Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UNDEL)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
11 copyvios • 9 duplicates • 5 adverts • 26 selfies • 5 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:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg

There was no consensus in favour of deletion. The larger file from which it was cropped (and the series of which that file was part) remains in place unchallenged. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor, It would be good of you to link the larger file which you indicate was uploaded while the license was valid, since I can't find that in the file history of the deleted file. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There may be a basis for discussion, although not for the reason stated in the request. From its logs, it looks like the file "Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg" was uploaded to Commons on 22 June 2024 and was sourced directly from flickr. As such, it was under the CC NC-ND license on flickr. The only argument to keep that was made in the deletion discussion was that seven days before the upload to Commons, the flickr photo had, very briefly, a CC BY license. That could not be a valid argument to keep the file, based only on the facts presented in the DR. The deletion decision is correct based on those facts. However, you mention the larger image "File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg" (currently sourced from the wrong flickr page), uploaded to Commons on 15 June 2024, which brings an interesting aspect, because the chronology gets much more compressed and because it seems to have exif data that are apparently not displayed on the flickr page. The chronology goes like this. Everything happened on 15 June 2024. The photo was taken at 12:19 (UTC or UTC+1 assumed). The photo was uploaded to flickr at some unknown time apparently very briefly under CC BY, the license was almost immediately set to CC NC-ND at 13:40 UTC, and the file was uploaded to Commons at 21:14 UTC. Even with that compressed timeline, the upload to Commons still occurred after the license was already CC NC-ND at the flickr source used. (And the fact that the license was CC BY for only a few minutes suggests that it may not have been intentional.) However the exif data on Commons display these usage terms : "Usage terms: This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form. All images are Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Pictures marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder." That sounds like the restrictions exclude the OGL. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


To closing admin: if the license on the original file was valid when it was uploaded, then this file should be restored, since that one is the source. If not, we should obviously delete that one as well. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 27).jpg
This was the source file.

The copyright on UK Government photographs is often confusing and contradictory, but the impression I've garnered over the past few months is that all the files copied to the Government Flickr Archive are automatically covered by that site's general licence even if the information for a specific image says otherwise, and indeed that the Number 10 Flickr account's general statement on image usage trumps whatever may be applied to individual pictures (hence Wikimedia having a dedicated licence tag for that). My general impression for a long time has also been that once a copyright-holder has released some intellectual property under any Creative Commons (or equivalent) declaration then they cannot revoke said declaration later, so if there are multiple contradictory official notices for the same photograph then we should take the most permissive one as correct.

I agree that it "may not have been intentional" for whichever government employees actually operate the Flickr accounts to initially release under one licence and then change after a few minutes, but then I'm not sure what those people's intentions have ever been because different images on those accounts are under a smorgasbord of different tags with no apparent rhyme or reason behind them. To take one example, a large number of coronation photographs from last year (and a smattering of other ones for many years before that) uploaded to Flickr under the Public Domain Mark rather than the Public Domain Dedication and eventually the community decided to treat them as the same, realising that in many cases the uploaders themselves didn't know the difference. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor: 1. About the CC license, you may be confusing the notion of "cessation to offer a license at a source" with the notion of "revocation of a license already granted". Please see the Creative Commons FAQ for more details. 2. On principle, the specific conditions trump the general conditions. 3. The mention of a dedicated license tag for Number 10 relates to Template talk:Number-10-flickr, and the previous decisions might be worth exploring to see if you can find something there. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First please note that

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg is not extracted from
File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg

While the two are similar, the pattern of rain drops is different and in the first, the hair is surrounded by white from the opposite window while in the larger image the hair is surrounded by black. On the other hand

File:Trooping_the_Colour_2024_(GovPM_27).jpg, is the source image. This has a CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 license so both the subject image and the larger one cannot be kept here.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've just unilaterally deleted another image within fifteen minutes of seeing it and with no deletion discussion nor acknowledgement of anything I said about it. This is unacceptable. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robin S. Taylor I am willing to give the benefit fo the doubt, however, those two pictures, while uploaded under a CC-BY license, were changed within a day to the by-nc-nd license. What that tells me is that the license they were uploaded with was incorrect, and they corrected it within a reasonable amount of time. What we don't do here at Wikimedia Commons is play "gotcha" with people who have uploaded under erroneous licenses. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim, the other one has the same license problems as the ones already deleted. I've put that one in a DR. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened per request. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for leaving it open for a little while. Although the part about the CC license is settled, it seems that the part about the OGL might need to be addressed, in light of Template talk:Number-10-flickr, listing some keep decisions for other cases. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apparently the metadata states the OGL, but does that supersede the Flickr license? Does Number 10 know what they are doing? Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, considering the metadata is the only actual per-file licensing statement that complies with the UK government licensing framework, it should be taken as an appropriate attribution statement. Some files explicitly change their statement to remove the OGLv3 notice, which shows that there is at least some awareness of the meaning.
A Freedom of Information request and/or a Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations request can always be made if further clarification is needed. It is worth noting that images uploaded recently have made the attribution statement just Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence. For any of those images, a RPSI request can compel them to OGL it anyways. Isochrone (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per discussion. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely sounds like a complicated request. I deleted it since as I said in the closing message that the photograph had an unfree license at the time of upload. I agree with Jim that CC-BY was not the intended license. The OGL question is a tough one, since as mentioned above, it appears Number 10 licenses under OGL unless otherwise stated. CC-NC-ND is not a default on Flickr so it feels to me that it would fall under the otherwise stated. I almost feel like we should ask Number 10 about this. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of Information request filed. I also note that, as stated here, No 10 has not obtained a delegation of authority to exempt itself from the Cabinet Office licensing framework. Isochrone (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bastique has now withdrawn his deletion nomination for picture No. 26 based on seeing the outcomes of similar discussions. Logically it follows that No. 27 and its derivatives shouldn't be deleted either. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my nomination primarily because I didn't want to separate the point of discussion for what appears to be a larger discussion. Until we come to some consensus about this, this shall remain open. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:Prasklina na okne auta 32.JPG

File in use at v:cs:Uživatel:Juandev/Problémy/Volkswagen Golf/III/Variant/Juandev/Nejde otevřít nádrž and might be moved to main ns in the following days. I wonder how the user could nominate this and other files for deletion if they were in use in the WMF project. How files are used in other projects might be out of scope.--Juandev (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Assuming that Google translate is doing a good job here:

  1. The photograph has no explanation of what it is and its file name does not match the photo at all
  2. The caption for the place where the photo was used calls out a "cotter pin" but there is no cotter pin in the photo, so it is actually irrelevant to the place where it was used.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 7 January 2025 (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:구 제일은행 여수지점 1.jpg

These images are released in {{KOGL}} by Korea Heritage Service (previously known as Cultural Heritage Administration). link 1, link 2. KOGL Type 1 is a Commons-compatible license, it seems that the original uploader may have misunderstood something.--Namoroka (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this building was bulit before 1942 during the Korea under Japanese rule.--Namoroka (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

※ko:special:diff/38476991, https://www.kogl.or.kr/info/licenseType1.do 

I. 이용조건의 표시 및 변경
1. 이용자가 공공누리 저작물 활용시 출처표시를 꼭 해주셔야 합니다.
2. 공공누리 저작물의 이용조건은 변경될 수 있습니다. 다만 이용자가 이용조건 변경전 사용하셨다면 해당저작물 한해 용도변경 없이 계속 이용할 수 있습니다.

III. 공공기관의 면책
1. 공공기관은 공공저작물의 정확성이나 지속적인 제공 등을 보장하지 않습니다.
2. 공공기관 및 그 직원은 이용자가 공공저작물을 이용함으로써 발생할 수 있는 어떠한 손해나 불이익에 대해서도 책임을 지지 않습니다.

본인은 KOGL과 CCL 라이선스가 호환되지 않는다고 판단합니다.(I believe that KOGL and CCL licenses are incompatible.)
2016년 당시나, 지금 시점이나 마찬가지입니다.(It was the same in 2016 as it is now.)
본인(메이)은 '이용자'였었고 면책 대상이 아닙니다.[I(메이) am not exempt from liability]
위키미디어 공용에서 왜 KOGL이 허용되는지까지는 모르겠습니다.(I don't know why KOGL is allowed on Wikimedia Commons.)
파일을 복구하여 저를 손해나 불이익의 당사자로 만드는 것에 절대 동의할 수 없습니다.(I absolutely cannot agree to restoring those files and making me a party to any harm or disadvantage.)
영어 내용은 구글 번역 사용하여 덧붙였고, 영어로 쓴 내용은 한글로 적은 내용에 우선하지 않습니다.(The English content was added using Google Translate, and the content written in English does not take precedence over the content written in Korean.)

감사합니다.(Thank you.)-- 메이 (토론) 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay. This user believes that KOGL is not a free license. There was a lengthy discussion about KOGL long time ago. However, KOGL is still an accepted license here in Commons, and personal beliefs are irrelevant. If this user does not wish to upload files under his/her own name, please allow me to upload the files instead.--Namoroka (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:문재인 대통령, 2018 평창패럴림픽대회 선수단 출정식 참석 2018-03-02.jpg

This file was deleted through deletion requests but it was released in {{KOGL}} Type 1 in 2 March 2018 by the Blue House of South Korea. (archived link) KOGL is non-revocable. {{Change-of-KOGL}} This file was first uploaded on Commons in 7 March 2018, only four days later.-Namoroka (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mascot character in the background seems to be fine under COM:DM.--Namoroka (talk) 15:17, 9 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]

File:Handtekening Julia Boschman.png

I would say that files on Wikimedia Commons should be treated/reviewed equally. If you agree, it's fair that this singer's deleted signature I uploaded be restored. I saw that the signatures of a few world stars have been released in exactly the same way as I did with this signature. And these are signatures that have been on Wikimedia Commons for many years and are therefore accepted. With one of those famous singers, the signature released here on Wikimedia is derived from the signature being placed on a card, which is also the case with this singer (Julia Boschman). And there are sources for that too. So why should the signature I released need an exception? What's the difference? I can give the names of my examples if you want, so you can see for yourself. --Aaron371 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a signature of a Dutch person. I don't know if the Netherlands protects signatures (there is also a star added to the signature) @Ymblanter: Abzeronow (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow No different than in English speaking countries, I can give an example if you want. Aaron371 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which English speaking countries? India and UK protects signatures, the United States doesn't. Abzeronow (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many signatures on the Dutch wikipedia's and I also received confirmation of this almost a year ago from a Dutch Wikipedia moderator. So yes, signatures are allowed, provided the signature is real. Aaron371 (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow ? Aaron371 (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgotten about this. @Vysotsky: since I need confirmation that signatures are OK copyright wise in the Netherlands. Abzeronow (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know, I am sorry. Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No clue. I will try to check it out. Vysotsky (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alcaldia Torres Lara (2021-2025).jpg

Buenas, administradores por favor restaure el logo ,este logo esta en el Dominio Público según el último párrafo de la licencia en Venezuela {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} ,la Alcaldía forma parte del sector público (es ineligible del copyright). AbchyZa22 11:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination cierra el UDR ,ya yo se como hacer el upload wizard bien AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chandraprabha Saikiani Stamp.jpg

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India stamps of India are now PD per the Government Open Data License. I'm also requesting that the following files be undeleted for the same reason.

Along with all the files that were previously deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps of India and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Koiladababu (the second one might need extra review).

 Info #1 is not a stamp of India. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Filipe Nery Xavier commemorative stamp - 450th anniversary of Portuguese India.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:SOTMFR2024-clothing-Tshirt-logo-baby-BAT.pdf

If I remember well there is a license file within the source directory which states the whole is under an open license. So there is nothing more to do, just to check the source. Could you restore the file ? Yug (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Actually, the links provided with the file are dead, except [3]. The logo is available on the artist's website, but I don't see any free license. I only see © 2010-2025 Antoine Bardelli, graphiste à Montpellier. Les visuels présentés sont protégés par le droit d’auteur français et crédités sur la page "Mentions légales". Certains visuels peuvent être assortis d’une licence de diffusion. Sauf mention contraire, toute reproduction est interdite. Google Translate: ''© 2010-2025 Antoine Bardelli, graphic designer in Montpellier. The visuals presented are protected by French copyright law and credited on the "Legal notices" page. Some visuals may be accompanied by a distribution license. Unless otherwise stated, any reproduction is prohibited. Yann (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:1960s pic.jpg

== 1960s pic [file has no copyright] ==

I received permission from the estate to publish the works of this author who does not have any copyright restrictions. I have been in contact with the author's estate to make her works known and provide biographical material. I can provide proof of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thibon21 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, A 1960s picture is not out of copyright, so we need a formal written permission from the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, unless there was a written transfer of copyright. If you have such a permission, please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chantilly-Tiffany cat.jpg

This is an AI generated image of an extinct cat breed to show a schematic overview of how the breed had looked liked. Other users have pointed out that there are multiple pictures on commons of actual cats of this breed, however these are not an actual Chantilly-Tiffany cats. Those pictures are erroneously placed in the Chantilly-Tiffany category. The only actual photo of the Chantilly-Tiffany on Wikimedia Commons is File:Chantilly-cat-fancy-1995.jpg. The other pictures are of cats born after the breed was already only having 2 cats alive, which both have other coat colourations and are not the cat under the Sarah Blacktorn category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YukiKoKo (talk • contribs) 15:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YukiKoKo: Please explain why the image should be undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if what you say is true, this AI-generated image very remotely looks like File:Chantilly-cat-fancy-1995.jpg. Yann (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Topless redhead on beach.jpg and File:Topless redhead on beach 2.jpg

The photos were deleted because apparently someone thought they were stolen from some porn pay site. Actually they are by Flickr photographer David Levine from Portland OR, who uploaded many dozens of such nude photos showing hippie type women to Flickr, 15 to 20 years ago. Wikimedia Commons has over 150 files by him, Category:Files by David Levine. If some of the photos ended up on a pay site, I'd wager they were taken from Flickr or Commons and put on the pay site. Not the other way around. --Vydra (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question The rationale for deletion is The model is Bonnie from hippiegoddess.com; the original URL is paywalled, but here's an example from the web with the watermark intact. https://uhairy.com/gallery/bonnie-hairy-nudist-girls/images/5.jpg Seeing that there is a copy with a watermark, how do you know that the images are made by David Levine? Yann (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of photos from that Flickr account in Category:Files by David Levine, many of them quite large - several MB, with Exif data usually crediting either Dave Levine, Emma Soji (his wife or partner I guess, the Flickr account is named daveemma) or "Mead Hall". I don't see the deleted files, but they probably have similar Exif. The "uhairy" file is not that large - 163 kB, typical web image size, has no Exif data, but a 2024 file date, and what does a watermark really tell you? Only that someone put it there at some point. Not that it was there originally. --Vydra (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One more note: A 2005 article at https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-5132-the-fuzz-that-was.html says "David Levine and Emma Soji, a married Portland couple who founded the website HippieGoddess.com" and also that the site has 25,000 photos. As I see it, the two put some of their photos on Flickr with CC licenses, but uploaded many more to their website. Kind of a marketing strategy? --Vydra (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: OK, you have a point. Since there are other images of the same model by David Levine, these are OK. --Yann (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images Jean Ségalat

Images Wikipedia Jean Ségalat supprimées par manque droit d'auteur alors qu'il s'agit d'images libres de droit dont je suis propriétaire et sur lesquelles il faut ajouter l'étiquette {{PD-self}}

Bonjour, Je souhaite que les images associées au wikipédia de Jean Ségalat (photo Jean Ségalat, Coqs, Pont roulant et Platanes) ne soient plus supprimés. En effet, ces images m'appartiennent et sont libres de droit. Je souhaite donc ajouter l'étiquette {{PD-self}}. Merci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Baptiste RIEU (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, Comme vous n'êtes pas l'auteur de ces oeuvres, il faut confirmer la licence par email. Voyez COM:VRT/fr (en français) pour la procédure. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, As you are not the author of these works, you need to confirm the license by email. Please see COM:VRT (in English) for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aladdin Special Edition - For The 1st Time Ever On Disney DVD October 2004 - Official Tralier.webm

wow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotdog fan 23 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Obvious copyright violation (Disney owns the copyright to that film). --Abzeronow (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SUPERDOS' request

הקבצים האלה הם קבצים שלי, אני היוצר שלהם, אין פה הפרה של זכויות יוצרים. These files are mine, I am their creator, there is no copyright infringement here.

(SUPERDOS (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

 Oppose @SUPERDOS: These are derivative works of book covers, so we need a permission from the artist or designer. If you have such a permission, please see COM:VRT for the procedure. 10:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Mahathir Mohamad appeared in The Straits Times in 1953.jpg

Copyright Compliance of the 1953 Newspaper Clip

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to appeal the deletion of the file I uploaded, which is a scanned excerpt from The Straits Times, originally published in 1953. I believe this file complies with copyright law in Singapore and meets the requirements for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons. Below is my explanation:

1. Copyright Duration in Singapore According to the Singapore Copyright Act, the copyright for published works lasts for: 70 years after the death of the author for individual works, or 70 years from the first publication for anonymous or corporate works, such as newspapers.

The article in question was published in 1953, and as of the year 2025, it has been 72 years since its first publication. This exceeds the 70-year copyright term for such works, making it part of the public domain under Singapore copyright law.

2. Eligibility for Wikimedia Commons Wikimedia Commons accepts materials that are in the public domain or freely licensed. Since the copyright protection period for this newspaper clip has expired, it is no longer subject to copyright restrictions and qualifies as public domain content.

3. Purpose of the Upload The uploaded file was intended to contribute to educational and historical resources, highlighting a significant event in 1953. It serves as a valuable historical document and is not being used for commercial purposes.

4. Precedents and Clarification Similar materials from historical newspapers have been uploaded and retained on Wikimedia Commons. I kindly request a review of this file under the same standards. Request for Review I hope this explanation clarifies the copyright status of the file. If further documentation or references are required, I am more than willing to provide them. Please let me know if there are additional steps I can take to resolve this matter.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

The second reply: I plan to replace "Own Work" with a link to the source. Then, for the permissions section, I will include a citation of Singapore copyright law, explaining that it allows the upload of this file. OK？

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Niagara Falls, New York.svg

--240E:378:47C7:3500:500B:C460:2FAB:6D43 17:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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