Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

Current requests

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

File:Escudo Policía Bolivariana Estado Zulia.jpg

Buenas administradores, por favor restaure la imagen, este escudo esta en el Dominio Público según el último párrafo de la licencia en Venezuela {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} ,la policía fue creada por la Gobernación (forma parte del sector público osea sector público es ineligible del copyright) como esta imagen. AbchyZa22 18:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Please remember to not claim license ownership for Public Domain works. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 19:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: (for bot). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Porträtfotografie von Julien Bam .jpg

The user *AnnikaSchulzYOUTalentMGMT* who uploaded the image “File: Porträtfotografie von Julien Bam .jpg” has been inactive since 2019. It is therefore very likely that he or she did not realize that permission or notification was required.

This user account has been verified to the support team with an email address of *julienbam.de*, which is operated by *Y.O.U. Talent Management GmbH*. The company is also represented by Annika Schulz, who is mentioned in the account name. This shows that the company is probably responsible for the account.

If the image has been restored, you could therefore try to contact the user or *Y.O.U. Talent Management GmbH* directly to obtain the necessary consent to properly license the file and comply with the Wikimedia Commons guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:8071:57A1:B6E0:6CE2:76AC:F4B6:5BD1 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: If they email consent for the file, it will be undeleted by VRT. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File: Sabreen Bin Ramli .jpg

Sabreen Bin Ramli — Preceding unsigned comment added by SabreenBinRamli (talk • contribs) 11:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Personal image by non contributor. User blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per Yann. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 12:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg nice inoffensive picture, as commented by several

not sure why in the end this was deleted, the nominator left, several others voiced against the deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4everyoung2 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close, file is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg

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

@Robin S. Taylor, It would be good of you to link the larger file which you indicate was uploaded while the license was valid, since I can't find that in the file history of the deleted file. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 27).jpg

This was the source file.

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

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

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

 Oppose First please note that

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg is not extracted from

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg

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

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

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

You've just unilaterally deleted another image within fifteen minutes of seeing it and with no deletion discussion nor acknowledgement of anything I said about it. This is unacceptable. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robin S. Taylor I am willing to give the benefit fo the doubt, however, those two pictures, while uploaded under a CC-BY license, were changed within a day to the by-nc-nd license. What that tells me is that the license they were uploaded with was incorrect, and they corrected it within a reasonable amount of time. What we don't do here at Wikimedia Commons is play "gotcha" with people who have uploaded under erroneous licenses. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jim, the other one has the same license problems as the ones already deleted. I've put that one in a DR. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Reopened per request. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 21:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving it open for a little while. Although the part about the CC license is settled, it seems that the part about the OGL might need to be addressed, in light of Template talk:Number-10-flickr, listing some keep decisions for other cases. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, apparently the metadata states the OGL, but does that supersede the Flickr license? Does Number 10 know what they are doing? Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 21:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that, considering the metadata is the only actual per-file licensing statement that complies with the UK government licensing framework, it should be taken as an appropriate attribution statement. Some files explicitly change their statement to remove the OGLv3 notice, which shows that there is at least some awareness of the meaning.

A Freedom of Information request and/or a Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations request can always be made if further clarification is needed. It is worth noting that images uploaded recently have made the attribution statement just Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence. For any of those images, a RPSI request can compel them to OGL it anyways. Isochrone (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely sounds like a complicated request. I deleted it since as I said in the closing message that the photograph had an unfree license at the time of upload. I agree with Jim that CC-BY was not the intended license. The OGL question is a tough one, since as mentioned above, it appears Number 10 licenses under OGL unless otherwise stated. CC-NC-ND is not a default on Flickr so it feels to me that it would fall under the otherwise stated. I almost feel like we should ask Number 10 about this. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Freedom of Information request filed. I also note that, as stated here, No 10 has not obtained a delegation of authority to exempt itself from the Cabinet Office licensing framework. Isochrone (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

File:Suldaan_Samater_Sul_ibrahim.png

Suldaan Samatar suldan ibrahim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeq rooble wacays (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Personal image by non contributor, out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done per Yann Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)