Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-04

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

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

File:JOHN HRON POSTER 70X100CM 2017 poster small.jpg

My name is Jon Pettersson, I'm the director and producer of the film John Hron. I own the right to the movie poster and I would like to have it on Wikipedia at the page for John Hron (film). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikomachis (talk • contribs) 17:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nikomachis: Please, follow the COM:OTRS procedure and do not reupload deleted files. Ankry (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: needs OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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

File:PaKING Front Cover.jpg

Admin,

Work that I own and have claimed keeps being deleted. I am the sole owner for the picture in question, no one else has owner ship of it. Kindly reconsider this decision because it is hindering the presentation of the Wikipedia page I have used it for.

The art should be featured in the right side panel for w:PaKING It is the front cover of the project and 100% original with all content being original.

All elements being used in the photo are customized by the original author, PMA94LC, and made in an original format. Waiting on a reverse decision of this deletion request.

Regards, --Pma94lc (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose For album covers and other works that have been published before without a free licence, we need a permission by email coming directly from the copyright holder. Copying a cover image does not tranfer copyrights to you, so unless you are a representative of the record label, you may not upload this image to Commons. If you are affiliated with Kymera ENT, please follow the procedure described in COM:OTRS. Otherwise, please upload a low-resolution version of the cover locally at the English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. Commons does not accept fair use though. De728631 (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per De728631. The file will be restored after the OTRS accepts the permission. Ruthven (msg) 18:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Bacio-sposi.jpg Ripristino Foto

File: Bacio-sposi.jpg La foto è stata scattata da me è presa dal mio sito www.entireforwedding.it

Ho aggiunto nel copyright del sito la dicitura "Le immagini di questo sito sono distribuite con Licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 4.0 Internazionale."

--Carmela Fasano (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Carmala Fasano 30/03/2020

 Oppose @Carmela Fasano: NC/ND licenses are incompatible with Wikimedia Commons. See COM:L. Ankry (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: @Carmela Fasano: : Come scritto da Ankry, Commons non accetta le licenze non commerciali. Se può, cambi la licenza in CC BY-SA 4.0 e ci ricontatti. --Ruthven (msg) 18:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Bacio-degli-sposi.jpg

La foto è stata scattata da me e caricata sul mio sito www.entireforwedding.it Ho cambiato la dicitura del copyright https://www.entireforwedding.it/copyright in "Le immagini di questo sito sono distribuite con Licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 4.0 Internazionale."

--Carmela Fasano (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Carmela Fasano 30/03/2020

 Oppose NC/ND licenses are incompatible with Wikimedia Commons. See COM:L. Ankry (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: @Carmela Fasano: Come scritto da Ankry, Commons non accetta le licenze non commerciali. Se può, cambi la licenza in CC BY-SA 4.0 e ci ricontatti. Ruthven (msg) 18:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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

File:GHISLAINE LEJARD photo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020032110005493.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020032110005493|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nat: as requested. --Green Giant (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Jean-Michel Clajot.jpg

This picture is mine , and I want to delete it from Wiki. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimic be (talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: file is not deleted nothing to undelete. Ankry (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Foto_J.CODESIDO_(joven).png

Is an old photo and relevant about J. CODESIDO.Martuchi8 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Martuchi8: So why do you claim that it is copyrighted by you? Age of the photo itself is irrelevant, but if you know its old publication provide this info in the DR as requested. Ankry (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: image not deleted - nothing to undelete. Ankry (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

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

File:20150510 新村签售 UNIQ李汶翰.jpg

This photo has a CC BY 2.5 share setting. Link: https://shaojie317.lofter.com/post/1d22dd96_6ef3d7e. The photo is taken by the owner of that account. I don't understand why it was found to be in violation of copyright regulations. The photographer goes by the name Moonhanim and Jietiancai. --Lwh22 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It was probably deleted because the CC-BY icon is so small that it looks like a period. User:Didym, did you just miss it, or is the an additional reason why you deleted this? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I did just miss this, probably as well as Herbythyme. --Didym (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes - my bad and undeleted with apologies. It really is very very small!! --Herby talk thyme 07:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted already by deleting admin. @Herbythyme and Didym: ANy of you who wish to perform a license review?. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Jean gisclon juillet 1940 dans son avion de chasse.pdf

File:JEAN GISCLON DANS SON AVION — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gisclon (talk • contribs) 14:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jean gisclon juillet 1940 dans son avion de chasse.pdf. Also uploaded as File:JEAN GISCLON DANS SON AVION.jpg; unnamed photographer died in 1973. Thuresson (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Aside from the fact that it is a copyright violation, policy forbids keeping PDFs of images so even if somehow we had permission of the photographer's heir, we still couldn't restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: No new information why this work is either in the public domain or evidence that the uploader is the owner of the copyright. If such information were to come to light (ether here on-wiki or to COM:OTRS it oculd be converted to another file format and restored/re-uploaded. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

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

THOUGHTS

What is thoughts ? Example of thoughts ? What is basic concept of imagination ?

A particular situation which revolves around to describes the characteristics of a circumstance know as thoughts.Than the question appear why some people have bad thoughts or good thoughts. This circumstance depend on your mental level health.It means when you are bad and your surrounding is good so your mental mind will think automatically positive and when you are good and your surrounding is in bad people so your mental defined your personality in bad,As we saw a children born they are neutral from the circumstance of this world there minds have no direction that what is good and what is wrong,As all mothers tries to give better personality to there children but they come out from there home so,they have two choices either positive approach or negative approach some minds are GOD gifted mean they have capability to understand that what is good and what is bad for them,but somehow we directly blames to others which is called the sign of immaturity.We can says that are thoughts are based on imagination ? its 100% correct it depends on your imagination than question arrived what is imagination ? A time interval in which your mind depends to think past or future is know as imagination, Somehow it; is not possible in present tense taken an example, If I am speaking or writing in this both situation people think to get there better content so they always thinks past or futures,If they thinks in present tense "situation of writing is this possible that they are writing while writing a content.... no this might be not possible that they are doing there work is present and there thinking is also revolves in present..... if learn this kind of imagination example so we learn our life in a better way....


(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammadabid53 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Procedural close, not an undeletion request. Thuresson (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


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

File:1606 Modern Carbery.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020040110000336.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020040110000336|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 03:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Uchechukwu Ajuzieogu smiles.jpg

I hereby affirm that I choose one: Uchechukwu Ajuzieogu, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of choose one: the media work or [both the work depicted and the media][ as shown here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uchechukwu_Ajuzieogu_smiles.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.

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.

Uchechukwu Ajuzieogu Copyright Holder March 29, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apex Zy (talk • contribs) 15:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Apex Zy: The permission should be emailed following COM:OTRS procedure, not provided here as we cannot verify on wiki that you are the same person who published the photo elsewhere. Ankry (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 Info I would also note that I doubt if this person is notable. Ankry (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs OTRS from the actual photographer, not from the subject. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Dave and U2 in studio, 1982.jpg

Hi, one of my uploads was deleted. Apologies I am new to Wikipedia editing and may not have followed the correct process. Could you please explain how to do this correctly so I can re-upload this image. Thank you for your help. --Davefanning12 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Uploaded images must be released under a free license, which allows anyone to use it (not just Wikipedia) -- that is the Commons:Licensing policy. That means we need to be reasonably sure the copyright owner did in fact license the photos. Unfortunately user accounts here are essentially anonymous, and we get a lot of people uploading photos off the internet thinking they are OK, so for photos which are previously published we ask people to go through the COM:OTRS process. That involves a private email confirming the license, and to make sure there are no misunderstandings, and possibly resolve questions such as whether the original photographer still owns the copyright (i.e. who has authority to license it). I can't see the deleted file, but the deletion summary indicates someone thought the photo was simply copied off of the Internet, or something similar -- hundreds of those get deleted every day. Sometimes, images are used under a "fair use" basis on the English Wikipedia, but those cannot be uploaded here to Commons but rather directly to Wikipedia (and there are heavy restrictions on their use at Wikipedia, as well -- there has to be a good reason for it). If you do own the rights to the image, most likely you'll have to go through the OTRS process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Carl -- the actual photographer must give a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:IGES.gif

I own the copy rights of Infinite Green Energy Source LLC including the logo, I own the website and the domain (www.iges-us.com). — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGESLLC (talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I doubt that IGES meets our requirement for notability. I suggest that you write a draft article for WP:EN and, if it is accepted, come back here to have the logo restored. Since www.iges-us.com does not have a free license, in order for the logo to be restored, policy requires that an authorized official of the company must send a free license using OTRS. Do not do that until after the article is accepted on WP:EN. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@IGESLLC: WP:EN refers to English Wikipedia. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Out of COM:SCOPE despite of other reasons. Ankry (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Mujer_Semidesnuda-J.CODESIDO.jpg

Also:

I took this photo.Martuchi8 (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose These three works are by Julia Codesido who died in 1971, so they will be under copyright until 1/1/2042. They cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from her heirs..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done BTW, Julia Codesido died in 1979. Undelete in 2050. Ankry (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:NormanCartonStaempfli1960.png and any other images on this page under review

Hello Wikipedia, My name is Jacob Carton, son of and heir to Norman Carton. I own all of the images on the Norman Carton wikipage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Carton) just published and in which I received emails regarding the deletion of NormanCartonStaempfli1960.png and possibly a request (confusing to me) to delete all of these images. I do not support the deletion of any of these images for the following reasons

1. Regarding the photo of Norman Carton that was already deleted by Wiki (NormanCartonStaempfli1960.png) a. I have strong evidence that this image was part of series of photos paid for by Norman Carton and taken in the late 1950s and used in the public promotion of his (April 19 to May 7, 1960) solo exhibition at the Staempfli gallery. Do you want me to send you links and attach images to prove this? b. I own and possess other images in this series (same clothes and backdrop) and numerous Staempfli exhibit catalogues from his show with this very image that was deleted. Do you want me to send you links and attach images to prove this? c. According to Crown copyright law, "copyright expires 50 years after the first publication (1960)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain. This photo was published on or before April 19, 1960, which is over 60 years ago. All such photographs are therefore in the public domain. d. In the meantime, I will load another and better photo I own of Norman Carton in this photo's stead. Please do not delete this photo if you restore the photo you just deleted.

2. Regarding photographs of the artwork and all other images on the page, I took these photos myself aside from the photo by me of the photo of Norman Carton working on his 1941 WPA mural (well over 50 years ago). I have already granted Wiki permission to put these images in the public domain. Do you want me to send you links and attach images to prove this?

Thank you for this invaluable public commons. Sincerely, Jacob Carton--JaCaw (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Info Uploader claims to own the copyright of File:NormanCartonStaempfli1960.png. Also relevant is Commons:Deletion requests/Art by Norman Carton. Thuresson (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose With respect to File:NormanCartonStaempfli1960.png, please understand that while your father may have commissioned the work and you may own paper copies of it, neither commissioning a work nor owning paper or digital copies of it give the holder the right to freely license the work as required here. Even if the photographer granted your father a license to use the work in his promotion, it is unlikely that such a license allowed your father (and therefore you, as his heir) to freely license the work for use by anybody anywhere. Further, as you note, the work became PD in the UK in 2010, but it is not PD in the USA as required on Commons and will not be so until 2055, 95 years after creation. So, unless you can get a free license from the photographer or his heirs or prove that your father got a free license, we cannot restore it.

With respect to the photographs of your father's work under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Art by Norman Carton, there is a different problem, one that is easier to solve. We do not actually know who User:JaCaw is and there is no way to prove it here. Because there are vandals and fans out there who take a username resembling that of an artist and attempt to upload works here without valid permission, we require that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. In doing that, you must satisfy the OTRS volunteer that you are actually the artist's heir, but that is not usually a problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: No evidence of free license from the copyright holder or copyright expiration. Ankry (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Chris Melendez.jpg

The image in questions is a personal photo. It is also currently listed in the individual’s personal Instagram/social media account, has been used as the primary profile image on the individual’s personal social media/Instagram account and is presently content posted on the individual’s personal and verified social media/Twitter account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowlettJL (talk • contribs) 04:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@HowlettJL: Personal photos are copyrighted as each other and we need a free license from the photographer. Note, that claiming a photo authorship if you are not the photographer is against Wikimedia Commons rules and illegal. Making a copy of a photo or a screenshot does not make you the author. Ankry (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


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

This is my own listing on indiamart

the listing which show voilation is our own listing on indiamart website. so there wont be any issue of copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsyringe (talk • contribs) 09:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose First, you did not say which of your two deleted files you wanted restored. Second, the account is in a company name, so the file can not be your own work as claimed. Any file that appeared elsewhere on the web without a free license requires that the actual photographer send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:UHallLogo.svg

Same as https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:University_of_Hong_Kong_Logo.svg It is non-free use rationale logo made by me, referenced from http://www.uhall.hku.hk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambuddhassa (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I am not sure I understand. There is an explicit copyright notice at http://www.uhall.hku.hk/. As you note, a similar logo is shown on WP:ZH, but that is done under Fair Use. Commons can not and does not ever allow Fair Use -- images here must be freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose per Jim. That being said, I ask if the HKU crest is in PD as it was granted in 1913. Generally, government works are protected for 125 years (privately held corp. works are publish+50), however, the 125 years comes from the 2016 revision of the ordinances. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 21:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Support Good catch, thank you Nat. Before 1997, Hong Kong was a UK colony, subject to UK law. Before 1957, the Crown Copyright was 50 years, so the copyright on a 1913 work expired in 1963 -- the 50 year rule was not extended by the 1957 Act. So it looks to me like this is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Jim: That being said UHall was established in 1956, and while it utilises the HKU crest as part of its own, it has other components. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 21:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, would that mean we should import the HKU crest and all variants, and nom the local Wikipedia versions for deletion? --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 21:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion; @Sambuddhassa and Nat: please, check the license/description. Ankry (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Bugge Nordmænd i vikingetiden cover.jpg

This book cover was published in 1924 and is made available in the Public Domain by the Norwegian National Library.

https://www.nb.no/items/f6f88a32d6568c917ae9b0b5d4496729?page=0&searchText=Nordmænd%20i%20vikingetiden

The illustrator's name is not known

Kilde bok | utgivelsesår = 1924 | tittel = Nordmænd i vikingetiden | forlag = Gyldendal | url = http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2011040706075 | side =

The deletion of this file is obviously wrong. I request undeletion as this file is needed for a wiki article. --Krage52 (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Although the book does not have a credit for the illustrator, the publisher, Gyldendal, is still very much in existence and may well have the illustrator's name, since they had to pay him. Those who want to restore this should reach out to Gyldendal and see (a) if they know who the illustrator was and (b) if they are willing to give a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The author Alexander Bugge died in 1929. And like I have already pointed out, the book (including the cover, I would think) is made available in the public domain by the Norwegian National Library. In the book there is no mention of the illustrator´s name, but I doubt that the Norwegian National Library would have made this book available if it violated any rules. And I would accordingly never upload the file if this wasn´t the case. I need this file for some wiki work and I am still requesting for undeletion. --Krage52 (diskusjon) 16:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krage52 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 Support The Norwegian National Library lists it as public domain which should be authoritative enough. I don't have any significant doubts here that would invoke the Principle of Precaution. De728631 (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Comment This book was registered for copyright in the US in 1925 [1], but apparently now renewed. So if this gets restored, {{PD-US-not renewed}} should be used. De728631 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support The cover was published anonymously, no information about its author inside the book not in the Nasjonalbiblioteket catalogue, means that copyright of the image expired in 2000. As Alexander Bugge died in 1929, I think, the whole book is PD and suitable to be uploaded to Commons. Ankry (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 Support The Norwegian National Library seems like it would have already done due diligence on this file. Abzeronow (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I withdraw my opposition. I note that the assertion above that the illustrator is unknown is incorrect. The publisher almost certainly knows (corporately), who the illustrator was. There are also probably art historians who know. Therefore, if anyone had made the effort, we could know who the illustrator was. However the Norwegian law does not care about that -- the illustration was clearly anonymous and therefore the Norwegian copyright expired on 1/1/1995. Because it is a 1924 work, it is free of copyright in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Dr Alex Marson.jpg

I request for the photo to be undeleted as I have authority and ownership claims for that photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarfan2020 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Ankry (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Shepel A D.png

File was removed because there was no information could be obtained about the licensing of the picture. Today, the letter was sent to Permissions inbox to grant licensing. Thus I request the undeletion. Arkatroid (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. Ankry (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Nanhaipotamon hongkongense island.jpg

The Photo has been deleted for it violated Wikimedia Commons Copyright regulations, now the photo's copyright has been changed to BY SA (CC BY-SA), therefore it fullsfills the criteria to be undeleted --Bubbleleg96 (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support per Flickr license. However, its deletion was compliant with Wikimedia Commons rules as at the time the license in Flickr was verified, it was incompatible with the Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: I can provide a link to the photo on flickr which corroborates the changed copyright status, if that helps --Bubbleleg96 (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. It is at https://www.flickr.com/photos/96826734@N08/48484691501/in/dateposted-public/. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Dipanjanpaul.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am a New Wiki Editor, So I am at a beginner level, I had taken the Image from https://addforum.in/biography/DipanjanPaul.php, the page do not have any copy right, and below the Image it was written ("Permition: Image has no Copy Right (Public)."), that the Image is Public and It has no Copy Right.

As I was writing the biography of Mr. Dipanjan Paul, I had taken the Image from there and uploaded it to https://commons.wikimedia.org, to use it to the Wikipedia/ Sandbox. Bultikarbala (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Under present US law, copyright does not depend on the author/publisher declaration but is granted by the power of law and expires 70 years after photographer's death or 95 years after the photo publication if the photographer is unknown. I do not think that any of these terms expired. The webpage author's declaration is informative only. And it is clearly false in this case. The webpage author may have got a free license from the photographer, but even if they declared so, I wouldn't believe it after reading the false claim. You should look for permissions from photographers who make photos. Ankry (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. This needs a CC-BY or other acceptable free license from the actual photographer using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Labes-frozen-chimps.jpg

This photo was taken by my friend and it is approved to be used freely. Pika2020 (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pika2020: The permission we need is not a permission "to use" but a free license. Per our rules either (a) you need to link the permission in the "permission" fileld while uploading the image, or (b) the photographer needs to follow COM:OTRS procedure. Neither of these did happen. Ankry (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. This needs a CC-BY or other acceptable free license from the actual photographer using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Motivational speaker.jpg undelete

Hi, I do not know why this has been deleted. I have permission from the author (James Ketchell) to use it. Please put it back or tell me what I need to do in simple terms.--Cpitcher1977 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cpitcher1977: You have to ask the author to contact the OTRS team to confirm that they agree to the free license stated in the file (if there was any, if not, then a free license of their choice). pandakekok9 13:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. This needs a CC-BY or other acceptable free license from the actual photographer using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:JorgeZavala.jpg

The file was deleted with the argument that it was an unused personal file, but now the person who appears in the photo already has an article on wikipedia. --I Mertex I (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose No, it was deleted because it was taken from Facebook, which is not freely licensed. The image can be restored to Commons if the actual photographer sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim. Ankry (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Philippine Revolutionary Generals images and illustrations nomination for Deletion request

Please check the discussion on this nomination. I have several files that were nominated to be deleted due to personal opinion. I made several arguments that merit the dismissal of the nomination and retention of the files.

I have one administrator who sided with my presentation. Please check and dismiss the nomination for deletion if warranted.

--Audioboss (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Procedural close, not an undeletion request. Discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Audioboss. Thuresson (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Andrew Evans, Author.jpg

Flickr user granted request for creative commons 0 license. --Biologyfishman (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per changed Flickr license. Ankry (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Глинистый сланец

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the following files are scanned images from a book, relating to the presentation of images from the historical period prior to the twentieth century, so it should obviously be a PD license, I recently made an individual request for restoration to the Krd user, managing to obtain the result that not everything that uploaded this user is considered a kind of copyright infringement. therefore I want to rely on you also asking for your opinion, in my personal opinion despite the information in the book these files are of PD100 license despite the fact that the author is unknown, and deceased for well over a century, I say that I am perfectly in order with status, however I want to be careful with these files, Clindberg I would also like your opinion.--Bernhard Moltke (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no PD100 license; we have {{PD-old-assumed}}. But to be able to use it here, we need somebody to verify the creation dates provided by the abuser. It is hard as there is no public source. Ankry (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Ankry you must excuse me, but you were in a hurry to write with the keyboard, I meant (PD-art | PD-old-100), sorry for the typo--Bernhard Moltke (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
PD-old-100 means "The author died more than 100 years ago". And this is not obvious eg. for anonymous 1866 work (where author could have died even 80 years later). Ankry (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Request temporary undeletion of File:Mappa del Teatro Regio di Mantova.png so I can see if this is an 18th Century map. Abzeronow (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
It is a very poor quality reproduction, so it is hard to tell anything about it. It is a plan drawing of the theatre in Mantua. The file description says the author was Giuseppe Piermarini (1734-1808) who, among other things, designed La Scala. I'm inclined to believe that it is not a copyvio, but the quality is so poor I wonder if it has any value. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: {{Temporarily undeleted}} Ankry (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, Jim is correct here, it's zoomed in, and is clearly a reproduction. There is writing on it, but it's illegible at the resolution the file was scanned or taken in so it's not helpful. It probably is public domain but it's not very useful. Abzeronow (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I would recommend temporary undeleted for the whole list, pending additional information, however it must be said that few are from an era that precedes the nineteenth century, given that the age of the files on this small list was made around the nineteenth century. however the fact that they are of a PD nature leaves me no doubts, but as I said before pending probable additional information in the future, I would recommend temporary restoration, even if personally it would be right to remove the temporary one to replace it with the definitive one--Bernhard Moltke (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
That's a good idea -- there may be some of these that are useful. Those that do not seem useful here should be deleted again, including, i think, the one discussed above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
on this the probability of recovery would also help us to have to look for these images, where perhaps they will be hidden in the google search engine. because sometimes it happens that a scanned file that is on a book suddenly you find it on an external link in google search, maybe in a better version, so for me it is Support , now it would be appropriate to put this matter to the vote--Bernhard Moltke (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've Temporarily undeleted all the files. I would restore LTA contributions only if a file is to be used, or for exceptional reasons, otherwise it's encouraging them to continue to pursue their vandalisms here. @Krd, Jameslwoodward, Bernhard Moltke, and Ankry: . Ruthven (msg) 10:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The following is copied from File talk:Torre di Porta Mulina.png:

@Jameslwoodward, Ankry: Sorry to ping you again on this undeletion request. I've been fooled. After performing a CU on Bernhard Moltke, I found out that he's another incarnation of a3cb1. Moreover, these files are signed and dated, and the date is not compatible with the suggested date (1450), as clearly it's a much more recent work. I wanted to notify you that it's better to delete them. --Ruthven (msg) 14:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The image on which the message was attached has a date in the lower right of '19, which is very different from the 1450 claimed in the file description. I'm reopening the discussion and I  Oppose restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping works which are obviously PD, even from a banned user. But if they are going to file an undeletion request, they should really provide the information that was missing on the originals. Don't just say "a book" -- which one, which author, when published? Just spot-checked one, File:Bastione del Giardino di Mantova.png, which is dated as 1628 with an unknown author. Yet it's signed on the right with a name I can't quite read and date of "'17". No idea if that is 1817 or 1917 or what. I would expect the image to at least tell us more details as a source than just a museum name -- where was it in the museum (on the wall?), or what book was photographed, etc. File:Lunetta di Belfiore.png looks like it has photographic reflections, so that wasn't from a book it would seem, unless on display behind a case. No EXIF to speak of. File:Cittadella del Castello di Bozzolo.jpg seems better but it also has Facebook metadata, so no idea where it was pulled from. You would prefer to see at least some verifiable information as to the source. If research needs to be done on images in order to keep them, I can't fault just deleting them instead. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bernhard Moltke and Ruthven: After 6 days none of the undeleted files is used. Can we redelete them and close this as {{Not done}}? Ankry (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I deleted them all. Some 'o them were from a 2019 publication. I got fooled by yet another sockpuppet of A3cb1. Ruthven (msg) 13:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Thermes de Châtel-Guyon3.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

"The architect is fr:François-Benjamin Chaussemiche, dead in 1945" Has been public domain in France since 2016. First file apparently has a different image so a rename or something seems to be in order. Abzeronow (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 Support per above. The overwriting image is likely a copyvio and should be deleted, so finally I see no need to rename. Maybe just wait a while for a decission in this DR. Ankry (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
That solution would also be fine with me. Abzeronow (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. Ruthven (msg) 13:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Hi, one of my uploads File:Dave and U2 in studio, 1982.jpg was deleted. Apologies I am new to Wikipedia editing and may not have followed the correct process. I went through the OTRS process but the image was still removed. Could you please explain how to do this correctly so I can re-upload this image. Thank you for your help.--Davefanning12 (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose This is an exact repeat of your March 30 request which is archived at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#File:Dave and U2 in studio, 1982.jpg. Carl gave an extended answer which clearly told you what you need to do and why -- send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Please write to OTRS to clarify the matter. Ruthven (msg) 13:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Abduvali qori.jpg

Also:

Reason: The file I uploaded is free content that can be used by anyone and whatever. Deletion occurred in violation of the rules, please restore the file. Andalusbek (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose As someone who has made 11 edits on Commons, you should know that it is a mistake to say that someone (User:Storkk) who has made over 60,000 actions here doesn't know the rules.The deletions were required by Commons rules. The images are found in several places on the Web with explicit copyright notices.

Even if you are the actual photographer, as you claimed when you uploaded the images, policy requires that you (or the actual photographer, if it is not you) must send a free license using OTRS. If you are not the actual photographer, then you should know that making incorrect claims is a serious violation of Commons rules and may get you blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Даниил Пустотин.jpg

прошу восстановить страницу( фотографию) потому что она необходима для публикования страницы. Зарегистрирована более 14 дней и имею более 20 поправок. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Анна Собакинская (talk • contribs) 13:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose unless the article is accepted. I see no evidence of notability of this young men, but I may be missing some his extraordinary achievements. Notablility is independent of photo existence. Ankry (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done out of COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Anneau lumiere 1986 by groupe Spirale.jpg

bonjour, vous avez supprimé une image que j'ai uploadé sur commons hier, File:Anneau lumiere 1986 by groupe Spirale.jpg /// cette image est pourtant sous licence libre.

Hello, you supressed an illustration i uploaded yesterday on the wikimedia commons, why ? The file is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License. 

This image is a piece of art of my father youngness, i could be proud to share it on wikipédia with an illustration... / cette image est une illustration d'une oeuvre de mon père, l'image est sous licence libre.

Merci de m'expliquer moins sommairement pourquoi cette supression, il fut très long d'uploader l'image correctement et de remplir en détails les formulaires pour identifier l'illustration en licence libre non commerciale dont j'ai besoin pour un article en cours de rédaction à propos de cette sculpture. De plus ce n'est pas aisé de jongler entre l'anglais et le français sur ce wikimedia commons. Pour ce retourver avec le fichier suprimer à tord alors qu'il est partageable librement, sous Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License...

Please could you explain to me less briefly why this deletion ? it took a very long time to upload the image correctly and fill the forms in details to identify the illustration under free license, it can be Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. And more it can be Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material. I ask because I need it for illustration on an article about this sculpture... Besides, it is not easy to switch from English to French on the wikimedia commons.

Cordialement

Anozor cosmic (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Anozor cosmic: Unlike the source site, you declared at upload that this image is free also for commercial use. NC licenses are not accepted in Wikimedia Commons, see COM:L. Ankry (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: pourtant / but yet the licence Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

allow to freely: 

   Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
   Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material

   And the licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Anozor cosmic (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Anozor cosmic: Please, read COM:L. Especially the point:
  • Commercial use of the work must be allowed.
Ankry (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: ok i see the point . thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anozor cosmic (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: No commercial license. Ruthven (msg) 13:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Peter Deeg Hofjuden 03.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Deeg Hofjuden 03.jpg

I'm not going to be upset if URAA prevents restoration on this. This is an introduction to a 1939 edition of a book that was written by an author who died in 2005, the introduction itself appears written by Adolf Hitler (who died in 1945). Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I mainly want to find out if URAA is the only issue so I can tag the DR with the appropriate undeletion date. Abzeronow (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not 100% sure if URAA applies here at all (due to Alien Property Custodian being excluded). I have no opinion here. Ankry (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
It is certainly long enough to have a copyright in the US. I think the key question is the source of the quote. I don't read German, but I think the source is shown in the image with a 1938 date. If the source work was copyrighted in the US, then the Alien Property rule applies, but if it was not, then it does not. @JuTa, Krd, and Elcobbola: could one of you take a quick look? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, the copyrightable text on this one page is completely by Adolf Hitler. I would go a a restore and change the license to {{PD-scan|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1945}}. --JuTa 22:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Yes, this is dated 6. September 1938 and is from Hofjuden by Peter Deeg (died 2005) and published 1938 by Verlag Der Stürmer/Julius Streicher. Эlcobbola talk 15:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per JuTa above. --Yann (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Brett A Becker.jpg

Consensus is that such files are educational: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2020/02#Would photos of university faculty members be accepted.--Roy17 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Honda00: sorry I forgot to ping you.--Roy17 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Our policy is that if a person's article has been declined on WP, then we do not keep an image here. The cited discussion is hardly a broad consensus and is certainly not enough to change well established policy.

I also note that this request was made previously, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-02#File:Brett A Becker.jpg. It is disruptive to make a second request without any new information. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  •  Support per VP discussion. There is no consensus that supports the statement Our policy is that if a person's article has been declined on WP, then we do not keep an image here. There is no such policy. Our policy is COM:Scope, nothing else, and in particular there is no equivalent to WP:People. --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't have a strong opinion on whether all faculty member photos should be kept, but I would really like to see a link to that policy. It's wrong; Wikisource, for one, would like photos for any author of any work it hosts, not all of whom may be WP notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have used the word "practice" rather than "policy" as the comments above are, strictly speaking, correct. As far as I can remember, we have never kept an image that was uploaded to illustrate a biography that did not pass muster on Wikipedia.

If the photo is used or intended to be used in any Wikimedia project, it is in COM:SCOPE. @Prosfilaes: Do you suggest that there is his author page on Wikisource? Or is there a reason to create it now? I cannot find it. Ankry (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
No; I was speaking in general, not in specific to this work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
My opinion is not to extend COM:SCOPE beyond the point "used in Wikimedia project. So I  Oppose undeletion until a Wikisource author page or appropriate Wikidata item appears (eg. due to import of Google Scholar or a similar database). Or until community decides to change definition of COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
That's a non-logical rationale, that is actually backwards reasoning. Being in use on Wikipedia is a logical reason to host a photo on Commons. A photo not being in use on Wikipedia is not by itself a rationale to delete a photograph. Specifically, should anyone have a rationale meeting it being of "reasonable educational value" then the photo by definition meets Wikimedia Commons Scope policy, regardless of any decisions about article notability on Wikipedia, or the existence of an entry on Wikidata. --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Info Based on prior discussion, the general principle is raised at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Photographs of established academics, writers, artists are in scope. --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)  Info What the matter with this file? I've put this file first on SD on the basis that the draft on English Wikipedia had been unambigously rejected on December 13. Strangely @Sebari: opened a standard DR on December 16 on the basis that the image was "used in draft currently under review on enwiki" (which was a false claim). This DR leads to a deletion of the image on January 29. Author of the draft @Honda00: requested an undeletion of the image which was turned down too February 2. The same day @Roy17: tried another approach on Village Pump (however omitting to name Becker). Saying there's a "consensus" (which was another false claim) among random users (no Administrator took part on this short discussion) Roy 17 opened this second UDR. Strangely again how explain the opening of a second Village Pump discussion by @Fæ: since, according to their promoters, the first one was succesful? IMO the wise way here is to have Honda00 resubmitting his improved draft until it qualifies for an Wikipedia article and that someone tells all these non-Administrators involved parties it's time to stop their 3-months+ continuous disruptive maneuver to get several Administrator's decisions invalidated. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid confusing a discussion on VP and a generic proposal on VPP. --Fæ (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
About confusion sure it must be a coincidence if the same users are obsessed with this specific file for more than 3 months, wasting kilos of octets, administrator's time and some patience too... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Or good faith can be applied. Feel free to create a discussion section in the generic VPP, if there are generic points to raise beyond this file. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 14:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Ticket:2020031310005641

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020031310005641 regarding

Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll ask. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 Comment Please note @Dacosta 3: is blocked since March 5 by @EugeneZelenko: just after having uploaded this batch of photos. The motive was "Promo photos No evidence of permission(s)." Although the permissions are now OK, does it mean the promo side is clear to have these images deleted? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, there is es:Mariana Flórez Carulla, assuming this is the same person and that article isn't also deletable as spam (or for some other reason), that would place these within scope. But we'd need a local es.wiki contributor to evaluate that bit. GMGtalk 16:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Article tagged - completely promotional. Apparently the list of files are divided in two tickets (I've received another from other photographer, with half of the files). The names are not right neither (see [3]), but I'm in stand by, waiting for your instructions above the files. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Well...I think we're on stand by all around. Until an es.wiki admin evaluates the article, the images would be either in-use or clearly usable. The OTRS ticket taking care of the licensing, it's not clear that the rationale from the DR stands. Certainly open to other opinions though. GMGtalk 18:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: What could be restored was done. No edit since March 18, so closing. --Yann (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:6 Maharaj Bhim Shumsher with wife Sita Bada Maharani and daughter Choore Maharani Dibya Rajam Laxmi.jpg

This is a family photograph of Maharaj Bhim Shumsher with his daughter Choore Maharani Dibya Rajya_Laxmi and his wife Sita Bada Maharani. The photograph was taken in 1931. The source of the photograph is the sole surviving grandson of Maharaj Bhim Shumsher with full permissions to publish (this attestation can even be provided to Wikipedia). The photograph is also already in the public domain and is one of the most recognised photographs of this ruler of Nepal with his family.

Maharaj Bishwajeet Singh is the grandson of Maharaj Bhim Shumsher and Sita Bada Maharani, and the later granted him a gift deed of all her moveable and immoveable assets including family photographs.

Full permission from Maharaj Bishwajeet Singh to publish this photograph and others. All documents can be supplied to Wikipedia administrator on request and subject to confidentiality as the gift deed is a confidential document.

Ticket#2020031810005472 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avs2794 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Info Definitely {{PD-Nepal}} but unclear copyright status in US if we know neither photographer, nor a pre-2004 Nepali publication. Likely published, however. Ankry (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hm, according to this page this is a photo by a US photographer w:Richard Gordon Matzene. I am unable to determine its copyright status. Ankry (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give the owner the right to freely license it -- that right is held by the photographer and his heirs. Therefore, most of the comments above and the OTRS ticket are irrelevant unless the OTRS message includes a copy of a license from Matzene or his heirs giving the family the right to freely license the image.
Ankry is correct that in Nepal photographs are PD 25 years after creation. However, since Matzene was an American photographer, there is certainly a significant doubt as to when and where the image was first published. If, for example, it appeared in a periodical or book in any country where the law is pma 70, since Matzene died in 1950, it will be under copyright until 1/1/21. If it appeared in the United States, it may or may not still be under copyright. Without knowing its publication history we cannot restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a suggestion in ticket:2020031810005472 that the photo was published in Nepal in 1930. However, while no clear evidence for this is provided, the information seems reasonable to me. Ankry (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Disagree completely that it's anywhere near a significant doubt. If we use "well it could have been published in another country first" as a "significant doubt", then we may as well use Spain's 80pma as the minimum and delete everything else, since most of the time you can't prove it wasn't published there first. That's pretty much the definition of a theoretical doubt to me, well below COM:PRP. Anywhere it was published later doesn't matter (it was either going to be under copyright for 70pma in those countries anyways, or they use the rule of the shorter term and it's the same as Nepal's). If the authorship claimed above is correct, then it's PD in Nepal now, and that was the likely first country of publication as it seems rather reasonable that it was taken to distribute copies to at least the family at the time. Even if 50pma, it's fine, and Nepal's URAA date was 2004, so it's not eligible for that either. And since it was an American photographer who apparently was not living there, it wouldn't be eligible for the URAA in the first place. For it to be still valid in the U.S., it would need a copyright notice on it, and a renewal -- so find the renewal number if we want to delete using that rationale.  Support I guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 Support There is no doubt that the photograph was published in Nepal in 1930 first. There is no evidence that the photograph was published in the USA or any country besides Nepal. The intended purpose of the photograph was clear - for Bhim Shumsher to have his family photographed and then for that photograph to be displayed in the offices of the state and the Nepal Museum. This practice was widely used by all ruling families of Nepal. Bhim Shumsher was an unknown figure in the USA and the USA had virtually no interest in Nepal in the 1930s. Therefore, it is just not plausible that the photograph was published in the USA as there would be little financial gain for the photographer. However, the incentives were clear for Bhim Shumsher to have this photograph published in Nepal at the earliest - to build his credibility as ruler shortly after his coronation and to be widely recognised among his subjects. The only financial or non-financial gain for the photographer was to be paid to take the photograph in a private capacity for the benefit of the Nepali state and this was the only plausible route. The intellectual property and copyright always rested with Nepal, not any other foreign jurisdiction. Hence, in light of the above evidence, it is absolutely clear that this photograph does not breach any applicable copyright laws. It should be disclosed as public domain, not under license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avs2794 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 Support The photographer died on 29 August 1950 so all of his works published and unpublished will be expired on January 1, 2021. Richard Gordon Matzene (Q59785776) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Maybe you use another calendar than gregorian, but January 1, 2021 is not a date in the past. Also, assuming 70pma is not justified if we are not sure about initial publication country. If it was Nepal, the photo is PD there since 1956. Ankry (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hence my use of the future tense "will be expired" for his oeuvre, I am basing my support on the Nepal date. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 Support This is an important photograph that in the public domain since 1930 in Nepal that shows the history of Nepal, and the citizens of this proud nation should not be denied their history, especially as there is no breach of copyright laws.This work was first published in Nepal and is now in the public domain because its copyright protection has expired by virtue of the Copyright Act, 2059 (2002).{{PD-Nepal}}

It is similar in status to the following photographs that you will see on these pages that were also taken by American photographers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Shumsher_Jang_Bahadur_Rana https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandra_Shamsher_JB_Rana.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandra_Shamsher_Jung_Bahadur_Rana_Younghusband.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandra_Shamsher_family.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandra_Shamsher_and_sons.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rana_couple.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dev_Shamsher_JBR.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandra_Shamsher_Jang_Bahadur_Rana.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tribhuvan_1937.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Padma_Shamsher_JBR.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.176.185.160 (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Info Per en:Special:Diff/947775949/948358660, the above comments are similar to the ones made by Avs2794 (talk · contribs) in the FfD on English Wikipedia. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl L. above. An official photograph like this one would certainly have be published at the time in Nepal. --Yann (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:"Elephant and trainer," a visitor's photo, 1914.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Elephant and trainer," a visitor's photo, 1914.jpg

This was uploaded by a banned user. Circa 1910 photograph attributed to the Haeckel brothers. The last surviving of the pair was Otto who died in 1945. Source site (through Wayback Machine) is https://web.archive.org/web/20160304224240/http://www.haeckel-foto.de/thumbnails-galerie-asien which is the 3rd photo, top row. Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Info I wonder why you do not reupload the photo yourself if you find it OK and useful. The source link is http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/1900_1999/fantasies/elephants/elephants.html and it still does work. I do not believe anybody suspects you the 33nd sock of this user. Ankry (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, you can close this request as I've taken your advice and uploaded as File:Elephant and trainer, Kandy, Central Ceylon, circa 1910.jpg Abzeronow (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Nicole Bass with Paul Billets.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I strongly doubt that one of the files uploaded by PaulBillets violates some copyright, even more images where he himself appears. See other such files in Category:Photographs by Paul Billets.

This file is nonetheless the basis of another widely used file, File:Nicole Bass with Paul Billets (cropped).jpg, that was not deleted.

I would like to capture a better crop for the latter picture, so I would like to access the original file that was deleted.

I did not find a deletion discussion for this file, only a warning of the User page User_talk:PaulBillets#File:Nicole_Bass_with_Paul_Billets.jpg.

Laddo (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose User:PaulBillets claims to have been the actual photographer of this image and of many others in Category:Photographs by Paul Billets. Since they do not look like selfies, that appears to be incorrect. I also note that the images are very small and have no EXIF so it is unlikely that the actual photographer has uploaded them as claimed.

In order for this image to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I disagree. This picture was likely taken in the 1990s. It was common at the time for someone wanting a selfie to hand the camera to another person while posing. The camera belonged to the person being photographed and the actual photograph was implicitly granting the copyright to the owner of the camera, who from that point was becoming the owner of the copyright. Requiring an explicit OTRS notification by whoever took the picture is inappropriate in this case, IMHO. Laddo (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
BTW I noticed that you deleted File:Nicole Bass with Paul Billets (cropped).jpg that I was using as an argument. Could you please wait until the end of this discussion ? thanks Laddo (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Laddo: The idea of bystander selfie is not justified by law nor by a community decission. While it is possible that all photos are made by the same person who is a friend of the subject, using by them the subject name as the uploader account name constitutes a reasonable doubt. This can be resolved through COM:OTRS if the uploaders contacts them. I neither support nor oppose undeletion here as I think that we have not enough information about the photographer to take a decission. If the photos in Category:Photographs by Paul Billets were indeed made by bystanders, as you suggest, then they all qualify for deletion per COM:PCP. It someone ask a bystander for making a photo, they got only a photo, not copyright of the photo. The latter requires a written contract unless law is changed. Ankry (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: I do not understand. Until 2000, most photographs were paper copies, generally 1 copy made of each negative. If I asked my father to take a picture of me, and I keep the photograph, and 10 years later I scan it to display it on my personal page, I am violating a copyright? Laddo (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Your father is the copyright holder. You may inherit the copyright or get it as a gift, but a written form is required for the latter. Otherwise, it is just COM:PCP #1 or #3. Ankry (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there an official policy? User:Abd did some research and even prepared a policy on that subject. A key excerpt is "The strongest legal opinion we have is that the subject owns ordinary bystander selfies, or may be treated as owning them. The whole thing has been a misunderstanding of copyright law, at least in the U.S. Because co-authors may have rights in other countries that they do not have in the U.S., it is possible that the situation would be different elsewhere, but the WMF legal opinion was that the subject is the sole author for purposes of copyright." Laddo (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Unless this is an oficial policy of Wikimedia Commons, we do not follow it. Concerning photographs, the common position in Wikimedia Commons is that the person who presses the button is the author. To be co-authors they must press the button together. And if you teach your dog to press the button, then the photo is copyright-free. Ankry (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Consider this -- creativity is required for copyright. That is why photographs of 2D works do not themselves have a copyright (see Bridgeman). When you use a modern point and shoot camera, the only creative input there is comes from framing the subject and pressing the button at a good moment. None of that is done by the camera owner -- it is all done by the person who actually holds the camera and pushes the button. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Jose Palma Banged Up Abroad 2019.jpg

The permission was given by producer of the show, Stuart Jones.

jahsoldier07 3-4-20 Jahsoldier07 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at IMDB, so policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. Unless Mr. Jones is the actual photographer, his permission is neither needed nor sufficient. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose False claim of own work. No evidence that Jahsoldier07 = Stuart Jones. Ankry (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:USAG Yongsan Military Police and Fire Department during full scale exercise.jpg

The file is an image published on the Flickr account of US Army Garrison Yongsan, in which it qualifys for {{PD-USGov-Army}} despite being wrongfully tagged as CC-BY-SA-NC-2.0.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support per EXIF: "U.S. Army photo by Cpl. Jung Jihoon, USAG Yongsan Public Affairs Office". The file should be reviewed manually despite of Flickr source. Ankry (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I originally requested manual license review, yet a bot seems to convert {{Licensereview}} to {{Flickrreview}} automatically, leading to automatic failed license review.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I am asking the bot operator below, how to avoid this bot interaction. Ankry (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done restored without recent bot edits. Ankry (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:New Volkswagen Crafters to be handed to Ukrainian National Police.jpg

The file is an image published on the Flickr account of US Embassy Kiev, in which it qualifys for {{PD-USGov-DOS}} despite being wrongfully tagged as CC-BY-SA-NC-2.0.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support per EXIF the author is "USembassy". @MGA73: Any hint how to avoid flickreview when Flickr is a source? It seems to be mistagged by bots. The file should be reviewed manually as Flickr-declared license is irrelevant in this case. Ankry (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done restored without recent bot edits. Ankry (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Juliette Méadel en mars 2020.jpg

Resubmitting this undeletion request since the previous one has been wrongfully closed, no answer has been givin to the ticket, the undeletion should therefore be accepted. The author has sent its consent following every procedure ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJuL (talk • contribs) 13:17, 4 April 2020‎ (UTC)

According to the previous request, this is ticket:2020031910002581. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done waiting for response in OTRS. Ankry (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari 1920 Poster.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari 1920 Poster.jpg

Both authors died in 1945, so this poster has been public domain in the EU since 2016. 1920 publication makes it public domain in the US. In the unrelated DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Martin H./World War I posters in the Library of Congress for jpg file matches to "Rehse-Archiv" this info on Ledl: "According to ÖNB [KS 16305113|http://www.bildarchivaustria.at/Pages/ImageDetail.aspx?p_iBildID=14664209] the artist is Rudolf Ledl, not Lendl. There are various posters by him at ÖNB also from the 1930s. A local daily newspaper from Maribor - at that time Marburg and part of Styria - Marburger Zeitung, 85. Jahrgang, Nr. 15, 15. Januar 1945, tells about the death of Rudolf Ledl, an artist and poster artist who died at age 58 in Vienna-Perchtelsdorf" Abzeronow (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per above and per the DR. @Abzeronow: there is also an enwiki version. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Vinu.jpg

Please undelete the File vinu.jpg.It is a PD-Self document.I am an upcoming production manager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Best production manager (talk • contribs) 05:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Why do you want to undelete an image uploaded by somebody else without a license 12 years ago? Ankry (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the file that the User wants restored. He wants the version that is all caps, File:VINU.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Rashid Aghamaliyev

As an OTRS volunteer, I have recently received Ticket:2020040110006223, and hereby request to undelete the following files for examination:

regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @廣九直通車: FYI. Ankry (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:VINU.jpg

Please undelete my photo.It is PD-self category.I am an ucoming production manager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Best production manager (talk • contribs) 05:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose See COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Hamed Sinno et un de ses fréres.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020032910002418.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020032910002418|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 18:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nat: as per above request. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Leif Rantala in Sami Traditional Costume.jpg

This media file has been nominated for deletion since 2 April 2020.

File:Leif Rantala in Sami Traditional Costume.jpg The subject, Leif Rantala, was born in 1947, so this photograph contained in this work is almost certainly under copyright. We cannot keep this derivative work without a free license for the photograph. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not derivative because I did live sketch of Leif Rentala while watching a documentary- he was being interviewed in one of the symposiums that I attended in Sweden--Audioboss (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It's an illustration or drawing that I made myself not a photograph. It looks like a photograph because I rendered it digitally.--Audioboss (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a scan of a mixed Media drawing and sketch of Leif Rantala using acrylics, Copic markers, water color, and transfer solvents. source: http://i-am-michelangelo.deviantart.com/art/Leif-Rantala-in-Sami-Traditional-Costume-517000489 --Audioboss (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural Close -- this file has not been deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Nestea-Logo2019.jpg

Why Nestea logo got deleted ? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.11.91.29 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Comment It was deleted as a copyvio. All Public Logs has this "(Copyright violation, no indication of a free license on the source site (F1): I checked the archived version at Wayback Machine; no indication)" Abzeronow (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose A free license permission from the logo actual copyright holder following COM:OTRS procedure is needed in order to undelete the logo. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above: copyrighted logo, OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:دااف11.jpg

سلام حق کپی رایت این عکس با خودمه لطفا احیاش کنید — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehr dad.k795 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose تصویر کوچک است، فراداده ندارد و در چندین جا در اینترنت یافت می‌شود. در صورتی که حق نشر تصویر قطعاً متعلق به شماست، لطفاً مجوز استفاده را به permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ارسال کنید و تأیید کنید که تصاویر را تحت مجوز یادشده منتشر می‌کنید. برای اطلاعات بیشتر COM:OTRS را ببینید. Ahmadtalk 01:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose The picture is small and has no EXIF data. It can also be found on many websites on the web. If you surely are the copyright holder and/or photographer, please send a declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and release the photo under the said license. See COM:OTRS for more information. Ahmadtalk 01:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Ahmad: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:دااف0.jpg

دانشگاه افسری امام علی — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehr dad.k795 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose تصویر کوچک است، فراداده ندارد و در چندین جا در اینترنت یافت می‌شود. در صورتی که حق نشر تصویر قطعاً متعلق به شماست، لطفاً مجوز استفاده را به permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ارسال کنید و تأیید کنید که تصاویر را تحت مجوز یادشده منتشر می‌کنید. برای اطلاعات بیشتر COM:OTRS را ببینید. Ahmadtalk 01:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose The picture is small and has no EXIF data. It can also be found on many websites on the web. If you surely are the copyright holder and/or photographer, please send a declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and release the photo under the said license. See COM:OTRS for more information. Ahmadtalk 01:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Ahmad: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:hapyness_kikeev.jpg

Hello!

I am the daughter of the artist Ochir Kikeev, Honored Artist of Russia, Honored Artist of Kalmykia. Dad died in 2001. My sister Baira Lyalina and I created our father’s Wikipedia page. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%9E%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%A5%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

We would like to publish photos of his works on his page.


But Wikipedia blocked the publication of photographs of our father’s works.

File:hapyness_kikeev.jpg

File:Bosya_Sangagieva.jpg

File:kalmyk_field.jpg

File:voradero.jpg

My sister has notarized copyrights. The photos were taken by photographer Nikolai Boshev, who agreed to publish his photographs of our father’s paintings.

What we need to do to publish photos of our father on his Wikipedia page?


At the same time, I would like to know how we can publish photos of the works of our grandmother. Grandmother died in 1992. She was also an artist and soon we plan to create her Wikipedia page and publish her works too.

Thanks a lot in advance! We look forward to your reply. Daughter - Yatska Sokuleva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatska Sokuleva (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Yatska Sokuleva: A written permission from the artist's heirs following COM:OTRS procedure is needed. Ankry (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Song Deok-Gi.jpg

--Baekpyo (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Picture illustrating the page about Grandmaster Song Deok-Gi, preserver of the ancient Martial Art of Taekkyon.

This picture was taken by Master Do Ki-Hyun of the Kyullyun Taekkyon Association in 1983 and has been in the public domain ever since. I even got his authorization before putting it online. As such, the image has been used countless time on various Taekkyon-related supports qnd is not the property of the writer of the blog http://blog.daum.net/_blog/BlogTypeView.do?blogid=0VTGG&articleno=17&categoryId=19&regdt=20101111162640

I ask you kindly to reconsider and to help me into getting this iconic image of our beloved Grandmaster back to its place. Of all the pictures takken during the long life of GrandMaster Song, this one would be the most symbolic. I am ready to comply with any guideline you might have. You may contact me at the following adress: vianney.merignargues@gmail.com

Your Sincerly, April 6th 2020 Baekpyo --Baekpyo (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Baekpyo: Do Ki-Hyun or the Kyullyun Taekkyon Association should send an email to the OTRS team, verifying that they are releasing their photo under the public domain. Thanks, pandakekok9 05:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose If Do Ki-Hyun was the actual photographer, then a free license from him via OTRS will allow restoration of the image. He himself must send the license directly to OTRS.

@Baekpyo: , in the file description, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. It is clear from your comments above that that is not correct. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and makes it very difficult to believe anything you say -- if you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Arjun_sapkota.jpg

this is to request to undelete the photo of arjun sapkota as he is the famous nepalese folk singer . He is public figure and his Facebbok page. His Official YouTube channel

 Question There is a dedicated Wikipedia page, for example? Facebook and YouTube are promotional channels. They cannot be used to assess otability. --Ruthven (msg) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. There are no obvious Google hits which would even begin to suggest that this person is notable. Anyone can have Facebook and YouTube pages. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Out of scope. Ankry (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Arne-Quinze-Amazonia 7.jpg

This picture shows an important artwork by the artist Arne Quinze, called Amazonia, photographed by his in-house photographer. Arne Quinze owns all copyrights of this photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramcoud (talk • contribs) 07:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bramcoud: In that case, we need to ask both the photographer and Arne Quinze to send an email to the OTRS team, confirming that they agree to the free license stated on the file. pandakekok9 07:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per pandakekok9: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Jean-Philippe Sarcos chef d'orchestre.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020040710002823.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020040710002823|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 09:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nat: as per request above. --Yann (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:clary.jpg was snapped by Clary's camera

the image "clary1.jpg" is not a copywrite image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshall294 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The file has not been deleted and has not been nominated for deletion, although it probably should be. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Jeune fille au Chat , Pastel EMR MdeB.jpg

Pouvez-vous, s'il vous plait restorer ce fichier File:Jeune fille au Chat , Pastel EMR MdeB.jpg car ce pastel est dans le domaine public et au musée de Bretagne.--2001:861:3DC6:C30:8F4:8C11:672B:3153 13:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Making a duplicate request is a waste of your time and ours. If you do it repeatedly, you will be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:1979FinalFourLogo.png

This logo (which can also be found at sportslogos.net) doesn't seem to meet COM:TOO; it's comparable to File:Avenue of the Saints logo.svg. –IagoQnsi (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. Ankry (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Portail Eurotunnel Fresque 25 ans.jpg

Bonjour, Nous travaillons pour le service presse de Getlink (d'où le nom d'utilisateur). Cette image fait partie de notre banque de données, qui se trouve également sur notre site, et dont nous sont les auteurs. Pourriez-vous ne pas supprimer nos modifications s'il vous plait ? Nous essayons de mettre à jour nos informations sur Wikipédia, mais cela est difficile avec toutes ces suppressions/règles. Merci par avance. Cordialement, Le service presse de Getlink — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getlink (talk • contribs) 08:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

--Getlink (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. The first is that in order for Commons to keep corporate images such as this one, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS. The second is that the image infringes on the copyright for the fresco and cannot be kept without a free license from the artist. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:XinQi Dong Photo.jpg

To whom it may concern: I have also forwarded this email below to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

Jenny Noonan, 04-06-2020

________________________________________________


Please see the photographer’s express permission below to use the attached photo on the Wikipedia page for XinQi Dong.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:XinQi_Dong_Photo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

Thanks kindly, Jenny

--

Jenny Wagner Noonan Sr. Edit/Media Specialist Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Follow Rutgers Institute for Health on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram.


From: Andrew Daddio [redacted personal information] Date: Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 9:17 AM To: Jenny Noonan [redacted personal information] Subject: Re: Question re: photo from March 2019

Hi Jenny, Yes, it it fine to use the image for LinkedIn and other social media and personal uses. You can post it on his Wikipedia page if a credit is provided, and if you are able to link to https://www.amdaddio.com/ that would be awesome. Thank you for your email and for checking with me about the licensing and usage, I appreciate it! Please let me know if you have any other questions or if there is anything else that I can do to be of help.

Thanks, Andy

Andy Daddio http://www.amdaddio.com [redacted personal information] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RutgersIFH (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. First, the photographer himself must send the free license using OTRS. Forwarded licenses are not acceptable for the simple reason that there are too many bad actors out there who think nothing of forging a license in order to get an image on Commons.

Second,"Yes, it it fine to use the image for LinkedIn and other social media and personal uses" is not an acceptable license. In order for an image to be kept on Commons, it must have an irrevocable license allowing use by anyone for any purpose anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license directly from the photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Pirano - 1927.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pirano - 1927.jpg

The artist, Edvi Illés Ödön, died in 1946. Has been public domain in Hungary since 2017. Abzeronow (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, but unlike many of the similar UnDRs you have made recently, this one is a 1927 work, so the URAA applies. It will be free in the USA in two years. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Under URAA copyright in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Exclusão de arquivos

Os arquivos que faço upload não são fotos únicas! TODAS AS FOTOS de artistas tem uma cópia material, onde na época foram distribuidas igualmente aos familiares e amigos, eu possuo TODOS OS DIREITOS de uso das imagens, posso provar quantas vezes for necessário. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agtalves (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The only deleted file of yours is File:Teddyvieira.png, which is low resolution and copied from external source. Please, upload original, unpublished files from your camera if you want to use {{Own}} type licensing. Ankry (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry -- obvious copyright violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Dave Leduc challenging his opponent with the Lekkha Moun.png

This file was deleted after citing the IMBD link, which at the time wasn't credited to me.

I took personaly this photograph in 2017 in Japan. The reason it's on IMBD, is because I gave permission to Mr. Leduc's management team to use it on his IMBD profile. They have since added the credit [4] The credit has also been on Mr. Leduc's Facebook page: [5] Thank you for your help. Lethweimaster (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Lethweimaster: The problem isnt credit but lack of free license at the extermal site. If an image was published elsewhere, you cannot use {{Own}} type licensing. You can either provide the same free license as you has granted elsewhere or follow COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the actual photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Milan_Jelen_Pajic.jpg

This is private picture from Milan Jelen Pajic, given by him to publish it here. This is his private picture which he published on his own instagram page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvladanyu (talk • contribs) 08:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose @Vvladanyu: As you said: it was published. In such case either uploader needs to provide an evidence that it was published initially under a free license or the copyright holder needs to follow COM:OTRS instructions. And using {{Own}} for images whare uploader is not the photographer, is blatant copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the actual photographer via OTRS. Permission from the subject is not relevant. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Famille de Bigoudens au Cochon. eau.forte. Malo Renault. MdePA, MdeB.jpg

File:Famille de Bigoudens au Cochon. eau.forte. Malo Renault. MdePA, MdeB.jpg Destruction abusive, car du domaine public , autant plus qu'également dans des musées nationaux.
--2001:861:3DC6:C30:8F4:8C11:672B:3153 09:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support I think this is also in the public domain in USA. Source says "First quarter of 20th century". Other files from the same DR should be restored. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, 1st quarter of XX c. ends with Dec 31, 1925. 96% chance that it is PD is a non-reasonable copyright doubt? Ankry (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 Support I also think this is public domain in the US per the reasons Yann has given. Abzeronow (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by Yann. Ankry (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Jeune fille au Chat , Pastel EMR MdeB.jpg

Suppression abusive de cette reproduction de ce pastel dans le domaine public et qui fait parti des collections du musée de Bretagne.

Merci d'avance. --2001:861:3DC6:C30:8F4:8C11:672B:3153 10:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Not abusive. Uploader did not provide an evidence that it is PD in US (i.e. that it was PD in France in 1996 or that it was available to public before 1.1.1925 or that it is a not registered US work). Making such accusations against admins who follow Wikimedia Commons rules is not acceptable behaviuour. Ankry (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. The deletion was discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Malo-Renault and there was no evidence that the work was created before 1/1/1925, so it is not PD in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done mostly per Yann. Ankry (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2020 (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 ДмитроСавченко

Please restore the files, because they are located in State Register of Immovable Landmarks of Ukraine--ДмитроСавченко (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@ДмитроСавченко: where free license permissions from sculptors or their heirs can be found? Such permissions are required per Ukrainian copyright law. If the permissions are in the register, or if there is copyright law exception related to the register, please point them out. Ankry (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: , Photos were made specially for the contest Wiki Loves Monuments 2019. Link on this list - https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вікіпедія:Вікі_любить_пам%27ятки/Чернігівська_область/Ічнянський_район . №74-217-0064, 74-217-0067, 74-217-0068 and other--ДмитроСавченко (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@ДмитроСавченко: Did sculptors grant special license for the contest? Or is there special exception for such contests in Ukrainian copyright law? The problem is not scope related but legal. Ankry (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Wiki Loves Monuments has a history of this problem. In all countries, sculpture and monuments have copyrights until they expire. In fewer than half of all countries, there is an exception to copyright law which allows us to have photographs of them. We call that exception freedom of panorama. Unfortunately, Ukraine is not one of the countries that allows this, so in order for a photograph of a recent monument to be kept on Commons, we must receive a free license from the creator of the monument via OTRS or someone must prove that the copyright has expired. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Permission of the monument authors is needed. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Copyright violations ASFDFDS

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: 17 files have {{Kept}} in their respective file talk pages linking to this deletion request so I don't think that this it should have been deleted. Jonteemil (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: I think those file talk pages should be repointed to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Copyright violations. I’ve temporarily restored the deleted page so you can see it had just one edit. I think the deleting admin created it for some temporary purpose. -Green Giant (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Green Gian: Yeah, you're right. It's the same as Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Copyright_violations#Files_in_Category:Copyright_violations_4. Perhaps a redirect is better than a deletion?Jonteemil (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. I’ve changed it to a redirect as the simplest option. —Green Giant (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored and redirected. --Green Giant (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Leonid Smekhov Smile.jpg

The license reviewer sent me a notification that the snapshot I uploaded is the same that is here: https://вконтакте24.рф/leonid-smehov-174597985.html Thats' true because I made a big fotosession of that guy Leonid Smekhov and here is the proof - the folder with that photos: https://yadi.sk/d/ms_P5cv23r8WYQ The fact he uses it as an avatar in the social networks doesnt proof I took this picture from the internet. He likes my photos and he uses it everywhere he wants.

Lsmekhov (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Alexandra Morrison 07.04.2020

@Lsmekhov: We cannot rely on user declared {{Own}} licenses for photos that were ever used outside Commons before uploaded here. If you did not declare the free license elsewhere before, please follow COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 Comment The user's name is similar to the one of the person pictured which is quite strange since he/she signs now Alexandra Morrison. Not sure the person is in COM:SCOPE. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: Excuse me I didn't understand what am I need to do to let my photos be used everywhere. I showed you the folder full of different photos from this walk, but I want to use this one. What's the problem, why can't I do that? BTW, let me notice that the photo on the public page is quite different with the one I've uploaded.
@Lsmekhov: Everywhere is not a place that rules can be described for. I can say only about Wikimedia Commons. If the photo is not a selfie and you have not a copyright transfer contract with the photographer, then you can do nothing. We need a written free license permission from the copyright holder (who is the photographer in most cases) following COM:OTRS instructions, as described above, in order to host the image. Note, that image being hosted does not automaticaly grant that in will be used anywhere. Ankry (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: Then what am I need to show to prove I am a copyright holder? 109.252.89.235 10:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: the file is not deleted. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Jonathan Bates.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020040710009933.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020040710009933|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 22:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI. Ankry (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Copertina East 46-2013.jpg

Gentile Staff, richiedo il ripristino del file in oggetto. L'immagine è la copertina di una rivista andata in stampa e di proprietà della Eastwest European Institute Srl, la foto proposta come violazione del copyright riporta altro personaggio.

--Dragoonslair (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Also

Gentile Staff, anche questa copertina è di proprietà della Eastwest European Institute Srl che ne autorizza la pubblicazione. La richiesta di cancellazione è anche immotivata.

--Dragoonslair (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dragoonslair: This contradicts your previous claim that you are personally the author and exclusive copyright holder of both: the cover photo and the magazine cover. In order to undelete the file it is needed that (a) you provide an evidence that the magazine was published under the mentioned free license, or (b) the magazine publisher grants a free license following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. In order to restore these, we need a free license from the magazine publisher via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: @Dragoonslair: Proprio perché è una copertina di una rivista della Eastwest European Institute Srl, ci aspettiamo che l'editore ci invii un'autorizzazione alla pubblicazione con licenza libera. Vedi COM:OTRS/it. Ruthven (msg) 08:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Algal fruit spot of guava (9580462986).jpg

We now have an OTRS per {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}} --MGA73 (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Question The Flickr source has the PDM, not CC-0. Does the OTRS ticket deal with that? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Done. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Hong Kong torrent frog (Amolops hongkongensis) 2.jpg

And also:

The Photo has been deleted for it violated Wikimedia Commons Copyright regulations, now the photo's copyright has been changed to BY SA (CC BY-SA), therefore it fullsfills the criteria to be undeleted -- Bubbleleg96 (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support undeletion; but license needs to be set to CC-BY-SA 2.0 as on Flickr. However I see no evidence of any violation nor this is a place to report it. Ankry (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bubbleleg96: Please, note that if you do not stop harrasing other users you may be blocked. Ankry (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: I am more or less new to use the undeletion site, not sure what you're reffering to, but it was never my intention to harrass anybody by requesting undeletion of these pictures. Could you send me a link to a page where I was harrassing so I can delete it or know not to do it again? Bubbleleg96 (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bubbleleg96: You are suggesting that the deleting admin violated policies, providing no evidence for this. Was the Flickr license the same in 2018? If you wish to initiate an action basing on policy violation, then COM:ANU is the right place, not here. Our policy is COM:AGF and refusing to follow it without evidence of bad faith may cause that nobody would support your requests. We are all volunteers here. Ankry (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: Oh, that was never my intention, I never wanted to imply the deleting admin violated any policies. When they deleted the files (2018), the copyright was not compatible with Wikimedia Commons regulations, so I changed the licenses afterwards and put them up for undeletion now. The deleting admin was perfectly right to delete the picture. But if not here, where should I post an undeletion request? I just want the files to get back up, and as far as I understand that, I should not re-upload them... Thanks for your help and sorry if I offended anybody Bubbleleg96 (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, so explanation from the nominator is not needed. I am just asking to AGF and suggesting to use more balanced wording in future. Bot has verified the license and I think we can close this case. Ankry (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Flickr license OK now. Ankry (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Ankry -- I see nothing in any way harassing above. Bubbleleg96 made a plain and true statement:

"The Photo has been deleted for it violated Wikimedia Commons Copyright regulations"

There's nothing in that that even hints that deletion was in any way wrong. He then added a second statement, also true:

"now the photo's copyright has been changed to BY SA (CC BY-SA), therefore it fullsfils the criteria to be undeleted"

In effect, he was saying "It was deleted because its license broke the rules, but now the license has been changed so it is OK." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Right. @Bubbleleg96: I am sorry, I misread your statements (I missed the "for" word). Redacting my comments. Ankry (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/2015/05/12

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Deletion_requests/2015/05/12 has a lot of links to it, including Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/05#current Exxxotica deletions requests which states that there currently is (or was at the time) deletion requests of the files in the WhatLinksHere page. I want to know why it was deleted since there are so many links to it. Jonteemil (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That particular page was a maintenance page that was emptied when the DRs were archived in Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/05/12 Abzeronow (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose as per Abzeronow: links to this page would be useless even after undeletion as the page content was archived. They might be converted to links to the appropriate archive. Ankry (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/05/12! I don't know how I didn't get that all was moved there. No need for undeletion now, admin can close.Jonteemil (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Algal fruit spot of guava (9580462986).jpg

Undeletion request originally filed in January by @NessieVL: at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2020-01#File:Algal_fruit_spot_of_guava_(9580462986).jpg. The file is now licensed CC-0 per Template:Cc-zero-Scot_Nelson and can be undeleted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by Josve05a per OTRS. Ankry (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Народы севера Европейской России.png

The reason: "derivative work", although in it alien elements - it is only the coastal border (first mapped before the Revolution of 1917, obviously) and the signatures of the sea and its bays (plain text, which cannot be protected by copyright). I ask @ Sealle to give anger about the real cause of the deletion and suggest restoring the file. Also, please send me a deleted file for processing.--Мечников (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Мечников: Which exactly free base map did you use to create this map? It you did not create the whole map from scratch (incl. see borders and river courses, we need to verify if the base map was indeed not copyrighted. Ankry (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I took this map as a basis. It is not free, but it has been much changed. I removed many rivers. And I repeated the other rivers with thicker lines. Also see these maps (1, 2). I used them to clarify the boundaries of ethnic groups--Мечников (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Тогда правильно эту карту удалили - раз Вы взяли в качестве исходной карты несвободную, то и переработанная карта также несвободна с точки зрения авторского права. Раммон (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Неужели вы не видите, что у этих двух карт из одинакового только береговая линия моря и двух озёр (которую, очевидно, нанесли на карту впервые задолго до 1917 года) и подписи Белого моря и заливов? Исходную карту вернее назвать подложкой, по которой моя карта рисовалась фактически заново с использованием других типов линий, заливок, обозначений--Мечников (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose It is an obvious copyright violation. The coastlines and the actual text showing names of features are exact copies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:SCNU hawk.png

This is my image, and I proved all long time ago, but why suddenly delete all the images here? Please recover all the images, I never used them without any permissions. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.5.219.104 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The uploader declared that this is their own, private, unpublished logo. Such logos are out of scope. In case, that the logo was already used elsewhere we need an evidence that (a) its copyright already expired in both: the source country and US, or (b) the logo copyright holder granted a free license for this logo. If you granted the SCNU a license to use your logo after uploading it here, please provide an evidence for this (eg. where SCNU declares that user Nakim02 is the author, as the license requires). Neither of them has been provided. Ankry (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Igbo princess.jpg

Good and okay for commons Tbiw (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tbiw: And any evidence that it is not a screenshot and in COM:SCOPE? Ankry (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose It is obviously a screenshot -- you can see the pixelation at high magnification. As such, it infringes on the copyright of the producer of the work and the claim of {{Own}} is incorrect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Jimmy Mazz Legends & Laughter Show Characters

Please Do Not delete this photo, or any of my photos / images. They are of me, me performing as characters in my current show and I own all photos and all rights.

Thank you.

Sincerely, James mazzaferro / Jimmy Mazz 04/08/2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMazz (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Procedural close, no files have been deleted. DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by JamesMazz. Thuresson (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Engenheiro Agrônomo pela Universidade Federal da Paraíba concluído em (1981) e Licenciatura em Teologia pelo CEPRAC em (2007), efetuou o doutorado (1991 - 1995) recebendo o titulo de Doutor Engenheiro Agrônomo pela Universidad de Córdoba - España em (1995) que foi Convalidado pela USP ESALQ - Piracicaba - SP em 1996 como o titulo de D. Sc.: Entomologia . Conceito CAPES 7. Trabalhou na Extensão na Secretaria de Agricultura da PB e Projeto Sertanejo em Picuí - PB e Campina Grande - PB, ensinou na UEPB - Universidade Estadual da Paraiba (Campus II Lagoa Seca - PB), na ESAM atualmente UFERSA - Universidade Federal do Semiárido no Campus de Mossoró - RN) e aposentou-se como professor Titular da Universidade Federal de Campina Grande - CCTA - Campus de Pombal - PB, Atualmente é professor visitante do CCJS da UFCG de Sousa - PB. Tem experiência na área de Agronomia, com ênfase Agroecologia, atuando principalmente nos seguintes temas: Adubação orgânica, Apicultura e Abelhas Nativas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricio Borges Maracaja (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Not an undeletion request concerning a Commons file. File:Example.jpg is not deleted. Ankry (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Jason Kovac.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020040910010132 regarding File:Jason Kovac.jpg. The subject plead the photographer is his brother and he¡s sent the original file with EXIF. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:COVID-19 Outbreak Cases in Argentina.svg

The file was deleted and a redirection was made because somebody thought this map was the exact duplicate of File:COVID-19 Pandemic Cases in Argentina by number by province.svg, but they were not the same maps, at least in the last version I made of this one, before a upload by other user of a map similar to the redirected. Frodar (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: done. --JuTa 10:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Mappa della Lake Como Poetry Way in alta risoluzione.pdf

And also:

I kindly ask to restore this file. The sources of the derivative work - reason for which it has been deleted - are reported inside the pdf file. If preferred we can also report them in the description of the file. Do not hesitate to contact for any further clarification. Thank you! --Tremej (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tremej: No. The sources of the photos used to create this folder as well as the source of the map are not provided. Can you prove that you are a professional map creator who created the map from scratch? I also doubt that you are author of the text parts as well as the citations selector. Claiming {{Own}} means that you are original and exclusive author of everything copyrightable there. If you wish to fix this declaration, you can do it here providing appropriate information. Note that it is also unclear if the folder is in COM:SCOPE (can it be realistically useful for a Wikimedia project?). Ankry (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. In order to claim {{Own work}}, you must be the photographer of all the images, the writer of all the text, the creator of the map and the designer of the whole. It will probably be very difficult to get all of the license needed here. For one thing, even if the creator of the work got licenses from all of the photographers, they are almost certainly licenses to use the photographs in this work and are not broad enough to allow the free license for any use as required on Commons.

As for the second, low resolution file, we will not keep it in any case. We always keep only the highest available quality. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ankry: If you check the first page of the map, for the photos the source is provided (photos from Wikimedia Commons) as well as the name of all the authors according to CC BY-SA license. The graphic designer is mentioned as well (and is the user who has uploaded the file) for the drawings , and the map is from Open Street Map (also written in the PDF). Finally, the graphic designer wrote on the PDF that the map is released under CC BY-SA 4.0, according to the sources. You can ask to an Italian admin to translate it, if it is not immediately clear. The map is part of a project in collaboration with WMI in the contest of the Wiki Loves Monuments local activities to promote the photographical comptetition, implying that we use free sources because the map is meant to be published under free license. Thank you for your support. --Tremej (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, the mentioning of all authors in a single note instead of near appropriate images may be a bit nonstandard, but IMO acceptable. I think, that if links to appropriate images are provided in the source field, the copyright issue might be resolved. However, I think that scope issues need further clarification. I am temporarily undeleting the files for further discussion. Ankry (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support the first,  Oppose the smaller version, per my comment above. Since our sofware resizes as needed, there is never any need for a smaller version..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tremej: We are still waiting for the sources of the images used. If they are provided, the files will be redeleted. Also, you did not explain why the files are in COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: With the designer we are working on the sources of the images used. I have started to add some links, please let me know if it is fine or if the links should be indicated differently or in another section. Please give us a few days to complete this task.
Further info, is it correct that the low res version has been undeleted? I understood from previous comments that you only kept the high res version (which I perfectly agree with). Thanks!--Tremej (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tremej: both are undeleted temporarily for discussion as copyright issues are unlikely.However, at the moment i do not see consensus to keep the low-res one. Ankry (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: I have added the used pictures in a gallery. All other elements come from the designer (Mirna Ortiz, the user who has uploaded the map)--Tremej (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: -- kept the larger, deleted the smaller. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Uzari nawrocki.jpg File:Padziaka serca cover.jpg File:Uzari best artist 2019.jpg

Hello. My name is Ksenia Truhanovich, I am UZARI manager. We (me and my artist, UZARI himself) are very outraged about Wikipedia policy for deleting the files. Any unknown person on the Internet without any argument can tap "delete" and Wikipedia deletes the media without finding out the arguments. We believe that you should make changes to your policy and first of all contact the person who downloaded the content to find out all the circumstances, and only after that decide to remove or not the media files.

These 3 files that someone "Дима Г" marked for deletion are our own work and I, as an official representative of UZARI, downloaded it myself. The first one (the file Uzari nawrocki.jpg) is a photo of UZARI singing on a TV show "Макаенка 9" was made and given to UZARI for free use anywhere by the TV photographer. The second one (the file Padziaka serca cover.jpg) is the official cover for UZARI album "Padziaka Serca" and it was made by me personally. I am the creator of this album cover. The third one (the file Uzari best artist 2019.jpg) was photographed by me on my own phone during "Песня года 2019" awards.

In conclusion, I hope this dispute will be solved very soon, and Wikipedia will be more responsible for its actions. Also, I want to prohibit the opportunity to make any changes for someone "Дима Г" on the Wiki-page Юзари Thank you.

I am waiting for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tksenias (talk • contribs) 10:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose It is a little sad when someone with 8 edits on Commons and 22 on all WMF projects comes here and lectures us. That is particularly so when he clearly hasn't bothered to read any of the introductory material easily available on the main page. There is no dispute here. My colleagues acted entirely properly and as required by Commons policy.

For your information, Commons gets about 10,000 new images every day and must delete about 2,000 of them for various reasons, mostly copyright violations. Although we have about 200 Administrators, carefully selected by the community, who are permitted to delete files, most of the actual work is done by about 25 of them. In an ideal world, if we had perhaps ten times as many Admins, we might discuss problems created by newbies who haven't read the rules, but as shorthanded as we are, all we can do is delete the rule breaking images.

As for your images, the first two were obvious problems and qualified for {{Speedy}} deletion:

  1. File:Uzari nawrocki.jpg appeared here without a free license. Therefore policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS.
  2. File:Padziaka serca cover.jpg is an album cover and policy requires that an authorized official of the production company must send a free license, also using OTRS. Note that such a license will allow anyone to make and sell tee shirts or posters of the album cover.
  3. File:Uzari best artist 2019.jpg is under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Uzari best artist 2019.jpg. The image infringes on the copyright for the trophy. Unless the designer of the trophy or someone from the organization issuing the trophy and having the right to freely license it gives a free license, the image cannot be kept. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per comments. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Lady Miss Kier Lounging.jpg

I am the photographer and have authorized for it to be part of the commons, doing so is not in violation of copyright law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Menendez (talk • contribs) 13:32, 8 April 2020‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at http://www.ladykier.com/, so policy requires that the actual photographer send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Another solution is to follow Creative Commons' instructions to adopt the free culture license of your choice on your website. It will then be reviewed when files are uploaded by you or others. --Ruthven (msg) 17:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: As noted above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Logo_DiablosTesistan.pnh.png

Este es un logotipo para uso del dominio público, solicito la reincorporación a wikipedia para completar el perfil. --Diablostesistan (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.
And also the logo seems to be out of scope as this Wikipedia article has already been deleted. Ankry (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio and out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:South_Face_Puntiagudo_Photo_DAV.jpg

Dears:

We are member of the DAV who are the owners of the picture and that is the reason why we use South_Face_Puntiagudo_Photo_DAV.jpg for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hermann_Hess_Helfenstein with the credit "Volcán Puntiagudo, Chile Foto:www.dav.cl" and not https://www.facebook.com/mountainchile/photos/a.1067241290052410/1149151778528027/?type=3&theater (they put Volcán Puntiagudo, Chile. Foto: www.dav.cl at our request too).

Please, correct the mistake ASAP and put tag {{PD-self}} for us.

Thanks for understanding und support.

Regards, Dr. Ing. Roland Hess (MBA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciete007 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ciete007: We cannot an we may not verify your identity on-wiki. As for any image published elsewhere, we cannot rely on on-wiki personal license granting by an anonymous Wikimedia user. If you do not provide us a link where the photo was freely licensed prior to upload yo Commons, following COM:OTRS procedure by the actual copyright holder is the only way to undelete it. Ankry (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Mustvee kirik leekides.png

Per source given by uploader (scan available here) this is an anonymous work published over 70 years ago within collective work. Per §§ 40 and 41 of the copyright act of Estonia copyright for such work has expired. Either {{PD-Estonia}} or {{PD-anon-70-EU}} would do for this work. Pikne 07:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose It was PD in Estonia in 2009, 70 years after publication. Howevr, because of URAA, it will not be PD in the USA until 2034. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually on URAA date (1 January 1996) copyright duration in Estonia was 50 years after publication (see en:WP:URAA). Hence the work was in public domain back then already and US copyright was never restored. Tag {{PD-1996}} can be added too. Pikne 14:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per pikne. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Rana Ayyub book launch.jpg

Hello, For the use of this photo, I have taken permission from Rana Ayyub who had uploaded it to her fb account back in 2016. This may not be copyrighted but licenced, I think. Do consider it — Preceding unsigned comment added by پرویز عالم (talk • contribs) 12:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. It is obvious that that is not correct. Making incorrect claims here is a serious violation of our rules. It makes it very difficult to believe anything you say. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.

The image appears in several places on the Web. Therefore, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: see above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Rachel-valdes.jpg

esxribo par informales que la imagen utilizada fue extraida del Sitio web de la Artista y debidamente referenciada en las declaraciones de usa de la imagen, ademas en este sitio https://www.telva.com/estilo-vida/2020/03/03/5e5e624901a2f159b08b460d.html dicen que la imagen fue tomada desde la web tambien. por favor quisiera se reconciderara la imagen. coordiales saludos --Gcbarroso2012 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was taken from the web site https://rachelvaldes.com/introduction which has an explicit copyright notice. The site you link above also has an explicit copyright notice. The CC-0 license you put on the upload is completely without basis. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Category:Hachem Gaddouch

Good evening, I wrote an article of a Tunisian youtubeur. I found photos about this youtuber can you restore photos and category . Regards --Eya ben (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@De728631: : Thank You --Eya ben (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file descriptions, you claimed that you were the actual photographer of these images. Above, you say "I found photos about this youtuber" which suggests strongly that you were not the photographer. If that is correct, then please note that making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. It makes it difficult to believe anything you say and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.

If you were not the actual photographer, then, in order for any of these to be restored, the actual photographers must give free licenses using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Hello, I'm not a photographer I found deleted files on google during the search to write an article. Thank you for your explanation. Have you a nice weekend --Eya ben (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Non-free files that cannot be kept without permission from the copyright holders. --De728631 (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Miss Diva Ifa Raziah.jpg

Gambar ini diambil oleh jurugambar yang diupah oleh Ifa Raziah sendiri! Kenapa perlu gambar ini dipadam?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiesyahmie (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 Info Google translate: "This photo was taken by a photographer hired by Ifa Raziah himself! Why does this image need to be deleted ?!". Translation added by Thuresson (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Since the image appears on Instagram, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Animafilm's audience 2019.jpg

As an OTRS volunteer, I have received Ticket:2020040110006223 regarding the permission of the image, and hereby request the temporary undeletion of File:Animafilm's audience 2019.jpg for further examination, many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Gbawden. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:6 Maharaj Bhim Shumsher with wife Sita Bada Maharani and daughter Choore Maharani Dibya Rajam Laxmi.jpg

This deletion of this photograph was based on incomplete information and a misunderstanding. The photograph does not breach any copyright laws and it was published in Nepal. At its core, it was mislabelled as under license, and the previous upload also did not describe the labelling accurately enough was the user was new to Wikipedia and was unsure about the various labels. However, now that it’s copyright status and its authenticity have been established with many Wikipedia users supporting its authenticity, the correct course of action is to take account of the new evidence and restore the photograph.

There is no doubt that the photograph was published in Nepal in 1930 first. There is no evidence that the photograph was published in the USA or any country besides Nepal. The intended purpose of the photograph was clear - for Bhim Shumsher to have his family photographed and then for that photograph to be displayed in the offices of the state and the Nepal Museum. This practice was widely used by all ruling families of Nepal. Bhim Shumsher was an unknown figure in the USA and the USA had virtually no interest in Nepal in the 1930s. Therefore, it is just not plausible that the photograph was published in the USA as there would be little financial gain for the photographer. However, the incentives were clear for Bhim Shumsher to have this photograph published in Nepal at the earliest - to build his credibility as ruler shortly after his coronation and to be widely recognised among his subjects. The only financial or non-financial gain for the photographer was to be paid to take the photograph in a private capacity for the benefit of the Nepali state and this was the only plausible route. The intellectual property and copyright always rested with Nepal, not any other foreign jurisdiction. Hence, in light of the above evidence, it is absolutely clear that this photograph does not breach any applicable copyright laws. It should be disclosed as public domain, not under license.

This is a family photograph of Maharaj Bhim Shumsher with his daughter Choore Maharani Dibya Rajya_Laxmi and his wife Sita Bada Maharani. The photograph is also already in the public domain and is one of the most recognised photographs of Bhim Shumsher of Nepal with his family. This photograph was taken in 1930 in Tangal Durbar, Kathmandu Nepal on the instruction of Bhim Shumsher. This photograph along were published in Nepal in 1930 shortly thereafter and were widely printed and presented in government offices and were open for the public to see in the Nepal Museum. This work was first published in Nepal and is now in the public domain because its copyright protection has expired by virtue of the Copyright Act, 2059 (2002).{{PD-Nepal}} It is similar in status to the following photographs that you will see on these pages that were also taken by American photographers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Shumsher_Jang_Bahadur_Rana https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandra_Shamsher_JB_Rana.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandra_Shamsher_Jung_Bahadur_Rana_Younghusband.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandra_Shamsher_family.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandra_Shamsher_and_sons.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rana_couple.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dev_Shamsher_JBR.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandra_Shamsher_Jang_Bahadur_Rana.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tribhuvan_1937.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Padma_Shamsher_JBR.jpg

This is an important photograph that in the public domain since 1930 in Nepal that shows the history of Nepal, and the citizens of this proud nation should not be denied their history, especially as there is no breach of copyright laws.

Thank you for your consideration.

(Avs2794 (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC))

Procedural close. Restored on April 4 after undeletion request. Thuresson (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Byess Steven 112 ret.tif

The photo that was deleted is owned by me and is available for any use that I appoint. The photo was flagged for deletion because it appears on the website of New Music USA, although I gave permission for that site to use my photo.

Please undelete this photo/file and return it to the Wikipedia page for Steven Byess.

Steven Byess --Sbyess (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Ankry (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose First, I see that in the file description, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Both the look of the photo and your comment above suggest that that is not correct. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. It makes it difficult to believe anything you say here and may lead to your being blocked from editing on Commons.

Note also that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. Even if you have a license from the photographer allowing you use the photo in your publicity, such licenses rarely are broad enough to allow you to freely license the image here. In order to have the image restored (but see below), either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license including a copy of the written license from the photographer that allows you to freely license it.

Also, please note that TIF is not generally accepted as a format for images here, so we will not restore this in any case. After you have the appropriate OTRS message on file, you may upload a jpg version of the image.

Finally, please note Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait-2006LightJacket-Large.jpg .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:ESCUDO OFICIAL DE PISCOBAMBA .png

Charly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlomagno Valladares Cueva (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 April 2020‎ (UTC)

 Oppose No reason given why this Coat of Arms should be restored. It is far above the threshold of originality, so the actual designer or other copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Faez Nick.jpg

This photo was taken by Faez himself! Why you guys want to delete it?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiesyahmie (talk • contribs) 02:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose No information about copyright status. Thuresson (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Since the image appears on Instagram, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per above. Ankry (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Sam Suhaid.jpg

UNDELETE THIS PHOTO!

This photo was taken by Sam Suhaid's personal photographer! He wants this photo to be as his wikipedia's profile picture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiesyahmie (talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose No information about copyright status. Thuresson (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Two problems here. First, the "personal photographer" must himself send a free license using OTRS. Second, "He wants this photo to be as his wikipedia's profile picture" is not a sufficient license. Commons requires that images be free for any use anywhere by anyone. Note that this will allow anyone to make and sell tee shirts and posters of the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per above. Ankry (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Gl-sk.jpg

Bonjour,

Comme vous avez remarqué, les contributeurs africain ne sont pas nombreux.

Soit vous laissé cette photo ou je vous demande de mettre une qui vous plait.

--Wikiourembaya (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the file description, this is a Reuters image. It cannot be kept on Commons without written permission from Reuters. The fact that we have few African contributors, if true, does not change the status of this image or any other..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, can you ask or link me Reuters ? --Wikiourembaya (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No. You are welcome to try, but Reuters business is selling news and photographs, so I would be extremely surprised if they gave Commons a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: We need a permission from the copyright holder which needs to be sent by email (see COM:OTRS). --De728631 (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Artwork retrovlogs.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020040410000411 regarding File:Artwork retrovlogs.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganínedes: Please proceed. Note also that the source is currently unclear. If the uploader is the original author, this should be {{Own}}. --De728631 (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Aneurin Bevan 1945.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aneurin Bevan 1945.jpg

Source is https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw104133/Aneurin-Bevan. National Portrait Gallery doesn't identify a specific photographer. Main reason I'm filing this UDR is to determine if it went public domain in the UK in 2016 or if it becomes PD in 2045 due to "half-plate glass negative, 1945. Given by Bassano & Vandyk Studios, 1974" @Clindberg: Abzeronow (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We would need to show it was published in 1945. If the studio took several photographs, and only used one on prints it sold, the others would have been unpublished at least until 1974, and would still be under copyright. For example, the NPG has this print of the same person, but there is no online photo of it -- but since that was a print known distributed at the time, then the 70 year clock started in 1945, and would be PD today. If we could only see it. If that is the same photo, then the negative should also be PD, but without knowing it was actually distributed (many of their negatives likely were not -- say this one, but the negative was still in their archives in 1974). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose However, in either case it wasn't PD in the UK in 1996, so it is still under URAA copyright, is it not? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Doing a review to determine its copyright status in the UK would help determine when it could be restored. Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
That is certainly true, but we know that the URAA applies, so the URAA copyright runs out on the earlier of 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation. That will be 1/1/2041 for publication in 1945, increasing yearly for later publication until it is 1/1/2066 for first publication in 1970 or later. That gives us at least 20 years for information to be available on the Web. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Unniyarcha Painting based on Vadakkan Patt.jpg

One cannot find the image on https://jithinaryan.artstation.com/projects/Q0X2E as the reason pointed for speedy deletion. Kindly check the picture in the site and one in the original.

No license violation occurs.

Request for not to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othayoth shankaran (talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The drawing is obviously taken from the second drawing at https://jithinaryan.artstation.com/projects/Q0X2E which is marked "All Rights Reserved". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done blatant copyvio. Ankry (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Kallumburath Thiyyar Tharawad.jpg

This file is posted in the article with creative commons license , kindly look in to the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othayoth shankaran (talk • contribs) 15:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://www.mathrubhumi.com/myhome/cini-home/kallumpurathu-thravadu-movie-mithunam-movie-indian-rupee-myhome-1.1813845 with "© Copyright Mathrubhumi 2020. All rights reserved.". I see no sign of any CC license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done no evidence of free license at source page. Ankry (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Isabel Steszgal picture

The photo of Isabel Steszgal that I uploaded onto Wikipedia is a photo I took myself. Isabel Steszgal is my daugther.

I uploaded all the photos of Isabel Steszgal onto the IMDb website myself.

Please undelete.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FridaAlpin (talk • contribs) 10:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Ankry (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs free license from actual photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Deep_Kalsi.jpg

I would like to raise an undeletion request for Deep_Kalsi.jpg file. Please let me know What else I can do to undelete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwaranTarun(Star) (talk • contribs) 09:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Procedural close, double request. Thuresson (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:En iniya pon nilave.jpg

I need to make it Non-free posters in image description.

B947105 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@B947105: Tagging the image with {{Non-free poster}} will only que the image for speedy deletion. Thuresson (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Please do not claim {{Own}} when you are not the actual author. Restoring this will require a free license from the producer of the movie. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done Please read Commons:First steps before contributing more files. Thuresson (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:St Mary's Stadium.jpg

My mistake, I saw the Exif on the derative versions after--QTHCCAN (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Any objection? Ankry (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The original uploader just uploaded a new file with the same name, but different content.--QTHCCAN (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
While I intended to undelete the image today, this behaviour of User:User890899 prevents me to do so. Now, I would prefer te see an OTRS ticket from the photographer of any of these images. Ankry (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: What to do with the two cropped files?--QTHCCAN (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

These are not copyrighted images. Please do not remove.

@Ankry: Do you have any proof that the file has been published before? Otherwise the OTRS ticket would be useless. --Ruthven (msg) 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Current image seems to be published here. But uploader's behaviour makes me uncomfortable with believing their "own work" claim for their initial upload, or even with taking any action here. Ankry (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: Well, the issue is then clear. The file was posted by user "PES Stats Database", from the forum itself, in 2011. We then expect that a free license is shown at https://pesstatsdatabase.com/ or to receive an email at OTRS from @pesstatsdatabase.com. Am I wrong somewhere? --Ruthven (msg) 19:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ruthven: You have two different images here. Ankry (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The PES Stats Database image is a direct link to Commons -- so if the image changed here, it changed there too. In other words, they copied the image from us, so it's not an indication of a previous publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Clindberg and Ankry: I see. Then we don't have a solid reason to say that the file was published elsewhere before. Right? I'm uncomfortable in deleting a file that is in use without a strong reason. --Ruthven (msg) 10:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it -- it appears the original deletion was under the mistaken assumption that it existed on the PES page before upload, when it did not. That was why it was posted here to undeletion requests in the first place. But I think another image has been uploaded on the same name since (only reason it wasn't undeleted earlier), so unsure how to deal with it -- preferably the new image would get renamed, and the original image restored under the original name (which would put the PES page back to the way it looked before, since they link directly to commons.wikimedia.org). The new image itself got deleted and restored as it was very very close to another internet image, but it's not the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done renamed to File:St Mary's Stadium (2).jpg and restored. If no objections, I will close this in 24h. Ankry (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done mainly per Carl. Ankry (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:What's Happening in Dominican Republic 6.png

I've got all the permissions by the illustrator, to use them for the wikia. Please, let me know what do i have to to do prove it.

Please, don't delete the files that names

"What's happening in Dominican Republic" from 0, 2 to 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliopr34 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

--Juliopr34 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose A link to a free license permission granted personally by Aimée Mazara (if the permission is public), or an email from Aimée Mazara following COM:OTRS procedure (if the permission is not public) is needed. Ankry (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Aside from the copyright question, is this in scope? It is not a demonstrator's placard, but a poster produced by someone in England. I think it is personal art and therefore out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:José María Guerrero Torvisco.jpg

Estimats:

Soc colaborador de la wikipedia en espanyol.

Declaro que José maría Guerrero Torvisco te la propietat exclusiva de la fotografía distribuida. [José María Guerrero Torvisco.jpg]

I tinc el permís per part d'ell a distribuirla segons els acords de llicencia de wikipedia.

Aquesta fotografía, del campionat de catalunya, es pot veure en la seva plana oficial de facebook: https://www.facebook.com/1704478309818096/photos/a.1720567654875828/2092960320969891/?type=3&theater

La plana de José María Guerrero Torvisco: https://www.facebook.com/Jose-Maria-Guerrero-Torvisco-1704478309818096/

José María Guerrero Torvisco vol que la seva fotografía es publiqui sota llicencia liure CC-BY-SA 4.0 (Reconexeiment-Compartir per igual).

Reconeix que es concedeix a qualsevol el dret a usar la imatge en un producte comercial.

Es conscient de que José María Guerrero Torvisco sempre retendrá els drets d'autor amb la seva imatge, aixi com el dret a ser reconegut com autor principal de la llicencia escollida per l'obra. Les modificacions que fagin altres no serán atribuides.

Cordialment,

Sergio Bonavida Ponce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbonavida (talk • contribs) 17:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sbonavida: We need evidence for this, not only an on-wiki declaration. This can be either a link to the official page of the photographer (in the photographer still holds copyright), or an email from the actual copyright holder via following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

procedural close: image not deleted. Ankry (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Reopened -- file is now deleted. This is, as noted above, a Facebook image. There is no free license in evidence. Further, the comment above speaks only of permission from the subject. He probably does not have the right to freely license the image. In order to restore the image either (a), the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) someone else may send a free license together with a copy of a written license from the actual photographer which gives the sender the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:გიორგი გახარია.jpg مخالفت با درخواست حذف

در ابتدا از همکاری حضرتعالی پیشاپیش سپاسگزاری می کنم نشان واره سین هشتم مربوط می شود به جشنواره «سین هشتم» جشنواره هنری و فرهنگی است که هرساله در ابران در آستانه نوروز برگزار می‌شود.سین هشتم یعنی؛ سبک اصیل زندگی ایرانی که در واقع پلی در راستای شناساندن و معرفی فرهنگ و هنر ایران زمین به جهانیان است در حال حاضر در تلاشیم مقاله جشنواره «سین هشتم» را بر پایه سیاست‌ها و استانداردهای ویکی‌پدیا مطابقت داده و موارد سرشناس بودن و عدم تبلیغی بودن را رعایت نماییم، تا بشود به بخش مقاله‌ها انتقال دهیم. [[6]] 

. --Mosadegh66 (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)از همکاری شما سپاسگزارم

 Oppose A larger and less cropped version of the same image appears at File:Giorgi Gakharia.jpg. I see no reason to keep two. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, I must have missed this free version that you linked. I agree that restoring it is unnecessary because there is a better version available. I replaced the only usage of the file (on w:fa:گیورگی گاخاریا) with the free version.
However, the text of their request suggests that it's about this DR. Given that the DR is still open and fresh, I think there is no action needed. I will leave a message at their talk page to explain why those files have been nominated for deletion. Ahmadtalk 17:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Logo of rvs institute.png

Sirthis is official logo of rvs so please un delete this logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamhimanshurajput (talk • contribs) 16:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a copyrighted logo. Restoring it will require that an authorized official of the RVS Institue send a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Punjabi University Dhuni.png

As the Punjabi University has taken the University anthem from verses of Guru Granth Sahib.[1] The contents of University Dhuni which is represented by this image are from Sikh religion holy book Guru Granth Sahib, which is in public domain and available to all mankind. No one hold sthe copyright of Sikh holy book.

The matter of the fact is that, the Image is clicked from Handbook (Admission brochure) of Punjabi university, which is being published by Registrar of university. I call upon a Sikh or People of Punjabi origin to take a call on this matter.

  1. ↑ http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=356&punjabi=t&id=16349
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quality check (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Quality check (talk)

 Oppose Is this a threat?

"I call upon a Sikh or People of Punjabi origin to take a call on this matter."

What do you want these peoples to do?

As for the image, perhaps you did not notice it, but the page you cite has

"© SriGranth.org, a Sri Guru Granth Sahib resource, all rights reserved."

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

My apologies if anybody feel offended, but you have misunderstood my intention. As the content of the image is just simple text, which is written in Gurmukhi script. The text has been taken from holy book of Sikh religion. So some admin of People of Punjabi origin or Sikh, who speak/write this language should be involved to decide upon my undeletion request.
The site SriGranth.org is a search engine for Guru Granth Sahib, for which they may hold a copyright for their engine. But the contents of Guru Granth Sahib is not. There are many such sites [1] [2] which offer online reading of this holy book. The page of Guru Granth sahib containing the said verse is also available in Wikimedia under Creative Common Attribution Share alike license.
This image will be a value addition to the Punjabi University page. I call upon all of you to again cross-check whether this image infringes the upload policies of Wikimedia commons or not?
  1. ↑ http://www.gurugranthdarpan.net/0356.html
  2. ↑ https://www.searchgurbani.com/guru-granth-sahib/ang/356
Quality check (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Quality check: What you say, probably applies to the original text. But what about the English translation? When the translator, Gurbachan Singh Talib died? Also, editorial copyright may need investigation, however it is unlikely to exist here. Ankry (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for my misunderstanding above. However, Ankry's question is the crux of the matter. Gurbachan Singh Talib died in 1986. If the translator is the same man, the English version will be under copyright in India until at least 1/1/2047 (pma 60). The US copyright could last as late as 1/1/2082 if the translation was done after 1961 (earlier of pma 95 or 120 years after creation). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Paysage du sud de la France.jpg

Hi,

This is a picture a portrait made by my grandfather, who passed away, and gave it to me before dying. I have all the legal rights.

Could you please cancel the delation ?

On April 14, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qp37 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose René Léraud appears to be a notable artist, so we would like to have his works on Commons. However, in this situation, you must confirm your relationship in privacy with a volunteer at OTRS. After that is done, these will be restored automatically..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Boris Brainin 1950.jpg

The reason for the request: This photo was taken in 1950 in the public photo atelier in the USSR. This atelier took photos for various official purposes (such as a passport). The photographer was unknown in 1950 and after 70 years since this photo was taken, he cannot be defined. The person shown on the photo died in 1996. This photo was many years in the archive of my family. I am a direct heir of the person shown in the photo. I authorize the use of this photo freely for any purpose. Rudi (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly with "The photographer was unknown in 1950"? Unknown to who? What was the name of the atelier and where was it located? By which right do you authorize the use of this photo? Thuresson (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The photographer was certainly known to the subject, but it doesn't matter. According to the information above, the image was not published until recently, so it is still under copyright either (a) because it was an anonymous photo obviously not published before 1/1/1946 or (b) even if the photographer were known, he cannot have been dead for more than 70 years. The fact that you own a paper copy of the photo does not give you the right to license it here. That right is held by the photographer or his heir, even if he is unknown. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done Professional photographers who work in photographic ateliers do not work anonymously. There is nothing in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia that suggests that this photo is out of copyright and as far as I understand it will be protected under US copyright until 2071. Thuresson (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Gaëtan.jpg to undelet

J'aimerais connaître les raisons de la suppression de cette image. Serte je ne suis pas l'auteur de la photo mais j'ai obtenu les droits de la part des détendeurs des droits de cette photo pour sa publication sur Wikipédia dans la cadre de la page de Gaëtan. J'ai indiqué cela dans les sources et pourtant cette image a quand même été supprimée.

Sur quoi vous basez vous pour justifier sa suppression? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaetanestdanslecran (talk • contribs) 19:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Gaetanestdanslecran (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted because you claimed that you were the actual photographer and that does not appear to be correct. Making incorrect claims makes it hard to believe anything you say and may get you blocked from editing here. The image appears on Facebook, so policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per jim: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Deep_Kalsi.jpg

I request you to undelete this photo, as this doesn't have any copyright issues. I am making a wiki article on an Artist(Musician). So I need an image for that. If this image has some issue, please let me know What can be done to make it approved. --SwaranTarun(Star) (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleted after a formal deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SwaranTarun(Star). Thuresson (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 Comment The issue wasn't with copyright. @SwaranTarun(Star): Can you please explain how the file fits in with our COM:SCOPE? Gbawden (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Thank You for your reply. As I specified earlier, I am making an artist's page on Wikipedia, which is an addition to the wiki community. It's not for my personal uses. Secondly, I uploaded this file in Common uploads as earlier I didn't have a confirmed account, but now I have. I can upload it through my Upload wizard, but I can't because this file has already been deleted once. So I request you to help me out with this. I need to upload a photo so I can use it on the Wikipedia page. I am wondering how other artist's pages have their photographs. How did they able to upload those. Please if you can help me out with this, it would be a great help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwaranTarun(Star) (talk • contribs) 17:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC) --SwaranTarun(Star) (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@SwaranTarun(Star): Please, come back here when the Wikipedia page is created and accepted. Image presence or absence does not inflict the artist's notability. They can be added later. Ankry (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done This photo was published on subject's Instagram on January 1, 2020, without an acceptable free license. It was deleted after a formal request as being out of scope. OP has not created a draft about the subject on English Wikipedia and as far as I know there is no Wikimedia article where this photo can reasonably be used. Thuresson (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Tom Brady 2018.png

Why was the image of Tom Brady holding the Lombardi trophy deleted? It was a free use image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaDanian1000000 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 15 April 2020‎ (UTC)

 Oppose As discussed at length at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tom Brady 2018.png, the image shows the trophy prominently in from of Brady's face. The image infringes on the trophy's copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Bg3gameplay.png

This image is a screenshot I captured myself and the game (Battle Grounds 3) is a free game published under the GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 (link to the license file in the GitHub repository: https://github.com/BG2-Dev-Team/BG2-Code/blob/master/LICENSE ) so I disagree with it being delete because copyright. Super-mpm (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The only copyright related notice I found on the game site and on Steam was "Copyright © 2019 The Battle Grounds Game Development Team" on Steam. You will have to give us the location of the GNU license you cite. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Even if some parts of the game are LGPL licensed, it does not prevent a commercial license. The EULA for this game states: "You are not permitted to: [...] Reproduce, copy, distribute, resell or otherwise use the Software for any commercial purpose". This is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: EULA shows a clear NC status. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Jpeg lw vd cr.jpg

Just trying to show the band's recording. Lullwaterfan (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Unless you are the band's producer. you have no right to freely license their work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright holder is needed. Ankry (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Portada CD Piano Passion.jpg

This photograph(s) original rights and licensings have been given to me by their original creator and owner (my father: Sergio Gustavo Andrade Sánchez, aka Sergio Andrade) through a "Cesión de Derechos" document, perfectly valid under mexican laws, and similar to the legal Documents for inheriting somebody, but still during the life of the such inheritor (my father), still alive.

--SofíaA (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description you claimed that you were the actual creator of this CD cover. Now you say that is not correct. Making incorrect claims on Commons is a violation of our rules and make it hard to believe anything you say. Since you did not actually create this, you will have to send a free license using OTRS together with written evidence that you have the right to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright holder is needed. Ankry (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Demande de restauration du fichier File:Reproduction dessin de Malo-Renault, La Bretagne Touristique, E Dacier 1927.jpg

Bonjour,

Je trouve cela très injuste: C'est une reproduction d'un dessin de Malo-Renault (1870-1938) extraite D'un Vieux Monde, livre illustré par de Malo-Renault sur une page d' un article d' Émile Dacier dans une publication La Bretagne Touristique de 1927.
Merci d'avance.--François Malo-Renault (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@François Malo-Renault: While this image is clearly PD in France, it is still not PD in US. And Wikimedia Commons requires a work to be PD in both: the country of origin (France in this case) and in the US. As author died in 1938, his copyright in France expired on March 31, 1997 (50 years + 8 years 120 days due to war extesions) and the image was not PD on January 1, 1996. This means, that due to URAA it is copyrighted in US 95 years since its initial publication. Assuming it was published in 1927, it will not be PD in US before January 1, 2023. An the moment, we can host this author's works that were published before 1.1.1925. Ankry (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. Under US copyright until 1/1/2023. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Undelete in 2023. Ankry (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Obra de Romera.jpg Mistake about deleting a picture

Hi. this picture was deleted of my document and I got to say that it's totally unfair. I took a photo from a painting that is in my home and there's noone picture same as this one. I'll appreciate if you undelete this image`as soon as you can. Thanks. Santiago Rodriguez Murua SantiagoG971 (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Ownership of a painting does not automatically mean ownership of copyright to the painting. As the author of the painting is known, and the painting is copyrighted, we need an evidence (not just an uploader declaration) that its copyright holder (the painter or a person having copyright transfer contract with the painter) has granted a free license permission. If this cannot be provided on wiki, the COM:OTRS is the right procedure.
Moreover, the image is low-resolution, unlikely the original file from a modern digital camera, and so an evidence of authorship from the photographer is needed. Ankry (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose The artist, Julio Romera, is living (born 1927). He does not have an article on WP, so there is the question of whether his work is in scope. In any case, however, in order to restore this image we will need a free license directly from him via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Marchande au panier d'osier, pastel, Malo Renault (1870-1938), Musée Bretagne.jpg

According to the image source page there is a note on reverse dated 1906. So the painting cannot be newer and is PD in US. And obviously PD in France. Ankry (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support Looks OK to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Autoportrait (1946).jpg

In my capacity as heir of Mr. René Léraud, Died on March 14, 2010, I certify that : I Haved inherited from Mr. Léraud, I am the owner of all the drawings and paintings posted on Mr. Léraud’s profile I give my authorization to publish said drawing and paintings and notably :

- Autoportrait (1946) : File:Autoportrait (1946).jpg - Elève de Fèz : File:Elève de Fes.jpg - Petit village du sud de la France : File:Paysage du sud de la France.jpg - Composition : Variation_rouge_et_ocre.jpg - Ensemble de têtes miniatures : File:Ensemble de têtes miniatures.jpg

Made in Paris On April 16, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qp37 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It wastes your time and ours to repeat requests that have already been addressed. I have moved the one new file to your original request, above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Sandro Mamukelashvili.jpg

The version of this image that was deleted at Commons:Deletion requests is a different image than the subsequent file I uploaded. It is from Flickr and has a Commons-acceptable license. Editorofthewiki (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support Well, unlike other user uploads, this one seems to be OK. Ankry (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: I restored this in response to a duplicate request on my talk page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Sagrado Corazón (granito), por Antonio Faílde.jpg

This image was taken in a public place because this place depends from public authorities. One user User:Zenwort support it.Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. Cemeteries are not one of the places listed for Spanish FoP so this image infringes on the sculptor's copyright. He died in 1979. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Comment The Spanish FoP law does not mention "other public places" but "other public thoroughfares" [7]
Las obras situadas permanentemente en parques, calles, plazas u otras vías públicas pueden ser reproducidas, distribuidas y comunicadas libremente por medio de pinturas, dibujos, fotografías y procedimientos audiovisuales. Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.
Cemeteries are not "vías públicas". --LMLM (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Info I have heard about legal opinions that such lists of places where FOP applies are just examples and they not need to be complete. I would welcome a legal opinion or legal cases from Spain to go on here. Any hints? @Clindberg: can you help? Ankry (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Oof, no idea really. I could see an argument that it is within the spirit of the law, and could also count as a "park" or even areas of public thoroughfares. Cemeteries often do have roads for funeral processions etc., and while that one does not look like cars can get in there, there is a street-like grid of fairly wide paths where I'm sure horses could have gotten with carriages long ago. Maybe those still count as roads, and it does seem open to the public. And even with not, it could be a park -- not sure why the presence of graves would disqualify it, and some areas in there do look more park-like, without many graves. It's impossible to be sure without a court case (and I have no idea if there have been or not). The original nominator was from Spain and may have a better idea than me, but it does seem like an edgy deletion if based on the wording of the law alone. I'd probably be inclined to keep it, but have no idea what kind of precedents there are in Spain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Some court cases and an expert opinion from LA EXCEPCION PANORAMA Y EL USO COMERCIAL DE LAS MANIFESTACIONES SECUNDARIAS DE LA OBRAS DE ARTE. Aproximación desde la Ley española de Derechos de Autor:
[vía pública] es un “concepto jurídico, no de mero hecho” [public thoroughfare] is a “legal concept, not a mere fact”
vía pública es en definitiva un espacio del dominio público caracterizado por su aptitud para el tránsito de peatones y/o la circulación de vehículos public thoroughfare is ultimately a space in the public domain characterized by its aptitude for pedestrian traffic and / or vehicle circulation
este concepto de “vías públicas” no se aviene con el de interior de locales o emplazamientos this concept of "public thoroughfares" does not agree with that of the interior of premises or locations.
Ahora bien, hay que tener presente que todo lugar público no es sólo una vía pública y cualquier interpretación extensiva de la norma española en ese sentido, a nuestro entender, vulneraría la exigencia de interpretar de forma restrictiva todos aquellos supuestos que supongan un límite a un derecho reconocido por la Ley, como sucede con esta excepción. Now, it must be borne in mind that every public place is not just a public thoroughfare and any extensive interpretation of the Spanish norm in that sense, in our opinion, would violate the requirement to interpret restrictively all those assumptions that imply a limit to a right recognized by the Law, as it happens with this exception.
Sorry for the automatic translation. --LMLM (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, as cementary alees are definitely places intended for pedestrian traffic, so if the cementary is publicly accessible, these places fits Spanish FoP, IMO.  Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:ETH-BIB nicht löschen (mehrere Anträge)

Bitte folgende Bilder nicht löschen bzw. wieder herstellen.

Begründung: Es sind Bilder aus unseren Beständen, die wir beim Hochladen korrekt mit den Lizenzhinweisen versehen haben. Uns ist deshalb auch unklar, warum es zu solchen Löschanträgen kommt.

Zu LBS_MH0-Bilder: Der Fotograf ist Walter Mittelholzer. Die Urheberrechte sind abgelaufen, er ist in der Public Domain.

Zu LBS_H1-Bilder: Wir besitzen die Nutzungsrechte und die Bilder sind mit CC-BY-SA 4.0 lizenziert.

Merci --ETH-Bibliothek (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@ETH-Bibliothek: There are various deletion reasons here.
  1. File:ETH-BIB-Kematen im Tirol, Zirl-Inlandflüge-LBS MH01-006698.tif is not deleted
  2. File:ETH-BIB-Clariden, Claridenfirn v. O. aus 3000 m-Inlandflüge-LBS MH01-004761.tif was deleted due to missing description and license template; probably broken upload. You can reupload it or at least reupload its description, so we can go on.
  3. File:ETH-BIB-Passagiere in der Fokker zwischen Zürich und Biarritz-Weitere-LBS MH02-23-0004.tif was deleted as duplicate of File:ETH-BIB-Passagiere in der Fokker zwischen Zürich und Biarritz-Weitere-LBS MH02-23-0002.tif. Was it not?
  4. File:ETH-BIB-Herzogenbuchsee-Inlandflüge-LBS MH01-002189.png was a placeholder with text "Digitales Bild auf Anfrage" / "Digital image on request"; probably uploaded by mistake
  5. File:ETH-BIB-Bassersdorf-LBS H1-009861.tif was also uploaded without description / license; see (2) above.
Ankry (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The first image has not been deleted, but see Commons:Deletion requests/File:ETH-BIB-Kematen im Tirol, Zirl-Inlandflüge-LBS MH01-006698.tif. All but the fourth image are TIFs. The TIF format is not used for images on Commons..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Your remarks about TIFs not being used on Commons is rather senseless. Its a supported image format and automaticallly converted to JPG for use in the Wikipedias. --Magnus (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you read COM:TIFF which quite clearly deprecates the TIF file type. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
It does not, to my mind. Many archives store in .tiff, so it's allowed as an upload format. If you can make an equivalent PNG that is preferred, but being TIFF is not a reason for deletion (unless we have an equivalent PNG, maybe as a duplicate, though age of upload may also come into play -- deleting the TIFF once uploaded does not help save space). TIFFs can also support more complex color depths and types than can PNG, so it's not always lossless to convert. TIFF support has also improved markedly since that was written -- most now render fine as thumbnails. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Strong support for restoration of the Mittelholzer images. All images by Walter Mittelholzer are in the public domain in its source country, Switzerland, since 1988, and not subject to URAA restoration, since Switzerland had a copyright term of 50 years after the death of the author until 1993, and the extension to 70 years made in 1993 did not restore already expired copyrights (confirmed by "Sternheim" case at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court). It is also not true that "The TIF format is not used for images on Commons"; the information at COM:TIFF is actually outdated, as TIFF support on Commons has improved. Most TIFFs are now no problem, and the automatic generation of JPEG files from TIFFs works well. There are large collections of TIFF images on Commons which are widely used. Also, even COM:TIFF doesn't prohibit uploading of images in TIFF format to Commons at all (if that were the case, we would just technically block it, not allowing that format for upload). The last sentence there is "Generally, only TIFFs of the standard types should be uploaded to Commons." Gestumblindi (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support per Gestumblindi. De728631 (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
After a closer look, I have to correct myself: As the cases 2 to 5 were deleted for other reasons, as described by Ankry, restoration doesn't seem necessary. And the deletion request for File:ETH-BIB-Kematen im Tirol, Zirl-Inlandflüge-LBS MH01-006698.tif was withdrawn by nominator. But I still stand by my comments on Mittelholzer and on the file format; TIFF format certainly is not a reason for deletion and never was. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ankry: @Jameslwoodward: @Gestumblindi: Thanks for these informative and kind comments! I am very grateful for that!

  1. yes it is not, but there is again a new deletion request see User_talk:ETH-Bibliothek/de by User:Jameslwoodward
  2. we will re-upload the necessary, broken upload makes definitely sense.
  3. it is not the same, but in the same series form 0001 to 0004. And 0004 is out of focus. Our fault, sorry! Deletion ok!
  4. correct, and still is a placeholder! Our fault, sorry! Deletion ok!
  5. (see 2)

As for the TIFF discussion: we as a GLAM institution were strongly advised by collaborating wikipedians to upload TIFF when we startet in 2016 see upload history User:ETH-Bibliothek/de. ETH-Bibliothek (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I withdrew the DR noted in #1 above yesterday. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

So I think we can close this, as there is nothing to act upon left right now. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Everything is done, one way or another ;-). --Emha (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Laurel Library entrance showing glass public artwork sculpture made by Washington Glass School and Studio.jpg

the imagery , all use and copyrite is owned by Artschooled - and should be allowed to be used. It was questioned as it appeared online in a number of places (that I authorized its use) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artschooled (talk • contribs) 17:23, 16 April 2020‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Two problems here. First, the image has appeared elsewhere without a free license, so policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. Second, the image infringes on the copyright for the sculpture. Therefore, in order to restore the image, we will also need a free license from one of the joint creators or from an authorized representative of the Washington Glass School who can speak for the creators, also using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Tripoli airport 2.jpg

This image has been uploaded on social media and freely shared among users, including news sites. Moreover, its copyright status is CC0, but i marked it under share alike CC1.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/. Its nomination for deletion and actual deletion is absolutely unnecessary and irresponsible. Moverover, the person that nominated its deletion has used a tertiary source, a random website and claimed that that specific website is the source of the image. That is WRONG. The source is social media, originally a facebook upload with little regard for copyright, and spread on social media freely (specifically to share the image! ). https://twitter.com/ASanalla/status/503503707527712768. Why do administrators and editors engage in mind boggling destructive editing. The only copyright laws regarding libya specifically, is a 1968 basic copyright law on arts and crafts specifically for creator of "work" Copyright law of Libya (1968) Article 7 ( https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Libya_(1968)#PART_TWO:_Copyrights ) , but doesnt cover digital image laws. Moreover the image was shared by uploader agreeing with social media TOS that image may be shared publicly with social media provider to begin with. I clearly marked the image as historical and educative and more importantly as evidence. And yet it was removed with "Stork" arguing that it was copyrighted and it violated copyright. NO IT ISNT, and i am raising this dispute.! I literally have to check the article every few weeks from Destructive editing from Editors and Administators who police "Policies" with apparent little regard for citation already provided, be it in English or Arabic. Or for laws regarding the country in question. With all due respect, Wikipedia is supposed to be a platform where information is built upon, yet Editors simply act as content deletion police, and Orwellian Fascists when it comes to policies, rather than adding information to an article, and checking sources, they simply delete it and claim that theres no citation for specific sentence. INFURIATING!!! Biomax20 (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit, Even worse, a perfect example of destructive editing, with regards to Libya, is this File:Gazelle and the beauty Fountain Tripoli,Libya.jpg The image exists, but the Article was deleted! Why? I remember seeing the article, but someone had it removed from wikipedia. This statue was illegally destroyed, removed by suspected islamists, and a crime to Libyan culture, and the article was deleted from Wikipedia. Biomax20 (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Facebook publications are incompatible with Commons unless a free licence is explicitel stated. "...with little regard for copyright" is also untrue since the Facebook terms and conditions do care about copyright. While Libya has a copyright term for simple photographs of only 5 years, the image is not free of copyright in the United States (COM:URAA) as it was copyrighted retroactively in 1996. Uploads at Commons need to be free at both the country of origin and the US, so this file can't be restored. On another note, here at Commons we do not exercise control about Wikipedia articles, so please take your rants about deleted articles elsewhere. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is kind of sad when an editor with 31 edits on Commons comes here and rants that two Administrators and a very experienced editor (User:Storkk, User:Taivo, and User:Patrick Rogel) with combined 41 years of experience and over 560,000 contributions don't know what they are doing.
Since you are not the actual photographer, policy requires that either (a) the source of the image has a free license from the actual photographer which can be verified by a Commons License Review or (b) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS.
Before you upload anything else, you should understand that almost everything you find on the Web, including all of the social media sites, is copyrighted and cannot be kept on Commons unless there is an explicit free license that we can verify. Sharing publicly is not at all the same as freely licensing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Jay Flores on Genius.png

The file is in public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicaCR (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The image is published here without a public domain notice. Instead there is a copyright notice "© 2020 Genius Media Group Inc." To restore the image we need a declaration by email from the copyright holder. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 Not done Per above. Same image as previously deleted image File:Rene Flores Cover Black Is My Color EP.png. OP has not explained why this photo is public domain under the laws of Costa Rica, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Costa Rica. Thuresson (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Lukas Gage.jpg

The link to the photo is below. I don't see this photo belonging to anyone.

https://www.zimbio.com/photos/Lukas+Gage/Entertainment+Weekly+Celebrates+Screen+Actors/TCw-p2U15e6

--Darryls83 (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Darryl Sher(Darryls83 (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC))

@Darryls83: It belongs to you, you claim this is your own work? Thuresson (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose The copyright holder should follow COM:OTRS procedure in order to undelete the photo. Ankry (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose It's a Getty image, so there is no way it can remain on Commons. I also note that User:Darryls83 added a false {{Flickreview}} tag on the first upload. That is a very serious violation of Commons rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 Not done gettyimages.com: "JANUARY 18: Lukas Gage is seen as Entertainment Weekly Celebrates Screen Actors Guild Award Nominees at Chateau Marmont on January 18, 2020 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Presley Ann/Getty Images for Entertainment Weekly)" Thuresson (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Queue for face masks 20200130 DSCF2126 (49463786243).jpg

The photo focus point is the people queue inside the mall and showing the whole environment,it is non-sense to delete it. see orgional pic. But administrator Jim still delete it --Wpcpey (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @Wpcpey: Are you doubting that the caricature of a polar bear, etc. is copyrighted? I can't imagine how that could fail to be copyrighted, what is your theory? There might be a case that it is de minimis but there is no case that it is not copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Exactly. Every creative work is copyrighted from the moment of creation. It doesn't matter if these are copied from a movie or a book or if they are brand new creations for this site, they have a copyright and the image infringes on it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Support There was no consensus for deletion at the request. COM:DM applies to this image: the main subject of the image is the queue for face masks in a shopping mall. It is not possible to crop out the lunar new year characters without also cropping out the context that the queue was formed in a shopping mall, i.e. the larger work cannot easily be shown without also showing the allegedly copyrighted work. (The existence of the characters does not make the image more attractive; but the shops shown behind the characters provides important context.) feminist (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support: Per COM:DM guidelines#3/4, the queue is the subject of the photo and not the decoration. And I'm not sure I can't see the decoration is copyright at all because it's no evidence. ----Wright Streetdeck 06:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It is hard to say what is the main subject of the photo: the characters at the top or the queue at the bottom. IMO, both. Ankry (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
That's true, but the test for de minimis is not whether the copyrighted work is the "main subject", but whether the average viewer would notice the difference if you removed the copyrighted work. That is plainly a very long way from true in this case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
If you think it is the copyrighted work, I think most of the Christmas decoration not allow to upload and there have many images need to delete.--Wpcpey (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the image might be OK, but the claim that the elements shown are not copyrighted seems to me to be patently false, and if that is the supposed basis to undelete this, then that argument should be rejected. - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support:If COM:DM guidelines#3/4 is not OK here, I'd try guidelines#5. The characters are 3D arts and span over the atrium. However this photo is 2D and doesn't show sufficient detail of the characters, some of the characters are out of the photo. And according to Section 31 of the UK Copyright Act stated in COM:DM (assuming Hong Kong's de minimis principle is similar to UK), Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in an artistic work., the characters are incidental inclusion when you take a photo of the whole atrium. --Baycrest (Talk) 14:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, you can't say that the copyrighted works are incidental when they occupy half the image. Indeed, you could easily argue that the copyrighted characters are the principal subject and the people are incidental. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The copyrighted content is the main subject of this image. If any user disagrees, they are fine to upload a cropped version of the image without this content. ’’De minimis’’ applies where the inclusion of the copyrighted content was unintentional or unavoidable when photographing a different subject, and would not cause disturbance to the main subject of the work as a whole if removed. There is no doubt in my mind that the characters displayed in the top right corner passes the threshold of originality and are copyrighted upon creation per the Berne convention. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


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

The photo I submitted is a family photo. The family member is a photographer but it is a family photo.

The photo I submitted to the page for sportswriter John McNamara is a family photo. The subject is John McNamara at Press Row at the 2002 NCAAA Basketball championships in Atlanta, Georgia The family member is a photographer but it is a family photo. Please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acham (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose @Acham: Claiming that you are the author, while the photographer is somebody else is a serious violation of Wikimedia Commons rules and illegal.
As the photo has been published elsewhere without evidence of free license, we need a free license permission from its copyright holder, following COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Note that the person who must send the free license is the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This is confusing. I am claiming to be the owner of the rights, not the photographer. The photographer gifted me this photo and all rights. Please just tell me what you need with specificity before you engaged in these unnecessary accusations. Do you need the email of permissions? The photographer no longer uses email, so this will be difficult but not impossible. Acham (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ankry and Jameslwoodward: How should we proceed here? I think we still need a written permission from the original photographer, since {{Heirs-license}} would not work for living authors. De728631 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Acham: You clearly declared to be the photographer:
|author=Acham
If the photographer transferred copyright to you (such act requires a written form to be valid), please forward this document to OTRS together with your free license declaration, as described in COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This would have gone faster if Acham had not incorrectly claimed to be the author. As Ankry says, you must send a free license together with a copy of the written license from the actual photographer which gives you the right to freely license the photograph. Since I will guess that you do not now actually have a formal written license from the actual photographer, it might be simpler if you had the photographer send the free license directly, in all cases using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Tiga 001.JPG

This image was deleted as a part of a series. Since there is nothing eligible for copyright in that picture, there is no issue with the missing freedom of panorama in New Caledonia. --Leyo 15:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support I'm not sure why the image is useful and, arguably, the building shown has a copyright, but I think we can keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support The copyright law in question is that of France or a close derivative thereof, and I think this building is not original enough to fit into the list "of artworks placed in public space" (COM:FOP France). De728631 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. If you find it out of COM:SCOPE, please nominate in a DR on this basis. Ankry (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Sky Wave London Dry Gin 500ml.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Copyright is owned and released by the page author. The image at the cited location (Difford's Guide) exists because the author submitted the image to the page. ChallengerTwo (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Copyright for the photograph aside, the label on the bottle is also original enough to be copyrighted. So we cannot keep derivative photos without permission from the rightsholder of the label. This would either be the designer or the company that produces the brand. See COM:Packaging. De728631 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. If User:ChallengerTwo wishes to convince us that they own copyright to the label, they should to this in OTRS, not here. Ankry (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Андрей Николаевич Луценко.jpg

Hello! The image from source with CC-BY 4.0 license. Please restore the file. For such files, I created a template {{Vologdazso.ru}}. Best regards! — Niklitov (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support The source page has a free licence for all content. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per the site license. The license changed to CC-BY and LR-ed. @Niklitov: You are welcome to add more information in the Permission field of the information template while uploading such files in future. I hink, this might decrease chance of reviewer's mistake, like here. Ankry (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Горчаков Павел Александрович.jpg

Dear collegues! The image from source with CC-BY 4.0 license. Please restore the file. For such files, I created a template {{Vologdazso.ru}}. Best regards! — Niklitov (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support The source page has a free licence for all content. De728631 (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per the site license. The license changed to CC-BY and LR-ed. Ankry (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Cherub Sailing 01.jpg

The subject file was deleted on the basis of a suspected copyright infringement citing a previous web publication in the page https://www.sail-world.com/Australia/Chapman-and-Stephenson-dominate-the-Australian-Cherub-Nationals/-150945?source=google). At not time did Sailing-World hold the copyright for the image. It was published by them under a free license from myself, Rolf Lunsmann, the author of the article in which it appeared. I request that it be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivestar3145 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is declared there to be copyrighted by Carol Stephenson and not freely licensed. This contradicts your claim, that you, anonymous Wikimedia user Fivestar3145, are the photographer and the exclusive copyright holder. This cannot be resolved on-wiki as we cannot verify your identity here. The actual copyright holder should contact <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> to resolve all doubts concerning authorship and copyright and to provide a written free license permission. Ankry (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Portret Stanisława Tkaczyka.jpg

Portret Stanisława Tkaczyka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 512Sonny (talk • contribs) 07:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@512Sonny: No such file. Do you mean

As the image has already been published elsewhere without evidence of free license, COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright holder is needed. Ankry (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done pr above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2020041810001929

We have this ticket https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=11362697, so can you please restore the following 4 images for OTRS review.

Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: ✓ Done, but they are low-res and lacks proper licensing info; they will likely be speedy deleted if proper source/author/copyright info is not provided. Ankry (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
They are such low quality and have so little information that they are useless. see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by The bellman. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, undeleted and Jim started a DR. So, I think, this can be closed here. Ankry (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Nadezhda Sergeyevna Alliluyeva (1901–1932).jpg

Is there any evidence that Stalin hid his second wife w:Nadezhda Alliluyeva ? I can't believe that. Mutter Erde (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't understand the comment. The problem with this image is that we have no evidence at all that it was published before 1945. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It speaks against life experience, that Stalin presents for example only his daughter (1935), but not her mother. People would be wondering what's going on. Mutter Erde (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know whether or not Stalin published images of his second wife, but that is not the question here. He may have published dozens of them, but it must proven that this particular image was published before 1945. Unless we have good evidence of that, the image cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mutter Erde: It was not publicised that Stalin and Alliluyeva were married while she was alive. Even while studying in 1929 few knew that she was married to him (the head of her local Party committee, Nikita Khrushchev, was one of the few who did). As to the publication history of the image, I am working on finding if it was published prior to 1953 (the earliest date I've found so far). However with the current lockdown situation it is difficult to do so, but I do have suspicion the image may have been used in the November 10, 1932 edition of Pravda (or a subsequent edition on November 18). Kaiser matias (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Stalin was also known to have people retouched from photographs when they had fallen from grace. See this article. So it wouldn't be surprising if this portrait had been withheld from the public or even purged from the archives after Nadezhda's suicide. De728631 (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion: unlikely PD. Ankry (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Martin Klus 2018.jpg

Vráť mi moju fotku, autorské práva na ňu vlastním ja, povolenie som minulý rok zasielal.
Give me back my photo, I own the copyright to it, I sent permission last year.
translator: Google
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolly~skwiki (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The file description says (translation by Google)

| source = file comes from my computer
| author = asset is in my property

Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it as required here. If you sent a permission, please give us the ticket number. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rolly~skwiki: please, provide more information about the permission: when exactly was it send, to which email address and/or ticket number that the sender should have received in an automatic response. Ankry (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Proper OTRS permission still needed. Ankry (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Droba juraj official.jpg

detto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolly~skwiki (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The file description says:

|Source =secretariat of political party SaS
|Author =Vladimir Yurkovic

In order for it to be restored, Vladimir Yurkovic must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rolly~skwiki: please, provide more information about the permission: when exactly was it send, to which email address and/or ticket number that the sender should have received in an automatic response. Ankry (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Proper OTRS permission still needed. Ankry (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Martin Klus 2014.jpg

detto, prestaň mazať moje fotky, je to vandalizmus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolly~skwiki (talk • contribs) 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

ditto, stop deleting my photos, it's vandalism.
translator: Google

 Oppose The file description says: 

|Source =fotka pochádza z pevného disku v mojom vlastníctve
The photo comes from a hard drive in my property
translator: Google
|Author  =Martin Klus, Roland Maťaš

Again, owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it -- that right almost always remains with the photographer. Since Martin Klus obviously did not take this photo, Roland Maťaš must send a free license using OTRS.

As far as "vandalism" goes, it's amusing and a little sad when a person with nine edits on Commons starts throwing out serious accusations at a respected Administrator with a quarter of a million contributions. Hedwig's action was not only correct, it was required, because there is no evidence here that you have the right to freely license any of these images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rolly~skwiki: please, provide more information about the permission: when exactly was it send, to which email address and/or ticket number that the sender should have received in an automatic response. Ankry (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:티베트 소녀.jpg

This file is copyrighted to me. However, this photo has been deleted. Request deletion of photos. http://san.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/08/01/2016080101596.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myungae122559 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose, you request undeletion. If you request deletion, then nothing to do.
The above address returns me a 403 error, so I cannot verify if it is freely licensed there.
For images attributed to somebody else than the uploader, an evidence of free license granted by the author is needed. The Permission field is to provide this information at upload time. Ankry (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 Comment I read Copyrights ⓒ 월간산. 무단전재 및 재배포 금지 --Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose as this obviously contradicts the declared CC-BY-SA license. Ankry (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence of free license: COM:OTRS permission fro the actual copyright holder is needed. Ankry (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Undeletion in category Jianruiying

Today --Fresco Sam-Sin (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Peter Dekker has confirmed via permissions-commons@wikimedia.org that I am allowed to place his images on Wikicommons and wikidata. All images are made by him.

File:Qing Jianruiying war arrow 03.jpg File:Qing Jianruiying war arrow. 'silin' 02.jpg File:Qing Jianruiying war arrow 01.jpg File:Qing field helmet. 05.jpg File:Qing field helmet. 04.jpg File:Qing field helmet. 01.jpg File:Qing field helmet. 02.jpg File:Qing field helmet. 03.jpg

--Fresco Sam-Sin (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. De728631 (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Lasse wellander.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020041910006744.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020041910006744|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nat: Please check file and resolve the ticket (please read comment on ticket left by me). If acceptable, replace the templates added by me with proper OTRS tags, if not, please request speedy deletion. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:雙映成趣.jpg

The said picture does not against any copyright issue. As the first day cover in the picture was issued by the Macau Post (a governmental department),for detailed refer to the link (https://philately.ctt.gov.mo/XVersion/News.aspx?pm=2702), official pieces (in legal terms "obras oficiais", https://www.economia.gov.mo/en_US/web/public/pg_ip_wip?_refresh=true# ; "What is not protected by copyright?") is an exception from copyright. Therefore, the first day cover issued by the Macau Post can be used freely in any photography works. Pauloleong2002 (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. First, it is not clear that first day covers are works covered by the governmental exception -- that exception is fairly narrow:

"Official texts* are in particular the texts of treaties, laws and regulations and those of reports or decisions by authorities of any kind, and translations thereof."

That certainly does not include first day covers and, even if it did, the permitted uses are also narrow:

"Where the texts* referred to in the preceding paragraph incorporate protected works, these may be used by public services within their area of concern without the author’s consent and without any right being thereby conferred on him." (a footnote says that the word "texts" is too narrow and should read "works").[emphasis added]

There is also a question of whether the stamp is free of copyright -- the definitions above certainly suggest that it is not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the laws in Macau does not ban the photo with a stamp. (The "Regulation of Stamps" (https://bo.io.gov.mo/bo/i/99/48/port444.asp) does not mentioned this case (the situation is different from bank notes).

And for the related article (6/2 do 43/99/M)"São obras oficiais, entre outras, os textos de convenções, de leis, de regulamentos e de relatórios ou de decisões de quaisquer autoridades, bem como as respectivas traduções." "entre outras"in Portuguese version and "尤其指" has the meaning of giving examples, it is not limited to texts. Pauloleong2002 (talk)

As I noted, although "texts" is the official translation, it is too narrow. However, no matter how you translate it, neither stamps nor first day covers are "texts of treaties, laws and regulations and those of reports or decisions by authorities of any kind, and translations thereof." Therefore, both the cover and the stamp are copyrighted. The law on stamps deals with copying in the context of counterfeiting, not copyright, so it is irrelevant. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those are not treaties, laws and regulations. but the laws itself does not limited the area in treaties, laws and regulations,etc... Because it is using "in particular". It is no doubt that treaties, laws and regulations are

"Official texts". But others work done by government can also be "Official texts".Pauloleong2002 (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A photo is not "Official text". Ankry (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Stamps and first day covers are not any of "treaties, laws and regulations and those of reports or decisions". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:ADSEC Should Sleeve Insignia.png

The file is public domain, originally designed by the United States Government for the US Army during WWII. The unit has long been disbanded The cited page that uses the file not only places the should sleeve insignia upside down but does not show documented history of military affiliation.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161021143159/http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=15227&CategoryId=9132&grp=2&menu=Uniformed%20Services — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajs471 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per De728631. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Katkwo as Emilia ReZero Ohayocon 2020.jpg

The reason for "deletion" is me posting this picture of myself on reddit? Are you serious, please have your moderators do some research before marking the pictures I take of myself and post on other sites as copy right violations. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2607:FCC8:B847:8700:D52F:AD0C:47C3:D98F (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Policy requires a free license from the actual photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Professor-pietro-cugini.jpg

The owner of this photo is the user it:Utente:Pietrocugini, the photo is in his wikipedia user and he made it for a conference with the self-timer. Having died the owner is the son who allowed its use, can you put it back online? thank you --Fpaolucci (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Fpaolucci: Up till not two different users (you and User:Fpaolucci) claimed that you are the photographers who made this photo. Making false claims is against Wikimedia Commons policies, after such claims we cannot rely on what the user says. Per policy, if the uploader is not the photographer, we need an evidence that the photographer granted the free license in public, or we need a free license permission be sent to us via email by the actual copyright holder, together with an evidence that they are indeed the copyright holder (eg. the original photo from a camera with information about timer settings for self-timer photos). See COM:OTRS for details. Otherwise, we cannot host the photo until its copyright expire. Ankry (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Two users claim this is own work. Actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Acerum Distilerie Shefford.jpg

This file File:Acerum Distilerie Shefford.jpg is the ownership of Distillerie Shefford and I got the right to use it.

--GeraldLacroix (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Gerald Lacroix 2020-04-20

@GeraldLacroix: Right to use is not the same as right to claim authorship nor it allows you to grant a license. In order to host the image, we need that the actual copyright holder sends us a free license permission directly, as described at COM:OTRS. Note, that any acceptable free license has to allow also commecrial reuse of the image by anybody for any purpose as well as derivative works creation. Ankry (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs two licenses -- one from the photographer and one from the distillery, both via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Reddit font awesome.svg

font awesome is under cc license Omda4wady (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

{{S}} per https://fontawesome.com/license/free (for CC-BY-4.0 license) revoking support as this is clear DW. Ankry (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
But pinging @Túrelio, Majora, IagoQnsi, and Josve05a: if you have doubts. Ankry (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose I see "Reddit Inc © 2020. All rights reserved" at https://www.reddit.com/. I don't see any evidence that fontawsome has a license from Reddit for the logo, so I doubt that they actually have the right to offer it with a CC-BY license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose The icon maker isn't the owners of the Reddit logo icon, that would be Reddit Inc. This is a clear COM:DW, where the derivative might be freely licensed, but the underlying work is copyrighted by someone else. If the logo icon is below COM:TOO has been discussed at DR I believe, and found not to be the case (however, that was for the entire alien and not just the head) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Thennangur Temple,Tamil Nadu,India (3).jpg and File:Thennangur Temple,Tamil Nadu,India (2).jpg

These files were deleted because they carry a copyright watermark. All of the uploads from this user carry the same watermark. The name on the watermark matches the username so the license and claim of self-created are probably legitimate. So unless Commons intends to wipe this user's contribution in its entirety, these files should be undeleted. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Pixels.srinath. SpinningSpark 11:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that we reject the assumption you have made. From time to time we get users who open an account here in the name of the creator of images they want to upload and make claims of "own work". Policy requires that the uploader verify that he actually is the same person as the one named in the watermark. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I got exactly the opposite answer when I took this to the administrators notice board. They suggested bringing it here. SpinningSpark 17:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: Which answer? If you mean this discussion, you were just redirected here as this is the right place to discuss such cases. If you mean something else, you can link the discussion here or ask users who supported your opinion to participate in this discussion.
I am generally uncomfortable with undeletion in such cases unless the photos were made after the Wikimedia account was created. This is not the case. And I would prefer some confirmation of uploader identity or the license as the images may be great risk for reusers. Ankry (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Um, "Please create an undeletion request, I support it" comment from User:Alexis Jazz is pretty clear to me, and by implication, that the rest of Pixels.srinath's uploads should not be deleted. What is baffling me here is the inconsistency. Why just these two images? Either they should all go or all stay. They were all uploaded with the same terms. SpinningSpark 10:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

 Support unless any copyvio can be proven. In this case, I see no reason to doubt the uploader is the author. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

 Weak support unless there is evidence of prior publication before it was hosted on Commons, we should COM:AGF that the uploader had a quirk of watermarking their works. If there is evidence of prior publication, then I would  Oppose. Since the uploader hasn't been active since 2013, OTRS confirmation is just not a realistic option. Abzeronow (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, while they are relatively low resolution, Google images does not find them. But as noted above, I will not act here. Ankry (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Support per above. COM:PRP says that there must be significant doubt if we are to assume that the file is not their own work. This doesn't seem to be the case. --pandakekok9 02:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have contacted someone I believe may be the uploader and asked them to confirm copyright status by emailing OTRS. I suggest giving them at least a fortnight because under the current virus situation they may well be unable to respond or otherwise occupied. -Green Giant (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done No hits on Tineye, so Commons appears to be the place of first publication. We presume that such images are properly licensed unless something about the images themselves, the uploader, or their statements make us think otherwise. As the original premise for doubt has been proven false (the watermark matches the name of the uploader), there is no more reason to treat these images with any more suspicion than any other images. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:British and French prisoners, Dunkirk.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:British and French prisoners, Dunkirk.jpg

"("Eva Brauns photo album", National Archives Collection of Foreign Records Seized)" Eva Braun died in 1945, and URAA may not apply due to it being seized. Abzeronow (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

{{Temporarily undeleted}} for discussion as the links in the DR are dead and not archived. Ankry (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
It looks like these links still work:https://www.archives.gov/research/military/ww2/photos#german & https://catalog.archives.gov/id/540150. Text from second link
"File Unit: Eva Braun's Photo Albums - Album 7, ca. 1913 - ca. 1944
Series: Eva Braun's Photo Albums, ca. 1913 - ca. 1944
Record Group 242: National Archives Collection of Foreign Records Seized, 1675 - 1958" Abzeronow (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose At Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Wartime_copyrights we are told that certain materials that were seized by the Alien Property Custodian such as Mein Kampf, did not have copyrights restored by the URAA. However, the APC took property which was under US control at the beginning of the war. Presumably this image did not come under US control until the end of the war, so I think that provision does not apply and the URAA restored the US copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --De728631 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

request for undeletion

Deleted Files
*File:Village oil on canvas(1980).jpg
Undeleted Files
*File:Brain of Canaan man.jpg

Hello, i want to request for undeletion of these files as per the following reasons - They are my art work and I want to display them - The content is not harmful to any society - Content is not violent and does not promote any act as such - This art work belongs to me and i give full permission to publish it. ` Shahkars Architecture (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shahkars Architecture: Concerning the first set, there are two problems:
  1. For copyrighted paintings, that were definitely not made as dedicated for Commons publication, we need a free license from painter vis COM:OTRS
  2. We do not host paintings of non-notable painters; so evidence of painter notability is needed (evidence of prizes, exhibitions, presence in galleries, or independent publications about their art is needed).
Two other sets are not deleted, so out of scope here.
Concerning "I want to display them", see COM:NOTHOST
Ankry (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose I completely agree. Aside from the copyright question, I see no evidence on Google or elsewhere that the artist is notable in any way. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
As they are mentioned as known Pakistani painter it is possible that there is some offline evidence of that, or eg. in Pashto, which we cannot find with Google. They need to be pointed out, however. Ankry (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: No indication that these images are in the project scope of Commons. --De728631 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Picture taken by me Rajendra Kumar from my Nikon D5200, there is no copyright infringement

The picture has been taken by me on the spot with my DSLR, I wish to share it to Wikipedia commons. It has been mistakenly marked for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajudbg (talk • contribs) 12:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this related to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waterfall near Mukteshwar.jpg or do you mean another picture? De728631 (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rajudbg: ^^^^ Ankry (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It is not clear which image was meant to be undeleted. --De728631 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Dr. Stefan M. Knoll.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

ich habe vor einiger Zeit Kontakt mit dem Wikipedia-Support Team aufgenommen für die Freigabe der oben genannten Datei. Mittlerweile haben wir alle Anforderungen erfüllt.

Die Support Anfrage lief unter dem Ticket Ticket:2019111310019203

Leider wurde das Bild noch nicht wiederhergestellt, weshalb ich mich nun auf diesem Wege an Sie wende.

(DFV1234DFV (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC))

n of

@Steinsplitter, Krd, and AFBorchert: Könnt ihr das bitte mal prüfen? De728631 (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@DFV1234DFV: Die letzte Anfrage von der Seite des Support-Teams wurde bislang nicht beantwortet. Nach dem aktuellen Stand sind die Rechte noch nicht in ausreichender Form geklärt. Von daher kommt der Wiederherstellungsantrag noch zu früh. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose @DFV1234DFV: the recent mail from OTRS dated 10 Apr 2020 10:50:40 +0000 remains unresponded, so we need to wait. Ankry (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Das OTRS Team wird bei ausreichender Freigabe die Datei wiederherstellen. /// The support team will undelete the file once we got a valed permission/reply. --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:国立博物館所蔵品統合検索システム百万塔.jpg

私が利用したのは、 国立博物館所蔵品統合検索システムです。　https://colbase.nich.go.jp/pages/term?locale=ja　利用規約では、「１. 出典の記載について　1.コンテンツを利用する際は出典を記載してください。出典の記載方法は以下のとおりです。（出典記載例）出典：国立博物館所蔵品統合検索システム」https://colbase.nich.go.jp/pages/term?locale=ja　それに従っています。　https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%99%BE%E4%B8%87%E5%A1%94%E9%99%80%E7%BE%85%E5%B0%BC&oldid=77004268　最新版2020-04-10T21:19:43　「国立博物館所蔵品統合検索システムより提供。九州国立博物館蔵」とキャプションを付けています。画像をクリックすると、　「ColBase: 国立博物館所蔵品統合検索システム (Integrated Collections Database of the National Museums, Japan)‎　経典「百万塔陀羅尼」を収めた仏塔（九州国立博物館所蔵）。」　と出ます。　 また、「６. その他　2.本利用ルールは、令和2年3月24日に定めたものです。本利用ルールは、政府標準利用規約（第2.0版）に準拠しています。」「3.本利用ルールは、クリエイティブ・コモンズ・ライセンスの表示4.0国際　（ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.ja　に規定される著作権利用許諾条件。以下「CC BY」といいます。）と互換性があり、本利用ルールが適用されるコンテンツはCC BYに従うことでも利用することができます。」　とあるので、何の問題もございません。--Falcated (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I use "ColBase: Integrated Collections Database of the National Museums, Japan. https://colbase.nich.go.jp/pages/term?locale=ja Terms of Use,1) Source citation Please cite the source when using the Content. Source may be cited in the following ways.(Examples of source citation)Source: Integrated Collections Database of the National Museums, Japan (URL of the relevant page) Source: ColBase (https://colbase.nich.go.jp/) Ifollow it. 　https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%99%BE%E4%B8%87%E5%A1%94%E9%99%80%E7%BE%85%E5%B0%BC&oldid=77004268 2020-04-10T21:19:43(Newest version) I write "Given by ColBase: Integrated Collections Database of the National Museums, Japan; Colection of Kyushu National Museum" https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%99%BE%E4%B8%87%E5%A1%94%E9%99%80%E7%BE%85%E5%B0%BC&oldid=77004268#/media/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:%E5%9B%BD%E7%AB%8B%E5%8D%9A%E7%89%A9%E9%A4%A8%E6%89%80%E8%94%B5%E5%93%81%E7%B5%B1%E5%90%88%E6%A4%9C%E7%B4%A2%E3%82%B7%E3%82%B9%E3%83%86%E3%83%A0%E7%99%BE%E4%B8%87%E5%A1%94.jpg and,Terms of Use, 6.Other 6.3."These terms of use are based on the Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use (Version 2.0). These terms of use may be changed in the future. If you are already using the Content in accordance with the previous version of the Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use, those terms and conditions shall continue to apply." 6.4. "These terms of use are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International (Copyright license stipulated at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.ja/ Hereinafter referred to as “CC BY”), hence the Content to which these terms of use apply may also be used in compliance with CC BY." Therefore,It's No Problem.Thank you for your tolerant. --Falcated (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The file has not been deleted and there s no obvious reason why it might be. There is nothing for us to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Laure Gauthier lit au Lieu Unique (Invitation de la Maison de la Poésie de Nantes, 5 décembre 2019).jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020042110007481 regarding File:Laure Gauthier lit au Lieu Unique (Invitation de la Maison de la Poésie de Nantes, 5 décembre 2019).jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --De728631 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File: Georges Rutten, portret in olieverf op paneel. Peinture Bogaerts, ca. 1900-1902.jpg

8000 words of discussion
The author of this painting is unknown, but not the art studio where it was made : Bogaerts Bruxelles (the Belgian branch of the Dutch parent company Peinture Bogaerts). The painting has been signed Bogaerts Bruxelles. So, the signature Bogaerts does not refer to an individual artist, but refers to the art studio/workshop where it was made. Therefore the painting is actually anonymous; the actual painter can not be traced. Anonymous works from 1900 - 1902 are in public domain because of their age. --Ronny MG (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ronny MG: , bedoel je dit schilderij? :-) Lotje (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Ja, het signatuur linksonderaan luidt Bogaerts Bruxelles, wat duidelijk verwijst naar een atelier, niet naar een individueel kunstschilder. Anders zou Bogaerts vooraf gegaan zijn door minstens de eerste letter (hoofdletter) van een voornaam.--Ronny MG (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Het komt wel goed. :-) Lotje (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Reluctant  Oppose. It's not anonymous, it's a painting by Hubert Bogaerts. Commons can accept works from named authors that we don't have the death date 120 years from creation, so I'd support restoration in 2023. Abzeronow (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


The name Hubert Bogaerts is not mentionned on the painting, on the contrary, the signature says Bogaerts Bruxelles, clearly referring to the art studio, not to an individual artist. --Ronny MG (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 Oppose There are two real possibilities here and one incorrect one:

First possibility, this is the work of Hubert Bogaerts. If that is the case, then, since we do not know his death date, PRP requires that we assume that he lived to a reasonable old age. He was born in 1869, so if he lived past age 80, this is still under copyright.
Second possibility, this is the work of his studio. If that is the case, then the work is under copyright until 70 years after the death of the last member of the studio to die. That is surely later than 1949.
Third, incorrect, possibility, this is an anonymous work. This is incorrect because the fact that we do not know the names of the studio members, does not make this "anonymous". In copyright law, the fact that a work's creator is unknown does not make it an anonymous work. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the work qualifies as "anonymous". In that case the work becomes PD 70 years after it was first lawfully communicated to the public. However, it is entirely possible that this work was not published until it appeared here. At the original DR, Ronny MG says,
"By the way, I published the image with permission of the recent owner, who I know personally."
That implies that the painting is now in private hands, which makes it very unlikely that it has ever been owned by an institution and unlikely that it has ever been published. If we consider this possibility (as Ronny MG asks above), then publication before 1949 must be proven.

Thus, whichever of the three possibilities we assume, the work cannot be kept on Commons for at least ten years (first possibility) or much longer in the second and third cases. The only way the image could be restored sooner is if it were proven to have been published before 1949 either in a book or magazine or by exhibition in a public place where copying was permitted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


If it's the work of the studio, then it's not "the last member of the studio to die" -- it's anonymous. The human author had to be named. Publication without attribution is anonymous publication, and it has apparently been signed explicitly with a corporate mark, not human author. The "latest to die" is only for a joint work, i.e. where multiple people are documented as having contributed expression. The fact of someone simply working at the company is irrelevant. If that is the case, then the EU term is 70 years from publication (or actually "communication to the public", which is a much easier standard to obtain), or if never published, then 70 years from creation. For the U.S., the earlier of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation. For an identified human author though, we do need to know the death date. I do find some references of Hubert Bogaerts living at Karlsruherstrasse 14, Berlin-Halensee, and filing a number of patents (usually relating to printing or oil painting, and noting he was a Dutch citizen). The last dates I see from there are 1933 or maybe 1934, so he lived at least that long. So if we are pretty sure he was the author (as opposed to say his brother Henri, who apparently owned the firm and died I think in 1933), perhaps waiting until 2023 would be best (120 years after creation, {{PD-old-assumed}}), unless we can find a death date. If we think it's anonymous though, that it could have been done by any employee of the studio (or even that the author was not identified within the anonymous copyright term), I think it's fine. Dutch law explicitly says the term is the anonymous term when the human author is not actually named on copies communicated to the public, unless the author identified themselves within the 70 year term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


Hubertus Aloisius Henricus Maria Bogaerts (Hubert Bogaerts) was one of four brothers who owned the Dutch company Peinture Bogaerts. In April 1900 he travelled to Brussels to establish a Belgian branch in that city, Bogaerts Bruxelles or Portretten Bogaerts in Dutch or Portraits Bogaerts in French. The names Portretten Bogaerts and Portraits Bogaerts were very frequently mentionned at the top of commercial advertisements in Belgian newspapers, e.g. in the city of Kortrijk between October 1902 and February 1903, where my own great-grandfather (Jan Tremmery) was a representative/salesman of Hubert Bogaerts. Commissionned by Hubert Bogaerts, Jan Tremmery in his store in Kortrijk held permanent exhibitions of oilpaintings made by Bogaerts Bruxelles in order to sell them to the public (beeldbank.kortrijk.be). As far as I know, Bogaerts Bruxelles was the only branch of Peinture Bogaerts in Belgium and my great-grandfather the only representative/salesman in Belgium. On each oilpainting made in Brussels, the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles of the art studio was mentionned, but never the name of an individual artist, making each painting anonymous. Bogaerts Bruxelles stopped its activities at the end of December 1902, when Hubert Bogaerts travelled back to the Netherlands (Boxtel), certainly due to the death of his father Henricus Adrianus Bogaerts (Henri Bogaerts sr.). In the Netherlands, Peinture Bogaerts stayed active until at least 1938. --Ronny MG (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Ronny MG claims here: "The name Hubert Bogaerts is not mentionned on the painting, on the contrary, the signature says Bogaerts Bruxelles, clearly referring to the art studio, not to an individual artist", but elsewhere he claims the opposite, see here. He even changed the maker's name on September 24, 2019 and requested to change the name of the file with the name of the creator "Hubert Bogaerts". Gouwenaar (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hubert Bogaerts being the maker of the painting was just a hypothesis, simply because he was the only Bogaerts who was in Belgium between April 1900 and December 1902, the period wherein the painting was made ... Fact remains that the name 'Hubert Bogaerts' is not the signature on the painting, the signature is Bogaerts Bruxelles, clearly refering to the studio ... Whichever artist working for Bogaerts' studio could have made the painting, so, obviously, due to the absence of the name of an individual artist as signature on the painting, the painting is anonymous. Here Taivo (a Wikipedia administrator) maintains in Commons another painting made by the same studio, it has the same signature Bogaerts Bruxelles and it has the same age [8] :

'Behouden, as much as I understand, here 3 Bogaerts all worked in same workshop and signed their works as Bogaerts. Under such circumstances I have feeling, that signature "Bogaerts" does not mean artist, but workshop, and the painting is actually anonymous, because you cannot trace the actual painter. Anonymous works from 1902 are in public domain due to age. Taivo (Overleg) 11:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)'

--Ronny MG (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The assertion "Anonymous works from 1902 are in public domain due to age" is simply wrong. Under Dutch law, unpublished anonymous works are under copyright and remain under copyright until 70 years after publication. Under US law, works by unknown authors unpublished before 2003 remain under copyright until 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever comes first.

This work is apparently in private hands, which strongly suggests that it was unpublished until it was first uploaded here. It might have appeared in an auction catalog or a book before now, but that must be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Jim, Jim, paintings are usually published on year of creation. The opposite would be very unusual and such claim needs some evidence. I wanted to say "Anonymous works published in 1902 are in public domain due to age". Taivo (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
No, in the Netherlands (like all EU countries), if anonymous works are not communicated to to the public (or published) within 70 years after creation, copyright expires. There is no infinite copyright for unpublished works. In the Netherlands, it would have had to been first communicated to the public between 1950 and 1972 to still be under copyright as an anonymous work -- which is highly unlikely, and extremely theoretical. If it has never been communicated to the public, it is PD in the Netherlands (and the rest of the EU), though not the United States. "Communication to the public" includes public display, so if these were displayed in the store, that likely counted. Most likely, it was published at the time, which would make it PD in the US. The Netherlands does have a clause stating that copies without the naming the author are anonymous, unless the pseudonym leaves no doubt to the authorship (which may be the case here) or the author makes themselves known before the 70 year period is up, in which case it becomes 70pma. Although, it sounds like Belgium may be the country of origin, which doesn't have that explicit "copies with names on them" clause, but otherwise is the same. If "Bogaerts Bruxelles" can be taken as a pseudonym for Hubert Bogaerts though, it could be 70pma, which gets us into the question if we can take PD-old-assumed. If we know of works pre-1900 for him, we would technically allow those under PD-old-assumed, and then it becomes a little silly keeping some of his works based on assumed date of death but not others. On the other hand, living to 80 isn't all that unlikely either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
So, you simply dismiss the conclusion and the decision of another Wikipedia-administrator (Taivo) ? Do you realize, you being a Wikipedia administrator too, that this means Wikipedia contradicts itself ... ? The simple fact that a Wikipedia-administrator retained in Commons a painting with signature Bogaerts Bruxelles dated 1900 -1902 for reasons of anonymity, implies/demands that any other painting (e.g. the painting presenting Georges Rutten) with the same characteristics also has to be retained in Commons ... --Ronny MG (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I made some interwikilinks, to make it easier. :-) Lotje (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@ (Jameslwoodward) : I can proove that the workshop Bogaerts Bruxelles publicly exhibited the paintings that it made. I quote an article in the Belgian newspaper Gazette Van Kortrijk from 4th September 1902 : 'Wij lezen in "Le Patriote" : De zoo beklagensweerdige wed. van Lucas Meyer heeft deze dagen de tentoonstelling van geschilderde kunstportretten van M. Bogaerts, in de Bergstraat No 20, te Brussel, met een bezoek vereerd.' The translation Dutch into English from the words in bold : ' ... the exhibition of painted art portraits from Mister Bogaerts, Bergstraat No. 20, in Brussels, ...' Here [9] is a link to the article (click on the article to enlarge). --Ronny MG (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to believe that the painting was published/lawfully communicated to the public in 1902. I also think COM:PCP would have us treat Hubert Bogaerts as the author. And absent a death date for him, we should wait until 2023 when Commons policy would allow us to restore the painting. But I can also be convinced by Taivo's argument. Abzeronow (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not because Hubert Bogaerts was one of the owners of the workshop Bogaerts Bruxelles that he was the author of the painting. His full name is not mentionned on the painting. Wichever artpainter in service of Bogaerts' workshop could have been the actual maker. Apparantly, they were asked to sign their paintings with the name of the workshop Bogaerts Bruxelles. If the signature ‘’Bogaerts Bruxelles’’ on the painting presenting Guido Gezelle is compared with the signature ‘’Bogaerts Bruxelles’’ on the painting presenting Georges Rutten, we clearly see that the handwritings differ considerably from one another, indicating two different persons/artpainters. --Ronny MG (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The newspaper piece says only that two or more paintings were exhibited. It does not say that this painting was exhibited. That does not get us past "no significant doubt" which is our standard of proof. Also note that it does not speak of paintings from the workshop, but rather "art portraits from Mister Bogaerts" so, again, you are trying to have it both ways == the painting is a work of Bogaerts and the painting is by the workshop. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, Taivo passed "no significant doubt" by keeping the portrait of Guido Gezelle in Commons. This portrait has exactly the same characteristics as the portrait of Georges Rutten : it has exactly the same signature Bogaerts Bruxelles, so it was made by exactly the same workshop and it has exactly the same age. So, if Wikipedia is consistent, then it also has to undelete the portrait of Georges Rutten in Commons.--Ronny MG (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
1) You didn't read the whole article. I quote the last paragraph : 'N.B. Wij vernemen dat op het laatste van deze maand de portretten der Boerengeneraals en dit van president Krüger zullen tentoongesteld worden bij de vertegenwoordiger van het huis Bogaerts, ... The part in bold translated from Dutch into English : ... will be exhibited at the representative of the House Bogaerts. The House Bogaerts = the workshop, not Mister Bogaerts. With "art portraits from Mister Bogaerts" the newspaper of course meant art portraits made by the workshop owned by Mister Bogaerts ... The name The House Bogaerts is mentionned in a number of articles/advertisements in Belgian newspapers, 2) The company Peinture Bogaerts always exhibited every new painting at the shops of its representatives, mostly newspaper stores in the Netherlands, in Belgium in the store of my great-grandfather J. Tremmery-Jacqueloot in the city of Kortrijk (see below in the article), and in the workshop in Brussels, 3) I'm not trying to have it both ways. I said earlier that Hubert Bogaerts being the author is a hypothesis, simply because he was the only Bogaerts in Belgium at that time, 4) fact remains that the signature on the painting is Bogaerts Bruxelles representing the House Bogaerts. The House Bogaerts = the workshop, the signature is not Hubert Bogaerts, making the painting anonymous and while the work was published in 1902 it is in public domain due to age, as your colleague Wikipedia-administrator Taivo very correctly concluded. --Ronny MG (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Here : [10] an advertisement that also mentions the House Bogaerts from Brussels (hence the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles - in French - on the paintings presenting Guido Gezelle and Georges Rutten) and the repeated exhibition of the portraits the workshop made. I quote the advertisement published in the Belgian newspaper Gazette van Kortrijk (29th June 1902, amongst other dates), first paragraph : 'Ik heb de eer het publiek te melden dat ik, het huis Bogaerts van Brussel voor geschilderde kunstportretten vertegenwoordigende eene eerste tentoonstelling van portretten die alle maanden zal veranderd worden, zal openen op Zaterdag 5 Juli aanstaande, ...' Translated to English : 'I have the honor to inform the public that I, representing the House Bogaerts from Brussels for painted artportraits shall open a first exhibition of portraits that will be changed every month on Saturday the 5th of July upcoming, ...' I quote the third paragraph : Het Huis Bogaerts aanveerdt geene orders voor Kortrijk en geheel het arrondissement zonder tussenkomst van zijnen vertegenwoordiger. Translated to English : The House Bogaerts doesn't accept orders for Kortrijk and the whole district without intervention from its representative'. --Ronny MG (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.189.240.35 (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


I did find this document out there, a very in-depth researching of a Gezelle portrait, which had the same signature, and was definitively attributed to Hubert Boegarts. I assume that was written by Ronny MG ? Does sound like they did exhibit many of their paintings in the store, and also had another exhibition of many of them in Kortrijk in 1902. I don't see any reason to doubt that was communicated to the public at the time. Asking for full publication history is never realistic -- there is no indication it was kept private then, rather there are indications to the contrary. However, that would also make Belgium the country of origin. The copyright rules are very similar, except it does not have the Netherlands explicit clause where copies without a natural person actually named should have the anonymous term. Instead, the Belgian law says However, where the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity or if the author discloses his identity during the period referred to in the foregoing subparagraph [70 years from making available to the public], the term of protection of the work shall be that laid down in paragraph (1) [70 pma]. If there is some doubt as to the author, then it seems like it had the anonymous term, and it expired long ago (as did US copyright), and it's fine. If there is "no doubt" that Hubert Boegarts is the author though, and that fact was known at the time (as possibly shown by the Gezelle research), then the term is 70pma and we only have a birth year of 1869, though the US copyright is still fine. Not sure we have come up with a guideline on that, though PD-old-assumed would want to wait for 120 years from creation, which is three years away.
Does seem as though Hubert moved around some. He was in Brussels in 1902, then I guess moved back to Boxtel. This 1905 patent for "Process of Producing Copies of Oil Paintings" was filed by "Hubert Bogaerts, a subject of the Queen of the Netherlands, residing at Burgakker, Boxtel" which I would have to assume is the same person. Found others from 1907 and 1908, also living at Boxtel. There is also a 1917 patent for "Processes of Manufacturing Reproductions of Paintings, Maps, Wall-Papers with Relievo-Patterns", credited to "Hubert Bogaerts, a subject of the Queen of the Netherlands, and residing at Berlin-Halensee, Germany", which would seem to be the same person again. They were still living there for this 1927 patent of "Method of Producing Oil Paintings" filed in 1927, and the last one I could find was this 1933 patent, also filed in Germany in 1932, so seems like he was still living there then. Did find mention of a patent assignment in Canada to "Sydney Hayden and David Hayden, both of London, England, assignees of Hubert Bogaerts, Berlin Halensee, Germany, 8th May, 1934". Very hard to say how long he lived, though there are indications the Dutch company was still going in 1938, per your paper.
I think the US copyright is fine, so this could at least be uploaded to en-wiki as PD-US-expired. The question is the Belgian copyright -- does it qualify for the "no doubt" clause of being authored by Hubert (and we would be better waiting for the PD-old-assumed tag to apply), or if there is some doubt that would leave it with the anonymous/pseudonymous term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Here the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles in the lower left corner of the painting of Georges Rutten. Here : [11] on page 16, the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles in the lower right corner of the painting of Guido Gezelle. These signatures, although referring to the very same workshop, clearly represent two different artists. The first artist had a finer handwriting and put the signature in the lower left corner, the second artist had a much more robust handwriting and put the signature in the lower right corner. The signature on the Georges Rutten painting runs diagonally, whereas the signature on the Guido Gezelle painting runs almost horizontal. This indicates at least two artists in the workshop and we don't know if one of the handwritings is that of Hubert Bogaerts. These facts, together with the absence of an individual name on the paintings, emphasize that the paintings are anonymous. And again, it's illogical/inconsistent to retain in commons the one painting, and to delete the other one, knowing that both paintings were made by the very same workshop and knowing that they have the same age. --Ronny MG (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ronny MG: Thanks for the links on the signatures. Hm. Placement of the signature and even angle doesn't always mean much -- have seen artists vary those in the past. I'm not a handwriting expert... I'm not sure I'm convinced either way. Not sure I see elements that definitely show a different hand, but also far from convinced they are the same person. Hm. Well, I guess the law says there needs to be "no doubt" as to the identity to qualify for 70pma, so if there was some possibility of another hand working there, that would make it the 70 year anonymous term, so I guess I'd lean  Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Again,  Keep is only logical, because the Gezelle painting, made by the very same workshop as the Rutten painting in the very same period, has been kept in commons ... --Ronny MG (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Here, on page 32 below a picture of the Peinture Bogaerts workshop in Boxtel (Netherlands, where is was active from 1891 till 1938) with clearly several artists working. Peinture Bogaerts always worked with a team of artists, because the company's activity was production of art-reproductions, based on photographs and/or on existing paintings. So, the same (several artists in service) goes for the branch Bogaerts Bruxelles in Brussels as well, making the paintings anonymous. --Ronny MG (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
When eventually a decision is gonna be made on this topic ? --Ronny MG (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
No strict date. And I am not even sure that a decision will be taken. To take a decision you need and admin that is convinced and a consensus. I am not familiar enough with Dutch law to judge here, so I am  Neutral. Also, I see no clear consensus whether this work should be considered anonymous or not. I will not act here. We must wait for a decision of another admin. Ankry (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
How can this be so difficult ? I said earlier that another painting (representing Guido Gezelle) made by exactly the same workshop as the painting representing Georges Rutten and having exactly the same age as the painting representing Georges Rutten, has been approved in Commons. So, again, if Wikipedia is consistent, then the painting representing Georges Rutten logically must be undeleted. --Ronny MG (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
What does Wikipedia have to do with this? And neither Commons nor Wikipedia are consistent. It is so difficult because it is hard, which is part of the reason it is inconsistent and anything making decisions about the real world will be inconsistent about marginal cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Approving one painting and deleting the other one while both paintings originate from the same workshop and have the same age has nothing to do with what you said above, it's called inconsistency, nothing more, nothing less. --Ronny MG (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and fixing that inconsistency would take O(n3) operations on n files, with verifying consistency not being a cheap operation. The US Copyright Office, the criminal justice system, pretty much all human system do not claim absolute consistency, because getting things done is more important, (the criminal justice system in the US literally promises a speedy trial and no double jeopardy, making this consistency impossible) and because no matter how you could have tried to ensure consistency, the unhappy side will argue you weren't consistent, because no two cases are exactly the same. Inconsistency is a reality, no matter how much it upsets you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
' ... no two cases are exactly the same.' Then tell me why two paintings from the same workshop, with the same workshop-signature and having the same age are 'not exactly the same', why the one of the two paintings with both the same characteristics is ok concerning 'copyright' and the other one isn't. --Ronny MG (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been open for three weeks since the last comment. If no one objects in 24 hours or so, I am going to close it as not done.

We are told above that the painting is in private hands now, which strongly suggests that it was never in a museum. While it seems clear that the artist(s) had a public exhibition of some paintings early enough to make them PD, there is no evidence that this particular painting was among them. The fact that we have kept another work with similar provenance is irrelevant -- it shows only that we should probably reexamine that decision. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I object. --Ronny MG (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@(Jameslwoodward) : proove that the painting was never in a museum. And, as said above, each new painting made by Peinture Bogaerts was first exhibited to the public by the representatives of the company before it was sold. The Georges Rutten-painting has a catalogue number on the backside by the way (number 22). --Ronny MG (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I think closing might be best. There is no consensus to undelete. Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
As Taivo correctly said 7 January 2020 : 'Paintings are usually published on year of creation. The opposite would be very unusual and such claim needs some evidence. I wanted to say "Anonymous works published in 1902 are in public domain due to age". --Ronny MG (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with 1902 being the date of publication. Hubert Bogaerts was the copyright holder and Bogaerts Bruxelles was widely understood as being a pseudonym for his works (and works of others under his name that he'd own the copyright to). And so I cannot agree with the assertation that this was an anonymous work as defined by Belgian law. So, as I said above, no consensus to undelete. Abzeronow (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Anonymous means by lack of a person's full name, so lack of a combination of first name and last name, which is the case in this particular painting. The firstname 'Hubert' or any other firstname, defining a particular individual, is not mentionned on the painting. On the contrary, it's a workshop representing a group of individuals that is defined by the signature. So, the painting is anonymous, and public domain, the latter also due to age. First, one has to be well informed : the modus operandi of the Dutch company Peinture Bogaerts was the public exhibition of each and every new painting in the establishments of an extended network of representatives before these paintings were sold. This is very well documented, not only in Dutch newspapers (e.g. commercial advertisements), but also in Belgian newspapers. My great-grandfather was the only representative of Peinture Bogaerts in Belgium. So, the Georges Rutten painting was first on public display in his establishment in the Belgian city of Kortrijk. Hence, it's not surprising that the painting emerged in the village Deerlijk, only 12 kilometers of distance from Kortrijk. As mentionned before, the painting has an exhibition/catalogue number on the backside (nummber 22). --Ronny MG (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
It comes down to a judgement call on being anonymous/pseudonymous. It's not marked with an author name, but rather corporate, so it was published anonymously. But at least one other work with that mark was confirmed as by that author. There were links to the two signatures earlier on in this discussion (and given again below); those could be interesting to compare to see if people think that was the same hand or not. The law says either the author needs to make himself known (no evidence of that), or there to be "no doubt" of the authors real identity (and there needed to be "no doubt" before 1973). Country of origin would seem to be Belgium. The author was also the holder of several patents for means of producing paintings from photographs or similar, so it's certainly feasible that he trained other workers in the company (if there were any) in these techniques. It's also possible works were made in the Netherlands, where there were definitely several employees, and sent to Brussels for sale.
It is PD-US-expired, so no issue for the U.S. either way, and it could be uploaded to en-wiki directly (since that uses U.S. law only). If anonymous, it's been PD for decades, and is fine to keep. If it is by Hubert Bogaerts, then we would either need to find a death date, or wait until 2023 when we can use {{PD-old-assumed}}.
I still lean keep, as I'm not sure it's worth deleting this for just three years when there are defensible reasons to assume that it was in fact anonymous (and given it's definitely fine for the U.S.). I would be interested though in others comparing the signatures -- the one known to be Hubert is this closeup image, while the one in question has a closeup photo on page 16 of this PDF. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
As I explained earlier in this discussion (23:20, 15 January 2020), the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles on the Georges Rutten and on the Guido Gezelle paintings are clearly very different, indicating at least two artists in the Bogaerts Bruxelles workshop. Hence, actually both paintings are anonymous. --Ronny MG (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg Above you said : ' ... it could be uploaded to en-wiki directly ...'. Can it be used then in a Dutch Wikipedia-article ? --Ronny MG (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
No, it could only be used in English Wikipedia articles if uploaded there. I do not know if the Dutch Wikipedia allows local uploads, but I can't find anywhere they do -- they seem to rely on Commons alone. It appears they do not allow fair-use files the way en-wiki does, which is the usual reason to allow local uploads. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Fair-use files are not allowed on the Dutch wikipedia, see here for an explanation. Gouwenaar (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Fair use in American copyrightlaw comprises the possibility that, under certain conditions, allows the use of works of which one claims limited copyright. No one, I repeat, no one claims copyright nor will ever claim copyright in the case of the Bogaerts Bruxelles paintings. This is the very reason why this whole discussion is actually unnecessary.--Ronny MG (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ronny MG: Per the Commons:Precautionary principle, we do not accept works which are under copyright and not licensed, even if it's highly, highly unlikely that anyone would claim rights. Works where there is no real way to obtain permission are "orphan works", which is a very frustrating area of copyright law as almost no countries offer legal protection from infringement if an owner suddenly does show up, so they are not accepted here. Per policy we need to show they are out of copyright. That was why I was interested in third opinions on the signatures -- if people think they are by a different hand, then it would not be the named artist and would be anonymous, making it PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg Third opinions ? Isn't it obvious enough that both signatures are from different individual artists ? For starters, the signature on the Georges Rutten painting is much finer than the robust, thick signature on the Guido Gezelle painting. Also striking is that the signature on the Rutten painting is in the left corner below, while the signature on the Gezelle painting is in the opposite corner. Furthermore, the signature on the Rutten painting clearly stands diagonal, while the signature on the Gezelle painting stands under a much lower angle. The signature on the Rutten painting is clearly fluently and coherent (and beautifully) written, while the characters of the incoherent, not fluently written signature on the Gezelle painting particularly in the word Bruxelles are reduced to stripes ... Bruxelles in the signature on the Rutten painting is underlined, while this is clearly absent below Bruxelles in the signature on the Gezelle painting ... And so on ... Actually, these two signatures are each other's opposite and therefore from two different persons.--Ronny MG (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I honestly was not convinced either way comparing them -- I have seen the same author sign stuff in different corners and at different angles before. I was more looking at the lettering... but I'm not an expert there, and it wasn't obvious (in either direction) for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg You wrote : ' ... if an owner suddenly does show up, ... ' Well, as I said before in this discussion, I have permission from the recent owner to publish his painting on Wikipedia ... --Ronny MG (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Ownership of the painting does not necessarily connote ownership of the copyright -- they are separate things. If the owner of the painting also does indeed also own copyright, then having them follow COM:OTRS to send a private email, giving a free license to the uploaded photo, would be another way to solve this. (Permission needs to be for anyone to use it, not just Wikipedia -- the OTRS process is used to eliminate any possible misunderstandings.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg When does the owner of a painting also own copyright ? In which cases ? Only if he is also the maker of the painting ?--Ronny MG (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The subtleties can depend on the law in each country -- sometimes the copyright of commissioned works was by default owned by the commissioning party, and other times it would remain with the artist -- transfer was always possible, but it would have to be part of the contract in the latter cases. Recent Belgian law says: Where works are created by an author on a commission, the economic rights may be assigned to the person who has given the commission on condition that the latter’s activity is in a non-cultural field or in advertising, that the work is intended for such activity and that assignment of the rights is explicitly laid down. So, it would seem that there needed to be a written assignment of rights, otherwise the artist keeps the copyright. The 1896 law simply says 1. The author of a literary or artistic work has the exclusive right to reproduce it or cause it to be reproduced in any manner or form desired. [...] 3. Author's rights are negotiable, assignable and transferable, in whole or in part, in conformity with Civil Code regulations. (copyright assignment per earlier laws would likely still be valid.) I have no idea what the Civil Code said, but it appears even then there was no mechanism in the law to transfer rights from the artist (or company) without some sort of explicit contract. Current Dutch law deems an employer the author of a work, but is silent on a commissioned work, meaning copyright likely stays with the author without an explicit transfer. Older Dutch law said: If the labour performed in the service of another person consists in the production of certain literary, scientific or artistic works, the person in whose service the works have been produced shall be regarded as the author thereof unless otherwise agreed upon between the parties. That is more vague, and may have encompassed commissioned works, such that in the Netherlands copyright may have been transferred. The current law's version of that clause seems to have restricted that to employers only, but I'm less sure about the situation in 1902. So, copyright ownership may have been different depending on the country it was published, even then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg Here : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portret_van_Arnold_van_Zwanenberg.jpg, a link to a portrait made by Peinture H. Bogaerts (better known as Peinture Bogaerts) (Dutch Wikipedia). It represents Arnold van Zwanenberg. It was made in 1932 and has been assigned to the Public Domain. Now, explain to me, why this portraitpainting, which is at least 30 years younger than the portraitpainting representing Georges Rutten, and made by the same workshop, Peinture Bogaerts, is public domain, and why the Rutten painting isn't. Furthermore, the Zwanenberg painting is assigned to Peinture H. Bogaerts, which is the name of the workshop, not the name of an individual artist, hence it's anonymous. Also the Rutten painting mentions the name of the workshop, Bogaerts Bruxelles, not the name of an individual artist. So, also explain why the Zwanenberg painting is anonymous (also by being in Public Domain) and why the Rutten painting would'nt be.--Ronny MG (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, it all depends on the law in each country. For the EU, if a work is anonymous, copyright lasts 70 years from publication. If the author becomes known in that 70 year period however, the term goes to the regular term, which is the life of that author plus 70 more years. So yes, works made many decades earlier can still be under copyright longer, whenever the terms are based on the life of the authors. For the work you mention, there does not seem to be any identification of a human author, so being from 1932, presumably copyright expired (in the EU) in 2003. However copyright most likely would have been restored in the U.S. (the claim of being published before 1925 is obviously impossible for a 1932 painting), and will only expire in 2028, so that file likely is {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} and probably should not be here. For this one, the main question is "becoming known" -- Dutch law has a particular clause where the author either had to be named originally, or "made themselves known", which probably covers that other painting as neither happened. Belgian law allows for the situation where there is "no doubt" of the author's identity however, which is more liberal than the author making themselves known, as they could become known via other means. Part of the difference is the EU directive, where countries where an employer is considered the author (like the Netherlands) required the human author to be named on the initial publication to get the 70pma term, whereas countries where the employee is considered the author only with transferred rights to the employer (such as Belgium), allows the author to become known during those 70 years to get the 70pma term. (See the EU directive; Article 1(3) is the general anonymous term. Article 1(4) would apply to the Netherlands, since their law has provisions for a legal person to be designated as the rightholder, but not Belgium as it would seem they do not have any such provisions.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg Thanks for your explanations. On 15 January 2020 08:14, you wrote : 'I think the US copyright is fine, so this could at least be uploaded to en-wiki as PD-US-expired'. So, if I upload the Rutten painting to En-wiki as PD-US-expired, it's ok ? --Ronny MG (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Yep, since we at least know it was published in Belgium in 1902, it's fine under U.S. law and therefore en-wiki. For Commons, we would have to show it's OK under Belgian law as well. Which is quite possible, and rather likely, but the lack of information (in particular the death date of the only possible known author) makes it harder to decide. To me, the best concrete thing we have is to compare the signatures (where I was honestly not sure) -- if people think the same as you, that they were two different hands, that would mean the work is anonymous since it was not that author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg 4 January 2020, 19:15, you wrote : 'The human author had to be named. Publication without attribution is anonymous publication, and it has apparently been signed explicitly with a corporate mark, not human author.' If we combine this obvious anonymity with the two in my opinion clearly differing signatures by which this anonymity is strengthened additionally, then we must keep this file. --Ronny MG (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

There has been no comment here for almost a month. I see no consensus that this should be restored. It can be argued that it is the work of a group, therefore a joint work and not anonymous. It can also be argued that it has not been published until recently -- while we know that the group had a showing early in the 20th century, there is no evidence proving that this work was in that showing. We are told above that the work is now in private hands. That makes it highly unlikely that it ever was owned by a museum -- museums very rarely sell their works privately. Therefore, while it is certainly possible that it is now PD, there is far more than a significant doubt that it was not published until recently. Therefore, I intend to close this toworrow as not done unless someone can offer a reason not to. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(Jameslwoodward) :'It can be argued that it is the work of a group'. No, see 'Bogaerts probably operated here alone after separating from Benschop.' here : [12] And as long as a painting doesn't carry a first name and a last name of an individual artist, it obviously is anonymous.--Ronny MG (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
You are arguing in favor of not restoring the image. If it is anonymous, then it is under copyright until 70 years after publication. Since no publication has been proven earlier than the 21st century, that means it is still under copyright in Belgium. In order for it to be PD, either it has to be the work of a known artist who died more than 70 years ago, or it must have been published more than 70 years ago. Neither has been proven beyond a significant doubt. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
It was the policy of Peinture Bogaerts to always exhibit/publish each and every painting before sale, in the Netherlands as well as in Belgium. They had an extended network of representatives/salesmen where every new painting was exhibited in public before sale. That it is not 'proved beyond any doubt' that the particular Rutten painting was exhibited/published is nitpicking, and there is no one, simply no one who will ever claim copyright. Really nobody is interested in this painting, only in its removal. My only intention was to use it as additional information for the Georges Rutten article. If Wikipedia does not appreciate this, just do whatever you like. --Ronny MG (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: It was generally agreed above that it was made available to the public in 1902. Doubts on that aspect are highly theoretical at best, and not significant doubts, well below COM:PCP. If it's anonymous, it's been fine for many decades. The "group" aspect is also irrelevant -- you need to actually identify the authors, and the expression they contributed, to give that argument any teeth. There's no indication it wasn't published, either. The main question above was if the human author could be identified. We have some concrete elements to go by, which is the two signatures, one known to be from that author and this one. What do you think -- were those signatures by the same hand? Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg You forgot to provide links to the two different signatures.--Ronny MG (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, make them easier to find, I guess.
* Image 1 -- Signature known to be Hubert Bogaerts.
* Image 2 (large PDF) -- Signature in question, on page 16 of the PDF
Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: While I think the evidence for early public display is marginal at best, it is clear that I am in the minority here, so I have restored it, per Carl and others. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Dmitry Trapeznikov (2016).png

A crop, uploaded by Александр Мотин in 2018 and nominated for deletion recently by a sockpuppet of the indefblocked user:Панн: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dmitry Trapeznikov (2016).png, then deleted by Ellin Beltz. The page on sputnik.ru does contain a link to mk.ru, but this particular article on mk.ru was posted on 2 September 2018, and the original image: File:С Главой ДНР Александром Захарченко.jpg was uploaded onto Commons in July 2016. Actually, this is what user:Панн has been doing - persistently nominating files, providing links to external pages, created much later than those files were uploaded onto Commons. And it is easy to recognize every new sock by the same "rationale" they are using: coppivo. Also pinging @BevinKacon: , who goes further in nominating other crops for a speedy deletion. Sealle (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

And A.Savin is also kindly invited as an expert on Панн's activities. Sealle (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm never going to be 100% perfect. I am glad there is a better replacement image. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz and A.Savin: I am reading the discussion and it is still unclear to me whether you  Support or  Oppose undeletion. Or should we ask somebody else for an opinion? Ankry (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I read the comments to suggest that we don;t need two crops from the larger image. I agree. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Village oil on canvas(1980).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020041910008662.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020041910008662|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 04:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose @Nat: The main reason for deletion (see the closed DR is not copyright (which is also a valid reason), but autopromotion / lack of subject notability. The uploader was requesteded to provide this information, but we are still waiting for their response. If you have any information, why this image is in COM:SCOPE (eg. which Wikipedia article the image is intended to be used in), please elaborate. We need an evidence (public and based on independent sources) that the painter is notable. Ankry (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done While the permission seems valid, the image is likely out of COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Margarita Andreeva - ballerina choreographer.jpg

Margarita Andreeva - ballerina choreographer.jpg this is the very necessary file, that represents the person, about whom this article is written. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.139.131.32 (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose All of the above may be completely true, but it does not answer the question at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Маргарита Андреева -- how can the subject of the images be the photographer?

I also note that the article on WP:RU is up for deletion, so even of the copyright violation can be fixed, we should not restore this until we see if the article is kept. see Андреева, Маргарита Александровна. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: no evidence of free license and likely out of scope. Ankry (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Venpa Album Art (1000X1000).jpg

This Album Art is need to be pinned on Venpa Page on Soundtrack Section — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2404:160:802E:1F21:1:0:CAE2:DD4F (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per pandakekok9. Ankry (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:王心嫚01.jpg

這照片是我本人,我同意公開使用-2020年4月21日（UTC）03:24-Michellelai2266 (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done no explanation: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Photo_Start_logo.jpg

Originally deleted because editor thought page/file was intended as an advertisement. It's not intended as an ad for the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisc5234 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: We need a free permission from the copyright holder. --De728631 (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Emblem of Pingtung County.svg

I've nominated for deletion by mistake. According to Copyright Act in effect in Taiwan, This logo should be identified as official document and so it's in public domain. Here is the official explanation [13].--Larryasou (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't read the linked page in Chinese, but this logo might be a "common symbol" as in {{PD-ROC-exempt}}. De728631 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Larryasou and Túrelio: for an explanation why this copyright extemption does not apply here in their opinion. If something is not copyrighted by law, a copyright declaration is void. Ankry (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
As the link above showed, Taiwan Intellectual Property Office thought emblem of county(city) refers to Section 1 of Article 9 of the ROC Copyright Act are exempted from copyright. Thus, this emblem is in PD-ROC-exempt. Here is a similar discussion [14].--Larryasou (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per disciussion as deletion nomination seems to be revoked by the user. Ankry (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Joe_Armstrong_2016.jpg

Hello, I'm requesting that this file be undeleted. It belongs to me as the photographer, and I have sent an email giving permission for Free License. I am not as familiar as I should be with the rules regarding copyright and licensing, nor with how making amendments to wikipedia works, and I uploaded it initially a couple of days ago with the incorrect license. I am now attempting to add it to Commons so that it can appear on Joe Armstrong (actor)'s page. Please let me know if there's anything further I can do to help. Cameron Slater — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamSlates (talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done I have found your inquiry in our COM:OTRS system as ticket #2020042210006756. The agent who helped you should get back soon with formal confirmation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Forrest-Bennettx175.jpg

This file, like all headshots of Oklahoma state legislators, was produced by the Oklahoma House of Representatives Communications & Public Affairs Division (retrieved here) using taxpayer funds for public use, and is in the public domain, per Jason Warfe, Director of Communications for the Oklahoma House of Representatives. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no way for us to confirm that here. Additionally, the footer of the Oklahoma House of Representatives website states 2020 © All Rights Reserved. Oklahoma House of Representatives. If it is indeed in public domain, then either we would need the exact citation in Oklahoma legislation that places works of the Oklahoma House of Representatives in public domain are or a authorised representative of the Oklahoma House of Representatives would need to confirm this via OTRS. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 01:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Just for reference, we have a similar problem with Washington State. While the executive have stated works of the State Government are in public domain, works of the Washington State Legislature are licensed in such as way that they might not be acceptable on Wikimedia Commons. (There is currently a couple deletion discussions underway since 25 Dec 2019 and have yet to be closed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lisa Brown (politician).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Washington State Senators) --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 01:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I sent Jason a request for the exact statute or website that would indicate the photos are public domain. I would like to ask this request to remain open for a few days to wait on a response. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Given the explicit copyright notice on the source page, I see no reason to keep this open. All but a handful of nations and US states (California, Florida, and the US Federal government, for three) copyright works such as this even though they are created with public funds for public use. If someone finds a clear cite to a law which allows this, or gets a formal opinion from the Oklahoma Attorney General, this UnDR can be reopened. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Dean Cieply.jpg

The file Dean Cieply.jpg is a legally obtained portrait of President & Dean Kevin Cieply to be used for this medium. any questions, please contact the subject and owner directly at kcieply@avemarialaw.edu Thank you--Centrodejusticia (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Centrodejusticia: Permission limitted to specific use doe not fit Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. We need a free license from the actual copyright holder, who is in most cases the photographer. And the uploader is required to provide an evidence that such a license has been granted. Ankry (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at https://www.avemarialaw.edu/staff/president-and-dean/dean_cieply/. Policy requires that either (a) the actual photographer must provide a free license using OTRS or (b) an authorized official of the school must provide a free license via OTRS together with a copy of the license from the photographer allowing the school to freely license his work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:5b5a2749289b6-scale-1200(1).jpg

It's my first upload, I need help to select the correct licence for the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbmello75 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dbmello75: You should ask the photographer, not us. Ankry (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done Per Ankry. Thuresson (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:CARLOS DONOSO Y SUS MUÑECOS.jpg

Relatives of the artist, have written to me, they own the rights to this photograph and have asked me to reverse this deletion so that it can be placed in the article. Thank you. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Such proof of will need to be submitted to the COM:OTRS system.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
BevinKacon I just asked him to send an email to OTRS, thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wilfredor: So we need to wait till the permission and the copyright ownership are verified by an OTRS volunteer. Ankry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the message should arrive in Spanish --Wilfredor (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Wilfredor: He can write to permissions-es@wikimedia.org Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Ganímedes I got in touch with the author and his family, explaining the process with an exemplary letter and if I told him to send it to that email, thanks mate --Wilfredor (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: needs OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:1981 Kathrin-Maria-Raetze Oliver-Kloss.jpg

An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020042310001302.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020042310001302|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Olaf Kosinsky: Bitte sehr. --De728631 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Dave and U2 in studio, 1982.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020040310006747.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020040310006747|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 18:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nat: FYI. --De728631 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Dave Leduc - MLWC 2018.jpg

My photograph was deleted based on the fact that the picture had been posted on the Facebook page of the subject of the picture. It was prematurely deleted without me seeing it in time, for me to fix the situation. I had previously given permission to the athlete to use the picture on his fan page. His team omitted to credit me (like on many other pictures of mine). File posted Facebook page (uploaded on 31 Aug 2018) and now has been credited back to me by his social media team. I would appreciate to fix the issue. Thank you. Lethweimaster (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done The user account Lethweimaster (5 March 2017) predates the posting of the photo to Facebook (30 August 2018), hence the Facebook attribution is valid without need for further verification. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


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

‪File:Byess Steven 112 ret.tif‬

This photo is not copyrighted. It may be used by anyone. I am requesting that it is returned to the Wikipedia page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbyess (talk • contribs) 20:51, 23 April 2020‎ (UTC)

You made the same request on April 10, which was closed on April 12 as not done. The photo is certainly copyrighted. Almost all created works are. There is no evidence above, in the previous Undeletion Request, or in the file description to show that you have the right to freely license it. In the file description you claimed that you were the photographer, but that is obviously not correct. Your making incorrect claims makes it very difficult to believe that anything you say is correct. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done false statement and no valid UDR reasoning provided. @Sbyess: Please note, that repeating same request, once rejected without new arguments is considered disruptive behaviour. Ankry (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Coach-Trainer-Visionaer-Entertainer-Frank-Astor.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020042010007133.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020042010007133|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 21:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: Ankry (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:2013-Gedenkstein-zum-13-02-1982.jpg

File:1981 Kathrin-Maria-Raetze Oliver-Kloss.jpg
File:2014 Oliver-Kloss im-Koelner-Dom.jpg
File:1983 Oliver-Kloss Dresden.jpg
File:2018 Oliver-Kloss Berlin.jpg
File:1992 Oliver-Kloss Cairo.jpg
File:1986 Andrea-Stefan.jpg
File:1987 Plakat-der-Arbeitsgruppe-Menschenrechte-Leipzig.jpg

Mir ist keine Begründung bekannt, weshalb diese Dateien gelöscht worden sind. Ich hatte sowohl meine Urheberschaft wie auch die freie Lizenz angegeben. Ich wüsste gern: Wie können solche groben Fehler von einem Wikipedia-Administrator geschehen? Ich würde mich über eine Erklärung freuen.

Es dankt

Anana Sanana (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Once again we have a person with very limited experience (49 contributions) making accusations of "groben Fehler" (gross mistakes) against Commons volunteers with several hundred thousand contributions.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Philokomos explains it fully -- the subject images do not have any evidence of permission from the actual photographer. The file description has

|author=[[User:Anana Sanana|Oliver Kloss]]

which is strange, unless User:Annana Sanana is actually Oliver Kloss. However, since the images are portraits of Kloss and do not look like selfies, there is the question of who the actual photographer is. These can be restored if the actual photographer sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@De728631: In the mentioned ticket was only the release for one photo. --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: All these files have now received valid OTRS tickets. --De728631 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:MaranjanGS.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a non-licensed, private photo Petrakov-E (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Photo of Genrik Sayakovich Marandyan (1926-2011). Does not look like a "private photo" but a professonal studio portrait. Deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Petrakov-E. Thuresson (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose It looks like a formal studio portrait to me. Since it is B&W and the subject (born 1926) is not an old man, it is probably 50 years old. Although Petrakov-E claimed that he was the actual photographer, both the age of the photo and the comment above strongly suggest that that is not correct. It almost certainly still has a copyright, which is owned by the actual photographer or his heirs. In order for it to be restored to Commons, the actual photographer or his heir must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim and Thuresson. --De728631 (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Fresco Sam-Sin

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The copyright holder has licenced these images on their website as {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} (please see footer) and OTRS has confirmed this under Ticket:2020041910004022. Regards, Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 18:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Restored and LicenseReviewed all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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

requesting undeletion of a single file

requesting undeletion of a single file File:IMG 20200416_123725~4.jpg Ramkumar Kalyani 19:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramkumar Kalyani (talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close: 1) There is no file with that name; 2) None of your deleted files have names at all similar to the requested file; and 3) You've provided no reason for the file's restoration whatever its name. Feel free to make a new request when you are ready to provide the necessary information. --Эlcobbola talk 19:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


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

requesting undeletion of a single file

requesting undeletion of a single file File:ராம்குமார் கல்யாணசுந்தரம்.jpg Ramkumar Kalyani 02:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramkumar Kalyani (talk • contribs) 02:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Image not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Françoise Prouvoyeur (juin 2019).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The admin Benoît Prieur deleted File:Françoise Prouvoyeur (juin 2019).jpg which themself uploaded a year ago (old enough to not allow speedy deletion) as a courtesy deletion upon request of the subject. The file is/was in use on Wikidata (Q64787806) (ergo an editorial decision made by this admin to remove the image from Wikidata). Admins should not delete their own works if it is not a speedy criterion can be used, otherwise, they need to go through a DR just like anybody else works (since CC can't be retracted, and they have donated the work to the Wikimedia community and is not theirs to decide). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi,
I received today an email (10:24 French hour) from Françoise Prouvoyeur explaining me that she prefers to see this picture of her deleted (as I explained in comment).
I decided to respect this preference.
Regards, ----Benoît (d) 09:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support Hmm. On the one hand, Benoît should not have deleted his own image -- this should have been dealt with as a DR. On the other hand, Google finds nothing on WP about the subject -- only a Wikidata entry, so it doesn't affect our sister projects. In fact, it could be argued that she is out of scope.

I would be inclined to restore the image and have Benoît start an immediate DR so that the wider community can comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. Actually I did an interview of Françoise for my (confidential) radio show one year ago (when it was not yet in CC-By-SA). I took a picture of Françoise (in her home) the day of the interview. I indeed explained to her Commons, CC-By-SA etc. but I was not so clear for Françoise (I realize now).
I can create a DR and ask for a deletion if you think it is essential. ----Benoît (d) 14:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok I restore and create a DR page. ----Benoît (d) 14:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Benoît, closed by. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Sidharth1.jpg

https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/photos/movie-stills/humpty-sharma-ki-dulhania/humpty-sharma-ki-dulhania-8/

The image is free to use by https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/ So please undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princepratap1234 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. It is not clear to me that this fits the strict requirements for using {{BollywoodHungama}}. To use the template it must be

  1. from BollywoodHungama.com (with a link to the source page);
  2. of a Bollywood set, party, or event in India; and
  3. taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer;
  1. OK
  2. not clearly a "set, party, or event, in India" -- the caption at the source only names the people, does not tell us what or where it is.
  3. also not clear -- no photographer is named.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

This is a link of source https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/photos/movie-stills/humpty-sharma-ki-dulhania/humpty-sharma-ki-dulhania-8/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princepratap1234 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Princepratap1234, Yes, that's the same link you gave us above. As I said above, it says nothing useful about the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose per Jim. These appear to be promotional screenshots of a film or dedicated promo pictures. So the BH licensing is not applicable. De728631 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Image for JH Webshop.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a photoshop edit of items that are sold at the University of Illinois Japan House. I am their IT support and was asked to add the picture to their website at go.illinois.edu/shopjapanhouse. Mqwebst2 (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Commons is not a general file host but has a specific educational scope. Promotional images like this are not kept at Commons, and there is also an issue with copyright. Even if you photoshopped the combined image yourself, the product packagings are copyrighted and non-free. Therefore this image cannot be hosted at Commons without explicit permission from the rightsholders of the various products. Please see COM:Derivative works and COM:Packaging for more information. De728631 (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per De728631. Ankry (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Tandem Homepage.png

Hello,

The reason why this image was deleted isn't clear to me - "This image is a screenshot of a non-free program or other copyrighted material." The app is completely free to download, so it's not a non-free program and we own the rights to the image on our homepage.

Please can you clarify why this violates the rules?

Many thanks!

--Siobhantandem (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Free to download as in "free of charge" does not automatically mean that the software is free of intellectual property rights. "Non-free" in this context means that copyright restricts the use of an item by anyone for any purpose. Also we have no means to verify your affiliation with Tandem through your Wikimedia account. If images have been published before without a free licence, our policy requires that the copyright holder sends an email with a permission as explained in COM:OTRS. Moreover, it is not clear why your app or this promotional image is covered by our project scope. Wikimedia Commons content needs to have an educational context, i.e. the images and videos themselves need to be useful for educational purposes. Posting advertisements for an educational service is not covered by our scope though. De728631 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is a screenshot from https://www.tandem.net/ which has the explicit copyright notice "© 2020 Tandem". At https://www.tandem.net/termsofservice there is a very clear statement to the same effect. There is nothing free about that. Restoring the image will require that an officer of Tripod Technology GmbH must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Bonnie Spencer.jpg

This picture was uploaded for entertainment purposes, I am an singer and I recently joined Wikipedia to create a Wikipedia page for my artistry and to give out information about myself. This picture was just flagged by a contributor with the assumptions that I am not a contributor, when I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabelantonio (talk • contribs) 02:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Isabelantonio: Uploading two personal, poorly described photos of a person with questionable notability or some edits in sandbox is not considered being a significant Wikimedia contributor. Also self-promotion is not allowed here. Ankry (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Also note that creating an article about yourself on Wikipedia is absolutely prohibited by WP:EN rules. Anything you write will be deleted from there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:mariapahomenko111.jpg

This file is from the family archive of Maria Pakhomenko and was uploaded at the request of her daughter Natalia Pakhomenko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelyayev08 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Perhaps you mean

as there has never been a file with the name above.

Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph, such as a photo in a family archive, does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is almost always held by the photographer or their heir. The images can be restored to Commons only if the actual photographers or their heirs give a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Soldiers of the 5th Medium Regiment of the Royal Canadian Artillery during the Second World War.jpg

Accorrding to ticket:2020040110007571 the photo was created between 1941-1944 by a Canadian soldier on request of another Canadian soldier. While it is unclear whether this photo was a work for hire or not, I think that its copyright in Canada has already expired per {{PD-Canada}} regardless who the copyright holder was as this is clearly a pre-1949 photo. Pinging @Krd: for a potential opinion. Ankry (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support Nat, what potential problem do you see? {{PD-Canada}} seems clear to me:
[A work is PD if] "it is a photograph that was created prior to January 1, 1949". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Jim: No potential problems Striking my comment. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 20:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:furkanatakanbozkurtpp.jpg

ULAN NEYE GÖRE REDDEDİYORSUNUZ HAYSİYETSİZLİK YAPMAYIN. FOTOĞRAFTAKİ BİZZAT BENİM LAN. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.71.43 (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

If you are the subject, you are assumed not to be the copyright holder as the copyright holder is the person who took the picture, not the person who appears in it, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract. And, as such, we would need permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence via OTRS from the photographer.
If this is just any image from somewhere on the internet, then Wikimedia Commons cannot host the image unless it is freely licensed or in public domain. That is, we can only host images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As per Nat: an OTRS permission from the copyright holder needed. Ankry (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:MissMaxim2014.jpg

Hello . The photo I uploaded earlier does not violate any rights and belongs to me. due to the fact that I assured and confirmed that my photo (the person in the photo is me) can be in free use. for this reason I ask to appeal my photo and restore it. otherwise, I expect you to support how to upload a photo without violating any rights. Thank you

Narmin Safarova Yourspecialanonimys (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC) 24th march 2020

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Fnord-Bomber-Bombs-Away!.jpg & File:Fnord-Bomber-Instructions.jpg

These two image files were reformatted for Wikipedia from the PDF linked to in the section which gives this notice as to their copyright: "It has been CopyLefted, to promote its free publication elsewhere" The intention of the author is clearly to allow distribution of the images. Reference has been made to the source and the author's intentions for their use have been honored, so can we get these back? Thank you! Pauljbenedict (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - 1) Per COM:L: "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed" and "All description pages on Commons must indicate clearly under which license the materials were published." (underlining added) "CopyLefted" is neither explicit nor a license; 2) There are many kinds of "copyleft" licenses, including those with NC and ND limitations (this, again, is precisely why the license must be explicit); and 3) you do not, in fact, know the intent of the author ("The intention of the author is clearly to allow distribution of the images") and, even if that purport were true, "distribution" does not address derivatives, commercial usage, or attribution--which it must. This purport, further, is an invocation of COM:PRP#3. Эlcobbola talk 19:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow - someone sounds like they dropped out of law school. Just so everyone who reads this is clear, the "notice" that prefaces this text (which amounts to an adult activities coloring book) is entitled Hotdogs and Catma and is listed as the following:

The following work has been prepared by authority of the Paratheoanametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric(POEE) Council of the Twenty-Third Degree, for the jurisdiction of The Legion Of Dynamic Discord, and of the House Of The Apostles Of Eris, by the Pope and Poo-Bah-Pontif, under the grand command of the office of his High Reverence, the Benevolent Polyfather, and is now published by its/their/hir direction. It contains the lectures of the Ancient and Exceptioned Discordian Rite in that jurisdiction, and is specially intended to be read and/or scoffed at by the body of that disobedience, whether or not in connection with the Rituals of the Degrees of POEE. It is hoped and expected that each will furnish hirself with a copy, and make hirself familiar with it; for which purpose that it will be copied at will and disseminated appropriately. No individual will recieve pecuniary profit from it.

It has been CopyLefted, to promote its free publication elsewhere, and the CopyLeft, like those of all the other works prepared for the Council, has been assigned to the trustees of POEE (which works out well, as POEE has no treasury). Whatever profits may accrue from it will be unexplainable.

The Brothers/Sisters of the Legion Of Dynamic Discord will be afforded the opportunity to access/download/steal it, nor is it forbidden that any member of any other House within POEE shall; but they will not be solicited to do so.

In preparing this work, the Pope and Poo-Bah-Pontif has been about equally Author and Compiler; since he has extracted quite nearly all its contents from the works of the best writers and most philosophic or eloquent thinkers. Perhaps it would have been better and more acceptable if he had extracted more and written less.

Still, perhaps some of it is his own; and, in incorporating here the thoughts and words of others, he has continually changed and added to the language, often intermingling, in the same sentences, his own words with theirs. It not being intended for the world at large, he has felt at liberty to make, from all accessible sources, a Compendium of the Hot Dogs and Catma of the POEE, to re-mould sentences, (like this one) change and add to words and phrases, combine them with his own, and use them as if they were his own, to be dealt with at his pleasure and so availed of as to make the whole most valuable for the purposes intended. He claims, therefore, little of the merit of authorship, and has not cared to distinguish his own from that which he has taken from other sources, being quite willing that every portion of the book, in turn, may be regarded as borrowed from some older and better writer.

The teachings of these Readings are at once sacramental, sortamental, and fundamental in that they go beyond the realm of Morality into those of other domains of Thought and Truth. The POEE uses the word "Catma" in its true sense, of Groovy Esoteric Teaching; and as directly opposed to Dogma, in the most odious sense of that term. Every one is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to hir to be untrue, unsound, or utterly unrelated and inapplicable. It is only requested of hir that (s)he shall weigh what is put forth, and give it fair hearing and unprejudiced judgment. Of course, any ancient theosophic and philosophic speculations are not embodied as part of doctrines of the Rite; but because it is of interest and profit to know what the Ancient Intellect thought upon these subjects.

If all of that doesn't clearly place this in the public domain and give license to excerpt from it, I don't know what would. There is no copyright notice, just the opposite. Plus, there is a lengthy diatribe about remixing the thoughts of others and how that is desirable. So, the author clearly does not mind if we add these images to wikipedia, in fact they are encouraging this type of publication. Why should wikipedia be policed by the overly litigious? When you go to the wikimedia homepage, it says, "Imagine a world in which every single human can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" This knowledge wants to be shared - why wouldn't we do that? Pauljbenedict (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The requester's support is expressed by the request itself. This isn't Wikipedia, this is the Wikimedia Commons; COM:L is our policy, which you've neither addressed or, apparently, read. Эlcobbola talk 21:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
OK Эlcobbola talk, I have a little lawyering in me. I'll bite. The Commons:Licensing [COM:L]] you refer to says that, "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed." Clicking on that Freely Licensed link leads here, which has a section entitled "Identifying Free Cultural Works" which says that you can use the term "Free Content" if you don't like the term "Free Cultural Work." Are you telling me that the rant above does not meet the definition of "Free Content"? I say it does. Also, there is no copyright on this work, so who knows when it was originally written. Invoking Copyleft and stating "It has been CopyLefted, to promote its free publication elsewhere" meets the criteria of "Free Content" in my view. This thing was likely written in the heyday of radical, social information distribution circa 1966 - 1994 (or it's written in the same spirit), and the author clearly did not intend for lame, un-named copyright associations to be reason why it's content cannot be published on wikipedia or wiki commons. Here's one more level for you: in the Identifying Free Cultural Works section, it states that the work can "refer instead to one of the existing movements that express similar freedoms" By invoking Copyleft, the author is referring to the Free Software Movement - the MOST RADICAL adherents to the idea that information should be free. So, with that move, the author is aligning their work with the most radical version of, "media that is explicitly freely licensed". How are you seeing this in another way? Pauljbenedict (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Simply saying "Copyleft" does not address whether commercial use and derivatives are permitted. It also does not constitute an irrevocable license. All three of these things are required on Commons. Also, I question whether anything here is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me - the section (mentioned above) on Wikimedia Commons only accepting media that are explicitly freely licensed does not require that it include an "irrevocable license", nor a "commercial use" or "derivatives" explanation. Those are concepts which came into vogue when Creative Commons defined them in their licenses. How can that possibly apply to a work that was likely produced before such considerations were widely known? Pauljbenedict (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
From Commons policy at COM:L:
"Republication and distribution must be allowed.
Publication of derivative work must be allowed.
Commercial use of the work must be allowed.
The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable."
That's about as clear as it can get that your statement above is simply wrong. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose This is very simple. As long as a work is copyrighted, the copyright holder is free to grant such irrevocable, commercial and derivative licences and update any existing copyleft licenses if they so wish. So even if the work itself is older than these legal concepts, as long as there is no explicit licensing that fits the requirements of Wikimedia Commons, we cannot keep the file. De728631 (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The source openly admits to copying material from other works without regards to copyright status. Even if the CopyLeft license was valid, we can't be confident that the material was originally disseminated under a free license. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Clarinetguy097 (talk, I actually agree with you on that point. You're right. Go ahead and kill it, guys. I apologize for the distraction. Pauljbenedict (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: withdrawn by requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Sutermeister Feuerthalen.jpeg

The photograph depicts, from right to left, Frederick Sutermeister (1873–1934) with his children Gertrud (* 1902), Adrian (*1904) and Hans (* 1907) as little children in front of their home at Schützenstrasse 2 in Feuerthalen, Switzerland. The photograph can be dated around 1910 and is therefore in the public domain. --Υ.Γ. (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose You say "The photograph can be dated around 1910 and is therefore in the public domain." That is not probably not correct. The copyright status of a Swiss photograph depends on whether the author is known or not. Since it appears that the author of this is not known, then the rule is that the copyright expires 70 years after publication. Since this image came from a private photo album, it is entirely possible that its first publication was its upload here on 1 January 2014. If that is the case, it will be under copyright until 1/1/2085. In order for it to be restored, you must prove beyond a significant doubt that it was published before 1950. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim. A publication evidence of a free license permission from the photographer heirs is needed. Ankry (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Ticket:2020042410008161

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020042410008161 regarding

Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:MacOS Architecture.svg

The graphic MacOS Architecture.svg is something I made ! It does not belong to anyone else. I submitted the before mentioned file for free to anybody, Creative Commons share-alike license. It does not infringe on anybody else's work... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robryecran77 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The DR seemed to imply it was because of logos. Was it just the Apple logo which was present, or are there others? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Two logos: the Apple logo and the Mac OS logo. Also, a Steve Job's face. Ankry (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Apple logo is probably fine (likely lost copyright before 1989 if it ever had it). Mac OS logo is not far from the borderline but is probably copyrightable (and I see a registration VA0000697602 for a Mac OS logo from 1994), and presumably the Jobs face came from somewhere else too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, a slightly more complex version of the QuickTime logo. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nat: Temporarily undeleted. Please check also the related ticket:2017060410008022. Ruthven (msg) 21:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:AlexJumbria.jpg

Hi! I don't know why this picture is getting deleted. That was taken with my camera when I Played Umbria Jazz Festival in 2007. I don't see how it doesn't abide the rules and its requested for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexJWorld (talk • contribs) 08:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Deleting someone's upload as out of scope within two hours seems a bit hasty to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@AlexJWorld: you still need to prove that the photo is in Wikimedia Commons COM:SCOPE. Unused photos of non-notable artists are out of scope. And your comment suggests that it is copyright violation as the author is the person who pushes the camera button, not the camera owner. Ankry (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:MaranjanGS.jpg

It is a private photo from archives of Henrykh Maranjan's family. It was made and bought in a professonal photographer studio in the USSR in 1970-s. It belongs to his family, there are no license issues, no copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrakov-E (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 April 2020‎ (UTC)

 Oppose User:Petrakov-E, as explained to you in response to the request you made two days ago, any photograph made by a photographer (amateur or professional) in Russia has a copyright which belongs to the photographer or his heirs and which expires 70 years after the photographer died. Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it.

Also please note that posting duplicate requests for undeletion is considered disruptive behavior. Please don't do it again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Maithili-Thakur.jpg and i mentioned that so how it violates any copyright of wikimedia commons ? Please un delete it

Image File is available at [15] and is free to use it also i mentioned that so how it violates any copyright of wikimedia commons ? Please un delete it Nilabh Shivam 333 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Nilabh Shivam 333, that something is available for free on the internet does not mean it is freely licensed. Please read our licence policy. That website does not state that the images are freely-licensed, and in fact I'd say they look like they're cobbled together from a variety of internet sources, probably all copyright violations themselves. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose The cited location, https://wikibio.in/maithili-thakur-rising-star/, has an explicit copyright notice, "Wikibio Copyright © 2020". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done closing as revoked; the requester attempted to revoke the request deleting it. Ankry (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Gigantopithecus.jpeg

This file was deleted for copyright infringement, but was uploaded by the artist himself, Carlos Eulefi ("Kaek"). I believe what happened was the file was flagged because Eulefi, on deviant art, listed a CC-BY-NC-ND license, and perhaps made it unclear in the documentation that the uploader was the author. I've asked Eulefi to change the licensing on deviant art to prevent future confusion Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Alternately, Carlos Eulefi ("Kaek") can send a message using OTRS to prove who User:Kaek is. The OTRS volunteer will add that information to Kaek's user page which will solve the problem forever. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: as discussed. --Storkk (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Копыленко, Моисей Михайлович.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020042510006045.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020042510006045|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 15:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nat: FYI. --De728631 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:19891002_xl_Postkarte-Wurzelfichte-bei-Buckow-in-der-Maerkischen-Schweiz-Fotograf-unbekannt-Heimat-und-Bild-Reichenbach-Vogtland.jpg

Bitte die File:19891002_xl_Postkarte-Wurzelfichte-bei-Buckow-in-der-Maerkischen-Schweiz-Fotograf-unbekannt-Heimat-und-Bild-Reichenbach-Vogtland.jpg für eine Wiederveröffentlichung im Jahr 2020 im System hinterlegen: Category:Undelete_in_2120. Danke --Molgreen (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Du kannst sowas auch selbst als Link in die Kategorieseite eintragen, dazu braucht es keine Sonderrechte. --De728631 (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Marine Périn 3.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020042610004527.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020042610004527|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 21:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done@Nat: Hanooz 03:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Marked-ap-letter.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Temporary undeletion. Needed for OTRS archival purposes per Ticket:2020042710008049. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 23:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Thuresson: ✓ Letter archived, file can be re-deleted. Thank you! --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 05:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Redeleted & closed. Ankry (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:1328121213 309671695 4-Chevrolet-Cutlass-Eurosport-1996-Autos.jpg

--Misteryhouse (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Misteryhouse

 Not done: duplicate of request made two minutes earlier. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra MFF.jpg

Wrongfully nominated here and subsequently deleted; it's a Bollywood Hungama file and perfectly fits their permission criteria. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Sorry. I missed it among 168 others at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kailash29792. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Muhammad Mokaev 1.jpg

Hi file called Muhammad Mokaev was sent by Muhammed Mokaev himself from his Instagram page

Can you show me the pic so that i can upload the copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rassmallai (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Obviously not a selfie. Previously published at subject's social media. Thuresson (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As per Thuresson & Nat. Ankry (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Anastasia Lysyvets' book.png

File was taken from Ukrainian National Memory Institute, which is under free license and this work belongs to Ukrainian National Memory Institute. --Visem (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't read Ukrainian, so you must help me here. I understand that the Institute owns a copy of the book and that it has a CC-BY license on its web site. I do not understand how the Institute has the right to freely license the book. We need evidence of that in order to restore the book here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Ukrainian National Memory Institute is publisher of this book. While some doubts concerning their copyright to the text of this posthumous book edition are possible, I think that we can safely assume that they own copyright to its cover.  Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roshen chocolate.jpg

I think that this deletion was clearly in error. The file is educationally useful. If somebody finds it upsetting, that in and of itself shows that this is an important subject to have here. In fact the nominator has explained in the deletion request itself what the image depicts and why such a combination was chosen. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: I still don't see how this is useful, but I am clearly outnumbered above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:HH Sheikh Abdullah 2.jpg

File:HH Sheikh Abdullah 2.jpg is to be undeleted as I control the Facebook page and have posted the image on the page myself. The Facebook page His Highness Sheikh Abdullah bin Rashid Al Mualla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazinsharaf (talk • contribs) 09:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Since the image was posted elsewhere, policy requires that the actual photographer send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Mikhail Nesterov-Landscape of a lake edge 1890 - 91.jpg

This is a 1890-91 Russian work. Mikhail Nesterov died in 1942, so it was PD in Russia in 2013. Since it predates 1925, URAA does not apply.

User:Kailash29792 , this is the only one I found among the 169 I deleted at

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kailash29792

that appears to be from before 1925 and therefore PD in the USA. Please add any others that you can find. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not care about this image; someone had uploaded it with a watermark, all I did was de-watermark it. Let it stay deleted if it violates any law. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done restored as PD image. I do not see a non-watermarked version, however. Ankry (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Ankry, closed by. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Каневський Кім Борисович.jpg Un-Deletion

File:Каневський Кім Борисович.jpg Photo of a Ukrainian journalist. I contacted the site owners and asked them to indicate the author of the photos and indicate the licence for this photo. Now the author of the photo is indicated on the link (Автор зображення Юлія Антонова /Julia Antonova as author). So the photo was taken from his official website, at the top of the website page of his person there is indicate a license for this photo - Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) - [17] -Univer001 (talk) Univer001 (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Support per information on the source page. Ankry (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 Support Link checks out. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Clio 4 - avant.jpg

Bonjour,

Demande de restauration de cette photo, que J'AI prise de MON véhicule, téléchargée et effacée sans que j'en comprenne les raisons impérieuses.

D'avance merci et si une raison valable est à apporter sur sa suppression de cette photo, j'en serais content.

Nota: je pense plus que normal de flouter la plaque d'immatriculation d'un véhicule, donc si je me trompe... merci de m'expliquer

Cordialement,

AF

--Arshane88 (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Already restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:MASERATI LEVANTE SUV.jpg

Bonjour,

Demande de restauration de cette photo, que J'AI prise, téléchargée et effacée sans que j'en comprenne les raisons impérieuses.

D'avance merci et si une raison valable est à apporter sur sa suppression de cette photo, j'en serais content.

Nota: je pense plus que logique de flouter la plaque de police d'un véhicule, mais dans le cas contraire n'hésitez a m'expliquer pourquoi je devrais les laisser visibles.

Cordialement,

AF

--Arshane88 (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Already restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


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

File:MASERATI LEVANTE SUV de face.jpg

Bonjour,

Demande de restauration de cette photo, que J'AI prise, téléchargée et effacée sans que j'en comprenne les raisons impérieuses.

D'avance merci et si une raison valable est à apporter sur sa suppression de cette photo, j'en serais content.

Nota: je pense plus que logique de flouter la plaque de police d'un véhicule, mais dans le cas contraire n'hésitez a m'expliquer pourquoi je devrais les laisser visibles.

Cordialement,

AF

--Arshane88 (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Already restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2020-04&oldid=415874110"