Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-12

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

--Trade (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Tang Wei in Seoul.2011.jpg

Hi, This file was tagged for "no permission", but EXIF data is consistent for all this user's uploads, so this deletion was a mistake. Idem for File:영화 만추 기자회견장.jpg. Yann (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. No opposition. --Yann (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Beijing2008SummerOlympics.svg

A symbol part of this logo was create by File:2008 Dancing landscape.svg which is treated as public domain. So I think this delete is not appropriate. Ramsal18 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose In fact, I find the PD claim on this sublogo quite dubious. The threshold of originality in China is quite low, and this logo seems comfortably to exceed that. Felix QW (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 Comment If you idea is right,this logo is subject to Chinese copyright law,isn't it? Because this logo created in China.Ramsal18 (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. By Commons rules a file has to be public domain in both the USA and its country of origin, in this case the People's Republic of China. Felix QW (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Александр Владимирович Черкасов председатель Совета правозащитного центра Мемориал 2019 год.jpg

Прошу восстановить данный файл как явно ошибочно удаленный. Об удалении файла я узнал только из сообщения на моей странице обсуждения о том, что файл удален. До этого никакого уведомления о том, что файл выставлен на удаление, мне не приходило. Причиной удаления названо нарушение авторских прав - файл был использован в публикации 2020 года. Но в этой публикации прямо указано, что автор фото - Иван Абатуров (то есть я). Тут все было просто - в 2019 году в Ельцин-центре была конференция по Чечне. Я был на этой конференции и сделал ряд фото ее участников, которые потом поставил на Викисклад в 2019 году. Например, вот это фото сделал на конференции и поставил. Я не знаю английского языка и потом пишу по-русски. Иван Абатуров (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Translation: "Please restore this file as obviously erroneously deleted. I only found out about deleting the file from a post on my talk page that the file was deleted. Prior to this, I did not receive any notification that the file was set for deletion. The reason for the removal is copyright infringement - the file was used in publications in 2020. But this publication explicitly states that the author of the photo is Ivan Abaturov (that is, me). Everything was simple here - in 2019, there was a conference on Chechnya at the Yeltsin Center. I was at this conference and took a number of photos of its participants, which I then put on Wikimedia Commons in 2019."
I pointed nominator to VRTS service. Please restore if VRTS ticket is reviewed. --Drakosh (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
[here I invite the user to VRT] Иван, чтобы файл точно восстановили, попросите, пожалуйста, Валерию отправить нам разрешение. Вы ссылаетесь на то, что указано Ваше имя как автора - правильно, это право неотъемлемо; но раз Валерия первая (а она первая?) опубликовала снимок, мы не можем знать, не оформляли ли Вы с ней договор, передав при этом исключительные права (в частности, распространять материал). Возможно, стандартный текст нужно будет подправить под Вашу ситуацию - например, не "я, Валерия, являюсь обладательницей исключительных прав", а "я, Валерия, подтверждаю, что исключительные авторские права использованной в моей публикации работе принадлежат автору". Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Первым это фото в 2019 году опубликовал я - загрузил его на Викисклад и потом поставил в статью Википедии. Это очевидно просто по датам. 18 декабря 2019 года я поставил это фото в статью Википедии. А статья Валерии была опубликована 27 апреля 2020 года (эта дата стоит на публикации Валерии). Разве теперь не очевидно, что первым фото опубликовал я в 2019 году, а уже потом это фото в 2020 году появилось на стороннем ресурсе? Иван Абатуров (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Рабочим вечером легко такое просмотреть, тем более, что Вы не написали этого явно в исходной заявке; здорово, что теперь Вы это проговорили!  Support undeletion, it's a simple mistake: the file was uploaded on Commons before 27.04.2020. Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Maxdouglas.jpg

The picture was deleted in a blink of an eye not considering I AM THE OWNER and there's no copyrighyt violation; I didn't even had the time to respond to the cancellation request. --Maxito71 (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose We have no way here of knowing who User:Maxito71 actually is. We get many imposters claiming to be someone in order to post images here. Therefore, policy requires that users claiming to be notable people must confirm that using VRT. The VRT volunteer will put a note at User:Maxito71 confirming your identity. See Commons:Username_policy#Well-known_names_and_names_of_organizations.

Alternately, you can post the image at https://www.max-douglas.com with a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@JameslwoodwardI understand: I have now posted it on the official webpage, as suggested. You can see it here with proper license. What's next step to have it recovered? Thank you. Maxito71 (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence is not accepted on Commons. Please see Commons:Licensing for compatible CC licences. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Paul_012 is correct. As I said above, a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license is acceptable. NC or ND licenses are not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward@Paul 012 Hello. Sorry for the mistake. It should be correct now. Check again here and let me know what should I have to do next. Thank you Maxito71 (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: New license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Goncharuk's and Bahtov's works

File:Теплый камень.jpg, File:Офорт экспедиции "Чёрное море".jpg, File:Амазономахия (Custom) (2).jpg, File:Рождение Шторма.jpg - the ticket was received and approved a long time ago. Анастасия Львоваru/en 08:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

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

nlm_nimuid_101424010-img.

This photo appears on the National Library of Medicine website. However, it was a gift from Columbia University. I have contacted the archivist there who stated that the original has been discarded, but that I can use it freely for a Wikipedia entry. Here is a copy of the email from Mr. Novak Novak, Stephen E. <sen13@cumc.columbia.edu> Hamburger, Anne Dear Dr. Hamburger You have our permission to use this photo of Dr. Murray. However, please note that we no longer have this image of Dr. Murray in our holdings. It seems in 1955 Columbia gave a large number of medical school faculty portraits to the NLM but neglected to retain copies for its own archives. So please direct your readers to the NLM rather than to us if they are interested in obtaining of copy of this portrait.

Sincerely,
---
Stephen E. Novak
Head, Archives & Special Collections
Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
701 West 168th Street
New York, NY 10032
[personal information redacted]
https://www.library-archives.cumc.columbia.edu/
I will be happy to forward the complete conversation.
Anne Hamburger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saratoga15 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 November 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Actually the file is File:Nlm nlmuid-101424010-img (1).jpg. There are three problems here:

The first is that the subject's name, "Margaret Ransone Murray (1901-1986)", appears only in an Edit Summary and not anywhere in the file, which makes the file useless, lost among our 88 million images. That can easily be fixed. Second is that permission to use the image on Wikipedia is insufficient. Both Commons and WP:EN require that an image be free for any use by anybody anywhere. Third, and by far the most important is that it is obvious that none of the people involved have any idea of the provenance of the image. It appears to be a formal portrait. She was at Columbia from 1931 until she retired in 1970, which is almost certainly the period during which the image was taken. It may well have been taken by a Columbia photographer with a work for hire agreement in place. It equally well could have been taken by someone else. Unless Columbia can show that they actually own the copyright and are willing to freely license it, I don't think we can restore it to Commons.

I think the best thing here is to upload it to WP:EN under the Fair Use Policy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg Request for Don't Delete

Hello, Dear Team Support Team i am new here and dont have lots of knowledge about commons wikimedia so please guide me and correct me if im wrong. but please don't delete the first post i requested from you. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misshighness (talk • contribs) 09:42, 29 November 2022‎ (UTC)

All your uploads (2) were advertisements, which are out of COM:SCOPE of Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. I also doubt that the upload is actually the photographer of all of the images in the uploads. Using {{Own}} to claim that you are the author when you are not is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you continue to do it, you will be banned. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Michael klein.jpg

Dear Sir or Madam,

the corresponding photo belongs to Donnerwetter.de GmbH. The pictures belong to the press photos category: "https://www.donnerwetter.de/intern/presse/fotos/menu.htm". Ergo: the images can be used freely. In addition, the company "Donnerwetter.de GmbH" owns the rights to these images. The company is managed by my father and a co-managing director of Donnerwetter.de GmbH. Both people agree to the publication and uploading of the recordings. I ask that you do not remove photos arbitrarily. A good and intensive research should take place beforehand.

Sincerely, Noah Brandt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandtnoah (talk • contribs) 12:02, 29 November 2022‎ (UTC)

Brandtnoah: "Free use" does not mean freely licenced for use under a licence we accept. Permission must come directly from the copyright holder and copyright is not the same as ownership. Please sign your posts with 4 tildes. Ww2censor (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Before you start accusing Commons volunteers of carelessness, you should look to your own web site.
In the press photos box, it says,
"Presse-Fotos Alle Fotos zur freien Verwendung bei Nennung von "Donnerwetter.de" in Artikel oder Bild-Unterschrift. Wir freuen uns immer über Beleg-Exemplare!Themenspezifische Fotos finden Sie auf den Seiten der einzelnen Pressemitteilungen."
which is close to a free license except for the implication that they are for press use. However, at the bottom of the page is,
"© Donnerwetter.de GmbH - Der Seiteninhalt ist ausschließlich für den privaten Gebrauch bestimmt. Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr, Fehler und Irrtümer vorbehalten. Jede weitergehende, kommerzielle oder nicht kommerzielle Nutzung, Veröffentlichung, Aushang oder Sendung ist nur mit schriftlicher Zustimmung gestattet. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Nutzungsbedingungen."
which clearly is unacceptable here.
Having conflicting copyright instructions is thoroughly unprofessional. Either you must have the web site changed to explicitly call for a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license or have an authorized official of the company send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


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

File:“乌鲁木齐”推特搜索结果.png

The deletion request states "obvious infringement" without showing anything that infringes. I asked for an explanation, but the IP user did not respond to anything. I think "obvious infringement" is not a valid reason for deletion. Cz4281 (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:“乌鲁木齐”推特搜索结果.png Cz4281 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Sober Truth Bandmembers 2022.jpg

Official Bandpicture of Sober Truth. Source Bandwebsite: http://sober-truth.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BIRDSnMOUNTAINS (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 November 2022‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose Yes, and it also has "Copyright © Sober Truth" with no hint of a free license. I also note that you claimed to be the actual photographer using {{Own}}. Since it appears that is not true, I need to remind you that such claims are serious violations of Commons policy. If you continue to make such claims, you may be banned. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Videos from THHeadline中泰头条 YouTube channel

These files uploaded by User:愛子棋枰 were deleted following a deletion request on 9 November initiated by User:Larryasou, with the nom statement, "Unable to verify the license. The source video is unavailable." It was closed as delete by User:Yann.

THHeadline is an online entertainment news channel operated by Q Power Public Media Co., Ltd. They had two YouTube channels, THHeadline中泰头条 and THHeadline (alias: @thheadline5209), to which they uploaded a lot of videos, mostly original news clips and exclusive interviews, usually under the YouTube CC By licence. This was the case for the source of the two deleted files, as can be seen from the archived versions on the Wayback Machine.[1][2]

Apparently, the THHeadline中泰头条 YouTube channel was closed some time around late October/early November. Visiting the channel's URL[3] currently gives the message, "This page isn't available. Sorry about that. Try searching for something else." The direct URL (to the channel ID)[4] gives the message, "This account has been terminated for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines." This doesn't appear to be copyright-related, as YouTube will display a specific message in such cases.

Whatever the reason for the termination, they should have no bearing on the licensing of the videos, as CC licences are irrevocable. I see no reason to doubt that the images in question are in fact screen captures of the linked source videos. The licence is most likely valid and the files should restored. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 Support The Wayback Machine shows a CC-BY license for both. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Alphonso A'Qen-Aten Jackson via photographer Keith Saunders.jpg

Please restore this file because we have a permission statement for it per Ticket:2022120110001889. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ww2censor: FYI. --Yann (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral Jean Paul.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It seems this image is covered by freedom of panorama in Mexico because it is located in the public spaces as mentioned in COM:Mexico. A1Cafel (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose It is unclear whether churches are lugares publicos as required by the law. They are not mentioned in the list at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama, except possibly as "every kind of building used for education". However, there are two other problems with applying FoP here. The first is that the posters are not permanent. It is not clear whether that is required. However, the law requires "...provided also that the source is invariably mentioned...". Use under Mexico's FoP requires naming the authors of the posters. Therefore we have possible reasons and one definite reason why the image cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done, per Jim. Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral belongs to the Roman Catholic church. Thuresson (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:ginger pussy.jpg

Sehr geehrtes Support-Team, ich, Tottti1, erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild »GingerPussy.jpg«, dass ich dessen Urheber/in bin. Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz »Creative-Commons-Lizenz „Zero in Version 1.0“«. Ich genehmige somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch kommerziell oder gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann. Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die freie Lizenzierung nur auf das Urheberrecht sowie verwandte Rechte bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund anderer Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen. Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft in Wikipedia oder einem ihrer Schwesterprojekte eingestellt wird. Vorgangs-Nummer: <redacted>. Mit freundlichen Grüßen

User:Tottti1 Tottti1 (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC) 2001:16B8:1E3E:E000:1CE0:5CF8:172:2636 15:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Oscilla A30 audiometer USB 2022 model.jpg

We have made this picure here ourselfes, its free to use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobson500 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 30 November 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://www.oscilla.dk/en/products/a30 with "© 2021 Oscilla A/S" at the bottom of the page. Either an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a free license using VRT or you can add "Images CC-BY" or "Images CC-BY-SA" to the bottom of the page. You may restrict the license to the one image if you wish. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


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

Ayaz Sheikh

File:Ayaz sheikh.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Ayaz Abid (talk • contribs) 23:41, November 30, 2022‎ (UTC)

@Muhammad Ayaz Abid: Hi,
Why do you want it undeleted?
There may be 2 issues with this file. 1. Ayaz Sheikh doesn't seem to be notable, so the image may be out of scope.
2. Who is the photographer? It was previously uploaded by another account with metadata, while the small thumbnail you uploaded doesn't have them. Is User:Ayazsheikhmusic you? If yes, do not create another account to reupload deleted images, as you might be blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: User blocked. --Yann (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Lspce4096716f01 q4 2-0. QL100 UY4000.jpg

06:56, 1 December 2022 DMacks talk contribs deleted page File:Lspce4096716f01 q4 2-0. QL100 UY4000.jpg (Copyright violation: Google Image find this image in various websites selling bikinis - > Webfound. No Exif data) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorPerez94 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

This is a professional shot with several smaller copies elsewhere. If you are the photographer, please confirm the license via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:BC Wolves logo.png

Please undelete this file. I represent the club and the club is the owner of this logo. Email from the club was sent on November 15th to permissions-commons regarding free lincence release. Thanks in advance. Nostraltu (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The image will be restored without further action on your part if and when a free license is received, examined, and approved by the VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Alley of Angels

{{subst:refund|1= Alley of Angels (the English version) |2= Please return the English page about the Alley of Angels in Donetsk, because it is an important memorial for the Russian and the Ukrainian people. We deeply regret the innocent children who suffered 8 years bombing of the area by the Ukrainian Government troops and we believe the page should be returned. Thank you }} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.75.234 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose There has never been a file with that name. Since you did not log in we cannot look for it in your deleted contributions. Note however, that no matter how good it would be to have the file on Commons, any memorial created in Russia or Ukraine after the Second World War is certainly under copyright and most works from after 1902 are probably under copyright. We can not keep photographs of copyrighted works from either country on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Notwithstanding that we've been given no useful information (file or coherent rationale), the use of the en.wiki refund template (which does not exist on Commons) and verbiage of "Please return the English page about the Alley of Angels in Donetsk" (underline added) suggest this relates to w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alley of Angels (which has been recreated, at least in part, as w:Draft:Alley of Angels, perhaps by an SPA sock). --Эlcobbola talk 20:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


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

Category:EDEN:ISS

I created it some time ago to plan an import I'm doing right now. The category has been deleted meanwhile. vip (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Don-vip, it appears another category has been created at Category:EDEN ISS. Can you verify this is the same project you were uploading for? If so, I can move your uploaded images to that cat. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Categories (or any name) shouldn't include a colon (:). --Yann (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Uchwała - powstanie ZDM.jpg

This is an official document with the wrong license, it should be {{PD-Poland}}. AramilFeraxa (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done undeleted and fixed description: copyright claim by the uploader was clearly incorrect. Ankry (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:71dF0hKrWnL. QL100 UY4000.jpg

VictorPerez94 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Same as above. This is a professional shot with several smaller copies elsewhere. If you are the photographer, please confirm the license via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Ebolitana's 1960s logo.svg

Lo stemma della squadra di calcio, oltre a non essere più bene immateriale di nessuna entità sportiva ed altro, non appartiene a nessuna società attualmente attiva e nessuna ne ha rilevato la proprietà o il suo copyright. Oltre questo, lo stemma è un bene del comune di Eboli e che quindi di dominio pubblico, modificato all'occorrenza. --TheDastanMR (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Unfortunately, that reasoning is not correct. The copyright remains in effect even if the ownership cannot be traced and the owner cannot be found. See Orphan work for more information. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Not done, per Jim. Also, you have not shown that the copyright has been aquired by the municipality and, if so, that this would have any legal consequences regarding copyright. See also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy. Thuresson (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Dave Min.jpg

Deleted under the reasoning that the University of California system (legal name: “The Regents of the University of California”) is not part of the State of California or its government. The University of California is established by the Constitution of California and is an independent organ of the California government (See Article IX § 9(a) of the California Constitution). It should also be noted that the state Legislature considers the The Regents of the University of California to be a part of the state of California as it has directed the Attorney General to defend all claims against the state in court, including claims against the Regents of the University of California (See California Government Code § 955.4 and UC Legal - Office of the General Counsel). The Regents of the University of California is also subject to the California Public Records Act, an act that only applies to the government of the State of California (See UCI Public Records Office, among other sources]). All these are concrete evidence that The Regents of the University of California are part of the government of California. It should also be noted that the John Aubrey Douglass at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley stated that:

The University of California became a “public trust” in 1879 as part of a larger revision of California’s Constitution approved by California voters. The University henceforth gained the exclusive power to operate, control, and administer the University of California, becoming virtually a fourth branch of state government, a "constitutional corporation . . . equal and coordinate with the legislature, the judiciary and the executive.

More information about the aforementioned report can be found here: HOW AND WHY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA GOT ITS AUTONOMY

Above all, there are court cases that affirm that the Regents of the University of California are part of the State of California as noted by the California Court of Appeal in the case “Regents of University of California v. City of Santa Monica, 77 Cal. App. 3d 130, 135” in which the court affirms that:

… the Regents is a constitutionally created branch of the state government…

Fluffy89502 ~ talk 18:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Your argument assumes that the portrait was taken by a photographer employed by the UofC with a work for hire agreement in place. There is no evidence of that in the upload and apparently Mr. Min is no longer on the faculty so there is no way to determine it there. There is at least a significant doubt that the image was made by an employee and not someone else. We cannot restore it without knowing the status of the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You have a good point. I will submit a public records request with UC Irvine to see if I can determine who took the photograph and who, if anybody, posses the rights to the photograph. Fluffy89502 ~ talk 09:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Implicitly withdrawn by requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Dr-Kannan-Vishwanatth.jpg

File:Dr-Kannan-Vishwanatth.jpg is an Academic Researcher & Entrepreneur. Kannan Finished His Bachelor’s in Chemical Engineering, Master's In Business Management, and Doctor of Philosophy in Business Management. Kannan is the Founder & Chief Scientific Officer of Hong Kong-based Pharmaceutical Companies Rupus Global Limited & Dr. Ashley’s limited. Kannan Vishwanatth has recently co-authored a book titled Smart Villages – A Game-Changing Innovations in Social Engineering with award-winning authors Solomon Darwin & Satya Brahma.

You can confirm an idendity from this publised News Blog. https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2022/10/19/dr-kannan-vishwanatth-a-scientist-with-an-unrelenting-drive.html

--DrKannanVishwanatth (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Dr Kannan Vishwanatth

 Oppose As a general rule we use Wikipedia and Google to determine whether a person is in scope here. I see no Wikipedia article and little on Google that is not generated by the subject. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


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

Category:Dynamics-aerosol-chemistry-cloud interactions in West Africa

I created it some time ago to plan an import I'm doing right now. The category has been deleted meanwhile.vip (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. The category is populated again. --De728631 (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Rafael Leão2022.jpg

Please restore this file. It is a crop from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FC_Salzburg_vs._AC_Mailand_(UEFA_Championsleague_2022-09-06)_31.jpg and not a scan or a photocopy of a printed media as suspected by the User User:Rejoy2003 who initiated the deletion without doing a bit of research. The file has now been removed from all articles, which is annoying btw. --Scip. (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose::I loved how you suspected me not doing "bit of research" when the file is clearly a photocopy. The image you mentioned itself is a photocopy too. Just zoom the image and you'll find it grainy, the photographer was not present on the ground to click the photograph, as simple as that. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 06:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Several ways this is a problem. First, it was created by Retroative who claims {{Own}} when, as noted above, it is one of several crops from an image uploaded by User:Werner100359 . That claim is obviously incorrect.
Second, the parent image is subject to a DR along with all of the crops -- so pointing to it as the source as a reason to restore this crop won't work. Either the parent image will be deleted and this will remain deleted or the parent will be kept and this will be restored. There is nothing to do about this image until then. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Rehan Parbhis 1.jpg

The content is not a promotional content, its a picture of my client for google knowledge panel please kindly undelete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afolabi bisola (talk • contribs)

Related: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Afolabi bisola. --Túrelio (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Not done, OP has been globally blocked for writing a Wikipedia article about a "client". Thuresson (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Siggynature.png

The signature covers information about myself as a Scratch user. I apologize for the nonsensical descriptions and other stuff. --Dustiage (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is out of scope. We don't keep personal images for non-contributors. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Moreover it is a clear copyvio containing copyrighted characters without free license permission. Ankry (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done obvious copyvio and out of scope. Ankry (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Здравствуйте. Моё изображение было незаконно отправлено на удаление. Изображение моего собственного сайта сделанного моими руками стандартными средствами Windows для публикации его в статье на википедии. Скриншот нигде не был опубликован и существует в единственном экземпляре. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsetiby (talk • contribs) 13:26, 2 December 2022‎ (UTC)

Hello. My image has been illegally sent for deletion. An image of my own site made by my hands with standard Windows tools for publishing it in a Wikipedia article. The screenshot has not been published anywhere and exists in a single copy.
translator: Google

 Oppose Probably regarding File:Startpagesocialnetworkvsetiby.png which I just deleted -- it had a {{Speedy}} tag. As noted above, the image is a screenshot of a copyrighted web page. If User:Vsetiby is the author of that page they must (a) show that it is in scope for commons (b) name the web site, and (c) provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:陸上総隊.svg

I create this logo based on File:Ground Component Command (transparent background).png but,this png logo are not delete. I guess this is strange.Thank you Ramsal18 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 Comment Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The png source file is tagged with the Japanese government standard license, but the license page seems explicitly to exclude logos in Clause 3. Felix QW (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Felix QW. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


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

Category:EMSec (Echtzeitdienste für die Maritime Sicherheit - Security)

I created it some time ago to plan an import I'm doing right now. The category has been deleted meanwhile. vip (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Don-vip: Why the name is in German? Ankry (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Apparently because the files come from the German space and aviation agency. @Don-vip: Does DLR have an English term for the EMSec type of service? If so, this should be the category name instead of the German description. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The DLR itself translates it as EMSec (Real-Time Services for Maritime Security) (see its project page). Felix QW (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Not empty any more. --Yann (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Arms of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.svg

Given the result of this this undeletion request, this file should be undeleted as well. Yann closed that discussion saying "There is usually no copyright for state symbols. It was not demonstrated that there is a copyright on these files. See Carl Lindberg's arguments above, among others." 25stargeneral (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above, and previous discussion. --Yann (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Krd

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The author, with whom I am personally in touch, has publicly confirmed the transfer of all his images in uniformology. He did it, as others had done before, on my recommendation, through a personal VK page by CC BY-SA 4.0 Int. All files were reviewed by me and provided with a {{LicenseReview}} template. For example: File:Нашивки ГСМП 6-я категория.jpg. I protected the files from deletion following the pattern: File:Actors of the Drama Theater of Karelia Konstantin Pilipenko Lyudmila Filippovna Zhivykh 1972 003182.jpg (Discussion). It's strange that I was not even informed about the deletion. Please restore deleted files. Niklitov (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Niklitov: Are you the agent processing ticket:2022101810294331? Note also that licenses should not be reviewed by the uploader. An independent user should do this. Ankry (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hallo! Thanks for the answer! About Ticket No: yes, the other VRT agent wrote to me that I should close this ticket myself. In addition, the license on VK is public, available to every verifier. Sorry, I didn't know that the uploader can't use the LicenseReview template. It's not logical, I think. I can upload and post a ticket as an VRT agent. Right? — Niklitov (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The author is able to write personally, he did it already about other files. As the VRT agent I was surprised to read 'I, another VRT agent, confirm that the author was published materials under the free license'. It was a strange request, and I refused to close it successfully; as far as there aren't too many VRT agents in Russia, I still closed it, but as unsuccessful. It's true that there is no need in registration at VK to see a free license, but it's a task for verifiers, not for VRT. Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Rather  Support except may be File:ГУСМП кокарда.png which is probably a derivative work. One needs to have an account to view the content on VK, but Licence review should be be done by another user. What's in the ticket? Why it wasn't validated? Yann (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    Dear Yann! Thanks a lot for your attention.
     Comment
    • 1. No one needs to have an account to view the content on VK. Content and license are visible without registration (You can simply close the dialog box asking you to register).
    • 2. About File:ГУСМП кокарда.png: yes, this is a derivative work. This is the work by Alexei Karewski. He himself photographed the cockade and made an image based on it.
    • 3. About ticket:2022101810294331: I closed this ticket at the request of another VRT team member. It was probably an overkill. I plan to continue uploading the work of the uniformologist Alexei Karewski with his consent and use {{LicenseReview}}. Do I understand correctly that if I upload other people's work to Wikimedia Commons, I have the right to reviewed it? I can't review only my own work. Right?
    — Niklitov (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    The reviewing instructions are pretty clear that uploaders should not be reviewing their own uploads. Felix QW (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    Right, if these downloads are his own works. And if not, the same rules should apply as for an VRT agent. He has the right to upload other people's work and put the ticket number. In my opinion, this is correct and helps to develop Wikimedia Commons. — Niklitov (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    License review and VRT are two different systems. You uploaded files, reviewed them as reviewer (don't know if you have the right) and then wrote to VRT that is not for it at all. Probably everything would be ok without VRT, but even when you re-closed your ticket as successful you didn't change Permission received to PermissionTicket - if you would do it, everything would be ok too. A month is given for all needed actions, then Krd deletes all that is not properly formatted. So ok, files should be restored, but not Krd created the problem. Анастасия Львоваru/en 11:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification. Indeed, I created a VRT ticket in vain. Sorry. — Niklitov (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Niklitov and Lvova: Please fix what needs to be fixed. --Yann (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:国土技術政策総合研究所.svg

this logo has simple graphics. Please withdraw the deletion.

Please withdraw the deletion of these logos as well. Luke atlas (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

 Support undeletion of File:国土技術政策総合研究所.svg as {{PD-textlogo}}. But this cannot be extended to all other images; eg. File:都市再生機構ロゴ.svg is definitely copyrighted. Some others from the list also. Ankry (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I've done. Is it ok?Luke atlas (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Luke atlas: I undeleted all the logos which are IMO PD-textlogo. If some more should be undeleted for another reason, please create another undeletion request with a new rationale. For some logos, various license claims are made, these need to be reviewed. They may or may not be valid. Also many files lack proper categories. --Yann (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:EPD Logo.png

Per File talk:EPD Logo.png. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The cited file talk argues that the logo is below the ToO. It's a close thing, but since we have no guidance on the ToO in Belgium, I don't think we can restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Neutral Yes, we don't have a COM:TOO Belgium, so having no example(s) to compare it to is the main impediment to restoring it. On the other hand, while I might support deletion of such a simple logo if it were from the UK, Austria, Hong Kong or another country with a notoriously low threshold of originality, I've yet to see Belgium mentioned as one of those countries. --Rosenzweig τ 20:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 Support It was deleted due to missing copyright tag. {{PD-textlogo}} may be a suitable one. I support undeletion and suggest starting a wider discussion in a DR, not here, if there are TOO-related doubts. Ankry (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. Please nominate this for deletion if there is any issue. --Yann (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:The Rt Hon Nadhim Zahawi, appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer.jpg

It is licensed under OGL as confirmed by the Cabinet office [5]. (Also File:The Rt Hon Nadhim Zahawi, appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer (cropped).jpg)--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support I think the substantial watermark would ordinarily put the subject image out of scope, but we should keep it as part of the history of the crop, which is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Рубен Эдуардович Пашинян.jpg

Now we have the permission (probably previously the file had wrong attribution, will check after undeletion). Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Ulka Express train

Please don't delete this image. It is real colour restoration photo of Ulka Express train. Colorize by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shariful Hasan007 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Logo Polres Jember1.png

Mohon untuk dibatalkan File:Logo Polres Jember1.png, karena merupakan hakc cipta saya --Cahyono Setiadi (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Presentation of the La Boheme Award 2022 to Russian designer Slava Zaitsev.jpg

Photos with Slava Zaitsev were made by Boheme Magazine with the consent of the designer and taken from here https://laboheme.moscluster.com/?p=59657 Kotikboh (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Question Why would you have the right freely to license content copyrighted by Boheme magazine though? I can only see an "All rights reserved" copyright notice. Felix QW (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose As noted by Felix QW, there is nothing on the source page but "All Rights Reserved". I note also that you claimed in the upload to be the actual photographer by using {{Own}}. Now you say something else. Making false claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being banned. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The ticket is received and approved. Анастасия Львоваru/en 16:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ebolitana's_1960s_logo.svg

The file was created by me and is a replica of a logo that is no longer in use and does not belong to any currently active company. In addition, the logo belongs to the municipality of the city of Eboli and is in the public domain as per the description used for copyright. Therefore, I request its restoration. --TheDastanMR (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The fact that it is no longer in use is irrelevant -- it is still under copyright as an orphan work. If the city of Eboli actually owns the copyright for some reason, then an authorized official of the city must send a free license using VRT including proof that the city owns the copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Expanded Chennai Metropolitan Area.jpg

Need to restore to update the licence information Gaptian (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose In order for the image to be restored, an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:陸上総隊.svg

According to copyright law, terrain is an objective fact. This insignia are composed by them. So this doesn't copyright.Ramsal18 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't know where you got the idea that maps do not have copyrights. USCO Circular 1, Copyright Basics, mentions them explicitly at the top of page 3. Also this patch has many more elements than just the maps. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Agreed. Terrain is an objective fact. Original works of authorship comprising visible representations of terrain, such as maps, are objectively copyrightable. Эlcobbola talk 21:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pittore44

I have verified the user account, Pittore44. This belongs to notable American Painter, Jerry Ross. See the ticket link mentioned on their User page. Kindly restore all the possible files by them. Many thanks, — Tulsi 24x7 03:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Certain files have already been restored. A number are scans or otherwise COM:DWs that should be requested seperately based on individual merits. --Эlcobbola talk 20:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

This image is one that has been used officially by a lot of the public platforms that have featured Ms Mokgonyana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karabo.Mokgonyana (talk • contribs) 12:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

I suppose you mean File:Karabo Mokgonyana.jpg. The EXIF data mention HengiweLesedi as artist. So the copyright holder should send a permission via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - This was deleted for COM:NOTHOST reasons and, indeed, the related "article" (w:User:Karabo.Mokgonyana/sandbox) was also deleted for that reason. Further, the EXIF credit the "artist" as Hengiwe Lesedi, which does not appear to be the uploader (Karabo.Mokgonyana). The comment "[t]his image is one that has been used officially by a lot of the public platforms" also implies uploader is not the author. Эlcobbola talk 20:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:NOTHOST. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:MAN-V12X-1.jpg

Die Datei wurde nach einer Löschung auf Grund des Ticket#2022102510080879 nach zusätzlicher Genehmigung per Mail von MAN erneut reingestellt und am 2. Dezember erneut gelöscht. Bitte auf Grund der Genehmigung von der Presseabteilung von MAN die Datei erneut reinstellen. Vielen Dank, L.Kenzel 14:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"© MAN 2022" at mantruckandbus.com. You should first contact VRT noticeboard instead. Thuresson (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The email in the cited ticket has been received, but it is not a sufficient free license. If and when a free license is received and approved, the image will be restored without further action on your part. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Wiki image project.jpg

THis image is copyright free. https://www.pexels.com/photo/happy-young-asian-student-doing-homework-and-listening-to-music-with-earphones-5538618/ Angelinasutton (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - "Free to use" ≠ copyright free. This has a Pexels license which is not sufficiently free; it, for example, includes "[d]on't redistribute or sell the photos and videos on other stock photo or wallpaper platforms" and "[d]on't sell unaltered copies of a photo or video, e.g. as a poster, print or on a physical product without modifying it first" which are unacceptable limitations. Эlcobbola talk 19:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: "Don't redistribute or sell the photos and videos on other stock photo or wallpaper platforms," clearly prohibits use on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Nws outlook for nov 4 2022.gif

I want to undelete it and relicense it as Public Domain; i've just really gotten into the basics of Wikimedia Commons. I also want to give a source and put the author as NWS - Norman Oklahoma. Thanks. Poodle23 (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm not sure it's in scope. What's the educational use of a weather map on an ordinary day? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Support Any weather map is educational because every weather forecast as such different and any map may have different styles of representing the data. {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. De728631 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done As it was originally deleted as a G7, undeletion will be summarily granted upon request, and either DR or a valid speedy criterion is required to sustain the deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Flag of Attay.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: neh neh neh neh neh, you cannot remove it >:) Nourtheflagmaster (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Blocked user -- vandal. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Рукопись стихотворения Петра Евдошенко.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The poem (handwritten text) published in Cascade Splashes Book by Pyotr Evdoshenko in 1917 ({{PD-100}} license: This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years.) Prostranstvo (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The 1917 publication date means that the work is PD in the United States. However, the law for works from most of the Cyrillic language countries is PMA 70. I could not find a date of death for Pyotr Evdoshenko, so in order for us to restore it, you will have to prove that he died before 1952. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, ru:Евдошенко, Пётр Иванович (read it before potential deleted as it's under deletion discussion, due to notability?) says circ. 1920? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Notability is a good question. If WP:RU is going to delete an article based on his notability, then we shouldn't be keeping this image of a manuscript. According to https://evdoshenko-ru.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en the book sold 3,000 copies -- not a particularly notable author. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
The date of death is around 1920, there is an article about him and on the official website Prostranstvo (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:RU is their own place. We do not need to be beholden to them. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose That is true, but as a general rule the local language WPs are in a better position to assess notability than we are here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 Keep It turns out strange that if a person was born in Pyriatyn, then he is not significant? And you can just delete the public domain file? Also, this artwork was used in the article! What would such an activity be called on Wikimedia Commons? This is not normal behavior. And again Krd. I saw many valuable files that he deleted completely in vain. I don't understand why he does it. — Niklitov (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 Weak support The ruwiki deletion discussion is open over 2 months and I see no consensus to delete the article. Ankry (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Niklitov and Ankry. --Yann (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Sami_Language_Recognition.jpg

The source says: "All images are the property of Nordregio. They may be freely used as long as the logo of Nordregio is clearly visible and the source is cited accordingly. Please give also the cartographer/designer/author credit and give full recognition to the data sources if named in the graphic." It seems to me that this is a free license with Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. A455bcd9 (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This does not allow cropping or remixing the image in a way that removes the upper right corner. It's OK to demand that users credit the copyright owner, not that users should make a song and dance about it. Thuresson (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@Thuresson: you can crop and remix the image and you can remove the upper right corner "as long as the logo of Nordregio is clearly visible" (including by putting it somewhere else on the image). Is that still not fine? (I don't know, just asking) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Support This is a difficult one. I am inclined to restore it on practical grounds. While I think that A455bcd9's suggestion of putting the logo elsewhere if one crops the image might work, as a practical matter you can't crop the image in a way that would remove the logo without cropping the map in one direction or the other. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:社会.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File:「社会」と名付けられた作品.gif と File:社会.gif ではライセンスが異なりますので、これらの内容が同じことは、 File:社会.gif を削除する理由にはなりません。

File:社会.gif をアップロードした際は、著作権者がライセンスを明確にしたうえで二次利用を許可しています。 過去に File:「社会」と名付けられた作品.gif をアップロードした際はライセンスが明確でなかったために削除されました。

社会.gif のライセンスは クリエイティブ・コモンズ 表示-継承 4.0 です。 ソース: https://men.or.jp/blog/hi/2022/11/23/09:36:21.1121/


Since File:「社会」と名付けられた作品.gif and File:社会.gif have different licenses, the fact that File:「社会」と名付けられた作品.gif and File:社会.gif have the same content is not a reason to remove File:社会.gif.

When File:社会.gif was uploaded, the copyright holder clarified the license and allowed secondary use. A previous upload of File:「社会」と名付けられた作品.gif was deleted because the license was not clear.

License of File:社会.gif is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 ( source: https://men.or.jp/blog/hi/2022/11/23/09:36:21.1121/ ) 匿田名力 (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The CC-BY-SA license shown there is modified to require a political statement to be included with the attribution. Such modifications are not permitted for a CC license, so the license shown is not valid. All that can be required for a valid CC-BY license is the name of the person to whom attribution is given. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Katarzyna Zietal.jpg

Dodałam link do strony, gdzie jest zdjęcie: https://cas.org.pl/jak-wzmacniac-trwalosc-zbiorow-spolecznych-za-nami-spotkanie-grupy-konsultacyjnej/

Na dole znajduje się informacja o licencji. Proszę o przywrócenie zdjęcia. 

Fot. Adam Stępień / Centrum Archiwistyki Społecznej, CC BY-SA 4.0

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katarzynostwo1 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Probably refers to File:Katarzyna Ziętal.jpg. Although it is probably just an oversight, we must be careful here. The caption "photo. Adam Stępień / Center for Social Archiving, CC BY-SA 4.0" appears on the cited page below a different photo. In order for the license to be effective for the subject image you must either change it to read "photos Adam Stępień / Center for Social Archiving, CC BY-SA 4.0" or put the caption below the subject image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  •  Support IMO the caption refers to all pictures, not only the last one. Please note that it is written "Fot.", and it is placed below all images. Yann (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Google translates "fot." in the singular, not the plural. If that is correct, we must assume it applies only to the one image immediately above it. It's certainly a very simple thing to change. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support - The image under which the "CC BY-SA 4.0" note appears has the identical camera (Canon EOS 5D Mark III), editing software (Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.0 (Macintosh)) and was taken ca. 23 minutes before File:Katarzyna Zietal.jpg. It seems safe to assume that both share the same author (Adam Stępień) and it would be bizarre that a selection of images a) with a common author, b) from a common event, and c) grouped tightly together on a page would have attribution for only one whilst simultaneously having disparate licenses. Doubt here, if any, does not rise to significant in my view. Эlcobbola talk 20:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Again, I disagree. Photographers often give us one or a few of their images while holding the bulk of them under copyright. And, as I have said above, if the intention is to freely license all of them, all that is required is to add an "s". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with elcobbola and Yann above. If the license for the other photos were different, they would not be just "unsigned". Moreover, looking inte the HTML code, the caption with license information is below the whole list, not just below the last list item. Ankry (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Эlcobbola and Ankry. --Yann (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Sète été 2022.jpg

Photo libre de droits pour la page Wikipedia de Catherine Pont-Humbert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DouceurLBM (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:The Buffalo Nine.jpg

The Buffalo Nine.jpg. was a file that I uploaded to Commons but was then challenged because of copyright issues. However, I have found the original pamphlet from which I copied the photo and it has no copyright on it. It was in the Public domain in the 1960s at the University of Buffalo, NY (State University of New York at Buffalo). At the time I was in SDS, a student organization, and. we held a meeting and decided to publish a pamphlet. I am no longer in contact with that group, of course, it has been over 50 years ago. So it should be ok to use the photo of the pamphlet to give the public a view of the defendants in this famous anti war case. To Tulsi Bhagat, please restore this file if it is possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittore44 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose The pamphlet is showing a derivative work of an earlier photo. The source of this photo is not known, so it cannot be assessed whether that photo is in PD according US law. If possible, please provide the original photo, if it has been published somewhere. Ellywa (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Given the source of the pamphlet, we cannot assume that its creators licensed the use of the photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ellywa and Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:The image of Cat Ellington (1).jpg

Hi! I uploaded this image to Commons about two weeks ago. It was deleted because of something to do with licensing. The image is in the public domain. This is where I got it from. I am not the copyright holder and there isn't one to my knowledge. Would it be okay to have the free image reinstated to Commons? Thanks guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharkskinBen (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 December 2022‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose Almost everything that you find publicly available on the Web actually has a copyright that is not freely licensed as required here. With the exception of some government works and works more than around 120 years old, the only things that can be uploaded here have an explicit license on the page such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. See our policy on licensing for more information. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola and Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Hans Niemann 2019-crop.jpg

I believe that the decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Niemann 2019-crop.jpg was incorrect.

(For background, the image in question was a screen capture from a broadcast by the PRO Chess League. The original video shows two people, who are presumably participating via their own webcams. The publisher of the video published it under an acceptable Creative Commons license, but the question is whether the webcam feeds included in the video can be accepted as a part of this license. The image is cropped to show Hans Niemann, who was participating in the broadcast. The video and all of the participants are in the United States and so only US law is at issue.)

The discussion centered on whether (1) Hans Niemann created a copyrightable work and (2) whether it was a work of joint authorship, where under US law any joint author can grant a non-exclusive license.

The closing admin said that this image is "analogous to a montage". But it was NOT a montage in one important way - Niemann's broadcast was not a previously-published work, nor even a separate work at all. (Copyright only exists when something is fixed in a tangible medium. Hans was not fixing anything in a tangible medium and so there is no separate copyrightable work.)

If I grab pictures (or video feeds or whatever) from other sources and I cobble them together - without the permission of the original authors to do so - then I cannot properly grant a Creative Commons license to my final work. That's obvious and not a subject of dispute.

But in the case of this video, it was not a published work that was being incorporated into the larger video. Rather, the only creative work is the combined video. There is one joint work and copyright is shared by Hans Niemann, the PRO Chess League, and anyone else who participated in the creation of this work. In that way, it is patently unrelated to a "montage".

But more to the point, if Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs) wanted to make the argument that this was a montage, he should have made it in the discussion and allowed other editors to opine on the merits of it - not simply exercised an "admin supervote". This was not a point that was even discussed at all. --B (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment Source video is [6]. Yann (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose While it is certainly true that copyright did not attach until the Zoom meeting was recorded, it is not clear who owns the copyrights to the individual feeds. Since, as a rule, the actual photographer owns the copyright to their work, it seems to me that each of the feeds has a separate copyright belonging to the person who was running the camera in each case -- probably but not certainly the subject. The argument that there is no creativity in the camerawork for a zoom is not valid -- in almost all countries, photographs and videos have a copyright even though the camera operator doesn't do much.

As for my "admin supervote", we have thousands of open DRs and cannot afford to give each one a lot of time. Additional discussion, if needed, can take place here. Since UnDRs are a tiny fraction of DRs, and most UnDRs are closed as "not done", it appears that as a whole we are reaching the right conclusion in almost all DRs even though we move quickly through them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The photographer/videographer does own the copyright to their work IF, IN FACT, THEY HAVE ACTUALLY CREATED A WORK. A copyrighted work does not exist until the work is fixed in a tangible medium. If you and I have a Zoom call, there is no copyrighted work because nothing is recorded. (If someone were to record that call, only then has it been fixed in a tangible form.) So you're claiming that Hans owns the copyright to something that didn't even exist until PRO Chess League recorded it. Unlike a montage, there simply IS NO CREATIVE WORK other than the combined video feed. That combined video feed is the work of multiple authors and under US law, any of those multiple authors is permitted to license it. --B (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
As I said above, it is well established that videographers own the copyright to their work and that making a video, however simple, is copyrighted. I agree that no copyright existed for the microsecond between the video being made at each location and it being recorded by Chess League, but it once the copyrights existed, they were owned by the individual videographers. I don't see how you can argue that Chess League did the recording or anything creative -- the recording was made by Zoom and its screen layouts have no creativity. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: If there is no copyright in the microsecond between the video being made at each location and the time that PRO Chess League recorded the collective work, then the only creative work that exists is the collective work. There is no separate work of which Hans could be said to be the copyright holder. I should note that the Wikimedia Foundation legal team disagrees with you. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Copyright_in_Zoom_Images "When a person takes a screenshot of a multi-person Zoom call, they will most often be the only person holding a copyright in the Zoom screenshot." This is a situation far more analogous (e.g. the posted video is a series of screenshots) than treating this as though it were a collage of separate photos. --B (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
That speaks to people who take a screenshot of a Zoom. It does not speak to the question of Zoom sessions where the copyright is fixed by a recording made by Zoom. Certainly Zoom does not own the copyright and it seems to me that whichever of the participants turned on the Zoom record function should not own the copyright in videos produced by the other participants. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Zoom did not make the recording. Zoom is not claiming to be the copyright holder. Rather, the PRO Chess League (which is operated by chess.com, the employer of one of the participants in the call - en:Danny Rensch) - is claiming to be the copyright holder. You're essentially arguing that if Danny's employer had taken a single screenshot of the Zoom meeting, they would own the copyright to that screenshot, but because they took a whole bunch of screenshots (which is what a video is), they don't own the copyright. --B (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I think our natural intuition is that whoever controls the camera should own the copyright. That's fine, but with Wikimedia's lawyers saying otherwise, we should defer to their opinion as the authority on the matter unless we hear otherwise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per KoH and B. --Yann (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Benjamin Brasier Photoshoot 2021.jpg

I hereby affirm that I, Benjamin Brasier, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Brett Brasier Appointed representative of Benjamin Brasier 2022-12-06 --Beater13 (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beater13: , thank you for your permission. Could you please send this permission by email from a domain identifying you as representing Benjamin Brasier. Please use the email address listed on VRT: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Perhaps permission is needed from the photographer of the photoshoot. You will hear that in an answer to your email. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:臺南縣管內全圖 1901.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:臺南縣管內全圖 1901.jpg

1901 file from Taiwan which was under Japanese rule at the time. Author is known, 佐々木邦麿, but I cannot find a death date for them and the file is old enough for PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. Map is assumed in PD by now. --Ellywa (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Mythic Meteor Prevention logo.png

Mythic Meteors are hoaxes. Note that the CCS is allowed, but using it for banning players, using social media links, and deleting accounts is not, and all edits while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. BeeSpeed1989 (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The following can contribute to a Mythic environment:
1. Cannot satisfy WP:MOS
2. Other WP:NOTHERE behaviour BeeSpeed1989 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose There is nothing above which tells me what this logo represents or why it is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Not done, per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:KakaoTalk Photo 2022-01-21-13-20-50.png

Also:

The work of this image is my work. I have the copyright for the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaquascape (talk • contribs) 05:40, 7 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that in each case the actual copyright holder(s) must submit a free license using VRT. In the latter two, that should include evidence that the photographs are freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Medzhidov1995.jpg

Добрый день! Это официальный портрет из предвыборной гонки в Народное Собрание Республики Дагестан 1 созыва в 1995 году. Этого портрета нет нигде в сети Интернет, восстановите его пожалуйста. Это моя работа — Preceding unsigned comment added by Арапат Курбанова (talk • contribs) 07:23, 7 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In the upload you used {{Own}}, which means that you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you imply that you were not. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being banned.

Since we don't know the actual source of the image, there is no way to know its actual copyright status, but there is no reason to believe that an official portrait of this sort is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Belgium bringing civilisation to the Congo by A. Matton.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Belgium bringing civilisation to the Congo by A. Matton.JPG

I cannot see if this is an indoor or outdoor photograph and I can't get that information from logs. If outdoors, then Belgium has FOP. If indoors, this will have to wait until 2024. Abzeronow (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Description says "In Royal Museum for Central Africa, Terveuren." Yann (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. 1922 date makes it PD in the US but it will have to wait until 2024 because of Belgian law. Abzeronow (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I take that comment as Withdrawn. I added "Undelete in 2024" to the DR. --Yann (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:ZAC Thiago Zacchi DJ ZAC DJZAC 1.jpg

Hi community! Hope all safe & fine. Do not know the reason for deletion, I took this image for an article and this deletion affected it, but apparently the file was deleted without a reason, there is nothing in the log or discussion page. Thanks --Gonzalo Roselli (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Gonzalo Roselli is a sock puppet of the uploader of the image User:ZAC (DJ & Producer), who claims he is the photographer. It does not appear to be a selfie, so before restoring it we will need to understand who actually took the photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The requester os blocked and cannot respong in 24h. Ankry (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by User:Fitindia

Please restore the following images, as they are below the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and are therefore in the public domain:

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support I have looked at all of these and I agree that they are all well below the US ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Info Several of these are derivative of public domain logo File:MyNetworkTV 2D Logo.svg. Thuresson (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Multiple files

I'm actually quite annoyed and pissed (like literally thanks to the two guys) to not comprehend the actions taken on such files for example here Commons:Deletion requests/Rejoy2003 uploads from Frederick Norohnha. Now these images are taken from flickr. My only question is are multiple licensing not a thing here on commons? I think it is actually some policy to "consider multiple licensing"? The flickr uploader has uploaded these 5-10 years old images with a CC BY 2.0 license which is permitted. Also has mention some text like "non commercial" which seems to be annoying and kind of a confusing thing. Talking about the flickr uploader, Frederick Noronha is actually not some naive person neither he is some 10 year old uploading stuff on flickr. He is actually this guy right here Fredericknoronha who appears to have contributed alot here on commons. Again I'm asking the community to see if these precious images can be saved, because I'm not a person who promotes copyrighted material here, rather the opposite. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 17:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that on his user page, Fredericknoronha (talk · contribs) explicitly asks users to get in touch, should there be any issues with the licensing of his images.
So maybe you could do that, and if he clarifies the situation on the flickr page there is no barrier to undeleting. Felix QW (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Felix QW Only if he were a little considerate about his work but it's not the case. I tried contacting him personally through the number provided, he seems to have ignored or possibly doesn't care about it, like the recent deletion discussions that can be seen on his talk page. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 21:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I think this would be an excellent approach to take. Whether it's a blanket permission (would that need to be through VRTS?) or for specific images, it would be great to see some of those images used on Wikipedia. I would be cautious on some however, as there were cases where it appeared to be photos taken of another photo, not a truly original picture. The specific one that Rejoy2003 is complaining about here appears to be such a case. Some additional review may be needed in some cases where Fredericknoronha may not hold the copyright of what's depicted. Ravensfire (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I think our approach to conflicting licenses is always about intent. For example, if an image is made available by the copyright holder in multiple places (e.g. Facebook and their own website), then we can take the more permissive license if they differ, since dual-licensing is permitted. And if an image is individually captioned "CC-BY 4.0" but the bottom of the page says "All Rights Reserved", we can assume that the latter statement is just a general boilerplate message for the website and it's perfectly normal for individual portions of the website to have a more permissive license. However, here the Flickr image itself is captioned with statement about only allowing non-commercial uses, suggesting that the user never intended to select a commercial CC license, and we don't want to take advantage of users' mistakes. The images may be restored if Fredericknoronha replies here to confirm that the are available under a commercial CC license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with King of Hearts, whatever they've put together pretty much makes sense. But to be honest these images licenses aren't actually "conflicting licenses", rather my gut feeling is they are rather tagged as multiple licensing which is allowed like you said on commons. Now was it a mistake? I think not. Speaking hypothetically, me being someone contributing to open source platforms like flickr and commons etc, with vast knowledge of licensing, why will I make a mistake of uploading my images on CC BY 2.0 license and write down "non commercial" in the description? It's actually quite transparent what the flickr uploader wants to convey. I simply believe these images should branded as multiple licensing images since there's no absolute reply from the flickr uploader yet. (Note that Fredericknoronha has hundreds of images which can be valuable to both wiki and commons). ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 08:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This seems very straightforward to me. Contrary to Rejoy2003's repeated comments, there is no "multiple licensing here". Not only is that obvious from the fact that it makes absolutely no sense to apply both a free and an NC license to the same image, but also, the creator says explicitly, "Photo copyleft Frederick FN Noronha. Creative Commons 3.0 attribution, non-commercial. May be copied for non-commercial purposes. For other purposes, contact fn at goa-india dot org." I don't see how that can be read as anything but an NC license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Then explain to me why did the uploader uploaded the files on a free licence when he could easily do the same with a NA licensing? By your statement he looks nothing but a troll. I mean if you're asking people to contact you over the file but then you don't reply, lmfao? ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact)
Feel free to use the files. This deletionism can be rather stressful and taxing. That, plus the fact that Flickr has become rather commercial-minded, makes it tough to work on that space. If needed, I could change the wordings on the captions to reflect the license chosen. But that would waste a lot of time which could have been used to click photos. Also, I have about 70+K (70,000+) photographs on Flickr waiting to be donated to the Wikimedia Commons, but attempts to get support to get those uploaded have not fructified. I can't manually sit and upload each, and batch uploading is prone to errors and inaccuracies! Fredericknoronha (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@Fredericknoronha: So just to confirm: You agree that for all uploads from your Flickr account https://www.flickr.com/photos/fn-goa, the selected license overrides any restrictions that may be present in the caption? Replying here with a blanket statement is sufficient since we know you are the same person; no need to update each individual image on Flickr. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this. In all uploads from my Flickr account https://www.flickr.com/photos/fn-goa the selected license overrides any restrictions in the caption. I'm fine by it. Fredericknoronha (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done per confirmation from the author that the selected Flickr license overrides any restrictions that may be present in the caption. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:DNF Dawid Nowak.jpg

Hello,

I dont understand why was the file deleted?

I have declared that I own the rights to the photo. I am 100% authorized to use this file as I am the General Manager of the artist DNF, I represent him and I own the rights to the image I uploaded.

Please restore it.

If there are any doubts, please check on the official website of the artist who represents him (https://dnfmusic.com/).

The manager's details will be there: Tomasz Tkacz [private information removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomasz77 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 8 December 2022‎ (UTC)

If it has been previously published on the net, we may often assume it was copied here illegally, since this happens many times every day, and we delete many such uploads quickly. Rights can often be with the photographer unless the contract specified a copyright transfer. More than that though, accounts here are basically anonymous, so for previously-published works (even if legitimately uploaded) we don't assume the given license is OK, but instead require that the copyright owner confirm the license using the process set out at Commons:VRT, which involves private emails. Once that process is done, the file will be undeleted. The other option would be to note the free license (CC-BY-SA or whatever) on the source website. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose It is difficult to believe what you say because when you uploaded the image you claimed that you were the actual photographer, but the image is clearly marked "Photo by Markowski.Art.Foto". Beyond that simple fact, as Carl says, we don't know who User:Toomasz77 actually is. Since we get many imposters here, policy requires that in cases like this that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. In this case, that must include a copy of the written document from Markowski.Art.Foto authorizing the VRT sender to freely license the image. Note by the way that almost all contracts between professional photographers and recording artists allow the artist to freely use the image for publicity purposes but do not allow the artist to freely license the image as we require here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - The file's EXIF clearly credit the author and copyright holder to be Adam Markowski (Adam Markowski ≠ Tomasz Tkacz). If the copyright has been transferred to Tkacz, evidence of the same will need to be provided. Эlcobbola talk 16:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission now OK. --Yann (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Skeeter_Reece_carrying_Albert_Alter_juggling_while_on_unicycle.jpg and File:Skeeter_Reece_on_Unicycle.jpg

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2022120610000906). Permission for both images granted by the photographer.

Is this the right place to request undeletion after VRT permission has been received? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Anachronist: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


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

61f2551c2d9d6.png

This is a city's official logo so don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinum&BlackBird (talk • contribs) 08:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

There is no file by that name, and all your uploads are obvious copyright violations. Yann (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no file by that name, and all your uploads are obvious copyright violations. --Yann (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Vancouver School Board 2022 Logo.svg

"Fair use material is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons." The file should not have been classified as fair use in the first place.

The file adheres to the PD-textlogo template usage and should be re-uploaded with the proper license.

--Drdrewnatic (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: This logo consists only of text and Canada's TOO is apparently close to the US's. --rimshottalk 12:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Files found with Mohammad Agah (Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Mohammad Agah)

This deletion request was decided upon without taking note of the specific details. Photos from Tasnim News, Mehr News Agency and other official state news agencies in Iran are publishing their material under a CC-BY-license, as can be seen at the footer of Tasnim and Mehr ("All Content by Tasnim News Agency [resp. Mehr News Agency] is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License"). Please undelete all files, so the proposal for deletion can be made for a few specific photos, and not for all photos by Agah indiscriminately. Vysotsky (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: The only opposition is 4nn1l2, and there is a reasonable argument that we can host these files. --Yann (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:CMTSJ - D.C. Douglas cropped.png Undelete request

This picture was taken by my mother with my camera and is solely my work. Misterdc (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Misterdc Copyright is owned by the photographer, not the camera owner. Brianjd (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
No, but it may be reasonable to assume a son is an "authorized agent" of the copyright owner (or actual owner, if the copyright has been inherited). However, the image was deleted for lack of permission -- in other words, a free copyright license was not specified. There needs to be a license chosen; see Commons:Licensing. If it's just a crop of File:CMTSJ - D.C. Douglas.jpg, then it would have the same license as that file. Seems like a mistake was just made when uploading the crop, so that can be done again. (You can use the {{ExtractedFrom}} template to indicate the source to make it more obvious, but without a license it will be automatically flagged, and sometimes deleted without noticing, but at least there would be a chance).  Support if it is a crop of that other, presumably valid image. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose It's a little more complicated than that. First, we have the fact that the uploader claimed on the upload that he was the actual photographer. Now he claims that the photographer was his mother. The image was made in 1978 when the subject, D. C. Douglas, was 12 years old. I think we should probably get a free license from the mother, or, if she has died, then from D.C. Douglas as her heir, using VRT in either case. That should apply to both versions of the file, although I also think that we can delete the first version has not useful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
It was pretty obviously taken by a parent. If it had not been previously published on the net, we COM:Assume good faith. It's only when anybody has access to the photo that it becomes impossible to tell. We don't require VRT for heirs photos, generally. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl L. I changed the license to {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. --Yann (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Bigbang.png

Deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bigbang.png

This file was subject to the DR linked above, but deleted via the mass DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects. There may be other problems with that mass DR, but I nominate only this file for undeletion, as it is a clear case. It is clearly in scope, as explained at the individual DR (in particular, it was added to oc:Big Bang by Nicolas Eynaud, an ocwiki admin and significant contributor to other projects) and no copyright issues have been raised. Brianjd (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

If it was in use, it's in scope. If it's "inaccurate", that can be explained in the image description -- that is not always a reason to delete. Even if something simply illustrates a once-popular but no longer "good" theory, there can be in-scope reasons to illustrate that. The mass DR says some were retouched non-free photos; I can't see if that is an issue here but that would be a real issue if that is the case. Outside of that though, seems like a clear undelete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Noelia_Arbol_02.jpg

I request in the most attentive way possible that this photograph be restored to Noelia's profile, the photograph was taken by her husband Jorge Reynoso and edited by me for use on social networks, it cannot be found in any image bank or news portal or shows, we would like to use this photo as soon as possible since the article for Noelia in the English version does not have any photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zett Drakan (talk • contribs) 17:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - You acknowledge here that your previous purport of being the author was untrue ("the photograph was taken by her husband Jorge Reynoso") and, as was noted in the rationale, a more complete version of the image was here prior to upload. COM:VRT evidence of permission from Jorge Reynoso is required. Эlcobbola talk 18:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Btr-80 Caribe.jpg

Try to provide visual documentation on a type of BTR developed by Colombia and a Russian company, the image was removed under the pretext that it is believed to have copyright, when I make sure that this was not the case, request a re-evaluation and undo the deletion, and as a recommendation, do not be so strict with the editions that are made on some pages, sometimes it is usually even suffocating and it is impossible to update entries that are a bit old or do not have current information — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReleseShadow (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 December 2022‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. In the note above you suggest, but do not admit, that someone else was the photographer. If that is correct, then note that making such claims is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being banned.
The image appears at https://desarrolloydefensa.blogspot.com/2008/01/btr-80-caribe-colombia.html without a free license at exactly the same size as your upload. If you are the actual photographer the easiest way to prove that is to upload the image at full camera resolution.
As for your comment, "do not be so strict with the editions that are made on some pages, sometimes it is usually even suffocating", please understand that people depend on us to provide images that can be freely used without fear of copyright infringement. The penalties for misusing an image can run to thousands of dollars. Therefore we will do our best to eliminate copyright violations such as this appears to be. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola and Jim. --Yann (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Road Trip Map.jpg

This image of a map was marked for deletion because the drawing of a motorcycle in the lower right corner did not supposedly fall below the threshold of originality.

However, when examined closely, the detail of the motorcycle is so low that it falls under the "abstract" category and thus resembles more of a simple clipart image rather a work of art under copyright.

(Footballer99 (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC))

  •  Oppose This is a recent map, so it certainly has a copyright, independently of the motorcycle logo. Not knowning the author doesn't unvalidated its copyright. Yann (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Not done, per discussion. Thuresson (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Scottish Young Greens Logo 2021.png

This is the correct version of the Scottish Young Greens logo as of 2021, and uses colours which can be seen against a white background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeeSophie (talk • contribs) 15:49, 9 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but it is not a reason to restore the image. The source page is marked "All content is © 2021 Scottish Young Greens" and there is no evidence of a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Sugihara visa - image taken by me from my own private WW2 collection of documents.jpg

The deletion log reads:

  • Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted.
You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience:
  • 16:56, 27 November 2022 Krd (IA/B/A/CU) talk contribs deleted page File:Sugihara visa - image taken by me from my own private WW2 collection of documents.jpg (per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sugihara visa - image taken by me from my own private WW2 collection of documents.jpg) (thank) (global usage; delinker log)
  • 09:19, 16 October 2021 Ankry (A) talk contribs undeleted page File:Sugihara visa - image taken by me from my own private WW2 collection of documents.jpg (3 revisions and 1 file) ({{PD-Japan}} / {{PD-Russia}}) (thank) (global usage; delinker log)
  • 11:14, 15 February 2015 Ellin Beltz (B/A) talk contribs deleted page File:Sugihara visa - image taken by me from my own private WW2 collection of documents.jpg (Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sugihara visa - image taken by me from my own private WW2 collection of documents.jpg) (thank) (global usage; delinker log).

With the referenced deletion request being "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sugihara visa - image taken by me from my own private WW2 collection of documents.jpg", but this file was undeleted after the deletion request was closed, as far as I can tell it's in the public domain both in Russia and Japan, the most recent deletion rationale points to the earlier request but no new notes were made, user "Yann" undeleted it a year before it was deleted again, so what happened that was different?

Why was it deleted again? — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  •  Support I nominated this file for deletion as the license, author, source, and date were wrong. These were later fixed, so there is no reason for deleting this now. Yann (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:DBP 1974 822 Max Beckmann, Großes Stilleben mit Fernrohr.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:German stamps review delete

A comment in the DR says of this file "some of the stamps can be restored in not so far future, such as: File:DBP 1974 822 Max Beckmann, Großes Stilleben mit Fernrohr.jpg in 2021" Beckmann died in 1950 which is my guess as to the undeletion date mentioned. The stamp was issued in 1974 so I'd like for this to be reviewed to see if it's just a DW of a 1927 painting (which would have to wait until New Years probably) and thus can be restored soon. Abzeronow (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Will be undeleted in 2023. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Balthasar-Vladimir-medaile SM.jpg

--Iva Drbalová (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

u tohoto obrázku byl změněný autor podle upozornění Commons, proto prosím o obnovení

u tohoto obrázku byl změněný autor podle upozornění Commons, proto prosím o obnovení

u tohoto obrázku byl změněný autor podle upozornění Commons, proto prosím o obnovení — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iva Drbalová (talk • contribs) 11:10, 10 December 2022‎ (UTC)

Google translate: "for this image, the author was changed according to the Commons notice, so please restore". Thuresson (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Alexander Vika. Thuresson (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson -- clear copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

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

02 Ed Mundell.jpg

Please undelete the photo of Ed Mundell. I certify that am the photographer and Ed Mundell has full use of this photograph. I give full use to wikipedia commons. --Kmvfx (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Karen Murphy- Mundell www.Rockframe.com 310-927-5435

Please see Commons:But it's my own work!, and follow the procedures at COM:VRT (which involve private emails) to get it undeleted. We unfortunately get many internet images uploaded here every day, most of which get deleted, and accounts are anonymous so we need additional verification for previously-published photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. The correct file name appears to be File:Ed Mundell2022.jpg . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Carl. --Yann (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Balthasar-Vladimir-14leopold.jpg

--Iva Drbalová (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose No reason for restoration is given. The file was deleted because, as noted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Marcel Rau, it is a derivative work of a copyrighted medal designed by Marcel Rau who died in 1966. It cannot be restored here without a free license from Rau's heir. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Hram Ofort Deminskiy.jpg

Данное произведение искусства находится в моей коллекции, фотография сделана мной лично. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorofei81 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Owning a work of art does not give you the right to freely license it. That right remains with the artist and their heirs. S.G. Deminsky died in 2004, so this will be under copyright until 1/1/2075. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Outdoors1.jpg

this was the deleted page - [[7]]

i am creating a wikipedia page for a movie. this movie does not yet have a wikipedia article. i found this image on this website https://www.seret.co.il/images/movies/Outdoors/Outdoors1.jpg.

can i please upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfr7rsbn5ks (talk • contribs) 00:26, 11 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose I do not see any free license on the source page. The poster cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from an authorized official of the movie company, usually the Producer..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Bulgarian Reserve Officers Union Logo.png

This union logo consists of text, simple vector graphics, a small badge reminiscent of clipart, and a low-detail map of the world.

Requesting administrator review in order to keep the image on Commons due to its originality being below the threshold.

Footballer99 (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The badge is certainly well above the ToO in the USA. We have no specific guidance on the ToO in Bulgaria, but it is almost certainly above the ToO everywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Political Poster with a Kuker.jpg

What I find annoying from a procedural point of view : I did not get any answer on my question to the person that requested to delete it. But what is more important : 1) I do own all the rights to the poster depicted. I was part of a campaign in the real of an organization calld GomS (Gesellschaft offene & moderne Schweiz). When I uploaded the picture stating that It was my creative work I did not mean only the picture of the poster hanging in the street but the poster per se. And if I grant wikimedida the permission to use a poster I made for an organization i preside, I do not see, with what justification it is deleted. 2) In Switzerland photo agencies do sell the pictures they made of political posters. Political posters - in contrast to ads - are seen as part of public discourse, so you do not need copyright. (This is only a general remark, as I do own the rights to the Kuker poster.) yoursHaemmerli (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Political Poster with a Kuker.jpg.

First, your assertion that somehow political posters are free of copyright restrictions is plain silly. Organizations may well ignore copyright and the copyright holders may actually be OK with that as it increases the circulation of their works, but using that here is absolutely and explicitly prohibited by Commons Precautionary Principle.

Second, we do not know who User:Haemmerli actually is. Imposters and people who falsely claim that they are creators are frequent on Commons so policy requires that the actual copyright holder of the poster must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Fist, you have no clue how this is handled in Switzerland. I do know this, because I was in leading positions in journalism for many years. Secondly, you find me on the German Wikipedia not only as [contributor] but as well as an [and documentary filmmaker]. This poster and my role in the campaign was in my movie "I am gentrification. Confessions of a Scoundrel", which you can find on IMDB and the [wikipedia] . So don't call me an imposter! And explain, if you are really an admin, how to proceed, to show, that I do have the copyright of this poster!Haemmerli (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Description says "Poster by Mexican artist Ana Roldán." So Ana Roldán must give the permission, not you. Yann (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
We did it together. And as she sits here in the same room as I do, in what form would you like to get her approval?Haemmerli (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@Haemmerli: Usually these permissions (for a free license) are done by the creator / rights holder sending an e-mail to the Commons Volunteer Response Team. See Commons:Volunteer Response Team (Jim already linked it in his reply) for details, or Commons:Volunteer Response Team/de in German. If the permission is accepted, the file can be restored. --Rosenzweig τ 14:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosenzweig. Perhaps he will read your instructions -- he did not read mine above, "policy requires that the actual copyright holder of the poster must send a free license using VRT" .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: policy requires that the actual copyright holder of the poster must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Flag_of_The-Republic-of-Cheetos.png

Hello. I am Ruslan Fink's Friend. I created this fanmade flag. And i know it's a joke, though i wanna see it again. It has been a long time since Ruslan's files were deleted. My wish is to see the file in Wikimedia Commons. Please, Wikimedia Commons. We beg you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teratinga (talk • contribs) 13:14, 11 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ruslan Fink. What you want and what Commons policy allows are two different things. I see no reason to restore this unused fantasy flag. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Touhidul Islam Touhid.jpg

He is journalist and for making his wikipedia page please dont delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touhid99 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Why are you talking about you at the 3rd person?
 Oppose Anyway, Touhidul Islam is not notable, so we don't host his picture here. We only host images of notable people, and of active contributors. This is neither the case. Yann (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Also note that "for making his wikipedia page" is not a sufficient license. Images here and on WP must be free for any use by anybody anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:EXPO2010 logo.svg

This logo doesn't have any creativity because it consists of "2010"and "世". So I guess this logo is not copyrighted. Thank Ramsal18 (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not just "世" glyph from a standard font. Ankry (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion -- the logo is not just a standard character. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Club Social y Deportivo Argentinos del Sud from Mar del Plata.svg

I write this on behalf of Club Social y Deportivo Argentinos del Sud from Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina to request the undeletion of the file File:Club Social y Deportivo Argentinos del Sud from Mar del Plata.svg as it is the official logo of the Football Club mentioned before, and I am the author of it. The use of this logo can be seen on our social media (https://instagram.com/argentinosdelsud) or on our own website (https://argentinosdelsud.com.ar).

--Fagal01 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fagal01: A legal representative from the club should send a permission for a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Towhidul Islam 21

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am unclear with the reason for deleting these files. Towhidul captured these photos with his device. So, he is the copyright holder of these files. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wasiul Bahar: The photos are not original versions from a camera; they have non-standard pixel size and they lack metadata info in EXIF. This is considered a reasonable doubt about authorship and a reason to request a written free license permission via email. Ankry (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ankry From whom the permission is needed? @Towhidul is the rightful owner and he is the person who will give the permission. What if he somehow lost the metadata of these files? Wasiul Bahar (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
So from him. He cannot remain anonymous for VRT team (and so, for the Foundation) in such case. Lack of metadata may be not a problem, if the photographer identity is verified. Ankry (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ankry Actually @Towhidul Islam is a new contributor in commons and he is not feeling comfortable in this situation and that's why I am working as a middleman here. I think before adding deletion template, the user should be notified about that thing in a friendly way. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
UDR is not the right place to discuss about Commons scripts and policies. Please, focus on the request. Generally, the on-wiki license granting is an exception that can be applied if there is no doubt. But anybody can request an evidence of authorship/licensing if he or she thinks that there are reasonable doubts about authorship or copyright. Lack of EXIF is en example when the doubts can be raised. The template added to the image contained info what the uploader is expected to do. And he had a week to follow the instructions. The image still can be undeleted, if he follows the instructions at COM:VRT (after the permission send there is verified by a VRT volunteer). If he do not want to send a permission via email nor upload the original images with complete camera settings info in EXIF, the images cannot be undeleted, I am afraid. Maybe, he can prove his authorship in another way, but I have no idea how. Ankry (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: VRTS Permissions received and VRT verification is under process. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:9 Lahofer winery - chybik kristof photo by laurian ghinitoiu.jpg

Dear wiki admins, I would like to ask for Undeletion of the photograph of Lahofer Winery. I just resent an email request to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as well. In the email is attached the invoice from the professional photographer, by which we became the copyright holder.

Thank you. Stepanka Bucharova CHYBIK + KRISTOF

--Mvojte (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The image will be restored without further action by you when and if the license is received, reviewed, and approved. Please note that commissioning a photograph does not in fact give you any rights to the copyright. That must be given in a written agreement. It is rare for professional photographer to give the right to freely license images.

I also note that in the upload you claimed to be the actual photographer, using {{Own}}. It is a serious violation of Commons rules to make claims that are not correct. If you do it again, you may be banned. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - As is clearly indicated at the top of the page, "If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed." (underline added) Further, merely paying for (commissioning) a work does not in and of itself transfer copyright. Эlcobbola talk 15:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:林文平1201.jpg

此圖片為本人授權使用，委託編輯維基百科 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welbe0202 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 12 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Several problems here. In the upload, you used {{Own}} which says that you were the actual photographer. Your message above suggests strongly that you were not the actual photographer. Second, permission for use in Wikipedia is not enough. Commons and Wp both require that images be free for any use anywhere by anybody. Third, there is a poster beside the person that is a major part of the image. Unless you crop the photo, we must have a free license for both the whole image and for the poster. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Subhash Nayakrout 2022.png

This is my Original Work, Please don't delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambikapati23 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 12 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Google has no hits at all for the subject, Subhash Nayakrout. That confirms that the deletion reason -- that the image is out of scope is correct. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Subhash Nayakrout 2021.jpg

Respected Sir, Kidly Restore my file. This was my Work and I own the Copyright. Please don't delete it like this. I have uploaded 3times with 3 different photos and you are doing the same.

Please Restore it.

Thanking You --Ambikapati23 (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Andrew Dasburg - Tulips (14995226059).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings of flowers

If it matches the painting at LACMA, https://collections.lacma.org/node/228445 this was first exhibited in the winter of 1925/1926 in the United States and would therefore be public domain in the US where he painted this in either 1923 or 1924. Abzeronow (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support The cited web site shows the same work with the note "France, circa 1923-1924" which suggests it was painted in France. However, there is nothing at Andrew Dasburg that makes any mention at all of his returning to France after he left in 1911. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - A public display does not constitute publication. Per the Copyright Office, for example, "performances and displays that do not in themselves constitute publication include the following: [...] displaying a painting in a museum, a gallery, or the lobby of a building (regardless of whether the copyright owner prohibited others from taking photographs or other reproductions of that work)". Эlcobbola talk 16:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: That is the current situation (I think). Before 1978, the situation was apparently different, see Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US#Before 1978: “[...] exhibiting, displaying, or releasing the work in a public place where anyone can make unrestricted copies of the work could publish the work” - so no publication if the display was in a controlled environment where people could not make copies. This painting, accd. to LACMA, was shown in the First Pan-American Exhibition of Oil Paintings in the winter of 1925-26. Were people allowed to make copies (like: take photographs) there? --Rosenzweig τ 11:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The exhibition catalog is at archive.org. I don't see a copyright notice in it. The Tulips painting is just listed, not shown in the catalog. It's just a clue, but them not putting a copyright notice in the catalog makes it probably less likely that they had measures in place to prevent copying of the paintings in the actual exhibition. --Rosenzweig τ 12:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe that conclusion follows at all. If anything, omission of this painting from that catalog (I don't see that it appears within), but not others, seems better evidence of prevention of copying. Currently we have on offer only a source identifying the origin country as France and a reference to mere display in a gallery. We have no evidence of a lack of measures to make copies, which we must. Idle speculation is unhelpful. Эlcobbola talk 14:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The artist was born in France, that's probably why France is mentioned in the page. But he was an American artist by the 1920s and according to this https://collections.lacma.org/node/166734 "From 1920 until the early 1930s, when he moved permanently to the Southwest, Dasburg spent every winter in New Mexico and the remainder of the year in Woodstock or New York City." The supporting evidence seems to support that this was painted in the United States. Dasburg's Wikipedia page also notes that the painting won second prize at that exhibition and the link cited for that https://arquivo.pt/wayback/20091013191906/http:/collectionsonline.lacma.org/mweb/about/american_history.asp says "Harrison eagerly followed the planning and construction of the new wing, which began in 1919, and to celebrate its completion, he helped organize the First Pan-American Exhibition of Oil Paintings, which ran from November 27, 1925, to February 28, 1926. It turned out to be an important event for the art world of Los Angeles and also for the museum’s collection, to which were added not only the purchase prize paintings-William Wendt’s Where Nature’s God Hath Wrought, John Carroll’s Parthenope, Andrew Dasburg’s Tulips, Guy Pène du Bois’s Shops, and Diego Rivera’s Flower Day --but also Bernard Karfiol’s Seated Figure and Eugene Savage’s Recessional." Abzeronow (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
This is non-responsive to the issue of publication. If there is no evidence of an offer for sale, or of attempts to preclude copying, there is no evidence of publication related to this exhibit. Эlcobbola talk 17:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. There is no real reason to believe that the exhibition mentioned above doesn't count as publication. This is well beyond significant doubt. --Yann (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Lev Pustyl'nikov.png

Hello! This image was deleted some years ago. I would like to request undeletion. The person on the picture is my father and he gave me the complete right to use this image. Now he is dead. I also use his image on his personal homepage, see the link: http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/opustylnikov/lpustylnikov.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opustylnikov (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi,
don't you really have a better photography of your father?
If you want this image undeleted, you need to confirm 1) that the photography was created by your father (if that is true), 2) that you are his only heir (or the other heirs agree), and 3) under which free license (see COM:L) you want to release the image, from your official email-address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This looks like a formal studio portrait. If that is true, the license must come from the actual photographer. Also, please note that as a general rule, unless the will specifically provides otherwise, each of the heirs holds an undivided interest in the copyright and, therefore, any one of them may grant the required free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject (your father). Accordingly, that your father "gave [you] the complete right to use this image" is meaningless (and one notes "right to use" is not "the copyright" or "right to license"). Evidence from the photographer, or of a written transfer from the photographer, is needed. Эlcobbola talk 15:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:FLO photo 2022.jpg

I didn't understand the reason for the exclusion. the image is public. the photographer authorized anyone to use his image.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graphdz (talk • contribs) 14:09, 13 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola, image from Instagram. No evidence of a free license. --Ellywa (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Joji 2020 (cropped).jpg

I didn't understand the reason for the exclusion. it's literally a screenshot of the video, just look... this is not prohibited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graphdz (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola and Jim. --Yann (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:LolaKirke.png

This picture was provided by the person in the image herself and she asked to upload the picture to her page. Gvvibez (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:collageleskovac.jpg

The file deleted is my own work therefore I have rights to publish it, please bring it back. Thanks, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almarqmod (talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Info Probably about File:Leskovac Collage.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
@Almarqmod: There are 6 photos in the collage. Are you the photographer of all 6 photos? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Willow poster.jpg, and others

This movie poster was correctly deleted from Commons because Commons does not accept fair use. However, I request a temporary undelete so I can move it to Wikipedia, to illustrate the w:Willow (2019 film) page under fair use.

Now that I think about it, I request the same for File:Still from Willow.jpg, File:Still from Willow the Movie.jpg, and File:Still from Willow - Movie.jpg, to illustrate the movie's cinematography, characters, etc.

Thanks. Dingolover6969 (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


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

荒らし行為の御詫び

パソコン操作が未熟のため、結果的に荒らし行為をしてしまいました。 深くお詫びして削除取り消しを御願い申し上げます。 御免なさい。— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanagimusi (talk • contribs) 11:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:MGR Chennai Central Mysuru Jn Vande Bharat Express.jpg

Also:

Reason: I have personally asked the owner who captured this picture to use it in Wikipedia Sanjeev4125 (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the images, you claimed that you were the photographer. Now you say something different. Please understand that making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.

Also be aware that "to use it in Wikipedia" is insufficient. As explained at Licensing, images here must be free for any use anywhere by anybody.

In order for these to be restored, the actual photographer(s) must send free license(s) using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward sir,
I apologise for giving the wrong input that I was the photographer. I have contacted the owner of this image since he's my close friend and he replied to the VRT officials. Kindly request you to undelete this image and add it back to the wiki page. Hoping to get your response sir. Sanjeev4125 (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The images will be restored routinely without further action on your part when and if a free license from the actual photographer is received, reviewed, and approved at VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Anatomy of male perineum.jpg

No indication of child pornography. Useful image to illustrate male perineum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.246.198 (talk • contribs) 25 November 2022, 07:58 (UTC)

 Not done: No discussion for two weeks. Given the uncertainty here and the fact that we have similar images, I think PCP applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views04.jpg

This file was deleted by Rosenzweig per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:GSW-Building despite missing consensus for deletion. The photo was taken from "Berlin Hi-Flyer" which is a tethered gas balloon, therefore photos made from it legally are aerial photos just like drone shots etc. and originally aerial views were considered as excluded from the German FoP exemption for unfree buildings. However:

That all said, I hereby request its undeletion. Regards --A.Savin 14:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This boils down to two arguments: a) de minimis (or unwesentliches Beiwerk as it is called in German) and b) freedom of panorama.
As for de minimis: There was a 2014 decision by Germany's highest court, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH for short), outlining when something is unwesentliches Beiwerk in copyright (§ 57 of the German copyright law) and when not.
COM:DM Germany gives an overview: “To qualify under § 57, the work must not only "fade into the background" or be of "subordinate significance" relative to the primary subject matter; rather, it must not even attain marginal or minor significance. According to the Federal Court of Justice, this is the case 1.) if it could be omitted or replaced and the average observer would not notice it (or, in the alternative, the overall impression of the primary subject matter would not be at all affected); or 2.) if, in light of the circumstances of the case, it bears not even the slightest contextual relationship (inhaltliche Beziehung) to the primary subject matter, but rather is without any significance to it whatsoever due to its randomness and arbitrariness.”
Given that the building is rather prominently placed in the image, I don't see it "not even attain[ing] marginal or minor significance" as required by this BGH decision.
As for freedom of panorama: per COM:FOP Germany, German law says that it is permitted "to reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public, by means of painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography, works located permanently in public streets, ways, or public open spaces." But "only the view from the public place is privileged: If, for instance, a statue is located next to a public street, photographs of the statue taken from that street enjoy freedom of panorama, but photographs of the very same statue taken from a non-public spot do not. Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice held that a picture of a building taken from the balcony of a privately owned flat across the street did not comply with the requirements of § 59(1) because the balcony is not a public place." The image in question we're talking about here was taken from another high building in the vicinity a balloon (de:HiFlyer) and therefore not from a public place, and because of that, freedom of panorama is not applicable accd. to Germany's highest court (BGH) in its 2003 Hundertwasser-Haus decision. Legal commentary literature agrees, see the footnotes at COM:FOP Germany.
The court decision mentioned by A.Savin is a 2020 decision by the Landgericht Frankfurt (regional court of Frankfurt). A Landgericht (LG) in Germany is two rungs down the legal ladder from the Federal Court of Justice, there are 115 such Landgericht courts in Germany. Now this LG disagrees with the Federal Court of Justice and has ruled that it is allowed to photograph copyrighted works even from the airspace and to use the resulting images for commercial purposes, provided that the works are in public spaces. If we apply that decision to the file in question, it would indeed fall under freedom of panorama.
But should we apply that single decision by a court two steps down from the BGH which directly contradicted the BGH? A single decision from one such court out of 115 of its kind in Germany? For me, the case is clear: We have a decision by the highest court, and we should stick to that even if the LG decision is from 2020 and the BGH decision is from 2003. We already did rely on a German Landgericht decision once in the past, namely that of the Landgericht München from 1987 which declared German stamps to be official works in the public domain. We had the license tags and everything, thousands of image files showing German stamps were uploaded under the claim that they were official works. Until the heirs of one artist, Loriot, disagreed, sued the WMF at another of Germany's regional courts (the Landgericht Berlin) and won, leading to long debates here and at Wikipedia. In the end, all the specific tags for German stamps were scrapped, and we're still not done sorting out which stamp images should be deleted and which can stay.
So to sum it up: I think neither de minimis nor freedom of panorama, both as defined by Germany's highest court, can apply here, and I've therefore decided to delete this file (plus another one) per the precautionary principle. --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Did you actually read what I wrote and why I think that both is not the case? Because from your terse comment not replying to a single one of my arguments, I get the impression that you have not done so. --Rosenzweig τ 22:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
There is no law in Germany that would make any lower court decision differing from an earlier Supreme Court decision "null and void" by default. The judges of Landgericht Frankfurt are most likely not stupid and know well what they're doing. And that's surely also the reason why this caselaw is mentioned on COM:FOP Germany at all. Otherwise we would not need this to be mentioned. Regards --A.Savin 02:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: Simply I don't agree with your interpretation of the law. A.Savin's and Carl Lindberg's arguments are much more reasonable. Yann (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I can't see the photo, but I have a hard time thinking a photo of a cityscape is a derivative work of every building in it. Do we have *any* examples of something like that being ruled derivative? If it's fairly prominent and centered, then maybe. The 2014 court case on de minimis was about photographs which were very much under control of the photographer, where they could control what was in the photo or not. Something like a cityscape would be rather different, in that the photographer really can't control what buildings exist or not, and for a photo of a wider subject, everything else should be incidental. If the photo is trading on the building though, it could be different. I can't see this photo though, so can't really say one way or another.
    • Secondly, there was another recent decision by the BGH which said that artwork on ships qualified for freedom of panorama, even though they were not permanently situated in one place.[8] While that seemed to be primarily about the permanence of the subject, that also seems to say that photographing from open waters counts as a place freely accessible to the public, since anyone could use a boat to go there. I may be misreading it, as I can't read the original German and that link may only be a summary, not the actual text, which I think is here. But if a boat on open waters is OK, why then would a balloon not be freely accessible to the public, if anyone can pay to ride it? Are you not allowed to take photos from airplanes landing at airports? What makes riding in a boat different than riding in a balloon or plane? Are satellite photos OK? Does Google Maps need a license from every building architect contained in the aerial photos they use over the entire terrain? With the advent of drones, which I think in limited ways are legal in Germany at least up to 100m, that might change the scope of what might be considered "freely accessible". That decision does mention that using an aid such as a ladder to gain a different perspective is still problematic, so that might well cover drones too given that humans can't ride on those and thus can't normally see the work from that perspective, but given the more recent lower ruling one wonders if that is changing. The Hundertwasser-Haus decision involved a photo from a definitely private place, not something more nebulous like airspace. The more recent rulings do seem to be taking a more liberal approach to some of these questions, which are not always easy to be sure. Photos being ruled derivative works of buildings are few and far between -- in fact the Hundertwasser-Haus decision may be the only direct example -- so photos which differ in significant ways, not sure we should be deleting them. I do tend to agree that the higher-level decisions should have much more weight than lower courts, but the further a situation gets from the actual precedent, I'm less sure. The 2017 court ruling did seem to say it was irrelevant that a photo was actually taken from a public or private place, just that the perspective was available from some places that are public. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Clindberg: See file there: voy:ru:Файл:Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views04.jpg. --A.Savin 02:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Hm. I'd be borderline on the de minimis (or really, "incidental") aspect. It does seem to be focusing on the building in particular, and not sure there is a wider subject, other than the photo is also of the scenery in the distance. Given the definition in the German law above, I'd be hesitant on that aspect. But, that is likely where freedom of panorama would need to come into play. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Quote from the 2017 BGH AIDA decision

Durch § 59 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG sind nur Aufnahmen und Darstellungen eines geschützten Werkes privilegiert, die von öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen aus gemacht worden sind, an denen sich das fragliche Werk befindet, und die den Blick von dem öffentlichen Ort aus wiedergeben, wie er sich dem allgemeinen Publikum bietet. Die Schrankenbestimmung soll es dem Publikum ermöglichen, das, was es von der Straße aus mit eigenen Augen sehen kann, als Gemälde, Zeichnung, Fotografie oder im Film zu betrachten. Von diesem Zweck der gesetzlichen Regelung ist es nicht mehr gedeckt, wenn - etwa mit dem Mittel der Fotografie - der Blick von einem für das allgemeine Publikum unzugänglichen Ort aus fixiert werden soll. Ist beispielsweise ein Bauwerk für die Allgemeinheit lediglich aus einer bestimmten Perspektive zu sehen, besteht nach dem Sinn der gesetzlichen Regelung keine Notwendigkeit, eine Darstellung oder Aufnahme vom urheberrechtlichen Ausschließlichkeitsrecht auszunehmen, die eine ganz andere Perspektive wählt (BGH, GRUR 2003, 1035, 1037 - Hundertwasser-Haus, mwN). Desgleichen sind vom Zweck der Regelung keine Aufnahmen des Werkes umfasst, die unter Verwendung besonderer Hilfsmittel (wie einer Leiter) oder nach Beseitigung blickschützender Vorrichtungen (wie einer Hecke) angefertigt worden sind. Solche Ansichten des Werkes sind nicht Teil des von der Allgemeinheit wahrnehmbaren Straßenbildes (vgl. Dreier in Dreier/Schulze aaO § 59 Rn. 4; Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim aaO § 59 UrhG Rn. 17; Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel aaO § 59 UrhG Rn. 5; Czychowski in Fromm/Nordemann aaO § 59 UrhG Rn. 7).

–– From BGH's 2017 AIDA decision

Section 59 (1) sentence 1 UrhG only privileges recordings and representations of a protected work which have been made from public ways, streets or places where the work in question is located and which reproduce the view from the public place as it presents itself to the general public. The purpose of the barrier provision is to allow the public to view what they can see with their own eyes from the street as a painting, drawing, photograph, or on film. It is no longer covered by this purpose of the statutory provision if - for example by means of photography - the view is to be fixed from a place inaccessible to the general public. If, for example, a building can be seen by the general public only from a certain perspective, there is no need, according to the purpose of the statutory provision, to exclude from the exclusive copyright right a representation or photograph which chooses a completely different perspective (BGH, GRUR 2003, 1035, 1037 - Hundertwasser-Haus, mwN). Similarly, the purpose of the provision does not include photographs of the work which have been made using special aids (such as a ladder) or after the removal of view-protecting devices (such as a hedge). Such views of the work are not part of the street scene perceivable by the general public (cf. Dreer in Dreier/Schulze loc.cit. § 59 marginal no. 4; Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim loc.cit. § 59 UrhG marginal no. 17; Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel aaO § 59 UrhG marginal no. 5; Czychowski in Fromm/Nordemann loc.cit. § 59 UrhG marginal no. 7).

–– From BGH's 2017 AIDA decision (machine translation into English)
@Clindberg: The BGH's 2017 AIDA decision actually confirms its 2003 Hundertwasser-Haus decision. They did rule that the images of the ship with the AIDA symbol were covered by freedom of panorama because they could have been taken from the shore or from a water vehicle on public waterways. But they confirm that views of a work as seen from non-public places are not covered by freedom of panorama. And if you look at the definition of public places (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Public), you will see that “Private property that cannot be freely accessed, for instance because there is some type of access control in place (or even an entrance fee is charged), does not fall under § 59(1).” So that balloon (with both access control and a fee to ride on it) is not a public place, and photographs taken from there are not covered by German freedom of panorama. --Rosenzweig τ 11:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

So to sum up the discussion as I see it, I still hold that per the decisions of Germany's highest court (BGH), the building cannot be unwesentliches Beiwerk (roughly: de minimis) in the photo (per the very restrictive set of requirements formulated in its 2014 decision) and that the photo is not covered by freedom of panorama because it was taken from a non-public place, showing a perspective that is not available from a public place. A statement about being in disagreement with “your interpretation of the law” (it's not mine, it's that of the court) is not an argument, as are statements that “[t]here is no law in Germany that would make any lower court decision differing from an earlier Supreme Court decision "null and void" by default” and that “[t]he judges of Landgericht Frankfurt are most likely not stupid and know well what they're doing”. Both don't address at all why we should prefer this lower-court decision over that of the highest court. Carl Lindberg's questions are mostly answered by the fact that the BGH in the very same 2017 AIDA decision confirms that views of a work as seen from non-public places are not covered by freedom of panorama.

This means that there is very significant doubt about the freedom of this particular file, and per the precautionary principle, it should not be restored. Everything else would be blatantly disregarding the precautionary principle along with our obligations to re-users. --Rosenzweig τ 11:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why we should prefer this lower-court decision over that of the highest court... Let me guess... Perhaps because the LGF decision is later than the BGH decision, and the (case)law is steadily developing? --A.Savin 12:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
So you're saying that we should prefer the 2020 LG Frankfurt decision because it is newer (by three years, because the BGH confirmed its position in the 2017 AIDA decision) and because “the (case)law is steadily developing”, so presumably you want to say that the BGH will come to adopt that position as well. The trouble is: So far, it has not, and we cannot just decree that it will. Because perhaps it will not. I still say we should not base our actions on a decision by one lower court (out of 115 of its kind), directly contradicting a decision by the highest court in the land issued just three years before. Anything else would not be in line with the precautionary principle. --Rosenzweig τ 13:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Well now, why then did the Frankfurt judges release the 2020 decision? On purpose to mislead re-users? I don't believe they were not aware of BGH cases. And why is LG Frankfurt mentioned in the FoP guidelines on Commons? --A.Savin 18:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Are you familiar at all with the concept of legal precedents? (de.wp: de:Präzedenzfall and de:Grundsatzentscheidung.) In Common law countries (like the US) those are very important. In Germany, less so, no court is really obligated to respect and follow decisions by another court. With some exceptions though: decisions by the constitutional court can be binding. And decisions by the highest courts (like the Bundesgerichtshof, and others in their special niche of law, like Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Bundesfinanzhof, Bundesarbeitsgericht) usually are respected by the lower courts to maintain legal certainty / stability. That's why a decision by one of those highest courts does have some importance, because you can expect most other courts to respect and follow them. Not in every case, see the LG Frankfurt decision where they decided the other way. Apparently that decision was not appealed, or else we might already know the BGH's reaction by now. A decision by a single Landgericht on the other hand is not worth that much beyond the actual case that was decided. The LG Frankfurt 2020 decision is probably the only current decision contradicting the BGH (in that aspect) and mentioned at COM:FOP Germany (which is quite comprehensive) for the sake of completeness. I think User:Pajz wrote most or all of that text, maybe he can tell us why he added it. --Rosenzweig τ 18:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No discussion for two weeks. As a USA person I may be more inclined to respect the high court than is appropriate, but it seems to me that there is a distinct difference between taking a photo of a ship which can be done from a public place and taking an aerial photo which must be done from a place that is not free of charge. Since there is clear uncertainty here, I think we need to apply PCP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Excavator de transee NX 7 B3.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Both published on the official website of the Romanian Land Forces (https://forter.ro/), see https://www.forter.ro/content/tehevac-mli-84 and https://forter.ro/content/excavator-de-transee-nx-7-b3. According to the Romanian Ministry of Defense site (https://english.mapn.ro/) "The materials published on the MoND official websites can be used (by mentioning the source) in accordance with the legislation on the copyright and its neighbouring rights." therefore, the photos can be used if the source is mentioned.

Many other official photos from the Romanian MoND websites are also published on commons with the CC BY-SA 3.0 license (see examples https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Batalionul_22_vm_046.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Batalionul_265_politie_militara_10.jpg or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Defilarea_autostatiilor_radio_Harris.jpg) Alin2808 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose "The materials published on the MoND official websites can be used (by mentioning the source) in accordance with the legislation on the copyright and its neighbouring rights", is not a license of any sort. It is merely a statement of simple copyright law which says nothing about the status of the images on the MOND site. It says, in effect, that you can make any use of the images that Romanian law allows. In fact, Romanian government images are not generally free, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_R#Romania.

Also note that the two images you cite above each have special permissions received through VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If you were to check other official images of the Romanian MoND on commons, all are verified by VRT, because guess what as said the images can be used as long as the source is mentioned. I have also contacted them about the copyright status of the images posted on the https://armed.mapn.ro/ site (which also has that same exact notice) and I've received the same reply, images can be used as long as the source is mentioned. Alin2808 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion -- needs permission via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Julio Gonzalez Raised Left Hand.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julio Gonzalez Raised Left Hand.jpg

The sculptor died on March 27, 1942 and Spain is exactly 80 years PMA so it is public domain in Spain now. Abzeronow (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we should be a bit patient, the image is listed on Category:Undelete in 2023, so will be undeleted beginning next year. Ellywa (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose It will be PD in Spain on 1/1/2023, but not in the US until 95 years after its creation in 1942, that is 1/1/2038. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Not done, per above. Thuresson (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:DrZahra Sheikhi.jpg

This image belongs to the owner of the page related to the MP, Dr. Zahra Sheikhi, please restore it and do not delete it and activate the lock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scelite (talk • contribs) 11:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://fa.nody.ir/%d8%b9%da%a9%d8%b3-%d8%b2%d9%87%d8%b1%d9%87-%d8%b4%db%8c%d8%ae%db%8c/ with "Nodi Photography © 2022. Copyright reserved." It cannot be restored to Commons without evidence of a free license from Nodi Photography via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

чому видали фото? Прошу відновити її в статті про Парк на Браїлках. Я є автором фото — Preceding unsigned comment added by Вадим Ямщиков (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 December 2022‎ (UTC)

Procedural close. File is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Logo BioUnB 2.png

Dear all, the logo is from a project and was made by me. To avoid copyright problems, we first published our logo on our website (it is in Portuguese) www.biounb.unb.br (note the creative commons mark at the bottom of the webpage). We are a site group that produces content for scientific communication. Our work is free and for all the Brazilian people. Also, you can find our logo in all our social media: Instagram; Twitter; Facebook Jtgoulart (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:MojahedEnglish-No4.pdf

This file is taken from an Iranian periodical published on 9 April 1980 (more than 30 years ago) which was deleted because "the content is mainly text. Per COM:IRAN texts are protected for 50 years pma. The author is not mentioned on the file page, so it is unknown if they still live, or when they died." The text is an unsigned w:editorial of Mojahed newspaper, the official organ of an organization (a 'legal person') and according to article 16 of Iran's copyright law, any work that belongs to a legal person will be in public domain +30 years after publication (Template:PD-Iran). I also checked a few numbers of this publication, and it seems that almost all content is presented in one collective voice, which is Mojahed newspaper (articles are written anonymously). Moreover, I even doubt that such text can be protected by Iranian law at all because there was a discussion determining only certain writings are considered copyrightable. [9] HeminKurdistan (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I call your attention to my research note at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Iran/en. The 2008 amendment to the 1970 law has not been properly reflected in our article and template on the law. The 2008 makes it clear that "Written works of all types" are eligible for copyright and that the copyright period for both anonymous works and works owned by a legal entity is now 50 years. Thus both objections raised above are not valid. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Was an amendment in 2008? I know there was an amendment in 2010 and only article 12 was changed. Would you please explain that? HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
My error, sorry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
No problem. Mistakes happen. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support Per comments above. While it is clear that once had a copyright -- the discussion cited is not relevant here -- it is clear that the copyright expired in 2010 and URAA does not apply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Navares98

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi, i am the owner of this photos, im Iñigo Navares, and you can see my wikipedia webpage, i only want put a photo in the page. thank you so much. Navares98 (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, only the copyright holder can release these photos under a free license. Usually, this would be the photographer, unless there's a contract stating otherwise. For a video screenshot, the situation is even more complicated. The easiest solution for you would be to shoot an actual selfie, because you would be the sole copyright holder. Otherwise you would need to have the copyright holder give the photos a free license (or give you the copyright) and send evidence to COM:VRT. --rimshottalk 07:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose On all of these uploads, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. It was pretty easy to see that that was not true and you admit it above. Making false claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. It also makes it hard to anything you say here.

As Rimshot says, we need to see a free license. The actual photographer must send that using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Hibatullah Akhundzada.png

Je ne comprends pas pourquoi cette image a été supprimée, on peut voir qu'elle est différente de l'image utilisée par la presse afghane. Elle ne viole donc pas les droits d'auteur comme c'est évoqué dans l'ex-suppression d'une image, qui elle en revanche ne respectait pas les droits d'auteur.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogotus (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The file has been reviewed four times under two different file names. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mawlawi Hibatullah Akhundzada.jpg. Two different editors have claimed to be the author although it apparently was found on the Voice of America site, but not created by VOA. With no knowledge of its actual history, there is no possibility of restoring it here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per Jameslwoodward. DMacks (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

اعتقد ان تم حذف الصورة الخاصة بي عن طريق الخطأ وهذا الشيء يحدث كثيرا ااني ارسل لكم هذا الطلب لارجاع الصورة الخاصة بي بسبب تم حذفها بدون سبب مع تحياتي لكم جميعا. --Abdullah Adil Salman (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose "File:Example.jpg" is, of course, a mistake. You have uploaded four images. Three have been deleted because they are copyright violations and the fourth, File:Abdullah Adil Salman.jpg, was deleted twice because we do not keep personal images of non-contributors. If you upload it a third time, you will probably be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by CerroFerro

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CerroFerro

w:The Salvation Hunters was a 1925 American film and the associated publicity photos would have entered the U.S. public domain in 2021 if they hadn't already. Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim, except one, which is a duplicate. @Abzeronow: Please add more categories. --Yann (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Reya Sunshine.jpg

== [[File:Reya Sunshine.jpg|thumb|Reya Sunshine at Exxxotica DC, December 2021]] ==

I am requesting undeletion of this photo, since I took it myself in a public place, with the subject's permission - Exxxotica DC in December, 2021. From my reading of the criteria for uploading photos, this should suffice - did I misunderstand something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajax0714 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 December 2022‎ (UTC)

@Ajax0714: This was published on subject's Instagram page on December 8, 2021, more than one year before your upload? Thuresson (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Smile, Darn Ya, Smile 190611 LTGC.webm

According to Copyright renewal records from 1958-1960, neither Lady, Play Your Mandolin, nor Smile, Darn Ya, Smile ever had their copyright renewed. Since this means that both the short film and the character of Foxy (as Lady, Play Your Mandolin was his first appearance) are in the public domain, this file should be undeleted. The other files in Commons:Deletion requests/PD-not renewed Warner Bros. cartoons containing characters under copyright protection should remain deleted until their characters enter the public domain though. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi (Oinkers42), just for information, how can one find such evidence? Being from the Netherlands I am not aware of this aspect of US copyright law, but I think I should be. Ellywa (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Sure, sorry about not mentioning this earlier. You can find the copyright record books (containing the renewals) on the Internet Archive. Here is one from 1960: [10]. I also checked 1958 and 1959. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
My link to check everything is [11] (search for text contents, not metadata). Other helpful links are [12], [13], [14]. --Rosenzweig τ 18:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support I checked the 1958 and 1959 renewals and found nothing for Smile, Darn Ya, Smile. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

With the help of the links above, I did find Smile, Darn Ya, Smile in the first registration: Smile, darn ya, smile ; lyric by Charles O'Flvnn and Jack Meskill, music by Max Rich. © Jan. 5, 1931 ; 2 c. Jan. 6 ; E pub. 20574 ; De Sylva, Brown & Henderson, inc., New York. 2197 and later for 1958 in this pdf file. The text reads SMILE, DARN YA, SMILE; w Charles O'Flynn & Jack Meskill, m Max Rich. © 5Jan31; EP20574. Charles O'Flynn (A); 21May58; R214856. Would this mean the file is still copyrighted? (For 95 years after first publication per Commons:Hirtle chart. Ellywa (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I found three renewals here (Catalog of Copyright Entries 1958 Music Jan-June 3D Ser Vol 12 Pt 5), all referring to the 1931 registration EP 20574: R 206334, R 206379, R 214856. While the original registration is by De Sylva, Brown & Henderson, inc., New York, the renewals are by 1) Jack Meskill (A), Charles O'Flynn (A) & Max Rich (A), 2) Max Rich (A) and 3) Charles O'Flynn (A). So apparently by the composer and the lyricists. --Rosenzweig τ 19:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Though I realize now these are renewals for the song of that name, while the undeletion request is actually about the Warner Bros. cartoon en:Smile, Darn Ya, Smile! Is the registered and renewed song the song we hear in the cartoon, or is it something else sharing the title? Both this song and the cartoon are from 1931. --Rosenzweig τ 19:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Merrie Melodies were originally based off of pre-existing songs, so it is the song heard in the cartoon short. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, [15] confirms it is this song. And the song appears to be still copyrighted until the end of 2026. --Rosenzweig τ 19:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
We may also have to mute File:Lady, Play Your Mandolin 1931 Hugh Harman, Rudolf Ising.ogv until 2026 as well, as the renewal for the song is on page 696. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we can restore this if someone is willing to promptly mute it after restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. Editing request sent to COM:GL/VS. --Yann (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Richard-Morton-headshot.jpg

The author of the photo Neil Mason [Neil Mason <neilbmason@btinternet.com>] has given permission in the Commons and emailed confirmation of that on 3rd November 2022 with the following text:

I hereby affirm that I, Neil Mason the creator of the exclusive copyright of the media work as shown here: File:Richard-Morton-headshot.jpg and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Neil Mason, Copyright Holder

1st November 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsContent (talk • contribs) 12:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

There is no file by the name File:Richard-Morton-headshot.jpg. Anyway, files will be undeleted if and when the permission is validated by a volunteer from VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The file File:Richard Morton headshot.jpg has not been deleted and has the VRT permission. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


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

file:Hram_Ofort_Deminskiy.jpeg

Прошу отменить удаление! Фотография офорта из моей личной коллекции сделанного личной мной. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorofei81 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Repeat of request made December 10. As noted there, Owning a work of art does not give you the right to freely license it. That right remains with the artist and their heirs. S.G. Deminsky died in 2004, so this will be under copyright until 1/1/2075. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:16, 18 December 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:SHopkins1 and User:Fnorman-london

I would like to request undeletion of all files uploaded by User:SHopkins1 and User:Fnorman-london, except for File:Mary Lobban.tif per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mary Lobban.tif. Please ensure that all derivative works are also undeleted, especially the retouches by User:Adam Cuerden. User:SHopkins1 and User:Fnorman-london were NIMR employees who uploaded files from the institute's archives just before it shut down. Later, when the institute no longer existed, their uploads were tagged with Template:No permission since, resulting in their deletion. However, User:Richard Nevell (WMUK) corroborated the fact that User:SHopkins1 and User:Fnorman-london were indeed NIMR employees. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#MRC_National_Institute_for_Medical_Research_photos. Furthermore, User:Fnorman-london gave a permission document to the VTRS team. See File:Martin Rivers Pollock.jpg. FunnyMath (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I see a number of problems here.

  1. You say, "User:Richard Nevell (WMUK) corroborated the fact that User:SHopkins1 and User:Fnorman-london were indeed NIMR employees." We don't know who User:Richard Nevell (WMUK) actually is -- that's why we have VRT for such things.
  2. Although the two may have been employees, we don't know that they had the authority to freely license the images.
  3. We don't know that the NIMR actually owned the copyrights. They would belong to the actual creators of the images unless work for hire agreements were in place.
  4. Finally, we don't go searching for images based on a vague description -- either give us a list here or point us to a single list somewhere on Commons.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

For #1, #2 and #3, @Richard Nevell (WMUK): can give you more information on that. It's difficult to find more information on this as the NIMR shut down in 2015, and a lot of the deletions happened after the institute dissolved.
To answer #4, you can just look at all the red links on User:SHopkins1's and User:Fnorman-london's talk page. If you want a complete list, here it is:
User:SHopkins1
  1. File:R.G. Edwards.jpg
  2. File:John Cornforth.tif
  3. File:James Lovelock (1919-) 02.jpg
  4. File:James Lovelock (1919-) 03.jpg
  5. File:James Lovelock (1919-) 01.jpg
  6. File:Alick Issacs (1921-1967).tif
  7. File:Dr Brigitte Alice Askonas (1923-2013).jpg
  8. File:Dr Audrey Smith.jpg
  9. File:Rosa Beddington (1956-2001).tif
  10. File:Brigid M. Balfour (1914-1994).tif
  11. File:Rosalind Venetia Pitt-Rivers (1907-1990).tif
  12. File:Janet Simpson Ferguson Niven (1902-1974).jpg
  13. File:Brigitte Alice Askonas (1923-2013).tif
  14. File:Bridget Ogilvie (1938-).tif
  15. File:Philip D'Arcy Hart (1900-2006).jpg
  16. File:Philip D'Arcy Hart (1900-2006).tif
  17. File:Jo Colston (1948-2003).jpg
  18. File:Philip D'Arcy Hart (1900-2006) (3).jpg
  19. File:Philip D'Arcy Hart (1900-2006) (2).jpg
  20. File:Hilda Bruce (1903-1974).JPG
  21. File:Richard John William “Dick” Rees (1917-1998).jpg
  22. File:John Pearson.jpg
  23. File:Michael Waters.jpg
  24. File:James Lovelock (1919-) 04.tif
  25. File:Robert Kenneth Callow (1901-1983).JPG
  26. File:Roy Gigg.tif
  27. File:Jill Gigg in the laboratory.tif
  28. File:Jill Gigg drawing up diagrams.tif
  29. File:Roy Gigg's laboratory at NIMR.tif
  30. File:Archer John Porter Martin (1910-2002).tif
  31. File:Frank Hawking (1905-1986).jpg
  32. File:Dick Rees and D'Arcy Harts' Laboratory.jpg
  33. File:James McFadzean.jpg
  34. File:Carolyn Brown.jpg
  35. File:Philip Draper.jpg
  36. File:Alan Parkes FRS (1900-1990).tif
  37. File:Robin Holliday (1932-).tif
  38. File:John Gaddum (1900-1965).tif
  39. File:Arnold Burgen FRS (1922-).tif
  40. File:Jean Lindenmann (1924-).tif
  41. File:Craig Witherington.tif
  42. File:Sigmund Otto Rosenheim (1871-1955).tif
  43. File:Geoffrey Raisman (1939-).tif
  44. File:Brigid M. Balfour (1914-1994).tif
User:Fnorman-london
  1. File:Kathy Niakan, close-up.JPG
  2. File:John Cornforth.jpg
  3. File:Kathy Niakan.JPG
  4. File:HUVEC-T.gondii-Type-1-infected5000X0026-4.tiff
  5. File:Tomas Lindahl.jpeg
  6. File:Roy Gigg.jpg
  7. File:George Popjak.jpg
  8. File:Rita Cornforth.jpg
  9. File:Harold Dudley.jpg
  10. File:Joseph Edwin Barnard.jpg
  11. File:Christopher Howard Andrewes.jpg
FunnyMath (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 Support We basically deleted an institutional uploads of an institute shutting down by waiting multiple years after it shut down to insist on additional documentation. This is absolutely shameless behaviour on Commons part, and insisting that Wikimedia UK, who arranged the institutional collaboration isn't good enough of a source is spitting in the face of all collaborations. The institution doesn't exist anymore, that's why it was trying to work with us to preserve its legacy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"For #1, #2 and #3, @Richard Nevell (WMUK): can give you more information on that." No, he can't, because, as I said above, we don't know who he is. I agree that it is likely that he is fine upstanding Commons citizen who can be trusted, but "likely" does not get us "beyond a significant doubt"as required by COM:PRP. You both fail to understand that there are bad people out there who are very convincing and who try to get us to keep images for which there is no free license. That's why we have the VRT procedures in place -- to make a good attempt at sorting out the good guys from the bad. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Some notes and questions.
Thanks for the links, this might be helpfull. I looked into the ticket:2015072110009714, dating from July 2015. This is limited to these files, which still exist: File:James Walker (1903-93).jpg File:David Trentham.jpg File:Rosemary De Rossi.JPG File:Harold King (older).jpg File:John Herbert Humphrey.jpg File:World Influenza Centre, Mill Hill.jpg File:L Drewitt.JPG File:Anthony Trafford James.jpg File:Martin Rivers Pollock.jpg File:Brown, Feldberg and colleagues in F4.JPG File:NIMR Lab Technicians in Brown and White Coats.jpg File:James Cuthbert (Jim) Smith.jpg File:Rodney Robert Porter.jpg
The VRT agent asked to explicitely give permission for future uploads, but there has been no answer, at least not combined in that ticket. In addition, in the ticket it was stated that the person writing was of Representative of MRC National Institute for Medical Research and that the listed photos were taken by photographers emplyed by the Institute. The files of the UDR are older as far as I can see. In 2013 the VRT system (OTRS) was functioning and the procedure well known imho. Ellywa (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
This is a bit existential, but I can send an email to VRT from the address listed on my staff Wikimedia UK page if it helps. I appreciate that is one small part of the issue here! Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Richard Nevell (WMUK), What will be needed imho to undelete the photos is permission from the copyright holder(s) of these photo's. Perhaps you can get into touch if you have had contact in the past. They should write a mail with their permission to VRT per COM:VRT. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

Based on the above, this is the chronology of events:

My conclusion:

  •  Oppose undeletion, because:
  • Shopkins1 participated in a 2013 edit-a-thon about WikiProject Women's History. Their uploads started earlier and are not all related to this edit-a-thon (most are pictures of male scientists). He was an undergraduate student at the time and had no official role in giving permission for publication of these photo's. He did not write to VRT to give permission and did not react to remarks on their talk page. Imho deletion of their uploads was justified.
  • Fnorman-london participated in two edit-a-thons and organized one of them. He gave permission for a limited list of images, which are still available on Commons. For his other uploads, permission is missing, although he was notified on their talk page in 2016 and was still active on EN:WP in 2021. So imho it is justified uploads without permission were deleted. Ellywa (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you @Jameslwoodward and Ellywa: for your review and @Adam Cuerden and Richard Nevell (WMUK): for providing more information on this. I agree with Jameslwoodward's and Ellywa's opposition to this UDR. It's unfortunate that the photos were deleted. I know Adam Cuerden spent a lot of time retouching some of the uploads, so I empathize with his frustration. But if there's no VRT verification, then we have to delete them. FunnyMath (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I can email Fnorman-london to see if a new VRT email can be sent. Before I do so, Adam, but an chance do you have copies of the retouched images? If Adam doesn't have a copy would it be possible to retrieve them from the deleted file pages on Commons? It would be a nice gesture to offer these to supplement the images which may(?) now be in the Francis Crick Institute's collection. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I do not have ready access to them. There were three restored ones, as I recall Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I want to say the restored ones are File:Rosalind Venetia Pitt-Rivers (1907-1990) - Restoration.jpg/File:Rosalind Venetia Pitt-Rivers (1907-1990) - Restoration.png, File:Brigid_M._Balfour_(1914-1994)_-_Restoration.jpg/File:Brigid_M._Balfour_(1914-1994)_-_Restoration.png and File:Janet Simpson Ferguson Niven (1902-1974) - Restoration.jpg/File:Janet Simpson Ferguson Niven (1902-1974) - Restoration.png. If it'll help, I'll volunteer to do more if it'll sweeten the deal for the institute. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I {{Temporarily undeleted}} these. Hopefully everything will be in order after some time. Yann (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell (WMUK): Any updates? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: The person I was emailing who uploaded the photos has retired, but I'll try to contact the Francis Crick Institute to see if there's someone else who might be able to help. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell (WMUK): Any news? Yann (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
There's been no response I'm afraid. Sorry about this, I had been optimistic we'd be able to get the institution to confirm the images can be shared but I've found a dead end. I'll try to contact them again. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Three weeks and no progress. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:V. A. Sundaram around 1914.jpg

and File:V A Sundaram, late 1930s.jpg, File:Bhagat Singh 1922 prison photo.jpg

Hi, Pre-1942 pictures from India are all in the public domain from the date of creation, not publication. The first was in the public domain in India in 1914+50+1=1965, so much before the URAA date. The second was in the public at the latest 1939+50+1=1990. There are therefore also in public domain in USA. Yann (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

See

I deleted the first two of these images nine years ago on the grounds that there was no evidence that they had been published prior to upload to WP. The third image was deleted by Fastily on similar grounds.

Yann is correct that the 1914 Act called for 50 years from creation, while the 1957 Act calls for 60 years from first publication. All of these works therefore had copyrights under the 1914 Act at the time of enactment of the 1957 Act. The 1957 Act says:

79. Repeals, savings, and transitional provisions
[snip]
((5) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, where any person is entitled immediately before the commencement of this Act to copyright in any work or any right in such copyright or to an interest in any such right, he shall continue to be entitled to such right or interest for the period for which he would have been entitled thereto if this Act had not come into force.

So, Indian works prior to 1957 got the new rights specified in section 14, but not a new duration. Therefore the latest of these was out of copyright in India in the late 1980s. However, there is still the question of the USA copyright. US copyright runs from publication. Since there is no evidence that any of them was published until recently, it looks as if they are still under copyright in the USA. That will expire 120 years after creation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

OK for the first two, but the third one (which date is probably wrong) was published in 1929 [17] (from this website [18]). Yann (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Good catch. I  Support restoration of the third one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: One undeleted, as per Jim. Also renamed to File:Bhagat Singh prison photo.jpg. --Yann (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:DPAG 2008 Raffaello, Anbetung der Könige.jpg

This stamp is maily constisting of a painting by Raphael who died in 1520. It should be undeleted because there are no license issues (PD-old). Thank you, --Mateus2019 (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support I am inclined to agree that except for the PD painting, there is nothing on the stamp that has copyright protection. See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Copyright_of_Images_in_German_Postage_Stamps for more discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

If we're undeleting that stamp, we might consider undeleting File:DPAG 2008 Albrecht Dürer, Geburt Christi.jpg as well. Different painting, but same case IMO, same deletion request. --Rosenzweig τ 10:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim and Rosenzweig. --Yann (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Senator Tom Barrett.jpg

This photo was uploaded by his official state senate office for use on wikipedia. Along with contact to his office, his website states, "Photos on the Senate PhotoWire are intended for media and public use and may be freely reproduced." https://www.senatortombarrett.com/photos/

With that, I request the photo be available for his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel1908 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose per https://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/michigan/ Also that statement is insufficient for Commons in which commercial use must be allowed. Tom Barrett's office should contact COM:VRT about the photo and state that they wish to license it under an appropriate license. Abzeronow (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:The Eminence in Shadow from manga.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Я сам лично делал фото по купленной книге и она может совпадать с похожими картинками на это фото нет и не может быть лицензионных прав, прошу восстановить фото и вновь вернуть на страницу по поводу загрузок моих фото можно написать также мне на почту - (Redacted)

I personally took a photo of the book I bought and it may coincide with similar pictures in this photo there are no license rights, I ask you to restore the photo and return it to the page again about uploading my photos, you can also write to me by email - (Redacted) Konosina333 (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Phony license. Fair use from en:File:The Eminence in Shadow light novel volume 1 cover.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:I'm in Love with the Villainess light novel volume 1 cover.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Я считаю что причина удаление объекта является не верным этот объект взят со сайта wikipedia EN (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/I%27m_in_Love_with_the_Villainess_light_novel_volume_1_cover.jpg) использование Вики не запрещает использовать файлы из другой вики библиотеки Сообщить мне можно на почту результат (Redacted) I believe that the reason for deleting the object is incorrect this object is taken from the wikipedia EN site (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/I%27m_in_Love_with_the_Villainess_light_novel_volume_1_cover.jpg ) using a wiki does not prohibit using files from another wiki library Konosina333 (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Phony license. Fair use from en:File:I'm in Love with the Villainess light novel volume 1 cover.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Antoni Cañete Martos.jpg

Se ha eliminado esta imagen por una presunta violación de Copyright, pero los derechos los tenemos nosotros porque fuimos quienes tomamos la imagen. --Palula13 (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This file was previously uploaded as File:Antoni Cañete, president de PIMEC.jpg by User:NuriaHF and deleted because it appears at https://www.pimec.org/sites/default/files/memoria_2020_baixa_29-4-2021.pdf without a free license. Note that User:Palula13 is a single purpose sockpuppet of User:NuriaHF. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Rich Waltz.jpg

I am request the undeletion of the photo labeled File:Rich Waltz.jpg. Was waiting on the appropriate permissions that I now have, and will be sending the template email confirming ownership of the photo.

Cgold1996 (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://www.paramountpressexpress.com/cbs-sports/shows/college-basketball/talent/?view=rich-waltz with an explicit copyright notice. In order for it to be restored, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. VRT does not generally accept license forwarded to them by the uploader -- they have seen too many forgeries. If and when such a license is received, reviewed, and approved by VRT, the image will be restored without further action on your part. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission now OK. --Yann (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:DSC 31811(1).jpg

I am the copyright holder. This is a valid submission with no copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist submissions (talk • contribs) 19:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

@Activist submissions: Why such a small size and no EXIF data? If you are the photographer, please upload the original image with full EXIF data, and a better name. Yann (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Note that the images appears at https://www.amazon.in/Peter-Young/e/B083GHSDLX%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share without a free license. Yann's suggestion is certainly the easiest way to prove that you are the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The Amazon version is slightly smaller than Commons version, so it could be copied from here. Yann (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:José Eduardo Evangelista Franco Cheis.jpg

Hi,

I have submited the image File:José Eduardo Evangelista Franco Cheis.jpg wich is a photo I own. I probably incorrectly filled the info on the form for the photo. I ask that the file to be undeleted or, if not possible, to explain me what I have got wrong so that I can upload the photo again and correct the mistake.

Sincerely, Eduardo Cheis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardo.cheis (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you say "which is a photo I own." which suggests that were not the actual photographer. The image looks like a professional portrait. You should be aware that owning a paper or digital copy of an image does not give you the right to freely license it -- that right almost always belongs to the actual photographer. In order for this to be restored either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b) you must send a free license together with a written license from the actual photographer which gices you the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Rep. Lucy Torres-Gomez (18th Congress).jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shipping address (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Obviously not own work, no evidence of a free license. Source is "© HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES". Yann (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. This is one of a large number of images uploaded by Shipping address without any evidence that they are PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Footer_Signature.png

this is just a footer for our email signature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olanzky13 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:BroekToe productiehuis logo.png

See logo
This is a logo from a former company in Belgium. I checked before uploading and there was no opposition there: WP Media copyright question: "A company logo: simple design rule?"
YAOUMFA (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Complex logo, a permission for a free license from the copyright holder is needed. Yann (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose That may be, but you have two editors at the DR and two here who think it is above the ToO. Three of us are Admins with over a million total actions here. Your informant at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions has fewer than a thousand actions on Commons.
The fact that it is "a former company" may make it an orphan copyright but does not change its copyright status. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Wappen der Familie Brossok Wiederherstellung, Coat of arms of the Brossok family Restoration

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des Bildes des Wappens der Familie Brossok. Das Wappen das hier gelöscht wurde ist definitief das Wappen der Familie Brossok. Ich besitze auch alle Rechte daran als Familienmitglied. https://www.brossokfamilie.de/en/wappen --Kakabelle (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I request the restoration of the image of the Brossok family coat of arms. I also own all rights to it as a family member--Kakabelle (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC) https://www.brossokfamilie.de/en/wappen

 Oppose There is no deleted file by that name or anything close. In addition, the site cited above has an explicit copyright notice. In order for the image to be restored, it must be properly identified and a free license must be sent to VRT by the actual copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment This is about File:Wappen-600-dpi ohne Name.jpg, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen-600-dpi ohne Name.jpg, but recently deleted by Krd as "No ticket permission since 19 November 2022". (File:Wappen-300-dpi.jpg, uploaded today, is basically the same image, only smaller.) The user wrote in the DR that he had this drawn (for his family) by a professional coa artist and acquired the rights to the drawing, so I suggested he send a VRT permission. Which he apparently did, but I guess something went wrong. --Rosenzweig τ 18:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I just checked whether we (the support team) received an email with "brossok" in the subject line, but there isn't any. Mussklprozz (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@Mussklprozz: The DR mentions Ticket:2022111810009682. --Rosenzweig τ 08:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Rosenzweig. I checked the ticked and found that the client's last message had not been answered due to heavy workload of the team in combination with illness and holidays. On behalf of the team, I apologize. There remains, however, an open issue about the copyright which is not completely clarified. I now wrote back to the client. Cheers, --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This will be restored without further action by the uploader when the VRT issue is resolved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Mangoño 2 (Salto, Oza-Cesuras).jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022120210004633. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: as requested. --Rosenzweig τ 18:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Peirao de Rinlo, Ribadeo.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2022120610001343. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: as requested. --Rosenzweig τ 18:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Robin L'Houmeau, autoportrait.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022120710013856. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: as requested. --Rosenzweig τ 18:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


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

Photos by Patricia Varela Fernández

Please undelete

We have permission per Ticket:2022120210004759. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: as requested. --Rosenzweig τ 18:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Tejasswi-Prakash-2 (cropped).jpg

I can't comprehend why this image was deleted by Yann (talk · contribs), neither it's original work (well this being a cropped version). I wanted to ask if anyone could temporarily undelete this file so that I can see if there are any ways to save it. If not, delete is what it is. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 09:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It is said to be extracted from File:Tejasswi-Prakash-2.jpg, but this file doesn't exist. Bollywood Hungama images may be under a free license, but a source is needed. There is none here. Yann (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Actually the source was deleted. It comes from [19]. Yann (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
So  Oppose. Only images "of a Bollywood set, party, or event in India" are allowed. Yann (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:49, 23 December 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:LRFHEC

@LRFHEC:

These were deleted seemingly as being unlicensed, However, I see NO welcome message on the User's talk page, or an attempt to resolve the issue of what appears to be legitimate bulk uploads by a potential GLAM partner, before a bot slammed a load of warning messages, to them


Undeletion ( unless these are duplicated) is requested to allow the uploader to update the licensing accordingly or submit relevant VRT tickets, It would also be appreciated if the admins, could also provide advice to the uploader, on how to do a successful bulk upload.

List of deleted files

File:LR-FAF-SA6-0009.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0010.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0011.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0012.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0014.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0015.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0016.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0017.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0018.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0019.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0021.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0022.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0023.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0024.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0025.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0026.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0027.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0028.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0029.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0030.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0031.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0032.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0033.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0034.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0035.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0036.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0037.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0038.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0039.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0040.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0041.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0042.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0043.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0044.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0045.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0046.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0047.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0049.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0050.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0051.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0052.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0053.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0054.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0055.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0057.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0058.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0059.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0060.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0061.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0063.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0064.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0065.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0066.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0067.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0068.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0069.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0070.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0071.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0072.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6-0073.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0001.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0002.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0003.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0004.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0005.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0006a.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0006b.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0007.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0008.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0009.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0010.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0012.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0013.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0014.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0015.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0016.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0017.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0018.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0019.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0020.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0021.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0022.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0023.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0024.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0028.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0029.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0030.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0031.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0032.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0033.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0034.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0035.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0036.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0037.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0039.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0040.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0041.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0042.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0043.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-0044.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6a-P-0001.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-0001.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-0003.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-0004.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-0005.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-0006.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-0007.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-0008.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-0009.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-0010.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-0011.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-P-0001.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-P-0002.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-P-0003.pdf] File:LR-FAF-SA6b-P-0004.pdf File:LR-FAF-SA6b-P-0005.pdf

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't know what the overlap, if any, is between the files listed above and the 4,656 images in Category:Images from Lloyd’s Register Foundation, Heritage & Education Centre, but before we undelete these, I think we should insist that User:LRFHEC clean up the 4,656 existing images. I have examined a random sample of the 4,656.

I note first that they are all PDFs. We do not generally permit the use of PDF for single images -- only for multipage documents. Second, I note that all those I examined have a watermark claiming copyright, CC-BY-SA licenses, and a note demanding that they be attributed to LRHF. The bulk of them are from the 19th century and are certainly out of copyright. Some of the more recent ones -- surveys and anchor certificates -- were created by LLoyds Register employees so the copyrights probably belong to the Register, but others were created by ship owners and captains and the copyright never belonged to the Register.They do not have any categories except the one named above. The file descriptions are uninformative -- a typical one is:

"Anchor Certificate for Barclay, February 1863. Please be aware there may be material within the Collection that contains imagery or information that some may find upsetting. The documents were produced within the context of the time and do not reflect the views or opinions of Lloyd's Register or the Lloyd's Register Foundation today."

The referenced source site has more information on the ship Barclay -- why didn't we get it? Finally, many of them are probably out of scope. I see no reason to keep anchor certificates and other detailed information for Barclay and many other ships that are far from noteworthy.

The cleanup would include, for all the images:

  1. Uploading a new image without the watermark and marked CC-0 or PD-old unless it was a recent work by a Register employee.
  2. Adding at least one useful category
  3. Adding all of the information known to LRHF about each image as shown on its website.
  4. We can tolerate the PDFs, but substituting PNGs and deleting the PDFs would be good.

Without such a cleanup, I will probably initiate a DR for at least all of the images that are obviously out of copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  • IMO these may be in scope, but I agree with Jim that the files should be uploaded as JPEG or PNG, the description should contain more information, and also useful categories. There is also an issue with their size, e.g. the first 2 in the list above: File:LR-FAF-SA6-0009.pdf 2,526 × 1,731 (348,782,434 bytes) and File:LR-FAF-SA6-0010.pdf 1,731 × 2,526 (42,044,428 bytes). There is no reason why a 4.4 Mpixels file should be 42 MB, let alone 349 MB. For comparaison, File:Annual Surveys Report for Mermaid, 1866.pdf is 1,537 × 2,322 pixels, file size: 2.62 MB. Yann (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    Yann@ There are some actual Documents (such as actual "registers") that are multipage and in scope for Commons/(wikisource), and for which PDF is approrpriate though. I was considering suggesting a Wikiproject to get those in some form of Transcript form, although Wikidata mighty be a better projects for that data...
    ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Yann:
    I am wondering if some of these PDF's are essentially TIFF in PDF (at hi-res), and are thus any nominal pixel size dimensions are a little confused. If Commons supports TIFF, that should be used in preference for single page document original scans, as JPEG is lossy.
    DJVU might also be an alternative format for grouped scans.
    I am not disputing the points you raise about over-sized files for the data contained.
    ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • For the file format, it depends. For such scans of ordinary letters / documents, TIFF is uselessly oversized. It may be useful for documents with a lot of tiny details, i.e. paintings, although PNG is also not lossy, but of much smaller size. PDF is supposed to be a compressed file format, so TIFF in a PDF should be much smaller. Yann (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    Some of the uploads seem to be actual plans (Mid-ship sections). I'm wondering if they are PDF, because that's the format the archive had to hand, as opposed to the original scan formats. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
At the very least, I would strongly suggest someone with GLAM experiecne, attempts to advise the uploader on best practice. I get the sense of unfamiliarity with Wikimedia's ways of working (compared to Internet Archive or other sites). I have however found that a robust dialouge with the right people on Commons, can help resolve misunderstanding quickly. A 'slam' set of warnings is more likely to discourage a GLAM uploader, than some kind of reasoned attempt at resolving the issue. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the robust response. I had my concerns about the watermarks and unclear licensing situation as well.
Source (archive) attribution is not unexpected, if inconvenient. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The last version of the uploader's own site's Terms of Use, I could find has an NC clause -https://web.archive.org/web/20221009021411/https://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/get-involved/using-our-resources, The actual link on their Live website seems to be 404, so I am wondering if they are updating the licensing they are using.This seems to have been resolved.
The uploads at IA (https://archive.org/details/@lrfhec?tab=uploads&&and[]=year%3A%221912%22), are indicated as NC-ND.
(Aside: It seems a number of volumes of the actual shipping register are also listed without clear licensing at Internet Archive:-
https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Lloyd%27s+Register+Foundation%2C+Heritage+%26+Education+Centre%22
)
I'm assuming good faith on the part of the uploader, and that they changed the licensing they are using, however it would be nice to have a clear unambiguous confirmation of the change to the CC-BY-SA 4.0, at least in relation to material the Foundation is copyright successor to.
Does anyone here have the names of some UK based GLAM contacts they could give the uploader?
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above discussion. --Yann (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:LilEMzI.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this is not a selfie of my own, this is a photo of artist lilemzi that you can search it up in google, he is a officiall artist Alireza emzi (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alireza emzi: What does make you think that this artist is notable? Googling for "lilemzi" yields only 1,300 hits, so I have some doubt. Yann (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. I get the same result and as far as I can tell only one of the first page hits is this person. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Ashel Lokusooriya.jpg

Dear Wikipedia Team.

Please do not delete this my picture. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashel Live (talk • contribs) 11:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Valeria Blais.jpg

Unless I'm wrong, the file should be undeleted because the picture is taken from a genealogy website, namely https://gw.geneanet.org/mblais_w?iz=518&n=blais&oc=0&p=valeria Thank you --Ricercastorica (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose So what? This probably concerns File:BlaisValeria.jpg, which is a recent picture under a copyright. We need the formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer. Yann (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I am the photographer Ricercastorica (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ricercastorica: Then upload the original image with full EXIF data. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. I note that there is no image of the subject at the Web site you cite. A larger size would also be good -- 230x222 is almost useless. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Вручение медалей «Золотая Звезда» 8.12.2022 001.png

I ask to restore this files:

This files had a free (cc-by-4.0) license from it's source: web-site Kremlin.ru and it was indicated in the description. I'm didn't understand why they were deleted without any discussion. Kursant504 (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support I looked at only two of these, but they all appear to be from the same site. The template {{Kremlin.ru}} is on them, calling out a CC-BY 4.0 license which can be seen at https://kremlin-ru.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_sch=http .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. @Kursant504: Some of the files mentioned above do not exist. --Yann (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: 23-27 can be found here. Анастасия Львоваru/en 19:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Undeleted. Yann (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Alice Lolita Muth (1887-1952).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alice Lolita Muth (1887-1952).jpg

I would like for this to be temporarily undeleted so I can see if I can get more information on the painting. The uploader appears to be from this site: https://hawthornefineart.com/inventory/historic-women-artists and the artist was an American. Abzeronow (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

As you say, it is obviously not Own Work of the uploader, but there doesn't appear to be any notice, so it could be PD-No Notice if it can be shown that it was published before 1989. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  •  Keep By time the discussion is over, it will be 70+1 year after the death of the artist, whether the artwork was ever reproduced, or displayed or not. --RAN (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like the artist lived in Spain and France as well as the US. If this was first published in Spain, it would be 80pma. If first published in the US, then it would be based on publication date and not lifetime of the author. But, lack of notice would likely made it PD in the US if first published there. Not entirely sure we can see the entire painting, but seems likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment It's this painting. Unfortunately we're not even told when and where this was painted, let alone published or exhibited. --Rosenzweig τ 08:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Rather  Support. This description says she lived in USA, so we should use US law. Assuming this painting was published during her lifetime, it needs a copyright notice and a renewal to be still under a copyright. Very low probability. Yann (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Per the info sheet linked there, she lived in Spain and then France starting at some point in the 1920s until her death in 1952. Since she was born in 1887, that was probably half her artist life or more. --Rosenzweig τ 13:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
It says that she lived in Spain, but that her works were exhibited in Cincinnati and in New York City, and at one time, in Paris, France. Se we can discard Spain as the place of publication. Yann (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
There are some exhibitions mentioned in the text, but there is no list or similar of exhibitions, so I disagree. --Rosenzweig τ 13:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The January 17, 1923 issue of The Lantern (Ohio State University's newspaper) mentions Muth as a Spanish painter. https://osupublicationarchives.osu.edu/?a=d&d=LTN19230117-01.2.9&srpos=1&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-Alice+Muth------ I can definitely find things from later in the 1920s that has her in Paris. This does look like a European landscape. There is a mention in the January 20, 1925 New York Times of Muth and Pablo de Uranga having their paintings exhibited by Ignacio Zuloaga. I'll try to keep digging but I don't have the information yet on when and where this was painted. Abzeronow (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • When someone dies overseas, their copyrights are not subject to that country's laws. She was an American citizen, travelling with an American passport in 1946. See: File:Alice_Muth_(1887-1952)_arriving_in_Baltimore,_Maryland_in_1946.jpg where in 1946, she visits with her sister. A news article says she was visiting from Rades, Tunisia, North Africa. She died there according to her death certificate. The news article of her visiting her sister, says that she exhibited her works every year in Manhattan, except during WWII when travelling was restricted. --RAN (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: {{PD-US}}, essentially as per RAN above. --Yann (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Kit body adidastirogk23w2.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I was hoping to use this template when I discovered that body file was missing. Having checked the relevant deletion discussion here, I am surprised it was deleted in the first place. The nominator’s rational was that it was blurry and ‘nonsense’ and the file was deleted simply because it was unopposed. The nominator, Yesseruser appears to have a history of nominating random files for deletion for these reasons and all others have been kept. Per this discussion, I don’t feel that the file should have been deleted at all. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kadı: as admin who deleted the file, could you comment? REDMAN 2019 has uploaded several similar small shirt designs. Ellywa (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@REDMAN 2019, where are you going to use that file? Kadı Message 01:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
@User:Kadı, lately I have been working on kits for various teams in sandboxes, aiming to add retro kits to Wikipedia and Commons. I usually mess around in sandbox before doing this as I like to try to get the kit using existing patterns before creating potential duplicates. As said, I found the sleeve patterns and went looking for the body pattern but found it had been deleted under what I considered dubious reasons. I cannot confirm that I will use the body pattern but I don’t know whether Jonas BR has already used it somewhere else. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done, @REDMAN 2019. Kadı Message 11:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:2014 Thai coup TV statement.png

This image came directly from the official military government which was the state media, 100% no copyright violation. I believe the person who remove it maybe the state intelligence service to bring down negative images to the regime from the internet.--Polyesterchips (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose per COM:Thailand. State media broadcasts have a 50 year copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:2006 Thai coup d'état in public TV statement.png

This image came directly from the official military government which was the state media, 100% no copyright violation. I believe the person who remove it maybe the state intelligence service to bring down negative images to the regime from the internet. Same as the above image.--Polyesterchips (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose per COM:Thailand. State media broadcasts have a 50 year copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Igrexa de Viladesuso, Oia.jpg

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2022113010013841 regarding File:Igrexa de Viladesuso, Oia.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Yann (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Please undelete the following files

which has received valid OTRS permission The following files were uploaded after the confirmation of the release of copyrights The ticket for it is Ticket:2021122810001536But by the time all files were uploaded the ticket was closed(by mistake by a vrt agentǃ). I am pinging the concerned agent and the user who has uploaded the files with the confirmed ticket. thanks QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 05:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The uploader @सुबोध कुलकर्णी, The VRT agent who confirmed the ticket @Krd, Deleting admin @King of Hearts. thanks QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 05:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per request. @QueerEcofeminist: Could you please add the permission on the file pages? Thanks. --Ellywa (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


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

Draft:Oscar Bellina Lishner

I will continue to edit and update the draft. --CFere (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Oscar Bellina Lishner 27/12/2022

@CFere: the draft has been deleted from English Wikipedia, not from Commons. You can request undeletion at this page: en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/G13. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above, wrong project. --Yann (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Kao, Min-lin.jpg

The file was provided by the office of Miss Kao. And I ask her send the mail to VRT at the same time. That could have some delay by VRT team.--Reke (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The VRT ticket number is 2022122010005116 Reke (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: THis will be restored without further action by you when and if a free license from the copyright holder is received and approved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:1974 Joni Mitchell.jpg

The image was deleted because there is a copy used for an album, and that copy had a valid copyright notice. The law requires: works first published before March 1, 1989, the copyright owner was required to place an effective notice on all publicly distributed “visually perceptible” copies. (my emphasis) In the past Wikimedia Commons has interpreted this to mean that we are free to domicile the image in the advertisement, but not scan and upload the higher resolution version from the album. --RAN (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with this. Copyright notice needed to be on all copies; if there was an advertisement made using the same image as the album, but did not have a copyright notice, I'd say that image became public domain. It was only when a relative few copies went out without notice did the courts preserve copyright. I don't think you can claim that with magazine advertisements like that.  Support. I would tend to avoid uploading the versions with notice, just in case there are any copyrightable aspects which appear there but not the advertisement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 Question Did the ad in Billboard magazine lack a copyright notice though? It's quite faint (light blue on almost black), but I think I see a "© 1974 Asylum Records A Division of Warner Communications Inc." in the lower left corner. --Rosenzweig τ 12:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a really good point. I'm not sure I can make out the © symbol but there is room for it, and it otherwise looks like a copyright notice. Based on that,  Oppose. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a registration (KK239064) for Joni Mitchell and the L.A. Express: Miles of aisles in the Catalog of Copyright Entries 1975 Commercial Prints and Labels. --Rosenzweig τ 12:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Before 1978, you could not register to help "save" a publication without notice -- so the record photo may have been registered, but if used in an advertisement later (or before) without notice, it would still become public domain. However, as noted above, it does look like the photo in the ad did have a notice. The full registration is KK239064 Joni Mitchell and the L.A. Express: Miles of aisles. Cover photo & graphics: Joni Mitchell, inside photos: Henry Diltz. Record jacket. Appl. au: Elektra/Asylum/Nonesuch Records, a division of Warner Communications, Inc. © Elektra/Asylum/Nonesuch Records, a division of Warner Communications, Inc.; 20Nov74; KK239064. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
It's apparently the exact same ad, only printed in another magazine (stated to be from the Dec. 14, 1974 issue of Record World). Based on that,  Oppose. --Rosenzweig τ 14:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Yep, that's definitely the symbol. The placement of the text in the first scan seemed like it was virtually certain to be a symbol, but that confirms it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Wow! Excellent detective work. I agree 100%. We should probably make a note in their category, the earliest year that we have found, so far, where Warner labels were displaying a valid copyright symbol, and update it when we find earlier information. The Library of Congress for photo agencies, and Online Books Page for newspapers, both do that. --RAN (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The ad does have a copyright notice. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Batch Mattes 20130310 NP (12).JPG

was deleted because of "No license since 9 October 2015". The license is {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}. The frame will be cut-away by myself same day. I took this image back when my acct. was Mattes. Thanks + greetz --Mateus2019 (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The frame was already cut away in the latest revision. But the painting is a work by Belgian artist en:Henry van de Velde who died in 1957. So, it is still protected until 2027 (70 years after the artist's death). You don't claim to have acquired a CC-BY-SA license by van de Velde's heirs? Gestumblindi (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
ok the reason stated "No license since 9 October 2015" was wrong. This rq. is now obsolete. --Mateus2019 (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There was and is no license for the painting. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ribbon, Twitter.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Twitter bird logo is now under {{Apache|Twitter}} per [21] A1Cafel (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Neutral Some of em need more license files to indicate, as those may be more complex than the de-facto Twitter bird. Or some may be low-quality (e.g. {{FakeSVG}}, low-quality raster image forks, or just graffitis aim to indicate Twitter.) --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I have undeleted all of these, examined them all, and deleted again the ones that either have bad licenses, are very small, or are out of scope. The closing admin will need to cleanup the files and remove the DR tags..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: If the license is valid, File:Above socialmedia.jpg is in scope. I speedy deleted some of them after you undeleted them, as they were tagged with {{SD}}. Now fixed. Yann (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: for some files by Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Android-2.2-CyanogenMod.jpg

When I wrote a request to delete this file, I made a mistake. There really were standard wallpapers of CyanogenMod and it is distributed over Apache Lisence 2.0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Артём 13327 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

These are probably these wallpapers in the source code of CyanogenMod https://github.com/CyanogenMod/android_packages_apps_CMWallpapers/blob/froyo-stable/res/drawable-mdpi/wallpaper_jai_cmchrome.jpg https://github.com/CyanogenMod/android_packages_apps_CMWallpapers/blob/froyo-stable/res/drawable-hdpi/wallpaper_jai_cmchrome.jpg Артём 13327 (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Adolf Lazi - Selbstporträt.jpg, File:Adolf Lazi im Fotostudio.jpg, File:Haus Lazi.jpg

Ich bitte darum, diese Bilder wieder zu aktivieren. Alle Rechte daran habe ich selbst. Ich besitze das Adolf Lazi Archiv und damit den gesamten Nachlass meines Vaters. Ebenso selbstverständlich alle Nutzungsrechte. Die Löschung der Bilder durch Rosenzweig τ 13:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC) war nicht gerechtfertigt.

Es geht um diese Abbildungen:

  • File:Adolf Lazi - Selbstporträt.jpg
  • File:Adolf Lazi im Fotostudio.jpg
  • File:Haus Lazi.jpg

Freundliche Grüße, Ingo Lazi www.Adolf-Lazi-Archiv.de

Lazyland 13.Dez.2022 Lazyland (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, die Löschung war vor 3,5 Jahren! Übrigens nicht durch Kollegen Rosenzweig, der hatte nur nominiert. Grundlage war dieser LA: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Adolf Lazi, der übrigens 6 Monate offen war; dennoch hast du nicht reagiert. Du musst nun von deiner offiziellen Emailadresse eine Bestätigung an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org (OTRS) senden, aus der hervorgeht: 1) dass Adolf Lazi tatsächlich der Urheber aller 3 Fotos ist (beim zweiten Foto ist das nicht selbstverständlich), 2) dass du der Alleinerbe des Urheberrechts deines Vaters bist (oder die Miterben mit der Freigabe einverstanden sind), und 3) dass du die 3 Fotos (Commons-Dateinamen angeben) unter der gewählten freien Lizenz freigeben willst.
Das 4. Foto aus dem LA, File:Caratsch.jpg, wird automatisch am 1.1.2026 "entlöscht" (wiederhergestellt) werden. --Túrelio (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Túrelio, Perhaps the Google translation of "deleted" is incorrect, but I think you meant to say "restored" in speaking of the last file above -- it has been deleted and the German copyright expires on 1/1/2026. The image was taken in 1938, so it will not be free of US copyright until 1/1/2034 unless it can be shown that it was published in the US without notice or renewal,
Also, note that as a general rule, unless the will specifically provides otherwise, each of the heirs holds an undivided interest in the copyright and, therefore, any one of them may grant the required free license, so your #2 is not required. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per Túrelio -- needs VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:창경궁 조선고적도보 배치도.jpg, File:조선고적도보의 창덕궁 배치도.jpg

These two files were deleted due to 'No license since 7 December 2022', but as I remember, I added the license template before that date. The licesne is provided by {{PD-Korea-1910-1945}}. Please check and undelete those files. @Krd: — Sadopaul 💬 📁 15:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, you added {{PD-Korea-1910-1945}} shortly after the bot tagged them. However you did not add a USA copyright tag which is also required. It appears that these were not PD in 1996, so they have a USA copyright until 1/1/2026. This assumes that the 1930 creation date is correct, which is unproven here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I couldn't understand why you mentioned 1996. It was created and published in public by the governor-general in 1930 (See the item '발행년도' here). I don't know whether the photographs where taken in 1996 or not, but that is merely mechanical copy of original one. Please review my comment and reply. Hope you have a great year-end. Thanks. — Sadopaul 💬 📁 13:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
You can refer to {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} as well. — Sadopaul 💬 📁 13:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Sadopaul, 1996 is the URAA date. Works that were not PD in their home country in 1996 have a US copyright that runs until 95 years after creation which, as I said, is 1/1/2026 for a work created in 1930. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: However, per {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}, the copyright of these works expired in May 6, 1970, so these were PD in Japan in 1996. The photographer and publisher were Japanese in law, but these works still PD before 1996 even if we apply the Korean copyright law because the copyright had expired in March 21, 1980. Thus, URAA is not for these works in any case.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 19:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that the country of origin here is Korea, not Japan. While Korea was occupied by Japan at the time these were made, it was still a separate nation. It is clear that you agree with that, as the first template you added was {{PD-Korea-1910-1945}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: IMO, since these photographs are published under the name of the local government of Japanese empire, only Japanese copyright act must be applied. However, even under the Korean copyright act, it is still PD in both U.S. and South Korea. The very first Korean Copyright Act was established 1957, in which the works made public in the name of an organization would be protected for 30 years since the publish. These two photographs were made public in March 21, 1930, and there was no additional Copyright Act were established between 1957 and 1960, the status of these works were PD in 1996. See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/South_Korea#Pre-1963_deaths,_organization_works and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/South_Korea#Status_in_the_United_States. Or see [22] (Korean)— Sadopaul 💬 📁 12:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
If they were published in the territory of current-day South Korea, I think South Korea is the source country for URAA purposes (and country of origin), though Japanese copyright law would have applied at the time. If there is a later Korean law which retroactively restored the works, then they would not be OK, but if subsequent Korean laws have left such photos PD there, it should be fine. They used the old Japanese copyright law until 1957, when they enacted a 30pma law of their own (still based on Japan's law). The copyright extensions effective 1987 (from 30 to 50pma) were not retroactive, and given the {{PD-South Korea}} tag (and text at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea) it would seem as though a shorter term for photographs existed there until 1996, when a 1995 law came into effect (also not retroactive). Or something with the same effect. I I can't find the text of earlier laws to confirm though; just the 1995 consolidation which went into effect July 1, 1996 (which was after the URAA date). But given the tags, it would seem as though it's PD by Korean law too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
The publisher is Japanese press located in Tokyo (審美書院), as indicated in the last page. 1957 law did not restored the copyright (Korean source). — Sadopaul 💬 📁 17:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@Clindberg ping — Sadopaul 💬 📁 17:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Hm OK. It might matter where copies were actually distributed, but Japan may be the country of origin (or they were simultaneously published, which would end up being the country with the shorter term). Either way,  Support using the license which was added. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl and Sadopaul. --Yann (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:5G Irancell.jpg

File:5G Irancell.jpg Hallo, ich bin der Programm Manager von kourosh torbat zadeh , bitte stellen Sie diese Datei wieder her, ich gebe eine kostenlose Lizenz für dieses Foto. Vielen Dank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadrezaeimtn66 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Abuse of COM:WEBHOST, and copied from Instagram. --Yann (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Adam West as Batman.jpg

The image was deleted based on a flawed understanding of the concept of a character copyright. We house over a dozen images from the tv show because those specific images have fallen into the public domain, even though the character may still be under copyright. Having the character under copyright prevents people from creating new content based on the character and have nothing to do with images that have fallen into the public domain. Character copyrights involve aspects of the character that only appear in versions that are still under copyright. --RAN (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Courts have disagreed with you. Only elements of a PD movie or whatever which are not derivative of existing works are OK. If it's a derivative work, it's still a derivative work, and if the underlying work (such as a character copyright) is still under copyright, that author loses none of their rights. The Warner Bros vs Avela case said: We also held above that the characters of Tom and Jerry are not in the public domain. In addition, because the characters achieved copyright protection through the short films before all but the first movie poster entered the public domain, and the later movie posters necessarily exhibit those characters, even the use of any movie poster but the first requires Warner Bros.’s authorization. Publicity material which comes out before a movie is generally public domain if notice was forgotten, because the character copyright is established by the actual movie which comes later. However, if later material becomes public domain, it is not OK to use if it is still derivative of another work. So, "public domain" posters from a later movie were not OK, since the earlier movie established the character copyright. They also site the case of Russell v. Price, where a movie was not renewed, but distributing copies of that movie was still infringement of the original play on which the movie was based -- only the original movie producers had the derivative license. The article you cite does not state anything like your claim -- that was a claim that some general traits from later Sherlock Holmes books (still under U.S. copyright) were used in a Netflix movie. Netflix said that the claims did not amount to protectable expression -- general "niceness" traits aren't enough for copyright, since a character copyright is created by more specific details. I don't think a judge ruled either way on the merits, since the article says the lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn (likely indicating an out-of-court settlement). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per Carl. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Seattle flag.svg

The SVG version was correct and it shouldn’t be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FireDragonValo (talk • contribs) 09:14, December 27, 2022 (UTC)

 Info Probably about File:Seattle Flag.svg. Thuresson (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No valid argument for restoration. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Windows 7 Calculator.png

This image was a screenshot of the Windows calculator.

Notably, the Windows Calculator software is now open source and published under the MIT license. See [23][24] (I'm not 100% sure that this applies to the older version of the software that was included in Windows 7.)

But beyond that, I'm not clear on what elements we are saying are creative (and thus protected by copyright) here.

Certainly the layout of the keys on the calculator itself is not subject to copyright - we have photos of numerous calculators at Category:Calculators. In the US, utilitarian objects are not copyrightable and so I think we can all agree that the layout of the keys are not copyrightable.

Are we claiming that the icon is copyrightable? Or the translucent parts of the Windows 7 interface are copyrightable? (So in other words, we should immediately delete all Windows 7 screenshots because they are copyrightable?)

I'm really not clear on what we think is copyrightable here. --B (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  •  Comment To me, the layout and font are pretty clearly uncopyrightable. The Windows Aero theme, however, is generally copyrightable (see w:File:Aero Example.png), so the question here is whether this shows enough of the Aero theme to surpass the threshold. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
    I know that w:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a reason to keep something, but as an FYI there are a lot of Windows 7 screenshots in Category:Microsoft Windows 7 and if we're saying Aero screenshots are not permitted, these need to be all cleaned out. (Personally, I disagree with the assessment that w:File:Aero Example.png is copyrightable. Just because something "looks cool" doesn't mean it's copyrightable. The translucency is the equivalent of computer-generated art - it's formulaic and not something that a human designed using their creativity and skill.) --B (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
    Well, COM:TOO and COM:DM are two factors that may result in a divergence (i.e. some Windows 7 screenshots being acceptable and others not). For example, some elements of Windows 7 may be below TOO and some elements may be above TOO. I don't know of any official legal guidance or case law regarding the applicability of DM to screenshots, but it's definitely plausible to argue that a screenshot of free software (or a free-content website) running on Windows 7 is primarily depicting the free software and any Windows elements are de minimis by comparison. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


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

Belgian Museum uploads of public domain art batch 1

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I didn't get around to fixing these uploads in my regular maintenance work before they were deleted. I intend on adding the appropriate licenses to these public domain files. Abzeronow (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done @Abzeronow: Please add the correct tags. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:John Bechdel by Derick Smith.jpg

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2022122810010195 regarding File:John Bechdel by Derick Smith.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Yann (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ralph Manza John Compton The D A's Man 1959.jpg

The image was deleted because the deleteter made the claim that there could be a copyright notice on the back, even of that were so, the image would still need to have the copyright registered and renewed up until 1964, and an image of this description does not appear in the either the copyright database or the renewal database. These publicity images were not copyrighted on purpose, the marketing strategy was to get newspapers and magazines to print the images for free, rather than have the studio pay for an advertisement. That is why you don't find them in the copyright databases. --RAN (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Another copy of this photo is on Ebay now at [25]. I don't see a copyright notice on either the front or the back. --Rosenzweig τ 13:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Now that I clicked on that eBay image, I am getting emails to buy it! --RAN (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 Support based on that EBay link, I think. My one concern would be if this was a wire print, as I'm not sure a copy printed out by a receiver but never distributed would qualify to lose copyright. But, in the EBay link the back has a mark of NBC TV, which would indicate that it was distributed by NBC, and there was a place on that caption to put a copyright notice if they had wanted. The dates are also stamped, so that copy existed in 1959. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose The fact that there is no notice is irrelevant. A loose photograph does not have to have notice -- notice is required only when and where it was published. There is nothing in the USCO records to show renewal and renewal for a 1959 image is fairly easy to search. Therefore, it could well be PD-no renewal. However there is absolutely no evidence that the image was published in the United States before 1990. Its first publication could well be on eBay, in which case it will be under copyright until 1/1/2055. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Wouldn't the fact that probably a sizable amount of copies of this 1959 photo were apparently sent to newspapers etc. by NBC constitute itself publication? @Clindberg: What do you think? --Rosenzweig τ 17:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, a TV network distributing copies of publicity photos would be general publication then and there. The lack of a notice on the copies they actually distributed is the big factor. Lack of a notice might be OK if it was distributed as part of a larger set which had a notice elsewhere, or if that copy was not actually distributed (my wire photo concern). For example, movies got published when copies were sent to the distributor, not when the movie was actually shown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 Support Per Carl. It seems to have been published when it was being distributed to TV stations. Abzeronow (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that it's likely that the image was distributed widely, we haven't seen any proof of that. All we know for certain is that NBC made at least one copy. Of the negative. What if they decided to send a different image? Or none at all -- the show lasted only one season? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The deleted image also came from Ebay, so that's two. I've also found the image printed in four 1959 US newspapers: [26] [27] [28] [29].--Rosenzweig τ 23:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
The EBay copy has the mark of a different company on the back as well, so that copy was clearly distributed. Actual further publication in newspapers is actually irrelevant; copyright was already lost by that point. If it was only that one copy which lacked a notice, and all other similar ones did have a notice, then yes copyright would not be lost (it would need to be a relative few, and someone misled by using such a copy would be deemed innocent infringers). But really, once we see one copy like that (which was likely mass produced that way), I think we'd need to actually see some counterexamples to change the assumption. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl above. --Yann (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Совиний дім лоґо.png

Це зображення є авторською локалізацією та не порушує правила компанії Disney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raccooonua (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The second one clearly infringes on the copyrighted Disney character Vampirina. The first one may be below the ToO but I think it infringes on the copyrighted logo for the Disney Series The Owl House, see File:The_Owl_House_logo.png. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

ما قد تم حذفه هو حقوقي و ملكيتي الخاصة — Preceding unsigned comment added by الشاعر أحمد طراد (talk • contribs) 08:08, 28 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This user's only upload is File:احمد طراد.jpg. That image is a Facebook image with at least two copyrights. It is also not clear why it is in scope. The request above says nothing about why this should be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Villa Friedenberg 1.jpg

It is explicitly written that the photo was taken before 1945. Why was it deleted on suspicion of being taken after 1975? Here there is an another explanation about it. --Zio27 14:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose It was actually deleted because the date when it was taken and its publication history is unknown. If it was taken after 1927, it is probably still under copyright in the USA, but that depends on the publication history. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

If this somehow remained unpublished until 1989, its U.S. copyright would still be valid. Not a huge fan of deleting on that basis, that seems more like a theoretical doubt than a significant doubt. Lean  Support. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Carl, I don't understand your reasoning. If it had an Italian copyright in 1996, it would be under copyright in the USA until 95 years after publication. Therefore, unless it were a pre-1927 anonymous work, or a work with a known author who died before 1940, it's still under a URAA copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: It was a pre-WWII Italian photo, per {{PD-Italy}} any simple photos taken (not even published) before 1976 were PD in Italy on the URAA date. There is no URAA restoration here, to my eye. The only way it kept U.S. copyright was to remain unpublished until 1989. So to me, that part is just a theoretical doubt. If this were a photo from say Germany, I'd agree it would be very different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Aha. Thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Aquele Casal.png

The movie poster of my short film was deleted. It's my own work. Please undelete. Thank you.

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquele_Casal

File:Aquele Casal.png Jradck (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks like it was uploaded without a free license being specified -- you need to pick one of the ones mentioned at Commons:Licensing. If this poster has been previously published, it may be best to verify the license, and the ownership via the process at COM:VRT which involves private emails, since we often require that process for existing works (given that so many people copy from the Internet). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from the copyright holder via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Flora_Riyadi_Cantik.jpg

saya belum terlalu tau aturan Wikipedia Gaung Persada (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Machine translation: "I don't really know Wikipedia's rules." --Rosenzweig τ 18:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose No license tag, source: "Twitter", author: "SIXTYSIX HISTORY". Not own work obviously, neither under a free license apparently, so a copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 18:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, per above. --Yann (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


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

Belgian Museum public domain art batch 2

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: 2nd batch of public domain art that I intend to put the appropriate licenses on. Abzeronow (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. @Abzeronow: As requested. Please add the appropriate tags and preferrably also add descriptions etc. Thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 22:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Licenses ✓ Done, added more information to the files as requested. Abzeronow (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: apparently all done here. --Rosenzweig τ 00:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


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

Template:Smokey Bear message violation

This template was created for Smokey Bear message violations. The template itself doesn't violate Smokey Bear message guidelines. B4531826 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, but it violates Commons rules. Yann (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: How does it violate Commons rules? File:Parodical (*edited*) Smokey Bear ad.jpg was deleted with the template. B4531826 (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Converted to DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Smokey Bear message violation. The speedy deletion of the template appears to have been accidental (due to an incorrect configuration causing the template itself to fall into the speedy category); in any case, none of the COM:CSD criteria apply to this template, so I have restored it for further discussion regarding its usefulness. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Pedro Gonet em dezembro de 2020 na TV Justiça.png

The screenshot was from the TV Justiça channel, a Brazilian public broadcasting network that allows reproduction if the credits are given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgealtergeub (talk • contribs) 20:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose That's not sufficient for Commons. We need a release under a free license. Yann (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2022-12&oldid=723878360"