Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

File:隋广义.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The author of this photo has changed license to CC-BY-SA-3.0, so the file is good to be restored. Copyright page is here:

English version: https://en.dyf.hk/copyright/

Chinese version: https://www.dyf.hk/copyright/ JackZouSZ (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate of the request made yesterday. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Gazprom-Logo-Lateinisch.svg

I request the restoration of the file, they are only letters and the flame are geometric figures (specifically ovals), it does not exceed the threshold of originality.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 03:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Aurelio de Sandoval: Can you prove that similar complexity logos are considered PD in Russia? Ankry (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ankry: I do not understand your question.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 22:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
See the deletion request. We need to address the deletion rationale if undeleting an image deleted through DR. Ankry (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ankry: Yes, look at the category there are images of the Gazprom company and they are in PD.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 22:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ankry: According to it was because the flame of the logo was complex, but if you look closely at the flame they are only ovals, it does not exceed the threshold of originality.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 22:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Not so obvious. From COM:TOO Russia: Simple result (consisted of simple geometric shapes and / or text) of creative work (creative human activity) is copyrightable. Ankry (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose As Ankry says, the threshold of originality is very low in Russia, so the gas flame almost certainly has a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion and COM:TOO Russia. It's been over a week since the last reply and there has been no support for this undeletion request. --Rosenzweig τ 13:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Pavlov, 2022.jpg

The author of image that is deleted is the band Pavlov itself. The band uses this image on almost every social media profile and they are fully aware that this image is being used on their Wikipedia page as well. The band asked to put this image on their Wikipedia page. So please, do not delete this image.--Shkis13 (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose "The author of image that is deleted is the band Pavlov itself" is not correct. The author of a photograph, for copyright purposes, is the person who actually pushed the button on the camera. That person is the copyright holder and, unless there is a written agreement to the contrary, is the only person who can freely license the image. In order for the image to be restored here, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - 1) You purported yourself to be the author, which you appear now to acknowledge to have been untrue ("The author of image that is deleted is the band Pavlov itself"); 2) the EXIF say "Copyright 2022. All rights reserved"; 3) previous publication (e.g., [1]) requires COM:VRT evidence of permission; and 4) nothing in this request is relevant or responsive to the reason for deletion. Эlcobbola talk 14:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:The Soviet Union 1990 CPA 6211 stamp (World Cup Soccer Championships, Italy. Referee and players. The emblem) cancelled.jpg

Please undelete this file. This file isn't duplicate of File:The Soviet Union 1990 CPA 6211 stamp (World Cup Soccer Championships, Italy. Referee and players. The emblem).jpg because it's cancelled and file File:The Soviet Union 1990 CPA 6211 stamp (World Cup Soccer Championships, Italy. Referee and players. The emblem).jpg is mint. --Matsievsky (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support It's a Soviet stamp, so there is no copyright problem, and as pointed out, this stamp was cancelled (has a postmark on it), while the other file shows a mint stamp (without a postmark). For philatelists that makes a difference. We probably shouldn't allow hundreds of images showing the same stamp, just with different postmarks, but a few should not be a problem. --Rosenzweig τ 13:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 Support I agree. Some will like the one with the higher resolution even though it has a cancellation; others will like the one that does not have the cancellation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per comments. I did not see the canceling stamp when considering the DR. --Ellywa (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:The Soviet Union 1990 CPA 6219 souvenir sheet (750th anniversary of Battle of the Neva. Troops and badge of order of Aleksander Nevsky).jpg

Please undelete this file. This file was deleted for no reason: the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Soviet Union 1990 CPA 6219 souvenir sheet (750th anniversary of Battle of the Neva. Troops and badge of order of Aleksander Nevsky).jpg compares the file with itself and suggests deleting one of them! --Matsievsky (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support The deletion request is indeed confusing. We have two different scans of this stamp: File:The Soviet Union 1990 CPA 6219 souvenir sheet (750th anniversary of Battle of the Neva. Troops and badge of order of Aleksander Nevsky) small resolution.jpg, in use, uploaded in 2007, 1.097 × 761 px, 188 KB, and this file which was deleted, File:The Soviet Union 1990 CPA 6219 souvenir sheet (750th anniversary of Battle of the Neva. Troops and badge of order of Aleksander Nevsky).jpg, not in use before deletion, uploaded in 2021, 2.225 × 1.549 px, 584 kB. They're different scans by different users, with slightly different colors, obviously different copies of the stamp (the perforation differs). I think we can host both. --Rosenzweig τ 13:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: per comment. I will also relocate the image on the projects. --Ellywa (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:deletion.jpg

Photo tanken by Per Morten Abrahamsen with permission to use --Alette Scavenius (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The source was Flickr where it is All Rights Reserved. In order to restore it here, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done, All rights reserved at flickr.com. Thuresson (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:MLK thinking.png

Please restore. We have a permission statement from the author per Ticket: 2022082110003562. Ww2censor (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Done. Thuresson (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Gagarin and Visionary Crytek.webp and File:Yuriy Besarab on car 2007.webp

This is my works (or my father's works, to be precise). You can even clearly see that the first one is a selfie. Also, the other resource (S.T.A.L.K.E.R. wiki) have a footer, and you can read there "everything is under the CC licence". — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoweMain (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20. Sep. 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose If it is your father's work, then your father must provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@WoweMain: Any further comment from you? --Rosenzweig τ 13:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, my father sent an e-mail. Also, as I said, that site have a footer. WoweMain (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Will be restored when and if email is read and approved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Monica Tranel Picture.jpg

Reason of request. This picture is not copyrighted and open use by Monica Tranel's political team that we are part of. Photo belongs to Monica Tranel's political Team and we posted it. It is not copyrighted and taken by us. Please do not remove. --KudosBZ (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose With limited exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all creative works have a copyright from the moment of creation. Although you claimed to be the photographer when you uploaded the image, your comment above strongly suggests that that is not actually correct. Please be aware that using {{Own}} on the work of other photographers is a serious violation of Commons rules and may result in your being blocked from editing here.

The image appears in a variety of places on the Web. In order to have it restored here, the actual photographer must provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:隋广义.jpg

The author of this photo has changed the copyright of this file to CC-BY-SA-3.0, which comply to WikiMedia Commons requirements.

This is the Chinese version of copyright page: https://www.dyf.hk/copyright/

This is the English version of copyright page: https://en.dyf.hk/copyright/

Please restore the file, thanks very much.

JackZouSZ (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: License at source now OK, no opposition. @JackZouSZ: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Le Tombeau de Couperin triadic planing.mid

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files were deleted from Commons due to wartime copyright extensions in France. DR for MIDI file see here. But tommorow copyright for Le Tombeau de Couperin, like all Maurice Ravel's works published before 1920 will finally expire, as 14 years and 272 days will elapse since the end of 2007. Because of in Mexico 100 pma protection is applicable for authors who died in 1952 or later, and the Ivory Coast uses the rule of shorter term, Ravel will be free almost all around the world. Very similar case was a few years ago with The Internationale (see that undeletion request). Michalg95 (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Unfortunately, due to the URAA, "free almost all around the world" does not include the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support @Jameslwoodward: In the US all works not being sound recordings and published before 1927 are now in the public domain. Le Tombeau de Couperin was composed and first performed in 1917, so this composition is free in US. Michalg95 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support Per Michalg95. Note however, that it is inappropriate to  Support a file for which you made the initial undeletion request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support per my original deletion request. Wikiacc (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:ブラウザ.jpg

I removed this file as infringing copyright. Although it should have been replaced with a redirect to File:Icon webview.png --Артём 13327 (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Question If the subject file, which is tiny, is a copyvio, why is the larger version at File:Icon webview.png not also a copyvio? See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icon webview.png. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See DR mentioned above. --Yann (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Hosseinronaghi

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hosseinronaghi Reason: He personally confirmed that he got images with explicit approval from the owners privately (to protect their identities) and uploaded them in Commons on their behalf. He is now arrested by Iranian government and can't defend and get these undeleted. cc User:Minorax Amir (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose "he got images with explicit approval from the owners privately" fails on two grounds. First, "owners" implies that the persons giving the permission were not the photographers, but merely people who own a paper or digital copy of the images. As we all know, that does not give them the right to freely license the images. Second, we do not accept permissions passed on through the uploader. That's particularly true when the uploader has made false claims, including his claiming that these images were {{Own}} when the DR and the statement above make it clear they were not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward By "owner" I explicitly mean photographers. He is a famous activist and used his network to collect all of these images. About the second part, it was an honest mistake, there has been a lot of uploads. I personally would fix all of them. Amir (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
That's all fine, but we still require that the actual photographer send free licenses using VRT. We do not accept statements such as yours. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:2014.10.25 Hong Kong protests Admiralty 10.JPG

No sufficient evidence to support COM:TOYS--Wpcpey (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't understand the request. The figure in the photo is clearly recent. There is no reason to believe that it does not have a copyright, so the photo is a derivative work which infringes on the creator's copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I cannot see any Toys elements in this picture Wpcpey (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Wpcpey, toy or sculpture -- whatever you call it, it clearly has a copyright. All created works do, with limited exceptions which don't apply here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:The Official Triplets.jpg

This picture is from the actual photographer given to me to upload to their Wikipedia page. I am the manager of Ron St. Angelo's Wikipedia page. Alexanderbelice (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this works, is anyone available to review the request. Thanks in advance. Alexanderbelice (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The image comes from http://www.ronstangelo.com/#!/HOME which has "IMAGES COPYRIGHT ST. ANGELO 2022 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED". In order to have it restored here either (a) Ron St. Angelo himself can send a free license using VRT or he can change the notice on his web site to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.

I note that you have made most of the edits on Ron St. Angelo. If you are paid for this, you are in serious violation of Wikipedia's rules against conflict of interest. It is entirely possible that all of your edits there will be removed. In particular, you should post the fact that you are a paid editor at User:Alexanderbelice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


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

Concerning my own-work photograph that was just deleted: File:John Roderick for Seattle City Council political sign.jpg

The purpose of my photograph is to document the candidate's political campaigning. I contend this is de minimis use of the non-free photograph reproduced on the campaign poster.

Precedent:

Obama's 2008 presidential campaign utilized a copyrighted logo: [2]. (Note that this is *not* a public domain logo due to "simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality". It is marked as a copyrighted, trademarked logo and uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons) under Fair Use.)

Multiple photographs on Commons contain this logo. The only purpose of these photographs is to illustrate Obama's campaign and to show his campaign signs and stickers in use.

Under the same allowance, my original photograph of a campaign poster (that happens to contain a de minimis photograph of the candidate) should be undeleted.

I am also tagging this as Request temporary undeletion, for discussion, as it should not have been speedily deleted in the first place. The F3 guideline that was used as justification to delete the file clearly states that it "does not apply to photographs taken in a public place".

PK-WIKI (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose First, we have almost 90 million images on Commons. It would not surprise me if 1% of them -- almost a million -- should be deleted, so it proves nothing to cite similar cases. But even one of your cases fails to prove the point. The second of them is a photo of a white Mercury Sable. It happens to have an Obama bumper sticker, but so what? It is clearly a case where de minimis applies. However, your first example and the subject image clearly exist only to show the copyrighted poster or logo and neither has a place on Commons. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Obama Sign Arlington Virginia.jpg. Both cases fail the de minimis test -- "would a casual observer notice if the copyrighted material were removed?" In both cases the answer is obviously "yes" since the copyrighted material is the only reason the photograph is otherwise in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree the copyrighted logo or photograph is the main reason for the photographs... the main reason is to capture the political sign, which may or may not be subject to copyright. The presence of a copyrighted image on a poster is incidental and unavoidable in photographing the campaign sign.

I don't see how this is different from the Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits ruling discussed at COM:DM United States, which said that photographs of a bottle are allowed even if they label on said bottle may be copyrightable.

PK-WIKI (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: SD not applicable, so Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Roderick for Seattle City Council political sign.jpg created instead. --Yann (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ados amor.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022092810007848. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Patrick Lanneau 2.jpg to File:Patrick Lanneau 30.jpg, including File:Patrick Lanneau 17a.jpg

Can someone please have a look at those files? We have permission per Ticket:2021081310006175. The permission comes from Patrick Lanneau. If the images show his artwork, IMO the permission is okay, and the images should be restored. If they show portraits of the person, i will have to ask for permission from the photographer instead. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

All 3 images show paintings, whether by Patrick Lanneau, IDK. Tentatively restored. --Túrelio (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Paintings by artist Patrick Lanneau

Sorry there was a misunderstanding concerning my previous request, which was taken care of by @Túrelio: : it is not just three files, but thirty of them: File:Patrick Lanneau 2.jpg, File:Patrick Lanneau 3.jpg, File:Patrick Lanneau 4.jpg etc. up to File:Patrick Lanneau 30.jpg. Can the missing ones also be restored, please? --Mussklprozz (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mussklprozz: Categories need work. Yann (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Filmwise condensation of steam on low integral-finned tubes. (IA filmwisecondensa00geor).pdf

Per the followup comments in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Filmwise condensation of steam on low integral-finned tubes. (IA filmwisecondensa00geor).pdf, some doubts were raised as to the nature of 'copyright' status of the work. The claim is that as 1984 work without an additional license it might qualify for {{PD-US-1978-89}} as there wasn't an additional license/ registration within 5 years. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. If there were a copyright notice, it would be near the bottom of the reverse side of the title page. Unfortunately, on that page, only the top half was scanned by Google, so we don't actually know that there was no notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

TE(æ)A,ea., have you seen the whole page, without the redaction, or are you just guessing that there is no copyright notice? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 Comment I posted a message to Wikisource TE(æ)A,ea. talk page. Yann (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Boruto-naruto-next-generations-chapter-62-41.jpg

This is chapter pic for wiki manga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.112.175.180 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose We need a permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. Yann (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. No reason provided for undeletion. --Yann (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:LtGovMattPinnell.jpg

I would like to have this photo undeleted, as it is his official photo from the State of Oklahoma's website.

I do not know what Creative Commons license this falls under but this one is a bit more flattering than the previous one.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to reach out. --Staffjgkasdl (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Nonsense request. No free license at source (only "Copyright ©2022State of Oklahoma") and uploader/requestor appears to acknowledge seeking to concoct a license ("I do not know what Creative Commons license this falls under"). Эlcobbola talk 18:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per above: license needed. Ankry (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Sibi-paul-photo.jpg

I have sound contributions to make Wikipedia better.

this file has no violation of F10. Personal photos by non-contributors

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibipaul (talk • contribs)

 Not done photo not deleted. Ankry (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Euskal Antzerki Topaketak 1997 Liburuxka.pdf

Good day. I would like to ask for the undeletion of this file and all the other files deleted in the same batch (54 in total). The deletion was done by User:Fitindia, so I'm noticing them.

This file, and the other 54, are part of a project made with a GLAM to upload information about one of the most important theathre events in Basque language. I have been helping this institution and, as far as I know, all the steps were done correctly:

  • A template was created to notice about the partnership: Template:AntzerkiTopaketak.
  • A VTR ticket was filled: 2022071310005694, and it was explicit that all the files uploaded by them would be tagged with the template above, so a Category would be automatically added and this would be the proof.
  • All files were uploaded with proper sourcing (Template:own), license (cc-by-sa-4.0) and tagging (the partnership template).
  • After the first speedy deletion request was made, there was an answer explaining that the ownership was from themselves and that everything was explained at ticket 2022071310005694. This is the diff as asked by Herbythyme. Kulturaz kooperatiba and myself both mentioned it.

Is there any step we are missing? If so, it would be interesting to note it, so we don't miss it whenever we are working with a GLAM. Meanwhile, I would like to ask to restore the deleted files.

Thanks. -Theklan (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to address the general problem, we will need a list of the files, which you did not provide. As for the file named above, it is a booklet with many images and much text. As a general rule, when images are licensed for such a work, the license allows use in the booklet, but does not permit the images to be freely licensed, so in order to restore it, we would have to have evidence that everything in the booklet is freely licensed.

The more general question requires that a VRT agent read the permission and comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The booklet author is uploading the booklet itself, which is created by them for advertising a theatre event they organize. So yes, they are the owners of the booklet as they claim when uploading. Also, is not possible to know the list of files before uploading it, because they are working in an archive. All the files are uploaded by them with the proper license, attribution and partnership template, as any other user. We can't ask to a user rules that don't apply to another. Theklan (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the list of deleted files:
Theklan (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Status: A VRT colleague is coping with the ticket. He is currently expecting an answer from the client to an open question. --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The partner is not fluent in English or our infrastructure. Can I know which is the question so I can help them, please? Theklan (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The question is: "Do all copyright holders agree to the given license?". This is followed by the question of who the copyright holder is, which is more complex:
For a booklet: The copyright holders would be the photographers who took the photographs, the artists who painted / drew the pictures, the person(s) who wrote the texts and finally, the "booklet author" who put it all together. An artist agreeing to have their work put in a booklet is not the same as agreeing to a Creative Commons license!
For a poster: This might be a work for hire and then the organization who commissioned the poster would be the copyright holder, otherwise it would be the poster artist. If the poster is based on a work by another artist (making it a derivative work), that other artist is also a copyright holder.
In summary: publishing the booklets under a free license is probably a copyright violation. The posters might be OK, but this needs to be decided case-by-case. --rimshottalk 20:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not true. We have books and magazines uploaded here only because the book claims that they are under a free license. The author and copyright owner can upload here anything and if you think that this is a copyright violation you should claim a copyright violation of what and who is the owner of that copyright. That's why we ask to institutions to fill a VRT ticket. In this case, the author filled a VRT ticket, with copyright information and authorship. Why would you think they are violating any copyright only because the work is outstanding?
No case-by-case deletion was made here. There was a speedy deletion claim of virtually all the items uploaded by the institution, without any claim of what copyright was being violated. Theklan (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
So the author has either created all the artwork or has corresponding contracts with the artists? If so, that's the information the VRT needs. I suppose the open question referred to above is along those lines, too. I'm afraid that I gave the impression that I knew what the actual VRT question was, but I don't have access to the VRT, so I only gave a general answer. --rimshottalk 07:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Good day, I'm working with @Theklan in this GLAM project. The deleted files are made and owned by the institution, in their entirety, so they have the copyright on everything. As mentioned, as far as we know, all the steps were done correctly under the ticket 2022071310005694. The institution's email address is dinamoa@kulturaz.eus, could you please send the message again? they don't have it so they can't send the required reply. Edagit (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, to get a VRT agent to resend the mail, best contact them by mail or at the VRT noticeboard. Once the permission is cleared with VRT, the files will be undeleted. As for the correct process: that may be a question for the VRT noticeboard as well. One thing that you should probably have done is adding the permission pending template to the files (using {{subst:PP}}), to make it clear that there is in fact a permission pending. Once the permission is accepted, the VRT agent will add the corresponding template to the files. If you only intend to use Template:AntzerkiTopaketak on files covered by this permission, you can also just add the permission pending template there, so that you don't need to put it on all files individually. --rimshottalk 13:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks rimshot for the comment. Indeed, I added a the ticket number to one of the files, but the system recommended not to do it, because that should only be done by the VRT volunteers. We will continue asking for undeletion via the VRT mail. Theklan (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
You should be allowed to add the permission pending template, but the actual ticket can only be added by the VRT. After all, that's what the ticket derives its value from - not just anyone can add it. --rimshottalk 19:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok! I understood that no one could add the template, and that's why I waited for the VTR volunteer. Thanks! Theklan (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I've restored all the posters, since they do not seem to be problematic - I've not any reason to believe the copyright do not belong to the City Council, as claimed. This is possibly the case with the booklets as well, but since those are collective works, and the copyright ownership has been contested above, I do not feel comfortable with restoring them at this point. But maybe we could restore 1 or 2 and decide upon them, and then if it works, go for the rest?-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: This seems OK now. --Yann (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


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

Files from Category:Konkani Vishwakosh

These files were deleted by User:Fastily (no longer an admin) and User:Ellin Beltz (last seen Sept 24).

Konkani Vishwakosh (volumes 1, 2, 3, 4) was donated to Commons by its publisher, with the license review completed on 28 January 2014. The files below are illustrations from this book that were deleted as copyvios.

Joofjoof (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Joofjoof: Where the license has been granted? A link or OTRS/VRTS ticket number, please. In the latter case, the request should be made by a VRTS volunteer processing the ticket. Ankry (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The source links:Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3, Volume 4. Joofjoof (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 Support per CC-BY-SA licensing info archived above. Ankry (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The page numbers can be found here. Joofjoof (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 Support This seems a mistake. Yann (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Joofjoof: For each file, please add a link to the PDF, source of each file, otherwise they may be deleted again. Some files do not exist. --Yann (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

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

User:C.A. Nicholas

I created this page, my personal page, as a Wikipedia contributor--C.A. Nicholas (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)C.A. Nicholas

 Question This userpage never existed in Wikimedia Commons. Do you mean File:A photo of C.A. Nicholas.jpg? Ankry (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Also: which Wikipedia articles do you mean as your contribution? Userspace edits do not count as contribution to Wikipedia. Ankry (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. No answer. --Yann (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Lillian sear.jpg

I have done a reverse image search and a search by her name, and this image has not come up with the name of a photographer. Reverse image search searches over 1 billion images. --RAN (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Nonsense request. Reverse image search is not a "reasonable inquiry". Nominator did not even bother attempting to contact the uploader (!!!). This is a COM:NETCOPYVIO stolen from here. What attempt was made to contact the webmaster? What attempts were made to contact English copyright authorities? What museums, archives, libraries, and the like were contacted about Lillian Sear resources? What books, records, and other publications were consulted? Эlcobbola talk 03:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The license was "PD-UK-unknown" which requires that "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. (my emphasis)" The uploader would be aware of the deletion nomination since a notice of the deletion nomination appeared on their user page. Making a criminal accusation that the image was stolen from a website is reckless and legally unsound, US copyright law recognizes fair use, even if Wikimedia Commons cannot host them. There is no webmaster listed at the website hosting the image, and the due diligence required of all the other images using this license never required anyone to contact "English copyright authorities", whoever they may be, as part of a reasonable enquiry. The person who made the deletion, gave as their only rationale for deletion, that the due diligence performed was not listed on the image page. Again no other image using this license was required to consult non digital resources such as "books, records, and other publications" as part of a reasonable enquiry. I believe the due diligence required of the license was performed, and no evidence of named author has been presented to contradict that statement. --RAN (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
    • In order to use {{PD-UK-unknown}} you need to ensure that one of three clauses declared there applies. The first clause does not apply as the photo was previously published on [3] and we have no evidence that it was published there following PD-UK-unknown rationale (it may be there per Fair Use, per license or even as copyvio): determining this may be impossible without contacting dartsandshafts.com webmaster or that website owner. The second clause requires an evidence of 70-years-old publication: not provided. The third one does not apply to photos. So making a reasonable inquiry is one thing, and determining whether this template is ever applicable here is another thing:  Oppose unless this is resolved. Ankry (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree that the word "stolen" is not a good choice. "Taken" has much the same meaning, but does not imply criminality.

The question of "reasonable inquiry" is difficult. I tend to agree with elcobbola that the inquiry described above seems cursory. However, as Ankry points out, {{PD-UK-unknown}} requires evidence of publication more than 70 years ago. There is no evidence here that the photo is anything but one taken from a family album and never published until recently. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

 Comment Re "reasonable inquiry": The British law using this term is the en:Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. So from 1988, from before the invention of the World Wide Web, and a quick Google search (or even less) is probably not what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote "reasonable inquiry". You would have needed to consult books, make telephone calls, write letters etc. to inquire about who an author would be. If you can find out the author these days by a quick internet search, fine. But if you cannot, shouldn't you try to exhaust some conventional resources too? --Rosenzweig τ 12:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Quite a consensus that it is not OK. --Yann (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:MICHAEL-BLACKMAN.jpg

Me gustaria poder recuperar la fotografia de Michael Blackman, tengo el consentimiento del autor de la fotografia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magtino (talk • contribs) 20:08, 7 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Please follow the instructions at Commons:VRT for any third party permissions. Thuresson (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Orellanine synthesis.svg

This file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orellanine synthesis.svg, processing of which seems more speedy-G7 than an actual full DR. Then comes Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orellanine synthesis.gif, in which a lower-quality image of the same thing was kept as in-use. I'm requesting undeletion of the SVG so it can be used in place of the GIF. It's all intrinsically PD, so I could just recreate a non-GIF myself from scratch, but it would be potentially lower quality and at best equivalent to the SVG author's (a DW, even if we don't need attribution chain for license reasons), so I think it's better to revive the original. I can do it myself, just want to run it through central UNDEL because several uploaders, admins, and DRs are involved. DMacks (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done @DMacks: please replace. BTW, uploader request is speedy deletion rationale, so not waiting 7 days was a correct decision. Ankry (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Daniel Seghers - Kytice ve sklenene vaze.jpg

Please undelete this file which is PD and was deleted for the wrong reason. Please see undeleted examples for reference File:Pieter Claesz asi 1597-1.1.1661 pohr. - Zatisi s hlinenym dzbanem.jpg and File:Jan de Bray kol.1627-1697 - Podobizna petileteho devcatka.jpg that were also deleted from the same set and for which I successfully requested undeletion already. I have made an item for this painting and want to use the file - item is here d:Q114458268. Thanks in advance. Jane023 (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: I did not find a DR for this painting. --Ellywa (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


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

no justification of deleting of (File:Abdul Ahad Momand.png)

no justification of deleting of (File:Abdul Ahad Momand.png) because it has the exact same validity as File:Mohammad Najibullah Vertical.jpg and File:Mahsa Amini.jpg so please be consistent with your logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhalqiRevolutionary (talk • contribs) 09:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose File:Mohammad Najibullah Vertical.jpg doesn't exist on Commons. Both other files are copyright violations. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. Yann (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammad_Najibullah_Vertical.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mahsa_Amini.jpeg
take a look again. KhalqiRevolutionary (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
These are under fair use on the English Wikipedia, not on Commons. Yann (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Not done, per Commons:Fair use. Thuresson (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Files from Category:Konkani Vishwakosh (add'l)

(Followup to Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-10#Files from Category:Konkani Vishwakosh)

These two filenames were mistyped in the previous request:

They can be found on pages 139 and 140 of Volume 4. Joofjoof (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Joofjoof: Please add a link to the PDF. --Yann (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:ATEE2 KMB 32 04-01-2019.jpg

This photo is my work,I upload this photo to hkbus fandom first,then upload to here. https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:ATEE2_KMB_32_04-01-2019.JPG LN9267 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Looks OK to me. --Yann (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Jiyas Mohamed

File:Jiyas Mohamed.jpg

This is my wikimedia page & the informations were shared by me for my publicity so undelete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed Jiyas (talk • contribs)

File:JiyasMohamed at Chennai.jpg

This is my personal pic & i wanted it to show publicly when somebody searches my name. so kindly undelete this pic & attached informations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed Jiyas (talk • contribs)

Discussion

 Oppose Please see COM:NOTHOST and COM:NOTSOCIAL. All uploads at Wikimedia Commons need to have an educational context, which is why we only allow personal user page images for established users that have made significant contributions to a Wikimedia project. Your account, however, has no such contributions. De728631 (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Arangetram 2022 telugu film.jpg

== Arangretam poster is a orginal work of mine ==

It's a original work of mine and its movie poster of upcoming telugu film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexsaugust (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright holder must send a permission via COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Cyanogen recovery from the nexus q!.jpg

File was speedily deleted for no apparent reason: Depicted software (ClockworkMod) is open source (Apache License) and source image (https://www.flickr.com/photos/megacia/8419287609/) has a valid licence. The image had also been cropped to create File:Nexus q (cropped).jpg. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Wrongly tagged. --Yann (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Abi Angelos.jpg

undelete the image as I have the permission to use this image from the owner himself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneha51217 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 10 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Info This user is permanently blocked. Thuresson (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Партизанський трофей – фашистський танк 1.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I think the sculptor copyright isn't violated, because it's not a sculpture. This is a destroyed tank, which was named a cultural monument as the cruiser "Moskva" 『白猫shiro neko』Обг. 23:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Kazuhito Hashimoto by Michito Ishikawa 2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ticket:2022052310007515 is satisfactory as far as I can see. The license is CC BY-SA 4.0. whym (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Whym: Please fix the template. --Yann (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, the template is fixed now. whym (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Zdeňka_Bauerová.jpg

VRT permission of the author received: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=12359218 --Gampe (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gampe: What's the ticket number please? Yann (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Ticket#2022101110005566 — Photo p.Bauerová, please follow the link above Gampe (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done per VRT member request. @Gampe: Please note, that there is another ticket (ticket:2021041610006221) mentioned in the file description; maybe they need to be merged? Ankry (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Morsal Mostafanejad.jpg

hi please don't delete this page

 Not done: Not yet deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Morsal-Mostafanejad.jpg

also you can see https://g.co/kgs/umu6Qq reference

 Not done: Not yet deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Morsal Mostafanejad.jpg

https://ir.linkedin.com/in/morsal-mostafanejad

 Not done: Not yet deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:馬場彩月プロフィール.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ticket:2022092110001062 is satisfactory as far as I can see. (I didn't see the file before it was deleted, but if the Google Cache is to be believed, it seems to be the picture that the ticket confirms.) The license is CC BY-SA 4.0. whym (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Whym: . --Yann (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Alles was tief ist liebt die Maske door GvA.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2022101010012023. --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:FI-SEKSI.svg

Also:

The symbol is very useful and important in showing age restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miks00 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose That may be true, but they are copyright violations and cannot be kept on Commons. As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RicHard-59, they are taken from http://www.meku.fi/ikarajat/ where there is no indication of a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Chano.jpg

Por favor, permitir que la imágen siga en Wikipedia Commons, asi es posible utilizarla en la página oficial del artista Chano, y poder actualizar su foto con una mas reciente. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diublo (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image is from https://silencio.com.ar/noticias/lo-ultimo/chano-hablo-con-mas-de-50-fans-desde-su-telefono-personal-56717/. That site has the following copyright notice:

"Los Contenidos de texto publicados en Silencio, salvo indicación en contrario, se encuentran enmarcados en la licencia Creative Commons Atribución-No Comercial-Compartir Obras Derivadas Igual 3.0 Unported (Argentina). El texto completo de la licencia puede leerse en la dirección electrónica http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode. El resto de los contenidos se encuentran protegidos por derechos de autor; en esos casos se encuentra prohibida su publicación, radiodifusión, reedición para radiodifusión o publicación y su redistribución directa o indirecta por cualquier medio, estando prohibido su almacenamiento total o parcial en computadoras, excepto para uso personal y sin fines comerciales."
"The text Contents published in Silencio, unless otherwise indicated, are framed in the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Derivative Works Alike 3.0 Unported (Argentina) license. The full text of the license can be read at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode. The rest of the contents are protected by copyright; in those cases, its publication, broadcast, republication for broadcast or publication and its direct or indirect redistribution by any means is prohibited, and its total or partial storage in computers is prohibited, except for personal use and non-commercial purposes." Translation by Google.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:TikTok Icon Black.svg

I seek consensus to determine if a logo as simple as this letter T of the TikTok social network can be in Wikimedia Commons, several users previously and on more than one occasion voted in favor of it being here, I am in favor, that other users decide and determine.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 04:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Support Very simple glyph. --Yann (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: If TikTok is fully an American company, I agree, which is not the factual. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 Comment If we're considering undeleting that, we should also look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:TikTok Logo.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:TikTok.jpg and discuss if there are differences between the various versions of the logo that might justify treating them differently (or not). --Rosenzweig τ 12:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
A little  Oppose as per Rosenzweig, looks like the "Gang Heng" case of COM:TOO China section applies, pinging @CptViraj, Taivo, TadejM, Camouflaged Mirage, SCP-2000, SHB2000, Explicit, and Larryasou: . --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Why was I pinged here? Either way, I still  Oppose per Taivo . SHB2000 (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Mild  Oppose, because the glyph seems still enough complex for copyright. Taivo (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Mild  Oppose Hello. I don't know why I have been pinged here, but I have checked the file and agree with User:Taivo. The glyph is original enough to warrant coypright. --TadejM (t/p) 10:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It seems I am the only one to think this is OK. --Yann (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Team RnB aka Adrenaline Rush.jpg

Also

I promise to put the copywrited information in the page once revived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picturefoxinvasion1 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 OpposeThe first of these has at least four copyrights -- one for each photo and one for the design of the poster. The other two appear elsewhere on the web without free licenses. In order for them to be restored, the copyright holders will have to provide free licenses using VRT..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Ksiega Dzungli (fot. M Kordula).jpg

There is a proper agreement for this file. It was missed in a series as it was not mentioned in the E-mail but it was listed in the attachement to the E-mail. See attachement in the ticket: ticket:2022101010012881. Polimerek (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Polimerek: . --Yann (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Basinia shulman.jpg

Автор фотографии подарил её владельцу страницы. Поэтому мы не указывали его копирайт, но мы связались с ним и теперь готовы предоставить любые данные для восстановления фотографии. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzavarin (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose If author granted a free license permission or transferred copyright to another person who granted a free license permission in a written contract, an evidence of this should be provided to COM:VRT. Note: false authorship claim is serious violation of Wikimedia Commons policy. Ankry (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:SELLO_POSTAL_DEMETRIO_H._BRID.png

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2022091110000902 regarding File:SELLO_POSTAL_DEMETRIO_H._BRID.png. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Happy Birthday poster.png

Olá, venho através desta solicitar o restauro da foto (arquivo): 'Happy Birthday poster.png'. Na mensagem que recebi de eliminação alegava-se descumprimento de leis autorais, porém, eu sou o único proprietário deste trabalho: Sou o produtor do filme, diretor do filme, autor do filme e criador do poster do filme 'Happy Birthday'. Aguardo restauro, Paulo Leão (Ribeiro César)--Ribeiro César (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but we have no way here of knowing who User:Ribeiro César actually is, so policy requires that the copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Tigerfursuit.jpg

Original deletion request at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tigerfursuit.jpg. The deletion was in error: The listed source for the image is not the actual source for the image. In fact, the entire website linked is a scam website that sells knock-off mascot suits while advertising their products via stolen images. Just look at their tiger mascot section, which contains literally hundreds of mascots of wildly different quality and styles that are all supposedly on sale, including licensed characters and known sports mascots. All supposedly costing the same, regardless of whether they are intricate mascots, cheap ones or just partial mascots. Also, there's this beauty, which apparently is a tiger, too. Conti|✉ 11:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose What you say about the redbrokoly site may well be correct, but that does not solve the problem. The image is small, has no EXIF, and appears in several places on the Web without a free license, so policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. The tiger suit also has a copyright, so, unless the photographer also designed and sewed the suit, restoration will require that the designer of the suit must also send a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I have no information on who uploaded the image and what source was attributed originally. I'm just here pointing out that the original deletion reason is incorrect. Conti|✉ 21:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --De728631 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Funerali.jpg

PD-Somalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuperxiddig1996 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 13 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: No convincing reason has been supplied why this should be undeleted. --De728631 (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Holmes MP83A1.jpg

Author has released blueprints for use, so anyone may use. The work belongs to everyone and not to whoever put it on the Internet. I'm only doing this because the next time I inadvertently break the rules, I'd like to know how to avoid this in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalleWinter (talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

  •  Oppose If, in fact, the "Author has released blueprints for use", then please tell us where we can see written evidence of that. Otherwise, the author must provide a free license using VRT.
Also note that claiming that you created work when you did not, as you did using {{Own}} here, is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:PMC "Wagner Group" logo.svg

Hello, this file (logo) was removed wrongfully due to license inconsistency and lack of further discussion with explanation Commons:Deletion requests/File:PMC "Wagner Group" logo.svg, so I am forced to apply here. As we can already see, there are no specific Wikimedia Commons rules governing this issue, in particular with this license. I ask you to restore this logo due to the lack of criteria for banality, as well as judicial and other precedents in the Russian Federation. see. COM:TOO Russia. Thank you! ArtSmir (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Vera longtoe.jpg

This seems to be 1870 US photo. Its copyright has expired. No permission is needed to use it. @Tulsi Bhagat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

And it shoud be renamed after undeletion as the photo presents Nelie, not Vera. Ankry (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: photo is from 1870 so in PD. Licencing was incorrect. --Ellywa (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: After undeletion and renaming into File:Nellie Longtoe Sheehan.jpg I noted ticket:2022101110002649 as a basis for deletion by User:Tulsi. I think that the PD status and the publication on the source website, where it is still visible since 2018 and never deleted, is a basis for keeping the image. Ellywa (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:The Crafty Miners Minecraft.serverslist.co.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Fair use or Fandom Art category.: ‪“Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder.” No money has derived from/for the creation of this artwork that has been completly hand drawn.

This constitutes the correct classification of Fandom art and fair use. The Crafty Miners (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons does not accept "fair use" media files. --Rosenzweig τ 09:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyrighted work -- fair use is not acceptable on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

No Dirty Step LP Album - Artwork

No Dirty Step LP Album - Artwork — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDT-LN (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 October 2022‎ (UTC)

@Jah Lionsmodanagi: Is this request filed by you? If yes, then please read your talk page, your files are out of our COM:SCOPE. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It's a sock of Jah Lionsmodanagi. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:EFA Merchant Headshot 2021.jpg The file was self taken picture that I tried to upload and it was deleted.

This was a photo that I took and wanted to upload it to give the page a more recent image. It should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLGIT (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Info OP has been indefinitely blocked. Thuresson (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:EFA Merchant Headshot 2021.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Trešl_Ivo.jpg

VRT permission of the author received Ticket#2022101210008383 --Gampe (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Gampe: FYI. --Yann (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

PEGI symbols

See deletion discussions here, here and here.

PEGI Discrimination, PEGI Drugs, PEGI Fear, PEGI Bad Language, PEGI Sex, PEGI Violence and PEGI Gambling, as well as PEGI age restriction symbols, are part of the Israeli Consumer Protection Order (Labeling of Goods), 5743–1983. The PEGI symbols were published in the Official Gazette #6642 and are {{PD-IsraelGov}}. – Fuzzy – 15:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Comment File:PEGI Bad language.svg and File:PEGI Sex.svg are simple design, so {{PD-textlogo}} should apply. Others have a copyright. Yann (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 Comment The State of Israel uses PEDI symbols as part of the regulations. Therefore the symbols are not subject to copyright protection according to the Israeli law: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4, copyright shall not subsist in statutes, regulations, Knesset Protocols and judicial decisions of the courts or of any other government entities having judicial authority according to law". See {{PD-IsraelGov}}. – Fuzzy – 07:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 Comment Another thing – those files where used by hundreds of different pages. Check the delinker logs for details. – Fuzzy – 07:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Comment I agree with Yann that the two he cites are probably below the ToO and that the rest have copyrights. Note that while the symbols may be used by Israel, the copyright rests with Interactive Software Federation of Europe and there is an explicit copyright notice at the Pan European Game Information web site. The terms of use set forth there include:

"The PEGI trademarks and logos used on this website are the exclusive property of PEGI and may not be used without PEGI’s explicit consent to do so."

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: 2 only, as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Please temporarily restore the other PEGI symbols so I can import them to the Hebrew Wikisource. – Fuzzy – 21:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Waino_Hendrickson_(1896-1983)_in_1957.png

This image was deleted, since it was assumed by User:Rozenberg in good faith that the image may never have been published before 1977. However, the image states that this is a portrait of Hendrickson as Governor, and, as acting Governor, he served in 1957 and 1958. In general, old negatives are not counted in the Alaskan Historical Collection, and a cropped version if the image is found on the state government website, here. While the description of the image from the source isn't exactly, well, helpfully descriptive, I believe I have good enough reason to believe this image is in the public domain. Multiple editors have come to the same conclusion, and with a scan of the U.S. Copyright Office from both me and another user, there seems to be no copyright notice or renewal/registration on the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycranthebigman (talk • contribs) 22:46, 13 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Support While there is no evidence that the publication lacked notice, a search of the USCO records yielded no renewals for any work containing "Waino". This would have had to be renewed around 1984, which is included in the USCO on line search. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Question @Jameslwoodward: Was it even published before 2003 though? There is no evidence at all for that. Generally, the information at the web site it was taken from is rather sparse, even the year 1957 is just speculation, as is the claim that this "is a portrait of Hendrickson as Governor". See discussion and rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waino hendrickson Governor portrait.PNG. --Rosenzweig τ 15:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. We have a photograph of him which can be firmly dated at 1/1/1959, see Category:Waino Hendrickson. This image looks to be about the same age. There are several others at https://vilda.alaska.edu/digital/collection/cdmg21/search/searchterm/waino%20hendrickson Since he began his political career as Mayor of Juneau in 1946 and this image doesn't look 13 years younger, it is very likely that it was taken while he was Mayor, Secretary of the Territory (i.e. Lieutenant Governor), or Acting Governor (see List_of_governors_of_Alaska). It is a formal portrait, taken at a time when photographs were harder to take than now. While it is certainly possible that it was never published, that seems very unlikely, particularly since it ended up as the only portrait of him identified as "Governor" (sic) at the Alaska Digital Archives. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:WVEC 2018.svg and other files uploaded by Don-Don

While all the files mentioned here were deleted in June for lack of permission information, it appears that they were previously uploaded to Logopedia on Fandom and/or ported onto Wikimedia Commons by Don-Don. Judging by the files there, they all appear to be under public domain due to falling below the threshold of originality (even with an IP user disputing the Tribune logo in 2015). On that note, I do remember the KOMO logo having permission information initially, though inappropriately licensed as CC BY-SA 3.0 or 4.0 since it (along with most of the other logos, aside from the WVEC and TWC ones) was technically a recreation from the uploader. I also noticed that the current WVEC logo was uploaded to Wikipedia under fair use, but since both iterations are exactly the same aside from the slightly altered ABC logo, I think both fall below the threshold of originality. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Asila Mirzayorova.jpg

According to otrs:2022072310002061, the file was freely licensed on the its' source cite (http://paralympic.uz/), so was deleted by mistake (cannot check this fact, just helped to create a request). Анастасия Львоваru/en 19:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:TulioOmarPérezRivera Ordenacion 20220921 tva.jpg

File was marked to delete due copyright violation, however the user that did the deletion did not verified the copyright.
I was in contact with the organization and request them to put the license in the comments, so this should not happen but the person that deleted did not verified or comment.
The image did not had 24 hours in commons, I have other image that was not able to get the contact to gather the license but at least commons has the sense to left for 7 days and request, not just delete
You can check a screenshot for the license here http://mario.cancuen.net/fotoTulioPerezLicencia.png
You can check the actual picture with the comment where the license is included here https://www.facebook.com/TvArquidiocesana/photos/8069580566447896
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario Soto (talk • contribs) 15:47 11 October 2022‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Both the picture and "actual comment" identify a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, which is precisely the reason for deletion. Please review the warning on your talk page and the guidance linked therein; we cannot accept non-commercial limitations. Note also that, even if the Facebook license were free, this would still appear to be licensing laundering as the image's author per EXIF is "Heidy Alvarado" and no evidence has been offered that Alvarado controls the Facebook account or has transferred copyright to such person. Эlcobbola talk 18:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Heidy Alvarado is a worker for the Televisión Arquidiocesana as can be seen in this link https://m.facebook.com/TvArquidiocesana/posts/2986080768131260?comment_id=2986880274717976 Said that, Guatemalan law in Copyright Law, decree (Decreto) 33-98 states in artices 10, 42 bis and 75 that any material created into work relationship belongs to the organization, in this case Televisión Arquidiocesana, the one that has the rights of them and put the CC license over it, so the License Laundering does not exist. In any case the image is published by them and they agreed to license the image to be used for free. The facebook license agreement states that the autor of the images is the same author that publishes it if they have the rights to do, so such as now.
So in the case of non commercial license, the problem with the license instead of deletion it could be requested to change the licensing in discussion instead of just deleting. Will request the license change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario Soto (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: "the editors ignorance of the guatemalan law" (I understand the difference between cc-by-sa 4.0 and cc-by-nc-sa 4.0, and how to read) - What part of "no evidence has been offered that Alvarado [...] has transferred copyright to such person" is unclear? You must demonstrate existence the purported "work relationship". Guatemala, like works for hire in the US, also appears to require that rights transfers "shall be evidenced in writing." (Title V Art. 72)--whether through employment contract or other explicit transfer. Again, where is the evidence? COM:VRT is that way. Эlcobbola talk 21:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

License updated

So, the license has been updated. The NC part has been removed. I do not know why so many troubles for this picture. As you can see the license change was updated with no issue.
With the person that is working in the TV channel what do you want to see? Shoud be sufficient to see her in a TV show where she appeared https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVPLlA-TyrM In the minute 4:36 you will be able to see her name as presenter in the show where she is standing since its beginning. Besides you can see here in her uniform in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fGbd8dCIgY (second left to right) since second 0, in the promotional spot before the show. Why such a problem with this person? For the article 70 this does not apply as there is a total transference of rights made in contract with no work relationship. In this case it applies the article 42 bis paragraph 2 as the relationship with the entity is journalistic, as is a Television Channel. If you still want to apply from Title V the article 75 is the one that applies as there is a work relationship. This is specified in the article 10 previously mentioned. In the part of ignorance of the guatemalan law is not for offence, is not other word that can be useful in translation from Spanish.

 Support As the original author changed their license to be Commons-acceptable. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: License at source now OK. --Yann (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Huis van Gerrit van der Pot aan de Korte Hoogstraat, 1932.jpg

Image originates from photo by anonymous photographer published in the article "DE BRIEVEN VAN PIETER JOSEPH THIJS AAN GERRIT VAN DER POT VAN GROENEVELD 15 NOVEMBER 1795-19 DECEMBER 1802" by Dr. E. Wiersum published in Rotterdam's Jaarboekje, 1932, p. 4 t/m p. 17 at page 6-7, see also here.

Both in the article and in the 1932 publication no photographer of the image is mentioned by name, such as is also the case with more photographs from the same book series, see here. The photo itself is not published online in other sources, nor can it be found in the archives of the Stadsarchief Rotterdam. We may therefor assume the photographer is indeed anonymous.

Initially with the upload of the image I was wrong by mentioned the author of the article Eppe Wiersum (1869-1955) as photographer. He was the city archivist of Rotterdam, writer and editor of the Rotterdams Jaarboekje from 1910 to 1935, see also here and here, but no photographer. There doesn's exist any photographs by him to my knowledge. And the photograph of the building is clearly made by a professional photographer.

I think in the Deletion requests the argument by @Ecritures: "in the original source it was stated by the uploader "photo by dr E. Wiersum"..." she only meant the upload by me on Wikimedia Commons. In the deletion request I already explained that I made a mistake and made a correction. Yet she persisted "in the original source it was stated by the uploader "photo by dr E. Wiersum"; photographer died in 1955. That means photographer is nog "unknown" or anonymous"... Ecritures seemed to have mixed up the "original source" with the "original upload." And also she seem to persist that E. Wiersum was the photographer for no particular reason.

The image itself is a of historical value both as image of the home of Gerrit van der Pot and of the pre-war image-collection of the Korte Hoogstraat in Rotterdam. I would be please if the misunderstanding would be solved here, and the image restored. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose An anonymous 1932 Dutch work became PD on 1/1/2003. Unfortunately, that is after the URAA Date, so it will not be PD in the USA until 1/1/2028. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Jameslwoodward: . There is a simple solution to use an additional {{Not-PD-US-URAA|country=nl}} template such as used in for example the File:Anne Frank lacht naar de schoolfotograaf.jpg file. Also you could vote restore in 1/1/2028 right now. Mdd (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
From Template:Not-PD-US-URAA: “This template should NOT be applied to files uploaded after 1 March 2012. Files uploaded after this date which the template would apply to should be treated as other violations of the Commons:Licensing policy are.” --Rosenzweig τ 09:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Rosenzweig: , this Wikipedia rule has had quite some impact, see for example these 1000+ cases, and up to today leads to quite serious misunderstanding, see for example here. If I have understood correctly this is because the main server is located in Florida and we should uphold US laws. Again a simple, yet more radical solution, here is to relocate those files at the European server. -- Mdd (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
That was all discussed years ago and in the end, nothing changed. Anyway, this is not the venue for a discussion about other servers and all that. --Rosenzweig τ 12:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. As to the regulation of the template use, the prescription of 13 Jan 2013, see here, seem to be superseded by the vote closed on 2 April 2014, see here. -- Mdd (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Nothing is "superseded". Commons:Licensing clearly states “Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.” --Rosenzweig τ 17:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, there are two things which I will explain separately. First this specific file. There seem to be a en:Circular reasoning in this quote. It should not be deleted because "the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion." Now this 1932 file is ok according to local and US law, as far as I know, except for the URAA. So it means there is "significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle." -- Mdd (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Seconds as a professional artist and a Wikipedian, I want to uphold all copyright regulations as much as possible. I have uploaded works to my own Flickr account, and here on Wikimedia Commons for everybody interested. This is not about the precautionary principle about uploads, but a similar precautionary principle about possible re-uses. Now concerning these PD-anon-70-EU or Anonymous-EU files I would like to warn external parties not to re-use those in the US by adding such a template.
It seems to me that also servers in the US could contain such specific files, under such specific conditions. Also I am aware that those files could be used in Wikipedia-EN by others, and this would be ok because it could be considered fair use.
Now I studied the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department/URAA Statement, and they made the additional statement that "it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice." I think Wikimedia Commons should do a better job creating these conditions... or better conditions then I am proposing. Or at least think it through.
For the past years I have been part of a small group of European/Dutch editor investing a considerable amount of time to invest in the disclosure of cultural heritage for a global audience. Maybe I am missing something but it seems to me that the Wikimedia prohibition to warn external users to not use the file in the US makes us into URAA violaters.
Now I wanted to stipulate this in a new talk item at the Template talk:Not-PD-US-URAA page. With the WMF statement of Feb 2013 and the vote closed on 2 April 2014 thing superseded, and I am not the first to bring this up, see here. -- Mdd (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
You're rehashing arguments from 2013. "ok according to [...] US law [...] except for the URAA" translates to not ok according to US law, because the URAA is a US law that is in force. --Rosenzweig τ 00:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This is about what we should do eight years later. As far as I know the WMF still upholds here, that "it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice." Also it seems to me some moderators withhold this information and keep enforcing the URAA, such as here here, which had serious impact on the one user involved. It seems to me that keep enforcing URAA is upholding a higher standard then the WMF has proposed, which makes representation of all European works from now 1927 to 1951 here on Commons practically impossible.

This is beyond my comprehension. What makes it even more impossible, there seems be a detour around this problem. Take for example this German file, which seems to be PD according to the source-data: "Nutzungsrechte - gemeinfrei (Urheberrecht abgelaufen)". Yet one way or another three parties involved (Gebrüder Metz, Stadtarchiv Heilbronn, and the ABBILDUNGEN aus HEUSS) seem to have all newly released the work under different CC licences. Is this really a solution here? Should we all ask the sources to newly release this image as well under CC0.

If this is all to much here, this request could be closed with On hold right now, and I can make some more inquiries. This undeletion request so far has made clear to me, that

  • The initial deletion request was started by @Ecritures: with as false argument
  • The deletion request was closed by @JuTa: solely on acknowledging this false argument
  • This undeletion request has been denied so far by @Jameslwoodward: and @Rosenzweig: by a questionable higher standard based on a circular reasoning

In the initial deletion request I have failed to make this more clear at the moment, and yet as said, some of these aspects are still beyond my comprehension. Thanks you. -- Mdd (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The WMF, in that same statement, also wrote that the community should evaluate each file potentially affected by the URAA and remove works that are clearly infringing. Which is not surprising, they can't really say that we should disregard US law. The sentence that deleting a work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice may be premature only applies to works whose status remains ambiguous after evaluation. --Rosenzweig τ 08:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: I do not see sufficient arguments to keep the file deleted. As Mdd now shows, the photo was not made by Dr. E. Wiersum, as was mentioned in the original upload, but by an anonymous photographer. It is not contested the photo is in PD in the Netherlands. The Wikimedia Foundation – through the statement of the Legal department - does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA. The document on Commons at COM:URAA states “A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion.” I therefore decided to undelete the image, because it has a correct licence for the country where it originated. --Ellywa (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:J-hope - Jack In The Box.jpg

This file was previously used in the link below: https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_In_The_Box_(%EC%9D%8C%EB%B0%98)

I uploaded the picture of the artist in the link and I came back to see the file was deleted for no reason. Please undelete it because I am not able to upload anything for it now unless the file gets undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smmrlim (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Promotional photo of BTS. Previously published without a free license at instagram.com. Thuresson (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. Claiming {{Own}} when that is not true is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Jimmie.jan-emanuel.samtal.del-1-2-3-4-5-6-7.22g406.1080.webm and other files uploaded by Janwikifoto

This file, and others in the same series uploaded by Janwikifoto, uploaded during the fall and deleted today by Fitindia were tagged with No permission by Riggwelter and discussed at the talk page of one of the images. Permission were given in form of a link to the uploaders (currently dead) web server, but the same form has been used earlier and discussed several times. I'm helping out as the files were part of a project supported by a community grant from Wikimedia Sverige. The request also includes:

/Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per KoH. --Yann (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Kristi Johnson (Judge).jpg

Hello,

I am not sure why this picture was deleted but I am requesting it to be undeleted. In case I missed anything, here is the information for the picture.

Licensing: {{PD-USGov-Senate}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MIAJudges (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Support I think the confusion arose because when you uploaded the image you claimed that you were the photographer using the {{Own}} template and then changed it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Darinyer.jpg

Goodnight.

I would like my own page that I published with my images to be recovered, and tell me if I have to send you a document to prove that it is me and that it is my property.

A cordial greeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darinyer Mundial (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Wikimedia is not a social network. We only accept contributors' personal images. In addition, this is not a selfie, so the permission from the photographer is needed. Yann (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Lubov Tsokolo-Bulakh.jpg

No need in OTRS permission, the bottom of the source (https://lyubov-tsokolo.com/media/) says Изображения по лицензии Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (images by a license Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International). Анастасия Львоваru/en 14:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Marius Staible, Akkordeon.jpg

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

the file was probably deleted because of missing permission information. I want to state that I have the inclusive rights on this picture of Marius Staible, since it was an unlimited license photoshoot. I've already sent you an email from my account to verify my license authority. Furthermore, the photographer Nick Konstantin Otto will send you a official permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I really would appreciate your help to undelete the photo. With best regards,

Tomma Frank

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomma Frank (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Needs a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Has a permission now. --Yann (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Coin Tankard ZKnW-PZS 9379.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: a permission has been already delivered, no of permission: 2022100310006973 Kamila Neuman (WMPL) (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Kamila Neuman (WMPL): Please complete the permission. It was deleted because the template was not properly inserted. --Yann (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Documents from the US Naval Postgraduate School Library/reserved

496 Files
* File:Data mining of extremely large ad-hoc data sets to produce reverse web-link graphs (IA datminingofextre1094552962).pdf

These files were deleted summarily, even though many of them are in the public domain owing to age. I ask that they all be undeleted temporarily, so that I may more easily determine the copyright status of the works. I could search for the records elsewhere, but that is very tedious (especially with so many works), so I ask that they be undeleted anyway to reduce unnecessary work on my part. As an example, File:Filmwise condensation of steam on low integral-finned tubes. (IA filmwisecondensa00geor).pdf was published in 1984 and is PD-US-1978-89. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea. and Yann: Undeleted as per request. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 Comment I posted a message to Wikisource TE(æ)A,ea. talk page. Yann (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Yann: I am doing some work (as you can see above), but there is a lot of work to be done, so it will be some time before it is completed. I am listing the author, the author’s affiliation, and the date of publication. The affiliation can determine PD-USGov, and the date for PD-US-no notice or similar. After the above work, the files will be much easier to go through. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: This has been open for a month and the files have been restored. If, after TE(æ)A,ea finished work some need to be deleted, that should be done with a separate DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Cjam-led-candle-tutorial.pdf

The PDF itself outright states it's public domain. I find it strange the system did not detect that and instantly deleted it.

Please see the PDF at its source: http://www.cotswoldjam.org/downloads/2015-04/

Inferno986return (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Inferno986return: Where did you find information that the document is in Public Domain and why? By default any creative work of a human is copyrighted. It is also probably out of scope, see here.  Oppose unless both issues are resolved. Ankry (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

For context, Cotswold Jam is a volunteer-run Raspberry Pi meetup group based in Gloucestershire, England. Many of the tutorials are available in the public domain, likely to make the work as accessible as possible.

I am aware that by default works are assigned a copyright (even when the author is anonymous and that some countries prevent works from being in public domain such as a Germany). However, the author has made these explicitly available in the public domain. Other examples I would like to upload include: [7] [8]

Please take a look at these in your web browser or PDF reader of choice. I will also check into the scope requirements.

Inferno986return (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Comment I think the copyright issue is OK. The PDF contains the words "Public Domain" at the top, although I don't know why Inferno986return thinks "the system" should have found it. The page at www.cotswoldjam.org also has the words "Public Domain" so we don't have to worry about the logo. I also tend to think that this sort of tutorial is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Jim. I assumed the text of PDF is machine-read. Maybe that will be something implemented in the future? I have other PDFs from the Cotswold Jam website, so knowing what's acceptable on the Commons will help set precedent for those. Inferno986return (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Think about it for a minute. While we have a bot (User:FlickreviewR 2) that reviews licenses on Flickr and marks the files with appropriate templates, it works because it knows exactly where to go on the Flickr page and exactly what words to look for. You're expecting a bot to be able to pick out "Public Domain" from all the text in a possibly long PDF and match it to the {{Cc-0}} declaration that you made, correctly, with the upload. While I have no doubt that such a bot could be created, its running would be a burden we don't really need and I suspect it would make mistakes from time to time, which we need even less. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. The document contains a "Public domain" mention. --Yann (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Baselios Paulos II.jpg

The image is photographed from the portrait available in Malecruz Monastery in India. I took the photo with my own mobile. Hence it is not a copyright violation as alleged.Logosx127 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I got the notification of speedydelete at 20:36, 15 October 2022 and it was deleted by 20:41, 15 October 2022. I did not even get five minutes to reply.Logosx127 (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Deletion rationale: Artwork created for veneration of cleric who died in 1996 (so under 30 years old); image is used in promotional material for a church in August on Facebook. Yann (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose As Yann says, the subject of the painting has been dead for less than thirty years, so the painting must still be under copyright and this photograph infringes on that copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The photograph is my own work whatsoever. It has no relationship with the facebook post which Yann mentioned. If it is required I will enquire about the status of the original portrait.Logosx127 (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Logosx127: It does not matter. Per Commons:2D copying the author of the photo (from copyright point of view) is the painter, not you. But even if you make a wider photo that is 3D, this will be COM:DW so a written free license permission from the painter is needed. Or an evidence that the painter died more than 60 years ago (per Indian copyright law) and more than 70 years ago (per US copyright law) or an evidence that the painting was available to the public more than 95 years ago (per US copyright for anonymous works). Ankry (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

By the way, let me ask you @Yann: How could you expect me to possibly give the necessary explanation without even giving me five minutes to type!!Logosx127 (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Were you able to provide the required evidence of a license from the painter or copyright expiration? If no, then your explanation does not matter. Ankry (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ankry: well, I've made my point clear. With less than five minutes, what could I possibly do? That is my question.Logosx127 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Logosx127: The process is called "Speedy" for a reason. When a copyright violation is plainly obvious, immediate action at the expense of communication is necessary. Given the previous deletions of your works, you have had considerable time to ensure your uploads conform to policies for copyright and permissions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: so you mean to say that five minutes is considerable time? If so, I don't have anything to say further!Logosx127 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: , if you think that my reaction is not required, then why did you message me in my talkpage! Your persistent speedy deletions are more or less abusive. If you are sure enough, then why don't give me five minutes atleast to respond? If you don't feel it necessary, then why are you putting message in my talk! Just because of the formality, isn't it!Logosx127 (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Logosx127 -- I'll take a new shot at explaining this so you understand it. When an uploaded image is an obvious and blatant copyright violation, as this is, then it is immediately deleted. The uploader is not given any time to explain or discuss it, because there is no explanation possible. Any discussion, including most of this thread, takes time that would be better used dealing with the various significant backlogs we have on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: there is no "blatant copyright violation" here. The photograph is taken by me and the portait is most probably not copyrighted. But there is indeed some confusion about the portrait's status. So it can be alleged that the file may be a copyright violation. That's all. After I meet the monastery officials again, I will make sure about its status and possibly may re-upload the file if the doubts are cleared.Logosx127 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: let me make the facts clear. If you do not require the uploader's response before deleting a file, it is better to avoid notifying them in their talk page. I mean to ask why are you notifying a user if you don't want their response and you are going to delete the file within five minutes only because of a similar file being exhibited in a facebook post? Meanwhile I have no complaints against Pbritti as I understand that it was not their fault. I am only complaining about deletions within five minutes with an exaggerated reasoning like "blatant copyright violation".Logosx127 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Logosx127: There are several reasons uploaders are notified for all deletion requests, including speedy ones. 1. This allows them to learn why it was deleted—so that they won't do it again, and eventually to request undeletion as you did here. 2. It also allows other reviewers and admins to check quickly how many files were deleted, and to do further administrative actions (warnings and blocks). Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: well, thats all understood. But you have not answered my question. My question was that if you are not going to give even five minutes for the uploader to respond, then for what formality sake are you notifying the uploader. And that too based on a mere suspicion on copyright. Even if you open a discussion the result will be same as it is seen here. Overnight I find notifications in my box and when clicked all what I find is that the file is already deleted. What's this five minutes hurry!! Logosx127 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

First, of course the painting is copyrighted. While there are exceptions to the rule that everything is copyrighted until it expires, there are very few paintings that fall under one of them. Hence my use of the words "obvious" and "blatant". If it is not obvious to you that we cannot keep an image of a very recent painting without a free license from the artist, then perhaps you should spend some time reading the page on Licensing and the page on Derivative Works.

Second, as has been explained several times above, the reason you get a notice is only to inform you of the deletion. Many editors have hundreds or thousands of uploads here and would have no way of knowing that one of them was deleted without the notice. The notice is not intended to start a discussion and, in fact, it is generated at the same time as the deletion, not allowing even the five minutes you mention above.

And, again, the reason we have {{Speedy}} deletions is that we are very short of Administrator time -- our backlogs are growing, with thousands of Deletion Requests open. When an image is obviously a problem, we save a few minutes of that time by deleting it on sight, rather than adding it to the backlog with a Deletion Request, which will, at a bare minimum, take several minutes of two Administrators' time. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Karolina Bielawska (cropped).jpg

please return the picture because she became miss world 2021 already thanks.--61.9.103.83 07:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be true but it is not a reason to restore this image, which is not freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done, per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:臺北市市長唐新民.png to 唐新民.png]]

I already have sent the Email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I am the author of File:臺北市市長唐新民.png I give the written permission of File:臺北市市長唐新民.png to VRT.

Mmtarng (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The subject was born in 1950. This appears to be a formal portrait or ID photo taken when he was around 20 years old -- that is, more than fifty years ago. While it is certainly possible that you were the actual photographer fifty years ago, it seems unlikely. It cannot be restored until that question is resolved via VRT.

I also note that you uploaded the image again as File:唐新民.png. Uploading a deleted image without permission is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:1-DOST logo.png

I am the author of File:1-DOST logo.png

--Ilgarahmed (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose You claim to be the author of this file. That is hard to understand, but Commons policy on logos is that an authorized official of the organization owning the copyright must send a free license using VRT.

I note for the record that the logo is probably in scope, see https://dost.gov.az/en/page/nizamname. The source page has an explicit copyright notice and no free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:พล.อ. อภิรัชต์ คงสมพงษ์.jpg

The owner has published the image in Kongsompong Foundation website (https://kongsompong.or.th/committee/). White Bangkaew (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The cited page has "Copyright © 2022 มูลนิธิพลเอก สุนทร คงสมพงษ์ (พ.ศ.๒๕๓๔) All right reserved." and no free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:List of Google Algorithm Updates in 2021.jpg

Hi Team,

The deletion of the file was a mistake by the person who deleted it. U can see there is no violation that happened? The image is taken from my own website. pls check and do undeletion of my file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiligo007 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose "Copyright 2021 Digiligo All Rights Reserved". Thuresson (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
own site is digiligo Digiligo007 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose We have no way here of knowing that Digiligo007 is in fact the owner of digiligo.com. We see imposters here all the time. Either (a) send a free license from an address at digiligo.com to VRT or (b) add CC-BY or CC-BY-SA to the page in question. The former has the advantage that the VRT volunteer will add a confirmation on User:Digiligo007 so that any future questions of this sort can be dealt with rapidly. The latter is, however, faster. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Can anbody share me the email address of VRT? Digiligo007 (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@Digiligo007 permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs VRT confirmation of the identity of the uploader. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:พลเอก อภิรัชต์ คงสมพงษ์.jpg

The owner hired a photographer to take his photo at Kongsompong Foundation and allowed it to be used on the Wikipedia. All the requests have been done but there is still a doubt. And without any notification, the image has been removed. Should Kongsompong foundation contact to confirm the right on the image? White Bangkaew (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

First, it is a waste of your time and mine to make the same request here and on my talk page.

"Allowed to have it to be used on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for use by anybody anywhere, including commercial use, not just on Wikipedia. In order to have it restored either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b) the page at https://kongsompong.or.th/committee/ must be changed to add "Image CC-BY-SA" at the bottom. If (a), then it will be restored automatically when and if the license is received and approved. If (b) you must tell us here that the license has been changed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. The license has been changed according to your instruction. Please review the page https://kongsompong.or.th/news/ White Bangkaew (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: license changed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Kindly undelete this image I need to use it as profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaRwanda (talk • contribs) 09:03, 18 October 2022‎ (UTC)

While the History tab above made it easy to find out who made this unsigned request, there is no easy way for us to know which of many deleted images in your history you would like restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide a filename, as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Логотип факультета журналистики МГУ.png

The permission is received and approved. Анастасия Львоваru/en 15:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: Please add the license. --Yann (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Deadly Illustions Poster.png

This image was provided to us by the owners of the poster and movie. We're assisting in updating the page to have the correct image.

Right now you're using an image they do not approve of.

The deletion says that it was deleted because of a copyright violation. What violation is happening? We got approval to upload by the owner of the poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignitedigital (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose "© Kiss and Tale Productions, LLC. All Rights Reserved" at [9] Thuresson (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The film's producer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Shtirlitz wiki.jpg

ticket:2022051410004081 received and approved. Анастасия Львоваru/en 12:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Santuario Madonna delle Galline 2.jpg

Historical photo taken by my grandfather in Italy at the beginning of past century, not copyrighted. Est. 2021 (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose You said in the upload that the photographer was anonymous. Now you say that it was your grandfather. Which should we believe? Also, I am not very knowledgeable about Italian automobiles, but those in the image seem to have integral headlights, which I think makes them post-war and by no means earlier that 1930 or so. We can't restore this image before the date is accurately established. It may well still be under copyright..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose While the photo is most likely PD in Italy, there is no evidence that it is PD in US. Created before 1902? Unlikely. Published before 1978? No evidence. The photographer died more than 70 years ago? No evidence. Ankry (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done, per Ankry. Thuresson (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Al Parygin City as an Artists Subjective 2021 Animation.webm

The permission is reseived and approved. Анастасия Львоваru/en 17:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done @Lvova: FYI. Ankry (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

削除された画像はネットで拾ったものでなく私自身が撮影いたしました。ネットにある画像と似ているものもありますがそれも撮影者は私です。ネットにある画像とは若干アングル等が異なります。比較していただくとわかるはずでございます。掲載につきまして本人の了承も得ております。 削除の取り消しをよろしくお願いいたします。

 Not done: No file name provided. --Yann (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


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

Request by PattharwalaM

Is wiki commons now working for personal use of people??My Article was published one year ago & still I have my web pages & many articles and knowledge panel. Then why you have deleted my page on your site on the basis of subscribes. This wiki commons is not the official Wikipedia.And also I didn’t broke any policies of yours then tell me why u deleted that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PattharwalaM (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 October 2022‎ (UTC)

PattharwalaM, this is Wikimedia Commons, the media repository for the Wikimedia organisation. We have no control over the content on other Wikis. You will need to take this issue up with the Wiki you originally published your article on. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Maurya, Dr. Sanghamitra.jpg

Requesting undeletion as per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SHIV SHANKER, SHRI P.jpg User4edits (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

 Comment I suggest waiting until the mentioned above DR is closed. Otherwise, we should go through DR with this file also. Ankry (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose I just closed that deletion request as delete. --Rosenzweig τ 12:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by User:Ltn12345

Deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Ltn12345 (2)

The uploader, Ltn12345, nominated 53 files uploaded by themselves for deletion. They did this just because some of them showed people and there might be some ethical issues. Also, they said some might also be out of scope. In both cases, no details were given.

The uploader linked to a related discussion on another user’s talk page, where the other user suggested dividing the files into groups, suggested that the ethical issues are not significant (at least for most of these files) and suggested that at least some of the files appear to be useful. (The discussion was later archived in essentially the same state at User talk:Túrelio/Archive16#Deletion request 8.)

I also commented that it is not clear what the ethical issues are and that at least one of the files does not depict people and is in scope.

The closing administrator (who asked not to be contacted) simply deleted all the files with no explanation beyond Trusting the nominator! This is absurd; it seems like a justification for deleting anything. These files should at least be undeleted for further discussion. Brianjd (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I looked at a random selection of six of these. The only descriptive information on them is THE file name, which is the camera ID such as "DSC02260.jpg". There are no categories and no other information. The ones I looked at had an explicit copyright watermark. Without any descriptive information, they are absolutely useless.

Also note that they were deleted about a month after they were uploaded. While that is beyond the one week allowed in Commons:Courtesy deletions, it is still short enough so that it seems appropriate to me to honor the uploader's wishes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that although it took a month for the DR to be closed, it was opened 25 November 2021, the same day the images were uploaded. I don't see that our backlogs should be factor; this was fully in line with Commons:Courtesy deletions. Эlcobbola talk 15:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Good catch, elcobbola. Since the deletion was requested on the same day as the upload, they could have been speedied and we should not act contrary to the uploader's wish. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion - deletion followed policy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Padiglione Statunitense alla Biennale di Venezia.jpg

Requesting undeletion so it can be transferred to English Wikipedia. File was deleted for violating FoP in Italy which does not allow pictures of buildings. It was in use on enwp and would be allowed there because enwp only honors U.S. copyright law, which allows FoP for buildings. Toohool (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The upload gives the source as http://atcasa.corriere.it/gallery/Biennale-Architettura-2012/In-citta/2012/08/02/padiglioni-storici/padiglioni-storici_gallery_11.shtml which has an explicit copyright notice

"Copyright 2022 © RCS Mediagroup S.p.a. Tutti i diritti sono riservati"

so it can't be kept freely on WP:EN. I don't think you can justify a Fair Use claim there unless the building is no longer standing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, withdrawn then. I had assumed this was some CC-licensed image uploaded by the photographer. Toohool (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn by requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

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

A. Parygin's works

Received and processed tickets:

Анастасия Львоваru/en 14:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Бесенбай Умбетбаев.jpg

The deletion's reason looks like a mistake. The true reason, I think, is wrong file's description (it is PD-old, the subject is died in 1925). Анастасия Львоваru/en 17:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lvova: How does this make it PD? For anonymous photos copyright term is 95 (US) years since publication, not since creation. We can undelete anonymous photos that were made before 1902 (more than 120 years ago). Ankry (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 Support with {{PD-Russia}} and {{PD-1996}}. Yann (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose First note that the deletion record shows the wrong, unrelated DR. The correct one is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Бесенбай Умбетбаев.jpg.
The problem here is that PD-Russia requires publication before 1943. We have no evidence that this was published at all before its upload here. The upload gives us no details or source, only the obviously incorrect claim of {{Own}}. It is certainly possible, even probable, that it was taken from a family album and photographed. It isn't a halftone, so this copy, at least, did not come off a printing press. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I sent the question to the uploader. Анастасия Львоваru/en 21:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the argumentation that allows me to remember some important things. So yes, the image is from a family albom and not free right now. Анастасия Львоваru/en 16:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn by requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Dr. Stanley Crooke.jpg

This file is my own work, please undelete it so that I can finish my article on Dr. Stan Crooke, and remove the copyright strike.

Thanks,

--Dr. Colins (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Dr. Collins 19 October 2022

@Dr. Colins: If so, then please upload the original photo from your camera with complete camera settings info in EXIF. Ankry (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Далиант Александрович Максимус 2005.jpg

Прошу восстановить удаленную фотографию, так как она будет добавлена в статью на Википедии. Статья, где будет использована фотография вообще не содержит ни одной фотографии. Ссылка на статью: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81,_%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

I ask you to restore the deleted photo, as it will be added to the Wikipedia article. The article where the photo will be used does not contain any photos at all. Link to the article: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81,_%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

--Daliant (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, this would make it in scope. But, I am afraid, we have copyright issue here: can you prove that you are the author who made the original photo that was used in the school album? Ankry (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose It seems unlikely that the uploader actually was the photographer for the formal yearbook portrait from 17 years ago..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Happy Birthday - Paulo Leão.jpg

A licença no Creative Commons:

Happy Birthday - poster de Paulo Leão / Ribeiro César está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons - Atribuição-CompartilhaIgual 4.0 Internacional. Baseado no trabalho disponível em https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxiGSOFy9EajSHZBV0VUTHBLTEE/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-ysAD6_uDOqQJY_h6gKNSuA.

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"><img alt="Licença Creative Commons" style="border-width:0" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/4.0/88x31.png" /></a>
Happy Birthday - poster de Paulo Leão / Ribeiro César está licenciado com uma Licença <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">Creative Commons - Atribuição-CompartilhaIgual 4.0 Internacional</a>.
Baseado no trabalho disponível em <a xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxiGSOFy9EajSHZBV0VUTHBLTEE/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-ysAD6_uDOqQJY_h6gKNSuA" rel="dct:source">https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxiGSOFy9EajSHZBV0VUTHBLTEE/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-ysAD6_uDOqQJY_h6gKNSuA</a>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribeiro César (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: This duplicates a request by the same person last week, closed as Not Done by Yann. Restoration of the file still requires the Producer of the movie to send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


I am the producer and director of this movie! I am Paulo Leão (Paulo César Leão Ribeiro)! Nick name Ribeiro César! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribeiro César (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 October 2022‎ (UTC)

Again, we have no way here of knowing who User:Ribeiro César actually is. We get many imposters here. Therefore in order to protect the actual copyright holder -- which is probably but not certainly you -- policy requires that the producer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


• Hello, I did send two emails to VRT. I'm still waiting for reply. And I have the free license Creative Commons for my names 'Paulo Leão' (my artistic name) and 'Ribeiro César' (my nickname on wiki). The right license: Happy Birthday - poster de Paulo Leão / Ribeiro César está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons - Atribuição-CompartilhaIgual 4.0 Internacional. Baseado no trabalho disponível em https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxiGSOFy9EajSHZBV0VUTHBLTEE/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-ysAD6_uDOqQJY_h6gKNSuA.

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"><img alt="Licença Creative Commons" style="border-width:0" src="https: //i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/4.0/88x31.png" /></a>
Happy Birthday - poster de Paulo Leão / Ribeiro César está licenciado com uma Licença <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses /by-sa/4.0/">Creative Commons - Atribuição-CompartilhaIgual 4.0 Internacional</a>.
Baseado no trabalho disponível em <a xmlns:dct="http: //purl.org/dc/terms/" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxiGSOFy9EajSHZBV0VUTHBLTEE/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-ysAD6_uDOqQJY_h6gKNSuA" rel="dct:source">https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxiGSOFy9EajSHZBV0VUTHBLTEE/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-ysAD6_uDOqQJY_h6gKNSuA</a>.

Paulo Leão (Ribeiro César) Ribeiro César (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Hzx zwsjjc 34.png Undeletion requests

this picture is from "子午山纪游册" that was published in 1942 by "遵义孤儿所" that is not existing after 1949. and the whole "子午山纪游册" is already well shared in public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhuming (talk • contribs) 20 October 2022 20:07 (UTC)

 Support Zunyi? So in China, 1942+50=1992, so already in PD since 1993 and absolutely not affected by URAA. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-China + PD-1996. @Hhuming and Liuxinyu970226: Please add category, and if possible a description in English. --Yann (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:PMC "Wagner Group" logo.svg

Hello! Please restore this file in the correct free Creative Commons license as I am the author of a derivative work in vector format. Thank you! see. Commons:Derivative works. ArtSmir (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted when a similar request of yours was closed several days ago, the ToO in Russia is very low and this is complex enough so that it would have a copyright anywhere. Your SVG infringes on the copyright for the logo which is presumably owned by the Wagner Group.

Repeatedly making the same request without any new evidence is a waste of your time and ours. Please don't do it again or you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This already posted and closed a few days ago, as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Бронеавтомобиль БА-20М в Музее отечественной вооенной истории.jpg and File:Быстроходный легкий танк БТ-7 в Музее отечественной военной истории.jpg

One more received and processed ticket. Анастасия Львоваru/en 20:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


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

Nacktes_Manga-Girl_-_erotische_Hentai-Comis_sind_in_Japan_weit_verbreitet-1

Used in ro.wikipedia.com .

 Not done: Not deleted. --Yann (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:HarmonyOS Home Preview.jpg

I was wondering if there would be any solution to the image? I say this because I'm not so sure at the moment if it can be claimed as a derivative work of an image that is not for free use. It's Huawei official, a free way to view Huawei and user-created themes officially for Huawei devices That's why I uploaded it, because I didn't see a problem, I thought it's even better since it doesn't have much information. that it is not a derivative work made by me, to clarify some doubts I put it that is from Huawei, as a format for theme design sample and that everyone can use. Users can create themes and make their previews within the theme and then sell them online or upload them for free or with a price in the Huawei Themes app, a theme store. Again, not a derivate. And as for HarmonyOS, HarmonyOS uses open source, like OpenHarmony (the main open source of HarmonyOS) and others like Android Open source, so you can say it's open source for the moment. I hope you can return the image if possible or by changing some things in the description of the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezequiel 449 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose It is up to the uploader or other interested people, to do the research necessary to prove that this image is freely licensed. That is usually done by citing the source page -- which you did not do -- and show that it or the site it is on is freely licensed. Without knowing where you got the image, that is not possible. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

On my talk page, User:Ezequiel 449 cited as a source page:

https://www.huaweicentral.com/download-huawei-harmonyos-theme-link/

That page has "Copyright © 2022 Huaweicentral.com" and under "Terms of Use" has a copyright policy that is far from being acceptable here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Doccheys_(6015099222).jpg

I uploaded this file but as it has been deleted I don’t know what it was. The nominator has been blocked and they appear to have made drive-by deletion nominations. If restored I’ll review after 24 October after my wikibreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor (talk • contribs) 12:18, 21 October 2022‎ (UTC)

Hmm. It's https://www.flickr.com/photos/glenirah/6015099222/in/photostream/. It has no description other than "Doccheys" (which may be a reference to a restaurant in Atlanta) and no categories, so as it stands it's useless. It also has a rather intrusive watermark. I see no good reason to restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Charlotte Stokely 1.jpg and File:Aaliyah Love - 52009881936.jpg

Hello, please examine the rehabilitation of these two files which have been deleted without providing formal proof that they have been taken from various sites. After my own research via TinyEyes and Google Image, these two photos cannot be found anywhere else.

These are the files:

- File:Charlotte Stokely 1.jpg and File:Aaliyah Love - 52009881936.jpg

I defer to your expertise, Cordially--Hemerocalle40 (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The burden of proof lies with the uploader, not the deletion. That is particularly true when the uploader has a history of uploading obvious copyright violations. These appear on Flickr with a CC-BY-SA license, but the Flickr user also has a variety of images on their pages that are blatant copyright violations. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward Prove it's a violation of rights. Your lack of objectivity is not proof... I don't care about your arguments, I want proof that it's a violation of rights. Hemerocalle40 (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I say again, policy is very clear. You must prove that the files are legitimately freely licensed. No one needs to prove that they are not free, but the fact that the Flickr site that the images came from has half a dozen obvious copyright violations, all licensed as CC-BY-SA is a strong indication that they are not free. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Pim Lammers.jpg

The file was deleted in 2017. Permission has now been received via Ticket#2022101810030347. --Daniuu (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Daniuu: . The images are not the same. Can't you upload the new image? Ellywa (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
@Ellywa: Thanks for looking. Based on the previous deletion log, it appeared like it was their profile photo on LinkedIn (but they changed it since the first deletion apparently). New image has been uploaded. Daniuu (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per remarks. --Ellywa (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:200913 AOS Plakat Final TRYKK-3.jpg

The source of the art cover of the movie was indicated. On that link, the owner gave consent for the art to be used by any1 under the creative license provided. This is not the 1st time EugeneZelenko tried to delete an art cover I have uploaded even when I have added the source and permission. I hope you can reverse this action and talk sense to EugeneZelenko as I am tired being ignored when I provide reasons for reverse of deletion,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdo2905 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In such cases we need a permission coming directly from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the correct procedure. At the source apge you indicated (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/l4nlkv0jp94yuc2/AADuLQXpO4vkc11tk9mXioMGa?dl=0) there is no mentioning of a free licence, and neither is there a free licence at the Presspack page of the film team. Please remember that "freely available" for download does not mean that such content automatically comes with a free licence and can be reused for any purpose. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose In the upload, you said, "The cover was made free for distribution on the website". That is not correct. The link to the PDF with the poster is on https://www.theartofsin.movie/media which has "© 2022 Skagerak Film AS" on the page immediately below the link. There is no indication of a free license.

As De728631 says, in the case of movie posters, policy requires that an authorized official of the production company, usually the producer, must send a free license from the movie's domain using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Chequered flag growler.png

To whom it may concern,

The photo is taken from a car owned by me. I cannot see why this photo is against the guidelines or does break any copyright rules.

Best regards, Jakob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC) (talk • contribs) JakobSlauter (UTC)

 Oppose Just as owning a book does not give you the right to make and sell copies of it, owning a car does not give you the right to make and sell -- or freely license others to make and sell -- copies of the car's copyrighted logo. This image cannot be kept on Commons without permission from Jaguar. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Santuario Madonna delle Galline 2.jpg

Hi, IMO the last request was wrongly closed. This should be OK with {{PD-Italy}} and {{PD-1996}}. From the vehicles, we can evaluate the approximate date of the photograph (1950s). So it was in the public domain before 1996, so copyright was not restored by URAA. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Something strange happened -- this was here on the 17th, it's now archived, but I see no evidence that the request was closed. The only thing there is my comment, "Oppose. You said in the upload that the photographer was anonymous. Now you say that it was your grandfather. Which should we believe? Also, I am not very knowledgeable about Italian automobiles, but those in the image seem to have integral headlights, which I think makes them post-war and by no means earlier that 1930 or so. We can't restore this image before the date is accurately established. It may well still be under copyright.. "

We seem to be agreed that the automobiles make the image post-war. Unless you think the image falls under the "Non-creative" rule, which we are discouraged from using, I don't see how it avoids the URAA date and is a close call on PD in Italy since the rule on anonymous works is 70 years from publication and publication cannot have been before the 1950s. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Photographs like this one were protected 20 years from creation, so since it is obviously from before 1975, there is no URAA issue. Yann (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: No objection. --Yann (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Rita Asfour High School is a photograph taken in Cairo, Egypt, in 1949.jpg

VRT agent (verify): request: Ticket:2022090110011106 alleges the permission to be {{PD-Egypt}} in Articles 33 and 34. I request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jeff G.: Please add the source. --Yann (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: : ✓ Done.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Van der Hagen (2021).jpg

Please temporarily restore this image, especially the documentation with the file and the metadata, for reconsideration in the ungoing discussion at Wikipedia:Auteursrechtencafé. A new version of the file is already uploaded File:Tim van der Hagen (2021).jpg weeks ago and permission is now send by the photographer to Wikimedia/Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mdd: FYI. --Yann (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Monkeypox sampling.png

This image is from an open access journal article released under CC-by-4.0.

Link to journal article: https://www.ajtmh.org/view/journals/tpmd/96/2/article-p405.xml

As you can see it has a little "open access CC" button on the top right. If you check their open access page, it states:

"Gold open access means that the final published version of your article is permanently and freely available online for anyone to read at the time of publication. Your work may be reused with few restrictions, and people must credit you if they reuse your work. The journal uses the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY)."

And their reprints page: "Authors have permission to reuse their own content without seeking further permission, provided that the original source of the material is credited appropriately. Open access articles are published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." Mvolz (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The journal states two different policies. We are required to use the more restrictive one. At the bottom of the page on which the article appears, there is "© 2022 The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene" and a link to "Terms and Conditions" which has:

"The entire contents and design of the Site, including all trademarks, logos, trade names, documents, databases, graphic representations, and other information, are the property of ASTMH, or used by ASTMH with permission, and are protected under U.S. and international copyright and trademark laws, whether or not a notice of copyright, trademark, or other proprietary rights appears on the screen displaying the information. Except as otherwise provided herein, users of the Site may save and use information contained on the Site only for personal or other non-commercial, educational purposes. No other use, including, without limitation,reproduction, retransmission or editing, of Site information may be made without the prior written permission of ASTMH, which may be requested by contacting ASTMH atinfo@astmh.org."

There is also a formal mechanism for requesting reprint permission. The only indication that this is does not apply here is a small (cc) in the upper right. That says nothing, as some CC licenses are acceptable on Commons and others (NC, ND) are not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Given the "except otherwise provided herein" part, I don't think the two are in conflict. The creative commons license (Especially the more explicit one in the pdf version of the article) is "providing otherwise". Bawolff (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward The reprints page states that all "open access" articles are CC-by and DO NOT require permission to republish. The article itself states it's "open access", ergo it's CC-BY.
That there exists other articles on the site that aren't open access is entirely irrelevant.
Here is an example of an article that is NOT "open access". You can see it has a red lock symbol and the text "restricted access". It's for articles like these that reprint permission is required, not the open access articles on the site, which again, are clearly stated as being CC-by-4.0. -Mvolz (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I can't find the copyright statement "© 2022 The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene" inside the raw document. It is only written "This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." . Thanks. SCP-2000 17:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 Support Since the author of the image is same as the author of the journal (i.e. A. McCollum = Andrea M. McCollum), I would like to presume that the image was released under CC-BY license. Thanks. SCP-2000 17:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 Support I must say that this is exceptionally badly designed for a journal that charges authors US$ 2,500 to publish their article as open access...

However, in my opinion the licensing statement on the article itself as well as the reprints and permissions page are unambiguous as to which licensing is intended for the article in question. Felix QW (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Neutral This is a bad piece of publishing. Not for the first time, the publishing of licensing metadata is so broken that it is effectively unusable. It appears in this case that the material is suitably licensed, but I would absolutely support those who nominated this and deleted it, or those who still wish to delete it.
If it's necessary to ignore the text at the original source and instead find an alternate PDF copy in order to find an embedded text version of the licence, that is not discoverable, not machine processable, has an inadequate scope (it doesn't cover the images), then that is way beyond any reasonable effort that Commons or its admins can be expected to expend to track down the licence. The burden of publication is on the publisher, or if necessary the uploader, to make such issues clearly found and unambiguous – otherwise we are entirely justified in deleting. Having to make arguments based on, "I would like to presume that" is not a way that Commons can ever be expected to operate!
Nor am I impressed by the off-wiki canvassing going on, and the assertion from prominent Wikipedians that those who disagree with them, "aren't the appropriate people to make this kind of decision for Commons." Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I totally agree that the publisher could have made it clearer, and it was an easy mistake to make.
That said, the question is whether or not this image is indeed CC-by-4.0 and should be restored.
I think it's quite clear that it is, now the necessary information has been collated. Mvolz (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Paper in question
  •  Support Here is the paper in question. If you go to page 5 / page 409 it says and I quote verbatim "This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited."
Please NOTE that you will need to click on the image I have linked here. And than you will have the opportunity to adjust the page numbers.
Disappointing to see the argument that we should delete stuff out of spite or because the publisher did not make it easier for everyone to find the license with no effort. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
i took the liberty of updating your thumb to link to the page in question, i hope you dont mind. However, at this point i dont think anyone is disputing what the pdf says. Bawolff (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks User:Bawolff. Nice, didn't know one could like to a specific page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my objection here, since as a rule of law the specific overrides the general and the inclusion of a CC-BY license (even an invalid one) in the body of the article is certainly specific. However, I note that we do not permit CC-BY licenses without a version number, so if we follow our rules strictly, we must ask the authors to supply that. See {{Cc-by}} where it says:

"You have indicated that you wish to release this work under a Creative Commons Attribution license, however you have not specified which version of the license you wish to release it under. In order for this license to be valid, a version number must be given. Files without a valid license will be deleted."

Perhaps one of those above who have so enthusiastically supported this restoration should suggest to the Journal and to the article's authors that they clean up their act. Conflicting copyright claims and invalid licenses are simply a pain in the ass for those who would reuse their work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

well i agree the whole thing is terribly ambigious, i would note that their policy page does specify a version number (4.0) https://www.ajtmh.org/page/openaccesspolicy Bawolff (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but it's not relevant here. The cited page says:
"The journal uses the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY)."
That is to say, the journal itself, which is what matters to us here, does not specify a version number. Later it says:
...."authors retain the right to distribute their author accepted manuscript (AAM), ... under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license....
which says that the authors may use the V4.0 license in other places, but says nothing about the journal's license for the document we have under discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
While the reprints page for the journal does not specify a version in the text, the link is piped to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which I would take as sufficiently specifying the license version. Felix QW (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: None of us are happy about the sloppy handling of this at the Journal, but we agree that it's probably OK to keep. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Freepik logo.svg

This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions.

--Tariq Mahmud Naim (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Tariq Mahmud Naim October 25, 2022

The image in question is this one: [10]. Spanish threshold of originality should apply, which appears to be uniqueness, individuality and distinguishability. I think that the threshold is met by this logo. --rimshottalk 11:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Rimshot. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:2-Karte.jpg

Die Datei war mit dem Baustein "Attribution-Swisstopo" versehen und © swisstopo war angegeben.--Friedo (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This appears to be the map at https://map.schweizmobil.ch/?land=wanderland&lang=en&route=2&photos=no&logo=no&detours=no&season=summer&resolution=270.54&E=2641818&N=1200460&bgLayer=pk&layers=Wanderland. If you scroll out one notch on the cited page, you get exactly this map.

"The entire content of the digital services of SwitzerlandMobility websites is copyright protected. All rights are owned by SwitzerlandMobility or third parties. The content elements on the websites and the apps of SwitzerlandMobility websites are freely accessible for browsing purposes only. Duplication of this material, or parts thereof, in any written or electronic form is permitted only with specific mention of SwitzerlandMobility. Reproduction, transfer, amendment, linking or use of the SwitzerlandMobility websites or apps or content thereof for public or commercial purposes is prohibited without the prior written consent of SwitzerlandMobility."

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Support - look here: {{Attribution-Swisstopo}} --Friedo (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I may be missing something here, but the license information immediately above applies to the base map from Swisstopo. The copyright notice I quoted at the top applies to the use that SwitzerlandMobility made of the Swisstopo map. The base map is free, but the version modified by SwitzerlandMobility is not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Die Basiskarte ist von Swisstopo und Bearbeitungen sind erlaubt; diese wurden von mir vorgenommen. Daher ist nicht nachvollziehbar, was hier nicht erlaubt sein soll. Daher bitte ich erneut um Wiederherstellung. Friedo (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
@FkMohr: Wenn die Bearbeitungen der Swisstopo-Karte, wie du sagst, von dir vorgenommen wurden, wie erklärt sich dann die überaus große Ähnlichkeit der von dir hochgeladenen Datei mit [11] (4x raus-zoomen)? Der augenfälligste Unterschied sind die Länderkürzel F/D/A/I in der von dir hochgeladenen Datei. Ansonsten muss man schon sehr lange suchen, um Unterschiede zu finden (im Bereich Simmental/Diemtigtal sehe ich einen). Hast du da Linien nachgezogen oder wie war das? --Rosenzweig τ 16:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Ja, die Wegführung habe ich übernommen, natürlich hätte ich auch die "reine" Karte nehmen können, um den Weg selbst einzuzeichnen, was sehr aufwändig, im Ergebnis aber nichts anderes gewesen wäre. Eine Urheberrechtsverletzung dürfte das nicht sein, zumal ich sowohl mit SwissTopo als auch SwissMobil korrospondiere und auch als FotoPate registriert bin. Ich finde, man sollte es motivierten Mitarbeitern nicht unnötig schwer machen. Selbst wenn die Karten wiederhergestellt werden, wird es viel Arbeit bedeuten, sie wieder einzubauen, da gelöschte Bilder automatisch aus den Artikel entfernt werden. Schönen Abend noch. Friedo (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Also wenn ich das richtig verstehe, heißt das, du hast einen Screenshot von SwissMobil gemacht und eben nicht selbst gezeichnet? Ob das Ergebnis dann "nichts anderes" gewesen wäre, darüber kann man streiten. Wenn du andere Farben und Formen genommen hättest, würde es zumindest anders aussehen, und das ist der Knackpunkt. Nach deutschem und wohl auch Schweizer Urheberrecht könnte man noch mit der Schöpfungshöhe argumentieren, so nach dem Motto, die grünen Linien und roten Punktefolgen haben keine solche oder nur eine geringe, deshalb darf man sie übernehmen, ohne das Urheberrecht zu verletzen. Wir müssen hier aber eben auch US-amerikanisches Copyright beachten, und da kann die Sache anders aussehen. Nicht für den einzelnen grünen Strich oder roten Punkt, aber wenn so eine Karte komplett übernimmt, schon. Daher fürchte ich, das wird nichts mit der Wiederherstellung der Datei. Wenn du meine obige Vermutung bestätigst oder ansonsten etwas detaillierter beschreibst, wie die Datei entstanden ist, kann ich nochmal auf Englisch bei Jim und anderen nachfragen, wie die das sehen. Dass du mit beiden Websites korrespondierst, ändert erst einmal nichts an der Sache, es sei denn, du schaffst es, eine Genehmigung nach COM:VRT/de beizubringen, die hier akzeptiert wird. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 10:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: two weeks since the last response. --Rosenzweig τ 12:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Andrea_presti_olympia.jpg

I ask you to restore the image as I own all image rights.

--Diegofamu (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I assume you mean File:Andrea Presti MrOlympia.jpg since that is the only one of your files that has been deleted with a similar name.

 Oppose The image appears at https://tikkaykhan.com/2022-arnold-classic-uk-line-up/ with "© 2022 Tikkay Khan - All Rights Reserved". Restoration will require the actual photographer to send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Königliche Inspektion Sprottischwaldau 1777.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022102210014759. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. @Mussklprozz: will you take care of the permission template etc?. --Ellywa (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Mohammed Arrhioui.jpg

Hello, this is my personal work, Author: Mohammedarrhioui, please do not delete, I don't see any copyright infringement Cordially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammedarrhioui (talk • contribs) 12:17, 27 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Image has not been deleted -- see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohammed Arrhioui.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Md Shamim Al Mamun.jpg

This is my own photo. I have uploaded it for my biography page. --Shamim Nesco (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Info "Biography page" probably was en:User:Shamim Nesco/sandbox, who was speedy deleted. Thuresson (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose We allow a limited number of personal images for active contributors. This user has made no valid contributions to Commons except this UnDR and limited ones to WP, so he does not qualify. He has also reloaded this file out of process. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Not done, per Jim. OP has no user page in any Wikimedia project. Thuresson (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

I have a contract and approval to use this photo from the second person in the photo who is also the start of the project animal bone himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmaestro512 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 October 2022‎ (UTC)

Procedural close, please do not ask to undelete a file that has not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by MosAndreas. 13

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Due to the fact that a large number of images were destroyed by MBHbot, I propose to return the images with the addition of links to the sources MosAndreas. 13 (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MosAndreas. 13. I see no bot involved. No evidence provided that the images are freely licensed. Ankry (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose User:MosAndreas. 13 claimed to be the photographer. That does not appear to be correct. These appear on various Web sites without any free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Luca Sbardella.jpg

Salve il file non viola alcuna regola perché è stato scaricato direttamente dal sito della Camera dei deputati secondo prassi e regole consolidate. Mentre nella motivazione di cancellazione si dice che è stato scaricato da un sito di fotografie di matrimoni. Cosa assurda visto che la foto è stata scattata dei fotografi della Camera dei deputati e scaricata dal sito ufficiale della camera dei deputati italiana secondo regole e prassi consolidata, mi ripeto. Grazie. Ecco la fonte e il sito [14]. P.S. Luca Sbardella è un deputato della XIX legislatura della repubblica italiana, dunque con quel sito di matrimoni non vi è alcuna attinenza. Dosmeios (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dosmeios: Where do you see CC-BY-SA 4.0 license declaration on this page? I see only Camera dei deputati © Tutti i diritti riservati which is not a free license declaration. Ankry (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hint: if you find this photo (and privide URL) in http://data.camera.it then it may be free. Ankry (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Esatto. La foto profilo dei Deputati e Sanatori presente sul sito della Camera è autorizzata ad essere pubblicata. Il sito da te citato fa parte sempre del sito della Camera. Peraltro anche nella sezione del sito da te citato si dice che si può scaricare ma il problema non sorge trattandosi dello stesso sito. Fate come volete a questo punto. Grazie.Dosmeios (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
”L'utilizzo, la riproduzione, l'estrazione di copia, ovvero la distribuzione delle informazioni testuali e degli elementi multimediali disponibili sul sito della Camera dei deputati è autorizzata esclusivamente nei limiti in cui la stessa avvenga nel rispetto dell'interesse pubblico all'informazione, per finalità non commerciali, garantendo l'integrità degli elementi riprodotti e mediante indicazione della fonte.” Sito Camera.
E ripeto comunque che camera.it e dati.camera.it sono lo stesso sito. Dosmeios (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Ciao e grazie. Dosmeios (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose As Herbythyme noted when placing the {{Speedy}}, the EXIF says:

  • Author:Enrico e Alessandro Para
  • Copyright holder:Impero Fotografico Srl

which tells us that this was not taken by a Chamber of Deputies photographer, but by a private photographer who claims copyright. It cannot be restored without a free license from Impero Fotografico Srl via VRT..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:ONIC_Esports_2020_allmode.png

Hi, this is Policha. My uploads had been deleted due to copyright claim. Can you fix this problem with this upload? My upload is the official logo for ONIC Esports. I don't know why this logo has been deleted.

--Policha (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose In the upload you credit "Moonton" as author. You are not Moonton and therefore cannot freely license the logo. In the case of logos, policy requires that an authorized official of the actual copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Мотобратство Штормовой Ветер.jpg

ticket:2022021310000948 received and processed. Анастасия Львоваru/en 13:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Ксана Сергиенко.jpg

ticket:2020083110006295 received and processed. Анастасия Львоваru/en 13:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Авралёв Владимир Васильевич.jpg

Received and processed ticket:2022090210002963. Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:00006 Screenshot 150.png

the image was deleted because, i guess, it has "screenshot" in its filename and someone must have thought I took that screenshot somewhere else. it's actually a screenshot of a video I took myself, so it's totally my own work and there isn't any kind of copyright violation. now I'm reuploading it under a different, not misunderstanding filename so please don't delete it again— Preceding unsigned comment added by Well203 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 25 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Support converting to DR. Ankry (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 Weak oppose at least you should give the link of the video that you took. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Moot, already reuploaded as File:25-10-2022 partial solar eclipse from Novate Milanese, Italy.png. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:С миру по монетке (афиша).jpg

ticket:2022092310008687 is processed. Анастасия Львоваru/en 19:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Restore The file was deleted for the sole reason — untimely response to application by the VRT service (over 30 days). The image was created by the author who uploaded it and does not contain any infringement. —Виктор Пинчук (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@Lvova I have I undeleted it, please, mark the file with the ticket rubin16 (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Ok now. --Yann (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Florin Alexandru Stan composer.jpg

This appears to have been deleted because the subject was not famous, if there are no copyright issues, it should be restored, the image was in use at Wikidata. --RAN (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Restore I don't see how someone who has composing credits at IMDB can be not notable enough for us. As for copyright - this looks like an image directly from the camera, I can't find it on the Internet, so no obvious red flags. --rimshottalk 07:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 Support I agree -- he has composed the music for four movies. Against that is the fact that WP:RO has deleted his article on the grounds of non-notability, see Wikipedia:Pagini de șters/Florin A. Stan.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Nicolas Alquin – «Solitude, monument aux esclaves resistants».jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We have VRT permission in ticket:2022100410008513. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Jon Harald Søby. does the email license cover both the copyright for the photograph and the copyright for the sculpture? The upload has neither. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Yes, the email is from the sculptor (who also took the photograph, as far is I understand). Jon Harald Søby (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jon Harald Søby: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Physicist Jacob Linder in 2019.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We have VRT permission in ticket:2022092610006692. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jon Harald Søby: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK now. --Yann (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Stoica nel 2020.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Sono l'autore della foto, non c'è violazione di copyright Eugenioaprile (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose There are several problems here. First, the upload file description seems to say that the uploader, photographer, and subject are the same person. The image does not appear to be a selfie. If the uploader was not the actual photographer, then the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT.

Second, although User:Eugenioaprile has uploaded a variety of self promotional copyright violations, he has made no useful contributions to Commons. Since he does not appear to be notable, images of him are out of scope -- we do not keep personal images of non-contributors -- Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:FdxKsbOWAAk6trs.jpg

The Image was deleted for copyright violations, but is in fact my very own Twitter avatar gifted to me my a "Forger" for NAFO Fellas on 28th of September.

https://twitter.com/JawnMclane/status/1575216110903128065?s=20&t=YpMk96q3lXz5wBgDiBCDWQ

Carsten Johannes M. (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, did the "gifted to me by a "Forger" ..." process include a transfer of full copyright? If yes, send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. Unless the creator of the avatar has given you a written license, you cannot upload it here. The actual creator must send a free license using VRT. Although you have only eight edits here, you have 175 on WP:DE, so I think you qualify under COM:Scope..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Andre Usborne Luger.jpg

The media in question is a private photograph owned by the individual depicted in the photo (André Usborne) taken by Olympic teammate Christopher Prentice in 1983. The photographer and subject have both provided me with permission to use this media under a free license — but neither party are photographers nor have business email addresses with which to satisfy criteria. The photograph in question is currently used with permission in the public domain in various publications, including online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzusborne (talk • contribs) 00:39, 28 October 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The problem you cite is not unusual. It is up to the VRT volunteer to judge the authenticity of any license. Christopher Prentice must provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:0428jfAurora Boulevard N. Domingo Street Kaunlaran Balete Drive Quezon Cityfvf 02.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Apparently, the building is simple enough to not warrant copyright protection. It isn't also designed by an architect. Hence, {{PD-structure|PHL}} is applicable here. Requesting restoration of the photo I nominated for deletion last year. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Question Did you nominate the correct file? This building surely would stand out in any neighbourhood. (Google Streetview). Thuresson (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@Thuresson: yep. It is 14 Balete Drive. Although I thought it has some intricate architecture I eventually realize now that it may be a plain building at all. But what makes it having some architectural characteristics for you? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The reason for my asking is that I some time ago undeleted this photo of a building with, in my view, no particular architectural qualities. Thuresson (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose First, it is not clear how high the ToO for architecture is in the Philippines. In the US the ToO is very low, almost non-existent and since the Philippines were a US territory until after WWII, I would guess that it is also low there. Second, I think that this building would be above the ToO anywhere. One might argue that a plain rectangular solid building with regularly spaced windows might be below the ToO, but this building, with its irregular layout and windows recessed at various depths is far from that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination, after major oppose input here. Also, it seems it is of modernist genre, and it is still an architectural genre. Hence the work 14 Balete Drive is an architectural work, not eligible for restoration now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Dudley_Schooner_Race_2015.png

1) The original photo was taken with my own camera by a friend, who has no rights to the photo. I understand that this is permitted from the Wikipedia information about photos for a biographical page. 2) The image referenced in the deletion is on my own website and is a heavily cropped version of the photo that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The one that I uploaded is the full photo, uncropped. It doesn't even have the same file name. 3) I did not take it from my website, as claimed as the reason for deleting, I uploaded it from my own computer.

Surfing Sailor (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Converted to DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dudley Dix Schooner Race 2015.png. @Surfing Sailor: Please state your case there. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2022-10&oldid=700789466"