandes der Wehrmacht und m.E. gemeinfrei. Ich bitte Dich, dies @Abzeronowzu erklären und darauf hinzuwirken, dass die Löschungen der Divisionsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht rückgängig gemacht bzw. unterlassen werden, damit wir uns in Zukunft diese Diskussionen ersparen. Dein Englisch ist weitaus besser als das meinige, bitte mach es. Ich werde inzwischen Quelle und Urheber in den Beschreibungen der Verbandsabzeichen bearbeiten/korrigieren. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ich übersetze das mal: Du weißt demnach nicht, ob besagte Grafik mal in irgendeiner Vorschrift bekanntgemacht o. ä. wurde. Du vermutest es nur. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig:zunächst mal herzlichen Dank, dass Ihr weiter mit mir kommuniziert und versucht, mir zu helfen. Inzwischen habe ich heute nach heftiger Recherche folgende Aussagen und Quellen gefunden, die belegen, dass meine Vermutung (Erfahrung aus langjähriger Tätigkeit in den Streitkräften bei der Truppe, in Stäben und im Ministerium) durchaus richtig ist und auch bei Wikipedia und Commons bearbeitet wurde. Siehe:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verbandsabzeichen_1._Gebirgs-Division.png in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht?uselang=deDivision.png?uselang=de.
Mützenedelweiß, Ärmelabzeichen und Verbandsabzeichen (für Fahrzeuge und Gerät) der 1. GebDiv wurden vom Oberkommando des Heeres mit Verfügung vom 2.Mai 1939 eingeführt; siehe in: Thomas Müller, Verheizt - Vergöttert - Verführt, Die deutsche Gebirgstruppe 1915- 1939, Veröffentlichung des Bayerischen Armeemuseums Band 16, 1. Auflage 2017, S. 68. Die Divisionsabzeichen/Truppenkennzeichen der Wehrmacht wurden vom OKH endgültig legitimiert mit Befehl Nr. 21 vom 16.Februar 1944 (OKH GenSt d H Org Abt II/31 180/44); siehe in: W. Fleischer, Truppenkennzeichen des deutschen Heeres und der Luftwaffe, Dörfler-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3895554448.
Ich meine, das reicht Ich bitte Dich und @Abzeronow, die Verbandsabzeichen der 1.GebDiv (Edelweiß) und der 3.GebDiv (Narvikschild) wiederherzustellen. Gruß --Jost (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jost, Ich habe Ihre Aussagen über Google Translate gelesen. Da ich kein Deutsch spreche, habe ich mich auf Englisch verständigt. Aber ich werde bei Bedarf maschinelle Übersetzung verwenden. (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: I hope you can although translate my answer to @Rosenzweig. I think all doubts are now cleared up. Greetings --Jost (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are potentially many more cases like these, I think we should get to the bottom of the matter. I've started a thread at de.wp's equivalent of the copyright village pump (at. de.wp because I feel more people who know German law will particpate there): de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Militärische Verbandsabzeichen Deutschlands. Hopefully a consensus can be reached there. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rosenzweig. I can use Firefox's beta translation feature on that page so I'll follow along as best I can (I won't post there since I know so very little German) Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate something Rosenzweig said there here, there is no rush on this, if it is found by dewiki legal experts that these are lawfully in the public domain, I can restore them myself. These cannot be in the public domain as "anonymous works" because 1.) German copyright law for pre-1995 works and 2.) URAA if these were not seized by the Office of Alien Property Custodian. Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russian Paralympic Committee flag (2021).svg

This file was deleted because the original uploader didn't provide sufficient evidence that the file was in the public domain or with a free licence. However, a user on zh-wp gave evidence that the logo was proposed by International Paralympic Committee (IPC) (per Paralympic document). We can assume that the IPC created the logo since there's no other information about the designer. We can, therefore, use pd-textlogo by COM:TOO Germany (since the IPC is based in Germany) to deal with the logo and the special emblem, per №.N at the deletion request.

Here's the original text:

这个标志最初由国际残奥委会推出[3]。原设计者不明的情况下可以认为是国际残奥委会的作品，技术上可依据国际残奥委会总部所在国德国的原创性门槛来处理。（以下信息皆仅用于本讨论作为参考）另外，合理推测俄罗斯残奥委会的标志中明显的俄罗斯国旗元素，是国际残奥委会推出这个special emblem的原因之一（俄罗斯在东京奥运可以直接使用俄罗斯奥委会标志，因为俄罗斯奥委会标志的俄罗斯国旗元素相对没那么明显），同时这个special emblem原设计者是俄罗斯籍的可能性也很低。

— User:Liu116, in: 檔案存廢討論#File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg

--Saimmx (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Full erection of circumcised 76-year-old.jpg

This image depicts a 76-year-old male (it used to be in the category Nude 76-year-old male humans per Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/05/Category:Nude 76-year-old male humans and the preceding CfD linked there). A 76-year-old male would be an ‘old man’ (per the de facto Commons categorization scheme).

The mere fact that this image depicts an erection of an old man seems to make the image notable.

It is not clear how many other images Commons has depicting this topic, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that Commons lacks such images. There is no category Nude old men with erect penis. There is a category Nude old men, which contains (directly or indirectly) a total of 5 files, none of which depict erections. There is one image that I am aware of, File:00000 An Erect human penis viewed from the front 190mm.jpg, and even that image narrowly escaped deletion after a dubious discussion. Brianjd (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Press photographs from before 1978

I believe that File:Orangeburg Massacre Times and Democrat February 9 1968 Dozier MobleyA.jpg (and other similar press photos) fall under {{PD-Pre1978}}.

The same logic applies to this picture as to most AP photos from this time period (such as File:Saigon Execution.jpg). Per the US Copyright Office's Circular 3, "In general, for works first published before March 1, 1989, the copyright owner was required to place an effective notice on all publicly distributed 'visually perceptible' copies. A visually perceptible copy is one that can be seen or read, either directly or with the aid of a machine. Examples of visually perceptible copies include a book, sheet music, a photograph, or film." Commons:Publication also quotes US law as saying "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." In other words, the fact that newspapers published the image with AP's permission and without a proper copyright notice forfeited copyright to the image.

If this interpretation is correct, I hope it can be more clearly stated on the pages for the Category:Photographs distributed by Associated Press and Category:United Press International photographs.

SilverStar54 (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think, perhaps, you misunderstand the law as it was then. While it is true that before 1989, notice was required, that notice needed to appear only one place in the newspaper. This was often on the masthead, although the New York Times put it on the front page. Very few newspapers of the era did not have notice. While the notice included only the name of the newspaper and not AP or UPI, the newspaper was printing the photo as a licensee and therefore its notice was all that was required. Note that this did not include advertisements, which required a separate notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Question: Still, that interpretation means that if the newspaper had no copyright notice anywhere, the photo is in the public domain. The undeletion request does not provide a link to the issue of the newspaper to check but, for example, this other newspaper, which published an AP photo of the same event on the same date, does not seem to have a copyright notice, although from a quick look I could have missed it. DRs have been decided both ways by the same administrator. In the DR for this file, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orangeburg Massacre Times and Democrat February 9 1968 Dozier MobleyA.jpg, the approved deletion rationale is "lack of copyright doesn't make it in the public domain", implying that the photo is not freely usable even if there was no copyright notice in the newspaper. By contrast, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nixon Steps Into Mess in Uruguay.jpg, including an AP photo, was decided as keep. How does that really work? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph was published in the Orangeburg Times and Democrat in their February 9, 1968 issue. Sadly, I don't think I have access to their archives myself, but a photo I found online shows that their masthead (at least) did not mention copyright. Can someone explain why this is relevant to the copyright status of the photograph itself? If the newspaper is copyrighted, is the photograph copyrighted too? SilverStar54 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Please note that there are many on going DRs with a similar situation, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Gacy Pogo December 1976 Martin Zielinski.jpg (and others mentioned on [4]. Yann (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward, do you mind providing a source for saying the notice only needed to appear one place in the newspaper? From what I could find, the Copyright Office's explanation (specifically 2121.4(A)) seems to say that the copyright notice has to be on the photograph itself. But I admit that I could be misinterpreting it. I know about as much about copyright law as a squirrel knows about duck hunting. SilverStar54 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See USCO Circular 3, page 3, under "Position of Notice":
"Works Published as Periodicals or Other Serials
Any location acceptable for books
• As part of, or adjacent to, the masthead or on the page containing the masthead
• Adjacent to a prominent heading, appearing at or near the front of the issue, containing the title of the periodical and any combination of the volume and issue number and the date of the issue"
This is very logical. A newspaper or other periodical is a single copyright unit, just as a book is a single unit, and therefore requires only one notice.
I might suggest that you keep a copy of Circular 1, Circular 3, and Circular 40 at hand, as they are authoritative and much easier to understand that the text of the law and regulations. You can find them at https://www.copyright.gov/circs/.
As I noted above and as described in Circular 3, notice can be in any of several places, so without access to the whole newspaper, I think that PCP requires that we assume notice appears somewhere in any newspaper published in the USA before the law changed in 1989. It is hard to imagine a newspaper putting its entire contents in the public domain and would, by the way, violate its contracts with UPI, AP, and most freelance contributors.
Finally, in the case of third party contributors such as UPI and AP, I strongly suspect that is a newspaper printed an AP or UPI image without notice, that a court would hold that the image was not made PD by that action because such action would have been unauthorized by UPI or AP and it is well established that unauthorized publication does not put a work in the PD.
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward Are you aware of the ongoing discussions that @Yann referenced?
Reading through them, it seems like there's a lot of disagreement on this topic. It seems like you know a good deal about it, so I hope you will participate in those discussions so a consensus can be reached and a clearer policy spelled out somewhere. SilverStar54 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Your opinion is challenged by several others in [5], including Prosfilaes, Toohool, and D. Benjamin Miller, so I am considering restoring this. @SilverStar54: Could you please list all concerned files below? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Yann. This undeletion request is only concerned with this file: File:Orangeburg Massacre Times and Democrat February 9 1968 Dozier MobleyA.jpg. SilverStar54 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I may be wrong about AP requiring copyright notice; without a copy of the AP agreement with periodicals, it remains an open question. However, I don't think anyone disagrees that if there was notice somewhere in the periodical as allowed by Circular 3, then all editorial materials, including AP photographs, retain their copyright. Therefore in order to restore the subject image, you must show that you have examined the newspapers where it was published and have found one that did not include notice in any of the permitted places. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calle de Zac 1914.jpg

Works published before 1918 are public domain in Mexico so this must be undeleted inmediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by The New Foxy (talk • contribs) 20:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Casasola died in 1982 so this photo will be protected by copyright until 2083 (1982 + 100 + 1). Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. Thuresson (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter when he died, what does watter is that this is a work published before 1918 and is public domain in Mexico The New Foxy (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mexico had a term of 30 years since publication until 1948 for artistic or literary works so the only question is they would be public domain if these are artistic works published before 1918  REAL 💬 ⬆   22:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Photography is art The New Foxy (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this would be an artistic work rather than a scientific work but you're also making an assumption that this photograph was published in 1914. If it were published in 1919, it would still be in copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The New Foxy: Where and when exactly was it published before 1918? The website provided as a source is definitely post-1918. Ankry (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panoramica Zac 1914.jpg

Works published before 1918 are public domain in Mexico The New Foxy (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Casasola died in 1982 so this photo will be protected by copyright until 2083 (1982 + 100 + 1). Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. Thuresson (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter when he died, what does watter is that this is a work published before 1918 and is public domain in Mexico The New Foxy (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this probably was published before 1918. Abzeronow (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The New Foxy: Where and when exactly was it published before 1918? The website provided as a source is definitely post-1918. Ankry (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ankry, according to the website cited as the source (archived version), the file seems to have been taken from the book Anales Gráficos de la Historia Militar de México, 1810-1970 published in Mexico in 1973. It doesn't mention whether it is the initial publication of the photo or not though it states that the photo was taken in June 1914. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was first pulished in 1973, it is still copyrighted in Mexico and you need a free license from the photographer's heirs in order to host the photo in Commons. Ankry (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mickey Mouse costumes

mickey mouse is public domain ltbdl (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is not completely accurate. The 1928 and 1929 designs of Mickey Mouse and the works that Mickey appeared in from 1928 and 1929 are public domain as well as works that didn't have copyright renewed that are just based on the 1928 and 1929 designs. Several of the photos feature a Mickey Mouse design from 1939. Additionally a few photos have Pooh in his Disney design and Barney the Dinosaur. I see three that I might be able to undelete (I'll have to research Epic Mickey a little) Abzeronow (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a web search seems to indicate that Epic Mickey uses a 1936 design but @RP88: to check on whether I should undelete File:Fan Expo Canada 2016 Epic Mickey IMG 0133.jpg, File:FXC17 Oswald and Mickey cosplay.jpg and File:Mickey Mouse costume.jpg or leave a note on the DR for undeletion of those files in 2032. Abzeronow (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

I'm asking for a deletion review of files that I had deleted in October 2023. I had essentially felt that the interplay of colors had pushed it to a level that would have been copyrightable. Recently a few similar files to ones I had deleted were kept by User:Infrogmation, and I was essentially asked to reexamine my decision. I want to see if I had missed some reason why these would be too simple for copyright as User:IronGargoyle says since I'd like stay on the same page as my colleagues. Abzeronow (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Why would this place not being covered by Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama? Yann (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what that page says, many commentators consider that subway stations are interior spaces and do not meet the requirement for FoP of being public streets, ways, or open spaces. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that's weird. There is nothing more public than a subway station, in the common sense of the word. Yann (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but German law appears to treat them as indoor spaces @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CSSA logo color.png

Was deleted for "no permission". Based on the title and timeline I'm assuming this is an image of the organization's current logo. If so, it's almost certainly ineligible for copyright protection as below the US threshold of originality (it's just an outline of California and some words in an unexceptional font). Would like to have undeleted, properly documented, and used at the English Wikipedia article. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dualidad de Rufino Tamayo.jpg

This image is covered by freedom of panorama in Mexico so it must be inmediately undeleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by The New Foxy (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Looks like a copy of File:“dualidad” (1964), by rufino tamayo (1899-1991) (36161059194).jpg. Thuresson (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's not quite the same photograph, but yeah, it being a different version should probably be undeleted as the FOP frees the painting. Bedivere (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo RFC.svg

This logo was deleted because of the griffin in the flag. The griffin is copied from the coat of arms of the city of Rostock which is public domain by German law. Aleph Kaph (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleph Kaph: The griffins are dissimilar, please explain. Thuresson (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an exact copy of the outline of the city's griffin but it's very similar. Laying the two shapes over each other shows that there is some distortion but the shape of the tail, the head, the wing and each leg is copied, even the individual pointy ends of the tail, the fur at the lower front leg, or the placement of the pointy ends of the feathers in the wing. The biggest difference is that RFC's griffin is missing the three pointy protrusions to the front.
I don't know if that qualifies the RFC logo as public domain or eligible for Commons, I just wanted to provide a source for the griffin shape as that was named as the reason to delete the file. Aleph Kaph (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ExampleAppleIntelligence.jpg

File was deleted primarily because of a claim that it was COM:OOS, however there are literally a page on Wikipedia that has been translated to multiple languages regarding Apple Intelligence.
While yes, there has been dispute over the copyright status of the file in question, I stand by the rationale that I laid out in the original deletion request that this is, in fact, a free file. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, does the existence of articles on Apple Intelligence make a person's profile image in scope? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We currently do not have any file generated from the Image Playground in particular, it was highlighted by Apple as one of the big features. The main demonstration Apple used was, in fact, to generate images of people from an album. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo of PCR (Italy, 2024) with extended name.svg

The deletion was a mistake because the file is under CC-BY-SA-4.0. Moreover, I sent an email to the prescribed address with the explicit authorisation by the original author and copyright holder. The email got no reply, like the subsequent follow-up. I also started this thread where I was suggested to proceed in this way..--Mv (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per license at source. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of PCR (Italy, 2024).svg

The deletion was a mistake because the file is under CC-BY-SA-4.0. Moreover, I sent an email to the prescribed address with the explicit authorisation by the original author and copyright holder. The email got no reply, like the subsequent follow-up. I also started this thread where I was suggested to proceed in this way.--Mv (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oyeleke.Ajiboye.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It is not a licensed picture Michael.Ovie (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose All pictures have a copyright by default. We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, and not the subject. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:山田吉彦.jpg

This was taken with my smartphone and shared with the person, so I hold the copyright. X and Facebook are being used by the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yzk1219 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Source = website. If you are the author, please send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 OpposeProbably about File:山田 吉彦.jpg as the title file does not exist. Note that "taken with my smartphone" does not make you the copyright owner. The copyright rests with the actual photographer, without regard to the ownership of the camera. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Al Rayies.jpg

السادة والسيدات تحية واحترام. أنا السيناريست محمد خماس وقد قمت مؤخرا بإجراء بعض التعديلات على صفحتي في الموسوعة الحرة. وكانت التعديلات تشمل إضافة بعض الصور العائدة لي والتي هي عبارة عن ملصقات دعائية لبعض من أعمالي. تم نشر الصور وتمت مراجعة الصفحة بتاريخ 3 فبراير وتم قبول التعديلات. تفاجأت اليوم بأن بعض الصور المضافة قد تم حذفها. أتمنى إعادة النظر بموضوع حذف الصور. خالص التقدير والمحبة. محمد خماس — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhamad Khamas (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Policy requires that movie posters have a free license from an authorized official of the production company, usually the producer via VRT. This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 27 days.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poster of Alraies. animated series.jpg File:Shalash Poster.jpg File:Darbat zawya.jpg

Dear Sir/Mrs Please review the deleted files from my page as they are my own work and were reviewed on February 3rd and published on my page. With regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhamad Khamas (talk • contribs) 14:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BALTC BY OMAR ERRE.jpg

Hola, Soy Omar Erre, fotógrafo y autor del archivo "Archivo:BALTC POR OMAR ERRE.jpg". Me informé que fue denunciado por derechos de autor, pero quiero aclarar que es de mi autoría. Adjunto enlaces que lo corroboran: https://x.com/om_visuals/status/1891269882722820484 https://www.instagram.com/omar__erre?igsh=MW1tMHlyMXNzMHU3MA== Autorizo el uso de estas imágenes bajo la licencia CC BY-SA 4.0. Quedo a disposición para cualquier consulta. Saludos, Omar Erre--OMAR.ERRE (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by BlueGreenMikey

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I don't know if there's a better way to do this, but I did not select the right licensing for these files. Rather than being deleted, I'd like to move them to being w:WP:NOTFREE.

The Author/Copyright Owner is the game's creator, PlayWithFurcifer.

The source is https://playwithfurcifer.github.io/backpack-battles-presskit/. w:WP:NFCC#4

The date of publication is 2024.

They would be used in the article for w:Backpack Battles.

The purpose of use in the article is to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article (in the case of the logos) and serve broadly to show the two main phases of the game (in the case of the screenshots). w:WP:NFCC#8

It is not replaceable with free media because any derivative work based upon the cover art would be a copyright violation, so creation of a free image is not possible. [[w:WP:NFCC#1]

There is minimal use as they will only be used in one article to identify the work. w:WP:NFCC#3

These screenshots that were published freely by the author as part of the presskit will not impact the commercial viability of the work (and in fact likely enhances it). w:WP:NFCC#2

I can't figure out how to change the deleted images to this type of license, so I'm not sure if it needs to go through an undelete request or if I need to recreate the images. Thanks! BlueGreenMikey (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you can get them from the presskit, you can just directly upload them to English Wikipedia as non-free files at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload there's no need these fair use files to be undeleted here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I didn't realize there was a separate upload space for Wikipedia-only pictures. Thanks very much for the link!! This resolves the issue. BlueGreenMikey (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per above. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BALTC BY OMAR ERRE.jpg

Este archivo es una fotografía original tomada por mí, Omar Erre. La imagen ha sido previamente publicada en mi sitio web y redes sociales. Esta versión ha sido modificada con un filtro adicional, pero sigue siendo mi obra original. Yo, Omar Erre, soy el autor de esta fotografía. Para verificar la autoridad, pueden consultar

https://www.instagram.com/omar__erre?igsh=MW1tMHlyMXNzMHU3MA==

especifiqué que la licencia bajo la que lo publiqué es Creative Commons Atribución-Compartir Igual 4.0 Internacional — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMAR.ERRE (talk • contribs) 21:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DangTungDuong

Hi. It might be some misunderstanding to delete all my own files (shoot from my personal camera and mobile phone) from a bot request Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DangTungDuong. I am photo-reporter fyi, so I met so many people. I got file deletion without any notification, any verification and no answer. Please help me restore those photos for the project. DangTungDuong (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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