Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-06

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:Laurence Gavron.jpg

This file was deleted based on the assertion that it is an out-of-scope personal photo. There was no discussion.

From Special:Diff/421349014, by Wouterhagens:

As there is an article on fr:Laurence Gavron and a Commons category I like to see whether that photo is still out of scope.

I assume the category this user refers to is here: Category:Laurence Gavron. Brianjd (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A relevant comment was added at the Village pump. Brianjd (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that on the scope question that it should be restored. However, as User:Storkk said at the VP, there is a question of copyright. I think we need an OTRS clarification. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the uploader's talk page on the off-chance that they turned on email notifications or indeed log in occasionally. Storkk (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim: OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Kate Middleton wedding dress.png

This photograph was taken by me during a travel I did to London on summer 2011. I visited the Buckingham Palace, were I took the picture. Some years later, when I decided to colaborate in wikipedia and wikimedia, I decided to publish my photo. I deleted the background because there were people in there and the picture did not look good and i did not wanted to publish the face of anybody. The photo is MINE and free copyright, so there is no reason to deleted it. I demand the restoration of this photograph. Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose For all of the reasons named at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kate Middleton wedding dress.png, I am not inclined to restore this. If it is your own work, why is it so small and without EXIF? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Perhaps the administrators will have something to say about the last sentence too:
    I demand the restoration of this photograph.
They usually don’t take kindly to threats. In fact, they are prepared to block users who make them. Brianjd (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Demanding something, while it is quite a disrespectful tone, is not a threat. A threat would be something like "I demand the restoration of this photograph, or else <insert consequence here>." As to the photograph, I could not find any other online photo of the dress that matches the particular drape and lighting present in this Commons image. This includes a reverse search with TinEye. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I noted the "demand". I discounted it because edit counts show that the user is a Spanish speaker -- so there might be a language difficulty. I don't read Spanish, but the French "demand" is "ask" in English, so perhaps they did not intend to use such a strong word. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello (Jameslwoodward). When the image was modified the EXIF data got loss. It happens to all the images I modified. As you said, there's no online image that matches this one because this photo is mine. About my last sentence Brianjd, you are the one who says it's a threat, not me, so don't make false accusations, because making a demand it's not a threat, you should know that. Instead, I think you are the one who make threats by threating me with consecuences when I only wrote a request.Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Enciclopedia1993: I think this was quite disrespectful too. I can understand that you will make mistakes when writing in a second language, but you need to understand that other people will make mistakes too when reading your message. Brianjd (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 Comment Regarding user's copyvio track record IMO his/her autopatrol rights given just two months ago must be suspended, not talking of a possible block after this request is closed.--Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per discussion. The doubts cen be resolved if the original photo is provided. Ankry (talk) 06:21, 31 May 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 Просто автор

Уважаемые администраторы!К нам в OTRS снова обратился автор снимков File:Путешественник Виктор Пинчук (Хартум, Судан).jpg и File:Путешественник Виктор Пинчук (Остров Пентекост, Вануату).jpg. Файлы были удалены по причине COM:SCOPE. Он пояснил, что данные снимки планирует использовать в статьях русскоязычной Википедии: здесь Самостоятельный туризм и здесь Вануату#Туризм, Ticket#2020052610003901. Прошу ещё раз оценить целесообразность использования данного файла в статьях, и если Вы считаете возможным это, восстановить фотографию. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Mr. Pinchuk has succeded once in having one of his vanity pictures being kept here (I suppose because of the traditionnal clothes he was wearing). I'm not sure neither if it's OTRS volunteers's job to relay this sort of wishes and IMO they should advice him to open a social media account per COM:NOTHOST. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Волонтёры службы OTRS, в первую очередь, занимаются подтверждением разрешений на свободные лицензии произведений. Они не всегда могут предугадать, необходим тот или иной файл для Википедии или нет. Если файлы используются в Википедии, значит они имеют право находиться на Викискладе, если файл не используется в проектах, их всегда можно удалить. На сколько это тщеславие автора или нет, мы это не можем оценить, пока файл используется в Википедии. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Да, и файлы можно переименовать, удалив из описания ФИО автора, заменив на более конкретное содержание. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: I have to agree with Dogad75 here. The OTRS permission queue makes no judgement on whether the image is in scope or out of scope, as our role is just to verify authorship, the work's copyright status, and then accepting or declining the permission based on our investigation.  ::: Furthermore, Dogad75 has only relayed a message, and has clearly left it to UDR to decide if the files should be undeleted. Ìch heiss Nat. 17:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion was Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Просто автор. Please note he uses another account (Виктор Пинчук (talk · contribs)). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: OTRS should be reserved for verifying messages that can’t be made public. They should pass on their findings, and the community should handle everything else, including questions of scope. Brianjd (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
My rule of thumb is, if the image is already on Commons, then completely ignore scope and just process the ticket. If the image is not yet on Commons (i.e. photosubmission), then I might reject the image if it's obviously not in scope (e.g. spam/logo of a company with no significant coverage in reliable sources) but I will upload it for them if I'm not sure if it's in scope or not. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. No evidence that the images are in COM:SCOPE provided. Ankry (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Naharkatiya College.jpg

I am an student of Naharkatiya college and have permission to make wikipedia article/wikimedia uploads of Naharkatiya college ..but maybe I have made mistake while adding license in wikimedia ..

Soo I request to to undelete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changgogoi (talk • contribs) 06:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The images appear on Facebook. Therefore policy requires that the actual photographer(s) must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose per Jim. @Changgogoi: Additionally, the logo is most likely protected by copyright held by the institution. Being a student of that institution does not grant you the right or the authorisation to license or re-license the logo of said institution. An authorised officer or official of the institution will need to send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence for the logo to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Alternatively, the logo may be locally uploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free content under certain strict conditions. If you choose the latter, please read English Wikipedia's policy on non-free content very carefully. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


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

File:J&M Mashhad I Einladung R. Helmes.tif

This is the picture of the autor Justine Harun-Mahdavi as well as her husband Dr. Dipl.-Ing. Massoud Harun-Mahdavi, the main figure of the book "Nicht ohne meine Mann" or "Not without my husband". So it is relevant, it is no advertisement and there are no other conflicts. This picture belongs to the autor and has been uploaded by me. I am her son. This picture can be used commenly for every person. Please contact me if you need further information. I´m not going to read all the rules and other things in wikipedia just to be able to upload a picture like this. Thanks in advance, --Sasan Harun-Mahdavi (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Dr. Sasan Harun-Mahdavi

 Not done: Procedural close -- the files have not been deleted. Your rather high handed refusal to read our rules has created extra work for the volunteers here which could easily have been avoided. First, you failed to link Justine Harun-Mahdavi's name to her WP:EN article. Doing that would have eliminated the reason these were tagged for speedy deletion. The second mistake is that you claimed that you were the actual photographer. It is clear from your comments above that that is not correct. Therefore please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sasan Harun-Mahdavi. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:ObZen (2019 vinyl cover).jpg

Uploaded by me on May 25, 2020

Request this be undeleted and tagged as non-free content by merit of previous publication (WP:NFCC#4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#4

Original link to image: https://www.nuclearblast.de/static/articles/276/276931-1.jpg/1000x1000.jpg

Image links to site of band's record label Nuclear Blast, through which this album was released

--BMB012887 (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Fair use. Please read Commons:First steps before contributing more files. Thuresson (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose This is Commons. Wikipedia's Fair Use rule does not apply here. If it actually applies, you must upload the image there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above. Commons does not allow Fair use and media files uploaded under such will be deleted on sight and without warning. If you want to upload something under fair-use, please do so locally on a Wikimedia project that allows non-free content (please see meta:Non-free content for a list of projects that allow and don't allow such content). Thank you for your understanding. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 15:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Commons does not accept non-free content. Please upload the file directly at a Wikipedia that supports fair use. --De728631 (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


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

الملف: اسامة الجبوري. jpg

Raghad Fakhir (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)اطلب استرجاع الملف وذلك لانني قدمت طلب حذفه بالاخطأ ارجو المعذرة واسترجاع الملف وشكرا

  •  Oppose File:اسامة الجبوري.jpg was deleted as a copyright violation. The two other files that you've uploaded appear to be the same book cover/jacket as the once from the source of the deleted. Regardless of who is the copyright holder, as they were published elsewhere prior to their upload to Commons, permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence is needed from the copyright holder (i.e. the actual creator of the book cover, or if created under a contract that transferred the copyright to the publisher, then the publisher) using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 14:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Nat. --De728631 (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Name of the file to undelete.jpg

Foi pêgo no site oficial da prefeitura da cidade de Montes Claros e o mesmo foi referenciado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipe Rodrigues Santa Rosa (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --De728631 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Afterparty logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please restore these two files. Both were properly tagged as I've seen countless other logos on Commons. ThePersecuted (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Content in this Xbox Press Media Assets Library is licensed by Microsoft solely for use by members of the press and media, for editorial and informational purposes only. No content may be used in advertisement, promotion, or commercial use of any kind without Microsoft's prior written consent. Use of the Xbox Press Media Assets Library is otherwise subject to the Xbox.com Terms of Use.

Would this not allow these logos to be displayed/hosted on Commons & therefore also Wikipedia? ThePersecuted (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done no free license. Ankry (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:GaganyaanCGI.png

Request undeletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnshumanSV05 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that in the file description, you claimed that it was Own work -- that is, that you were the actual artist. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. It makes it hard to believe anything you say here and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.

Actually, this is the work of brickmack at https://www.deviantart.com/brickmack/art/Gaganyaan-782015215 which has "© 2019 - 2020 brickmack". This can be restored only if brickmack either (a) relicenses it on deviantart or (b) sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim. Ankry (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Eye chart in focus.jpg

Moheen deleted my file, causing it to be removed from several Wikipedia articles automatically (en:Pinhole glasses), and causing other articles to get broken wiki markup (de:Rasterbrille). My file was one of a series, and now the articles make less sense than before. I no longer have a copy of the file and don't remember what I wrote in its description, but this was something I printed out and photographed myself; the eye chart was derived from copyleft file File:Snellen chart.svg. This summary deletion without any warning to me or discussion is inappropriate. Moheen did not even contact me on Commons or enwiki. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: This image was tagged for deletion for the following reason: "derivate of CC-by-SA 3.0 licensed work, cannot be licensed under CC0". Thuresson (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Thuresson: There's no COMMONS:DR. Is it not then proper to send me a notice that I need to relicense it? I am quite sure I properly marked it as a derivative, I just meant that my work need not be attributed, and use of the photo can be attributed to User:Jeff Dahl without attribution to me. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nat: Not a problem. Clearly I've either been misunderstood, or I made an error in my understanding of the license tags. I can't actually see how I described the license as the page is deleted. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Moheen: I disagree with speedying files with easily fixable problems. If a file is under an incompatible license, then it can be fixed by simply contacting the uploader to update the license; if a photo shows a presenter next to their copyrighted PowerPoint presentation, a simple request to COM:GL/P will suffice; etc. That said, I'm not even sure File:Snellen chart.svg contains modifications to the PD original which are eligible for copyright. Certainly attribution should be given for moral and academic reasons, but I'm not convinced the {{Cc-zero}} license is invalid. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: If the file is restored I'll immediately make the required change. If I need to be attributed, and it's not valid for me to say "to the extent that my work in taking a photograph has resulted in a derivative work, my work is public domain" that's fine; I will relicense as CC-BY-SA 3. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

What I wrote and what I'll change

It was very hard for me to defend myself without knowing what I actually wrote. Fortunately, User:Josve05a was kind enough to provide me the text of the deleted file and allow me to post it here. I actually agree with King of Hearts that the changes to the PD file don't meet the COM:TO, but look, no need to split hairs. I just really want my file back. I was still quite new to Commons when I uploaded this file and simply used the Upload Wizard wrong. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

What I wrote
=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=An eye chart seen with a blur. The chart is a print out of [[:File:Snellen chart.svg]], slightly edited. This file is meant to be used with [[:File:Blurry eyechart.jpg]] and/or [[:File:Eye chart through pinhole glasses.jpg]]}}
|date=2018-02-17 19:35:01
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:Psiĥedelisto|Psiĥedelisto]]
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{self|cc-zero}}
What I'll change it to if my file is undeleted, and/or what I give any admin the right to change it to
=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=An eye chart seen without a blur. The chart is a print out of [[:File:Snellen chart.svg]], slightly edited. This file is meant to be used with [[:File:Blurry eyechart.jpg]] and/or [[:File:Eye chart through pinhole glasses.jpg]].}}
|date=2018-02-17 19:35:01
|source=Own photo, [[:File:Snellen chart.svg]]
|author=[[User:Jeff Dahl]] and [[User:Psiĥedelisto|Psiĥedelisto]]
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{cc-by-sa 3.0|[[User:Jeff Dahl|Jeff Dahl]] and [[User:Psiĥedelisto|Fredrick Brennan (Psiĥedelisto)]]}}
✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Thank you - the changes have been made to all three files. I think this should stay open until Moheen acknowledges that they need to attempt to make contact when they delete files. Preferably, if the user has a lot of well licensed files, they'd give them a chance to correct the error before deletion, but not making contact at all is totally inappropriate in my view. I happened upon this by accident. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by King of ♥. Ankry (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Steve Tallis Fly By Night Club.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020053110000493.

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=2020053110000493|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. Redd mìt mìr. 00:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: Done, and congratulations on your election. Thuresson (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done by Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:LGB Support Group Bolton England 1993.jpg

As Copyright owner of the images photographed and also the photographed mounted images, being legal owner of all works portrayed, including derivatives I have legal right to release those images in any way i shall feel fit and had done so. I had not seen any notice of a deletion request until after it had been acted upon but would have challenged it if I had. --Pennine rambler (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous response given that the photographs are my own, including the ones inside the frame and the photo of the photos.--Pennine rambler (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Please also show where my photographs have been published in public elsewhere? For that to occur the photograph and image would have required my consent unless it was via creative commons license terms as stated on its upload on wikipedia commons --Pennine rambler (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Just for the record you were informed of the deletion request on your talk page when the DR was created.
That said if licensing is the issue then the answer is simple. You can confirm licensing via COM:OTRS and we can then host the image here. I would  Support restoration on that basis happily. --Herby talk thyme 09:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Pennine rambler, please note that we get imposters making false claims here all the time. The fact that User:Pennine rambler asserts that he is the photographer proves nothing. Because the image appeared previously on Facebook, policy requires that the actual photographer(s) of the four images send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(Jameslwoodward) would you please show me where my photo on facebook, the file has been kept in a private folder and where no member of the general public has had access, I am finding it very bewildering that I am being requested to verify I hold copyright to my own photographs. --Pennine rambler (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Pennine rambler: Per the deletion discussion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:LGB Support Group Bolton England 1993.jpg), the image's metadata apparently includes a code that would only appear if the file in question had previously been hosted on a Facebook-owned site, social network, application (Facebook, Instagram, perhaps Whatsapp). Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 15:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The meta data for Facebook exists on the photo of the frame images on display as it is mobile phone photo that has been stored on my own facebook account in my private photographs, I have tonight found negatives of the originals in the frame and am already in contact by OTRS and can now prove legal ownership of all rights and am doing so --Pennine rambler (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pennine rambler: . Again: you say "your own photographs", but we have no way here of knowing who Pennine rambler is, so we cannot know whether they are your photographs or not. Your attitude is characteristic of those who would try to convince us that they are someone other than the person they really are. As Nat said, the EXIF shows that the image came from Facebook, so policy requires confirmation via OTRS. That policy is designed to prevent imposters from pulling images off of web sites and uploading them here -- in other words, to protect the rights of the actual photographer. If that is you, as you claim, you should appreciate our care. If it is not you, then the policy has worked. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 Not done: needs OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Fatrin Krajka.jpg

And also:

Hello, I am writing to request the undeletion of this file. I already mentioned to AFBorchert that Fatrin Krajka is able to provide an email from his photographer clarifying that this is not Flickrwashing and that Wikimeda Commons has the full right to use this picture, but I never received the instructions regarding how to proceed with this request. Can you please provide me with the instructions for it? Haywon123 (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok great! I will ask them to do it - Thank you for your help. Haywon123 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Concerning just the file "File:Fatrin Krajka.jpg"

An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020053110005201.

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=2020053110005201|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. Redd mìt mìr. 19:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: FYI Ankry (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
File:Fatrin Krajka.jpg ✓ Done by Ankry. File:Andrew Andraos Headshot.jpg  Not done: Closing discussion. Restoration can be done when OTRS receives sufficient permission and approves it. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 18:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Fabio De Masi.jpg

An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020060210003515.

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=2020060210003515|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) 07:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per OTRS by Reinhard Kraasch. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Dragons be here.jpg

Please restore this file. This file is my creative work. I used PowerPoint to author, arrange, and assemble creative elements. The completed work includes clip art that I selected from the PowerPoint collection of images that are released under Creative Commons licence. This particular clip art was obtained (by PowerPoint) from the site at: http://aqwwiki.wikidot.com/asian-dragon Note the footnote on this site says: "Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License". I conclude this footnote allows me to include this clip art in my original image and to release the completed image to Wikimedia Commons. Please restore this image. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lbeaumont: could you please clarify how this image falls under the scope of our project? Thanks, Storkk (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this inquiry. This image falls within the Commmons: Project scope under the provision for media that is realistically useful for an educational purpose. Specifically, this image was created and included as part of the Wikiversity course on Problem Finding. You will notice the deletion entry in that course history log. This should address the opposition "until" request below.--Lbeaumont (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose As it stands it is a copyright violation. The dragon has a CC-BY-SA license, but the file here does not credit the creator of the dragon. I agree that it is in scope, but it can be restored only if the proper credit is added immediately. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there some attribution I can provide or some procedure I can follow that will clear these issues? If so, please let me know what I can do. Thanks --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim, KoH and Commons' precautionary principle. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 01:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Дорога жизни.jpg Книга 1947 года выпущена, ленинградским издательством. Правоприемника у издательства нет. Автор оформления обложки в оригинале книги (47 г.) не указан.

Первое издание книги осуществлено в 1947 году «Ленинградским газетно-журнальным и книжном издательстве». В настоящее время - правоприемника у издательства нет. Автор оформления обложки в оригинале книги (47 г.) не указан. Мне принадлежат издательские права на книгу. В 2016 году книга репринтно переиздавалась издательством "ДВГ групп", Я выложил этот файл (фото-снимок оригинальной книги 47 года) 08:59, 6 May 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander1969 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Everybody is anonymous here and we cannot verify your identity on-wiki. It is up to the uploader to provide an evidence that the declared license has been granted by the author, basing on public records, or to ensure that the author send a free license permission via email following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

{{PD-Russia}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander1969 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. If uploader is indeed the copyright holder, permission is needed using OTRS. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 01:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Wethehotsauce.jpg

Anotherangelfromtheheaven (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The entire image data page is:

== {{int:filedesc}} ==
{{Information
|Description=
|Source=
|Date=
|Author=
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}

Aside from the fact that having no data at all means that it is lost and useless among our 60+ million images, it also is probably a CD cover and therefore a copyvio. It has been deleted twice three times. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

For the record File:Juicyrappers.jpg was just uploaded by the same user. It is the same image with some sort of texture added. De728631 (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - 1) No reason to restore given; 2) this was an out-of-process recreation of File:3RACHABOYS.jpg; and 3) the image was previously published here, and elsewhere, before upload and therefore needs COM:OTRS evidence of permission. It is credited there to X KWAVE Magazine, so presumably you are not the author. Эlcobbola talk 00:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 Not done No response from OP. Thuresson (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:迷你世界logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is not a "non-trivial logo"; It was one used on Chinese wikipedia. And I licensed it by the copyrights I saw on https://www.miniworldgame.com/privacy-terms/ → Ⅸ: Intellectual Property Rights. My https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PUBG_logo.png Used this kind of license and it was not deleted. Herobrine303 (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Herobrine303: 這個商標有版權，不可在此上載，請去zh.wikipedia上載。--Roy17 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done: copyrighted logo.--Roy17 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:OgataHaruna Instagram 2020-05-20.png

This file is uploaded according to Ogata Haruna's request(Person of photography). She requested to update wikipedia portrait picture and hope to use Instagram(2020-05-20) picture. (Ref. https://www.instagram.com/harunaogatajp/) (Ref. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC7CD47I8sg&t=72s)

For this reason, this picture never violate. I have uploaded again, so please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sango captain (talk • contribs) 02:17, 2 June 2020‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose @Sango captain: Please do not reupload an image deleted in accordance with policy. Please also note that the copyright holder is the person who took the picture rather than the person who appears in it, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by contract. For restoration, please have the actual photographer send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 02:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Permission from the photographer is needed using OTRS. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 01:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by JonJon86

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All these photos were taken before 1970, so they're on the Public Domain, under the PD-Portugal-URAA license: {{PD-Portugal-URAA}} The user that created the Deletion Request even withdrew it. JonJon86 (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Support Strange as it may seem, that appears to be correct. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 19:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Гражданская авиация 3 2020.png

Обложка журнала создается коллективом редакции журнала "Гражданская авиация". Конкретного автора нет. На сайте картинка обложки находится в свободном для скачивания доступе. Просьба восстановить файл. — Preceding unsigned comment added by НатальяГА (talk • contribs) 08:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Comment As nominator I've not found these images at the designed URL so uploader is welcome to correct the link for the 3 files not deleted yet. Besides website is Copyright © 2019 and, of course, covers have an author. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is needed. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Year of the mask.png

This is an original picture with full rights and the article is in reference to times of India who validate the article.you will find the same at their portal too.i would request not to delete the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashionabhishek (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that in the file description, you claimed that it was {{Own work}} -- that is, that you were the actual photographer or creator of this work. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. It makes it hard to believe anything you say here and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. This appears to be, as you say, a page from the Times of India. Unless you are the publisher of the Times of India, you do not have the right to freely license it here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Uploader appears to conflate appearance in Times of India (gratis availability) with a libre license status. This is a scan of a periodical and therefore requires explicit permission from the publisher or other rightsholder to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 20:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 01:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

posiadam prawa autorskie

posiadam prawa autorskie do tego zdjęcia, jestem pracownikiem MCN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarema ze Szczecina (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose You have two deleted images:

In both cases you claimed that these were your own work -- that you were the actual photographer. You do not say that above. Who was the actual photographer?

Since both images appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose per Jim. Note also that being an employee ("jestem pracownikiem MCN") means absolutely nothing. A fry cook at McDonalds is an employee but has no authority to license corporate IP. COM:OTRS permission must from the photographer and, if the photographer has transferred rights to MCN, evidence of that transfer and permission from an authorized agent (executive, officer, director - however styled in that specific entity) is needed. Эlcobbola talk 20:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above: "COM:OTRS permission must from the photographer and, if the photographer has transferred rights to MCN, evidence of that transfer and permission from an authorized agent (executive, officer, director - however styled in that specific entity) is needed.". --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 01:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Announcement for wearing a mask.jpg

The announcement are providing information by the government. The announcement can be found at bus stop and on the buses. It doesn't against any copyright. The photo on the announcement can be found on the government website for education purpose. (https://www.ssm.gov.mo/docs//17049//17049_cf84842a2dd1455085d8a159c9515dea_000.jpg) Pauloleong2002 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masur: for comment as deleting admin. --Fæ (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm -- I'm not so sure. First, note that the image cited above is similar to but not the same as the deleted image here. The image here has the name of an SA (corporation) at the bottom. According to Transport in Macau, there are several private bus companies there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Good spotting there. en:Sociedade de Transportes Colectivos de Macau is in fact a privately-owned company and not a government agency. @Nat: I have therefore changed my suggestion to  Oppose. De728631 (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Without any disrespect, I would like to point out that: The logo of the related picture is for identifying who post the notice on the bus stop. And the company(http://www.tcm.com.mo/web/default.aspx) who can provide service because the is a public contract signed between and the Macao SAR government(https://bo.io.gov.mo/bo/i/2018/16/ordem63.asp). She need to obey the instruction of the government, including the instruction of wearing masks.

The second thing is, will the said notice protect by laws of Macau? It seems to be not. Per Republicação do regime do direito de autor e direitos conexos, aprovado pelo Decreto-Lei n.º 43/99/M, de 16 de Agosto Artigo 5.º (Exclusão de protecção) 1. Não constituem objecto de protecção, sem prejuízo do disposto no número seguinte:

a) As notícias do dia e os relatos de acontecimentos diversos com carácter de simples informação, de qualquer modo divulgados;

b) Os requerimentos, alegações, queixas e outros textos apresentados por escrito ou oralmente perante autoridades ou serviços públicos;

c) Os textos apresentados e os discursos proferidos perante assembleias ou outros órgãos colegiais, políticos e administrativos, ou em debates públicos sobre assuntos de interesse comum;

d) Os discursos políticos.

2. Cabe em exclusivo ao autor dos textos referidos nas alíneas b), c) e d) do número anterior o direito de os publicar, ou autorizar a sua publicação, sob a forma de colectânea ou separata.

3. A utilização por terceiro de obra referida no n.º 1, quando lícita, deve limitar-se ao exigido pelos fins a atingir com a sua divulgação.

4. Não é permitida a comunicação pública dos textos a que se refere a alínea b) do n.º 1 quando esses textos forem por natureza confidenciais ou dela possa resultar prejuízo para a honra ou reputação do autor ou de terceiro.

5. A proibição do número anterior é afastada quando haja consentimento do autor ou da pessoa cuja honra ou reputação possa ser prejudicada, ou decisão judicial em contrário proferida em face de prova da existência de interesse legítimo superior ao subjacente à proibição.

The said notice is providing general information, in other words, it is telling facts. It is not related with creation, which is what copyright protect. The third thing is, the action of make known to public is a reasonable use. It doesn't make sense that an announcement cannot being an object for propagation, as it is what the use of announcement.Pauloleong2002 (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • In my opinion it is a derivative work passing the originality treshold. I disagree that it merely provides a non copyrightable information - it has the picture (I bet it's a stock one even) and the logo, composition etc. And as far as I could tell, there is no PD extemption for it, as it was issued by the private company. Masur (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • For the information, there is an official source (https://www.gov.mo/pt/noticias/221172/).

And for the picture , it comes from government also. There are some examples : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Information_for_wearing_masks_in_Macao.jpg
https://www.ssm.gov.mo/apps1/PreventCOVID-19/en.aspx#clg17049
Thank you very much.Pauloleong2002 (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

What's more, the said announcement is similar to some kind of instruction or reminding. Here is for your kind information (https://www.macaumemory.mo/interaction/memory_2d441c85c96c4b7ba7686a69979522dd).Pauloleong2002 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
{{S}} undeletion. As the photo is from a government announcement, the text is purely informational, the logo may be considered COM:DM, I see nothing copyrightable here. Ankry (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Support withdrawn per Nat below.
  • I took another gander at the Decree-Law n.o 43/99/M of Macao (the copyright legislation of the SAR) and the law does not state that all Government works do not benefit from protection, as it specifies that only "Official texts shall not benefit from protection" [DL43-99, c.1, art.6 §1] and defines official texts as " the texts of treaties, laws and regulations and those of reports or decisions by authorities of any kind, and translations thereof" [DL43-99, c.1, art.6 §2]. Nowhere does it state that Official Works other than texts (e.g. photos) are not protected. Per COM:PCP, we need to assume, unless proven otherwise, that such official photographic works are protected under Macanese law. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 00:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Probably not covered by {{PD-MacauGov}}. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:StormDennisfloodMap.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is come from ESA sentinel 1 images, in which {{Attribution-Copernicus}} is applicable 219.78.191.24 03:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Question While the template makes it clear that the data from Copernicus is freely licensed, it is not obvious to me that this Twitter page, with text material added is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: It's the one in the lower right -- England, Wales, part of Ireland and a text box. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nat, the terms of use you cite above speak of "data" being free, which, of course, it is automatically -- data itself cannot have a copyright. I don't see anything on the Twitter page which says that the map and the text appearing there are free. What am I missing? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the discussion above. While the data itself is under an acceptable free licence, the copyright status of the other elements is unknown and, per Commons' precautionary principle, the image cannot be restored. If the text is indeed under free licence, copyright holder will need to confirm this using OTRS. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 18:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Valliddari Madhya New Poster.jpg

The above image which is subjected to deletion is the movie poster of upcoming Telugu movie Valliddari Madhya. This is the original poster directly acquired from the respective movie production house. This is neither copyrighted (copyrights are owned by the production house itself who requested me to create this page) nor someone else's work.

--Vrnkoushik99 (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose You say it's not copyrighted, but immediately contradict yourself with "copyrights are owned by the production house itself", which also contradicts with "not someone else's work". If you wish for this file to be restored, you need to ask the production house to send an email to the OTRS team, confirming that they agree to releasing their poster under a free license. --pandakekok9 10:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per pandakekok9. For possibility of undeletion, permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence is needed from the copyright holder using OTRS. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 19:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:National Museum of the Filipino People.jpg

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheCoffee, this file was deleted because of no-freedom of panorama in the Philippines. The subject shown was Old Finance Building (which now houses the w:National Museum of Anthropology (Manila). However, the architect who built this, Ralph Harrington Doane, died on November 6, 1941 (according to https://backbayhouses.org/ralph-harrington-doane/), so this architectural work is in public domain since November 6, 1991 (year of death+50 years). Technically, the subject is PD and this file conforms Commons' goals and policies. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Support Are their any other mistakes like this one in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheCoffee? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: for this one - File:Dumaguete belltower.jpg, I'm not sure if this is the Dumaguete Belfry of 19th century. The site https://dumagueteinfo.com/dumaguete-city/archived-pages/dumaguete-belfry/ says it was 1811, built to forewarn the locals of any incoming danger. It remains to be the oldest bell tower in the Visayas and is a very famous architectural landmark in the city (this is also supported by https://dumaguete.com/dumaguete-belfry/ , while http://dumaguetecity.gov.ph/2019/09/23/dumaguete-bell-tower-lights-up-for-sandurot-2019/ implicitly mentions the belfy - "more than two centuries, the belltower remains an enduring and proud icon of Dumaguete’s faith, vigilance, resilience, love for others and hope. It deserves to be given a place of honor in our celebration." However, I cannot guarantee if this is the belfy as depicted in the file deleted in October 2016. I hope an admin may compare if the subject is the Dumaguete belfry. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks the same to me. Thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also fpr the File:Cebu capitol.jpg, @Jameslwoodward: . I assume that this is the w:Cebu Provincial Capitol. The infobox states the two people behind its architecture: Architect Juan Marcos Arellano y De Guzmán (1888–Dec. 5, 1960) and Civil engineer Pedro Siochi y Angeles (1886–1951). Either way, the building has been PD since 2011. For other pics (esp. those depicting w:Paco Park), I'm not sure. Perhaps I might mention @TagaSanPedroAko: , who successfully requested the undeletion of two files by TheCoffee at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2018-01#File:Philippines_National_Museum.jpg_and_File:Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines.jpg. Pardon me for another mention, our edits came into conflict. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since it became PD in the Philippines in 2011, it is still under copyright in the USA -- that will expire on 1/1/2034, 95 years after it was finished. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per above. @JWilz12345: FYI.  Not done: File:Cebu capitol.jpg per COM:URAA (Undeletion possible in 2034). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 19:09, 3 June 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 Zkoty

The uploader and the author of the paintings is the same person. He just sent us a proper agreement for the pictures mentioned in: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zkoty. See: ticket:2020060310004451. Polimerek (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Temporarily undeleted. @Polimerek: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 17:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Six Ugly.jpg

The Six Ugly Album Cover should not be deleted because I filled out the correct information and gave credits to the original owner. Claiming it wasn't my work, but that it was the band Dir En Grey's Art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DirEnGrey891 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Correctly crediting the author is fine, but it does not give you the right to upload the image and freely license it. There is nothing at the source that even hints that this album cover is freely licensed. The only way it can be restored to Commons is if the album's producer sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. Fair use of non-free content is not allow on Commons. Please read Commons' policy regarding "fair use" (Commons:Fair use) and its policy regarding licensing (Commons:Licensing). Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 19:03, 3 June 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 Ebacas

All six of the works listed there (the three have been deleted, some used at Wikisourced) should have been kept as they are all published before 1925 (more than 95 years ago); i.e. per cornell.edu; copryight has long expired. 107.190.33.254 16:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The three are from the UK, not the USA, so the rule you cite does not apply. In order for them to be restored, you would have to show that the author died before 1950. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

... or upload them directly to English Wikisource. Ankry (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
"Surnames of the United Kingdom" traces to "Henry Harrison"; who also published "The Place-Names of the Liverpool District; Or, the History and Meaning of the Local and River Names of South-West Lancashire and of Wirral" (1898); and the google preview of Surnames of the UK lists him as a member of the "Council of the Philological Society, London". A google books search for "henry harrison council of the philological society" reveals a partial obituary in The Publishers' Circular and Booksellers' Record, Volume 114 (1921) which states:

Obituary Mr. Henry Harrison The death is reported at Bournemouth, from pneumonia, of Mr. Henry Harrison, who, after thirty ... Mr. Harrison, who was comparatively young, was a member of the Council of the Philological Society, and author of ...

So that is one which is cleared. For British Family Names (first published 1894; [1]); the google preview lists the author as having published other documents; including an article on ""The Cistercian Abbey of Maulbronn" (1892) and other articles which date to a bit earlier. The earliest article by him I can find, (1890); where he is titled a "M.D." (Doctor of Medicine; I don't know what the requirements were in Victorian Britain but I'd assume a few years at a University would have been the minimum), probably indicates that at the very least he would have been something like 80-90 in 1950, which makes his death before a distinct possibility...
I could not find anything for the Dict. of Names &c.; the only suggestion we have is w:Edward Bevan (bishop) who died 1934; but this can't be verified.
Also, as far as I understand, for all of these, per the Berne Convention; (to which the UK and the US are signatories); the shorter term applies; and since this is hosted in the USA (as far as I know), that term is 95 yrs from publication; which as I said initially is long since gone. 107.190.33.254 21:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The Rule of the shorter term applies only in the other direction -- where the source country's copyright has expired but, except for the Rule, the second country's copyright would not have. Thus a US work that is 95 years after publication will be PD in the EU even if the author died less than 70 years previously. You cannot say that a UK sourced work has a 95 year copyright because that is the rule in the USA. Note also that while the EU does use the rule, the US does not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Well then in any case I have proven that one of these is actually PD in the UK... 107.190.33.254 14:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Hits from Google Books also include the phrase (from a 1921 work): Recently, at Bournemouth, from pneumonia, Mr. Henry Harrison, the author of the well-known dictionary of the "Surnames of the United Kingdom." It was first published in instalments in 1907, but the completed work was not ready until 1918... So that is definitively the author in question, and is {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1921}} .  Support that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we can accept that Henry Harrison, the author of the third entry, died before 1950 -- it's not an uncommon name and the connection is a little tenuous, but I'll  Support it.

I agree that the second one's author was 80-90 in 1950, but not old enough to assume that he was dead by then, and there is no information on the other one, so I continue to  Oppose the first two. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Could the Barber one be {{PD-old-assumed}} ? Sound like they were published before 1900... Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this book in a bibliography section identifies "Henry Barber, MD" as the author of Forness folk, the'r sayin's an' dewin's; or, Sketches of life and character in Lonsdale north of the sands[2] which was originally under a pseudonym of "Roger Piketah". That was published in 1870, so that pushes back his possible age 20 more years.  Support on that one too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I can't find much on Edward Latham. Almost certainly not the same person as Edward Latham Bevan. I do find a reference of him as a "learned English philologist" in an 1893 publication, but most of the stuff he authored was published from roughly 1900 to 1916 as far as I can see. It's possible that the book was simultaneously (within 30 days) published in the U.S., as there was a NY publisher Dutton also named, but otherwise the country of origin is the UK and we'd have to show that 70pma has passed. While the U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter term, it's expired there due to being published before 1925, so it could be uploaded at en-wiki or en-wikisource directly. But the UK copyright is still unclear. Using freebmd, there were only a couple of deaths 1950 or later under that name who could realistically have been that person. Hard to imagine he lived 35+ years after he stopped publishing when that was seemingly his profession, but it's possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored two, but not the third per the discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Omar_Faruk_Shihab.jpg

This image is eligible to be undeleted. I don't think File:Omar_Faruk_Shihab.jpg contains any copyrightable elements that exceed COM:DM. (Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-02#File:Omar_Faruk_Shihab.jpg). Shihabskytar (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural closure. The image is not deleted. Please discuss the matter at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Omar Faruk Shihab.jpg. --De728631 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It is now deleted -- since it was recreation of previous deleted content, it was a {{Speedy}}. It has also been turned down for UnDR once before. The issue is not copyright, it is scope -- it is a personal image of a non-contributor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Männerstimmen Chordbild 2019.jpg

I as a member of the board of Männerstimmen Basel have the right to publish this foto on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 31.164.231.155 (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that in the file description, you claimed that it was {{Own work}} -- that is, that you were the actual photographer or creator of this work. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. It makes it hard to believe anything you say here and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.

The photo was apparently taken by Gaspard Weissheimer. In order for it to be restored here, he must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. For possibility of undeletion, permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence is needed from Gaspard Weissheimer or, if the copyright was transferred, from the current copyright holder and evidence of that transfer using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 01:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Geni Logo.png

Please undelete this file. I'm quite sure that this file is covered by: {{PD-Textlogo}} Tholme (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Support The USA does not allow copyright for logos that are pure text, no matter how complex the font. Geni is based in Los Angeles. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. @Tholme: FYI. Please note the proper source and other necessary info to prevent another F5 deletion. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 18:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:IBU LOGO SHORT PANTONE.jpg

To whom it may concern,

I have today uploaded the official logo of IBU (International Biathlon Union) as commissioned by the Union itself. I am infact an employer of this international federation and was asked to update various info, including the logo of it.

I hope that this will allow the un-deletion of the picture, which is, in any case, not copyrighted being a logo.

All the best, --GaspaGiu (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Giulio Gasparin IBU Media Team

 Oppose Agreed. There is no reason to believe that logos cannot have a copyright, just as almost all other created works do. The IBU is headquartered in Austria and the Threshold of Originality appears to be very low there. This would also probably have a copyright in the USA where the ToO is a little higher. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. This logo exceeds Austrian TOO and is not free. If the IBU wishes to license it under an acceptable free licence, an authorised IBU officer must do so using OTRS.  JGHowes  talk 14:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Leylines Cover.jpg

Also: *File:Leylines.jpg This photo is the property of SOTAdtla, associated with Rising Appalachia, and is updating their page's photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internsotadtla (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 June 2020‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose As I wrote on your talk page, we need a verification from the copyright holder which is to be sent by email. We have no means to verify your identity or affiliation with SOTAdtla through your Wikimedia account, so we need an email coming from an official SOTAdtla account. De728631 (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that in the file description, you claimed that it was {{Own work}} -- that is, that you were the actual photographer or creator of this work. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. It makes it hard to believe anything you say here and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.

Agreed. An authorized official of the production company must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. For possibility of undeletion, permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence is needed from the copyright holder or from an authorised officer or official of the production company using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 21:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Mohsen.Chavoshi.jpg

Hi this image is an official image of Mohsen Chavoshi from his official telegram channel(http://T.me/mohsenchavoshi) Date: 29.9.15 at 1:08 PM please help me to replace it with his profile picture because that's old and not official — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regzator (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose We need a permission by email coming from the copyright holder. Most often this is also not the person depicted, but the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per De728631. For possibility of undeletion, permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence is needed from the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract) using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 01:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Omar_Faruk_Shihab.jpg

Template:This is my own copyright image. This shouldn't be removed this way 

I note that in the file description, you claimed that it was Own work -- that is, that you were the actual photographer or creator of this work. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. It makes it hard to believe anything you say here and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.

Agreed. An authorized official of the production company must send a free license using OTRS. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shihabskytar (talk • contribs) 07:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC) 12:58 UTC 5 June 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shihabskytar (talk • contribs) 06:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not correct -- the issue here is not copyright, it is scope. This is the third time this has been requested..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This is the third UnDR. If you make another request, you will be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Paco Park.jpg

File was deleted due to "no-FOP" rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheCoffee. Still unsatisfied by the information at w:Paco Park, I scoured through Google for more info, and found http://historicalpaco.blogspot.com/2015/08/paco-park-cemetery.html?m=1, a blog with info compiled by batch 2015 students from Universidad de Manila (UDM) According to the blog, it was built designed by Maestro de Obras Nicolas Ruiz in 1807 and originally served as a cemetery, being expanded to its present extent in 1859. Although there is no explicit mention of when its Catholic chapel was exactly built or completed, a photo showing it with the caption "Funeral services were also done of which the most prominent was for General Henry W. Lawton on December 30, 1899." likely implies its existence since at least 1890s, therefore being constructed during the late-Spanish era (most probably). Unsure about File:Paco Park Gomburza.JPG and File:Paco Park Rizal.JPG, but since they bear markers set by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) or its predecessor, it is likely that they are not within the scope of no-FOP copyright restrictions. I can also see numerous similar images bearing cultural and historical memorials and NHCP plaques at the Category:Encyclopedia of Philippine Heritage content. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Support

both because of their apparent age and their simplicity.

 Neutral

I think the plaque is much more recent than the elaborate cross which is in a very much earlier style than 1998. Nonetheless the only date we have is 1998. The text on the plaque is unreadable in this image, so its copyright is not a problem. However, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paco Park - Gomburza Memorare NHCP historical marker.jpg/ .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 16:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Three British logos (The Wire)

But unfortunately, these logos of The Wire are too eligible for copyright with simple text, and lower threshold of originality in the UK. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This is why they were deleted in the first place. So why do you think they could be undeleted now? De728631 (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
These logos are too simple text that are not copyrighted. But simple typefaces (including serifs) and texts are too eligible for copyright in the UK. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Is it though? See COM:TOO UK. Bidgee (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Why yes, actually. These text logos aren't protected by copyright, but the truth is, are serif ones (e.g. Bodoni, Garamond, etc.). See Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Lower_threshold_in_United_Kingdom_etc. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose The UK has a very low ToO. In addition, it has a copyright for typography. Since none of these is typeset in what we would see as a standard way, that copyright applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the discussion above. The United Kingdom's copyright law has a "sweat of the brow" approach to originality, resulting in a very, very low threshold, and English courts have upheld this view. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 21:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:บุญช่วยศรีสารคาม.jpg

--Mrapisit (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nat -- did you mean undeleted above? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Small image (588 × 769px) with a white border. It looks like a formal studio portrait. I doubt that it is {{Own work}} as claimed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jim: Yes, yes I did. lol. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 18:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim and Эlcobbola, as well as the fact that there was no valid ration why this file should be deleted. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (typically the photographer, unless transferred by operation of law or contract) will need to send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 21:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:JRG Vikatan.jpg

This is a film poster we are trying to update in the Film wikipedia page:Jarugandi. There is no violation of copyrights as to our knowledge as we are trying to update this on behalf of the direction team and this poster was created for this film's promotion purpose by our designer. So please consider and make necessary changes to undelete this post and update our film poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DirPitchumani (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Oppose by Commons:Fair use. Please ask the production company to submit a permission in writing as instructed at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. Previous publication require permission using our OTRS procedure. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (in this case, most likely the production company) will need to send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 21:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


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

loadmypixel.com

⌘ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyquartermaine (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. User has made no request. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 05:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Me-with-finger.jpg

What is wrong with this image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayarwiki (talk • contribs) 08:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Procedural close, not deleted, nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with selfie incategory:"All media needing categories as of 2019". Thuresson (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Announcement for wearing a mask.jpg

As per discussion, (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive#File:Announcement_for_wearing_a_mask.jpg), the conclusion is that only texts are not protected. And similar case is here "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%E9%9B%99%E6%98%A0%E6%88%90%E8%B6%A3.jpg".

I cannot tell that the conclusion is wrong. But we need to concern how it practice in Macau.

The Department of Economic in Macau says: (https://www.economia.gov.mo/en_US/web/public/pg_ip_wip?_refresh=true) "What is not protected by copyright? Items which are not protected by copyright include (but not limited to them) are: idea, program, organization, operating method, rule, concept, principle, discovery, not written or recorded piece, piece which is not written by original author, information for public use, daily news, article which only reports incidents, speech given in a form of discussion for the benefit of the community, political speeches, official pieces, laws and regulations and their translations." In the explanation, "Official pieces" and "laws and regulations and their translations" are something "parataxis", which means there are something outside the protection rather than texts.

How does the official attitude? There is an project call "Memory of Macau" (https://www.macaumemory.mo/aboutus) runs by Macau Foundation (https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%BE%B3%E9%96%80%E5%9F%BA%E9%87%91%E6%9C%83).It is allow to upload photo with such situation. Here are some examples: "https://www.macaumemory.mo/interaction/memory_cdc91f07e94a443cbb3f3728603f5d33" (photo with first day cover) "https://www.macaumemory.mo/interaction/memory_402fd3f7259848e0b958ea8a572fd358" (photo with logo of a private company) "https://www.macaumemory.mo/interaction/memory_2df09d639af34d5dbadbfbf362f79fda" ""https://www.macaumemory.mo/interaction/memory_a59f72189b4948afb835af495a8cf8df" "https://www.macaumemory.mo/interaction/memory_d9f32e6ba1e84d88a74c088e6fc90e53" (photo of a document) "https://www.macaumemory.mo/interaction/memory_4a81ce712ade42b6878007d2b34cd4ce" "https://www.macaumemory.mo/interaction/memory_2d441c85c96c4b7ba7686a69979522dd" (photo with the said notice)

Thank you for your time.Pauloleong2002 (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I will repeat what I posted before the previous discussion was closed: The Decree-Law n.o 43/99/M of Macao (the copyright legislation of the SAR) does not state that all Government works do not benefit from protection, as it specifies that only "Official texts shall not benefit from protection" [DL43-99, c.1, art.6 §1] and defines official texts as " the texts of treaties, laws and regulations and those of reports or decisions by authorities of any kind, and translations thereof" [DL43-99, c.1, art.6 §2]. Nowhere does it state that Official Works other than texts (e.g. photos) are not protected. Per COM:PCP, we need to assume, unless proven otherwise, that such official photographic works are protected under Macanese law.
I believe that the law is quite clear on its definition of what is exempted and what is protected. The photographic work, even if it is Government work, is assumed to be protected as it is not listed as an exempted work under Articles 5 and 6. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 05:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you have already strict to the point. The Department of Economy, when translation the said Decree-Law, they are using the wording "official texts". But when they explaining (https://www.economia.gov.mo/en_US/web/public/pg_ip_wip?_refresh=true), they are using the wording "Official pieces". Actually, according to the Chinese and Portuguese version in force, the wording are "作品" & "obras", which means "works", not only "texts".
I raise this issue again because I could finally find out there are photos being allowed to upload in a non-profit project in Macau.(https://www.macaumemory.mo/interaction/collection_2d6b84a3f53e4129844d39d59230fcae"), which means at lease it is not against laws of Macau.Pauloleong2002 (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The government has chosen to translate 作品 & obras as "text". But that is irrelevant. Regardless of how they chose to translate the Chinese or Portuguese terms, they have clear defined and delineated it as "the texts of treaties, laws and regulations and those of reports or decisions by authorities of any kind, and translations thereof" [DL43-99, c.1, art.6 §2]. Again, the law is very clear on this point. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 15:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Additionally (and echoing the opinions below) regardless of the copyright status of the photo used, the poster itself is assume to attract its own copyright and, like the photo, is not exempted from copyright protection in Articles 5 and 6 of the law. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 17:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Also, as I noted the first time around, this is a poster that bears the name of a private bus company. Although parts of it may come from the government, it has not been shown that it is all a government work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Even if a non-profit use in Macau is allowed, the file would still be unsuitable for Commons. Uploads here need to be free for anyone to use anywhere and for any purpose. Apart from that I agree with Jim that this is not an official work, so it is copyrightable and non-free by default. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Per discussion. Thuresson (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Sabrina Promi.jpg

Wrong reason has been identified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vashkarc (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close, not deleted. Currently nominated for COM:CSD#F10. If you disagree, please nominate for a deletion discussion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 18:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Reopening: already deleted. @Vashkarc: please, elaborate why the image is in COM:SCOPE. I see no Wikimedia page where Sabrina Promi's image can be used. Ankry (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As per Nat (and as no response). Ankry (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:About new.png

we are use this image again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. GuptaDeepak (talk • contribs) 10:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that in the file description, you claimed that it was {{Own work}} -- that is, that you were the actual photographer or creator of this work. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. It makes it hard to believe anything you say here and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.

These were deleted as personal images of a non-contributor. That appears to be appropriate, as the uploader's only contributions to WMF projects are several personal images and a long user page at WP:EN which, if it were on Commons, would be a {{Speedy}} because it violates COM:ADVERT.

Also, as noted above, these are copyright violations, since there is no permission from the actual photographer.

Finally, I note that you reloaded both of these images. Reloading deleted images is a violation of Commons rules and simply wastes your time and that of other volunteers. "Deleted" images are never actually deleted, but simply marked so that they are visible only to Administrators. In the event these need to be restored, that is easily done. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. Multiple issues with the images: (1) Images are out of project scope, and (2) they are copyright violations. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 19:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Aissata Diallo.jpg

This is my original file, taken by me. --Likeabite (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an original picture taken my me, to be used on Wikipedia by the individual in the picture as her infobox image.--Likeabite (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment from deleting admin: image (2nd version) claimed as own work from April 2020, was found to be published in higher resolution on August 2019 at Twitter. --Túrelio (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose 2nd version published on subject's instagram "43 weeks ago" without information about acceptable license. Thuresson (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per policy and practices, for the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (typically the actual photographer, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract -- written and signed by the original copyright holder) should send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 19:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Painting - Alfred-Dupre-self.jpg

HI,

i have the explicit permission of the owner of the picture. If you undelete the picture, i can send the signed permission. Is that the right order to do everything right? Or should I send you the permission first and after that upload the picture again?

best regards,

--Brzl! (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. For possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder should send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 18:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Merhaba, Silinmemesini istediğimiz fotoğrafı çeken kurum Antalya Kepez Belediyesidir ve Hakan TÜTÜNCÜ adına bu işlemi yapmıştır. Silinmesine neden olan "Milliyet"e bu haberi ve fotoğrafı zaten biz verdik. Lütfen bu konu hakkında açıklayıcı bir geri dönüş yapın. Kendi yazdığımız metni ve fotoğrafı bizim kullanamamız biraz problem yaratıyor açıkcası. Sevgiler

Dijital Pazarlama Sorumlusu Ümit GÖNEN — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.175.28.174 (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close as it is not clear which file this request is referring to. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 05:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:AlbertoKenyaFujimori.jpg

This official portrait is possibly considered public domain by the Peruvian government. See it here: [3] --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Per {{PD-PE-exempt}}, only "official texts of legislative, administrative or judicial character" of Peru are not copyrighted. See also article 9.b. of the document you linked: "Los textos oficiales de carácter legislativo, administrativo o judicial, ni las traducciones oficiales de los mismos, sin perjuicio de la obligación de respetar los textos y citar la fuente." There is no such thing as "official images" though. De728631 (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per De728631. Post-1971 government works (with the exception of "official texts of legislative, administrative or judicial character") are protected by copyright under the 1996 law. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 15:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

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

undelete conanneutronandthesecretfriends-cooperage.jpg

Request to have conanneutronandthesecretfriends-cooperage.jpg undeleted. Specific permission was granted by the copyright holder.


Joe Kirschling Jun 7, 2020, 5:06 PM (18 hours ago) to me

Yes. Permission granted. Thanks for reaching out. -joe

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 5:05 PM Tom Balancid <tom.balancid@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Joe!! I sent you an e-mail on your site, but i'm not sure if you got it or not. I was interested in using one of your photos for the Conan Neutron & the Secret Friends article on wikipedia. It's seeing a lot of hits since Household Gods was revealed to the world, and although the article is fine, it should have a picture.

You have a few candidates I would love to use, but since your flickr is set to "all rights reserved" I need explicit permission. Would you be willing to give that?? -- - Joe Kirschling - jkirschling@gmail.com

Top pocket man (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Im afraid we do not accept forwarded permissions like this. The copyright holder needs to send a free licence to our team of volunteers following the email procedure at COM:OTRS. Please note also that a permission to use something at Wikipedia is not sufficient. All uploads at Commons need to be free for anyone for any purpose including commercial activities outside of Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

ok, can the file at least be undeleted then? Top pocket man (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: File:Conanneutronandthesecretfriends-cooperage.jpg undeleted per OTRS Ticket:2020060810010523. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 05:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Boston protests.jpg

This photo was deleted under grounds of copyright violation--but given the photographer themself posted it to Twitter, and not to a paid news source--this constitutes its free usage if the source is cited, which it is. It is already available for free and embedding, therefore a cited source with link does not merit a copyright violation. Please undelete this immediately, suppressing these images does history a disservice. --Saint Taint (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose "Copyright", eg. the right to make copies, lies with the copyright owner. Just because the photographer can distribute this photo as he wishes does not mean that you have the same right. Please read Commons:First steps before submitting additional photos. Thuresson (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Requester conflates, among many things, gratis with libre. One notes that after this request was made, purporting that freeness relates to attribution ("this constitutes its free usage if the source is cited"), the image was reuploaded as File:Boston police 2020 protest.jpg with a new bogus self claim. This is misbehaviour; the disservice here is dishonesty, the disrespect and disregard for the intellectual property of others. Эlcobbola talk 18:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 16:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:MGT-A.jpg

Bitte die Datei MGT-A wiederherstellen. Der im EXIF genannte Autor (Kevin Jack Nigg) ist der Fotograf, der diese Bilderserie in meinem Auftrag gemacht hat. Ich habe die Bilder gekauft, und die Verwendungsrechte liegen bei mir. Er kann das sonst auch gerne selber bestätigen: kevs.art@gmx.ch Danke und Gruss, Duvet&Pillow-Expert (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose In solchen Fällen brauchen wir eine Freigabe direkt durch den Fotografen. Herr Nigg müsste selbst eine E-Mail senden, wie in COM:OTRS/de erklärt. Wenn diese Mail geprüft und akzeptiert worden ist, wird das Bild wieder hergestellt. De728631 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per De728631. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ishrat_Hussain_Engineer_Dubai.jpg

this photo is about travel in india in a bus — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 106.200.96.102 (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close: File has not (yet) been deleted and is currently under a deletion discussion. @Enggishrat: Please voice your opinion of why the file should not be deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ishrat Hussain Engineer Dubai.jpg. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:P. Gopichand with CM Naveen Patnaik.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Works from Government of Odisha are freely licensed, see {{GoO-donation}}. 219.78.191.132 08:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per {{GoO-donation}}. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Chianne.jpg

As an OTRS Volunteer, I have received Ticket:2020060610000985, and hereby request to undelete File:Chianne.jpg for OTRS procession, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @廣九直通車: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


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

Possible error marking as possible copyright violation this File:Foto-ANNA-MARIA-LOPEZ-LOPEZ.jpg

I received a message informing that the file I uploaded has been marked as a possible copyright violation and it must be a mistake because it says: This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: http://www.coolhunting.pro/DOSSIER-PRENSA-AUTORA-ANNA-MARIA-LOPEZ-LOPEZ.pdf . At the webpage from where I downloaded the file (www.coolhunting.pro ) and at the bottom of the linked PDF says clearly - COPYLEFT 2020: La fotografía oficial puede publicarse en cualquier medio impreso y on-line bajo licencia Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Teo Massanet . This text translated to English means that the photo can be used under license (CC BY 4.0) Teo Massanet , so I do not understand why it was marked as possible copyright violation. I´m new to Commons and I really do not know where I have to add this explanation and which step is next to solve this notification.I´m sorry for the inconveniences and thanks a lot for your help. I uploaded the file to complete an article I´m preparing for Wikipedia https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:JoaquimSans/Taller --JoaquimSans (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close, as (1) image was not deleted, and (2) not the right venue. {{No permission since}} and {{Copyvio}} tags were removed by admin Hekerui. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:US Marshal Services with Mobile (AL) Police during Operation Triple Beam.jpg

The file is an image from the official account of US Marshals at here, which qualifies {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}. The file is however, mistakenly tagged as all rights reserved on Flickr, and was deleted from Commons. The deletion is therefore a mistake and the file should be undeleted, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Also pinging deleting administrator.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment Recent photos by en:Shane T. McCoy are Some Rights Reserved so compatible with Commons since older ones (especially this 2014 album) are All Rights Reserved. There must be a reason (or perhaps it's a mistake). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The rights reservation is generally meaningless -- it just states that there is a copyright; equivalent to a copyright notice. If there is a free license for that copyright, it's fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If Shane McCoy is an employee of the U.S. Marshals Service (and, therefore a US federal employee) took the photos in his capacity as a US federal employee, then this is considered the work of the U.S. federal government, and in public domain per 17 U.S.C. § 101 and 105. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 21:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    • He is a federal employee. Also see Shane T. McCoy has been the sole operational photographer for the U.S. Marshals Service since 2009. Regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
      • The main issue I see here is that while it is rightfully in PD per US law, the copyright mark / all rights reserved notice is maintain on the image page, which means if this image is undeleted, because the source is flickr, a bot such as MGA73bot will retag it as needed a licence/flickr review, then another bot like FlickreviewR 2 will review again it as having failed a licence review as the image has a copyright notice and tag it for speedy deletion. Which may or may not result in deletion. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not a flaw. The bots are given certain parameters and comply with them. The problem is has nothing, at it's core to do with the bots—it's with the Flickr account. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    I do consider it a flaw with the bots. There are definitely cases where we want to import PD Flickr files marked "all rights reserved", even when the Flickr account is properly run. For example, a museum may mark its 2D reproductions as "all rights reserved" and be correct according to the laws of its own country, but we would ignore it and treat it as {{PD-Art}}. The easy fix is for MGA73bot to ignore any Flickr file tagged as a PD reason other than voluntarily released by its copyright holder. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    {{Flickr-unfree-but|[[s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Sections 105 and 106]]}}
Use the above? Assuming that it is a work by the government, of course. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah, nice. However, the fact that I've been on Commons for nearly 15 years and have never heard of this template means that most uploaders won't have either, and they shouldn't have their images deleted because two bots collaborated to do something stupid (though it's mostly the first bot's fault). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. {{ Flickr-unfree-but | s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Sections 105 and 106 }} added to the file. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Shenja Lacher 2020.jpg

Hello,

this photo was photographed by the Photographer "Dirk Ossig", but the Actor, Shenja Lacher payed him for the headshots and may use the pictures anywhere online if he refers to the copyright. That is why I copied the photo from the website of the actor, Shenja Lachers, agency with the naming of the copyright underneath the photo. So, the copyright was not violated! The picture of Shenja Lacher is on the website of his agency and free for online use.

Here the website of agency where the photo was copied from:

https://agentur-reinholz.de/details.php?id=71&pic=1

Greetings and thank you in advance for the undeletion.

--Theatertitan (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Mona Vojacek Koper (Theatertitan)

 Oppose That's not how copyright works. My public library allows me to borrow the Harry Potter books for personal use, but not to make copies to upload to Wikipedia. Thuresson (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. For possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (typically the actual photographer, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract -- written and signed by the original copyright holder) must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is unable accept forwarded permission statements or proxy statements for legal reasons. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Hacı Yahyaoğlu.jpg

burda yalnışınız var. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimoff999 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close, as image has not yet been deleted. @Salimoff999: This is the wrong venue. Please explain why you believe that the image should not be deleted here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hacı Yahyaoğlu.jpg. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Sumit Jain.png

I have shared the same picture with all the news and media exeutices from news channels and portal. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 106.51.29.34 (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Copyright holder needs to send permission and a release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Tabf-new-logo.png

File:Tabf-new-logo.png

Taiwan Academy of Banking and Finance has just change the new logo in 2020.

File:台灣金融研訓院VIS手冊(簡要版)20191119更新-ol.png

This is VIS manual for the new logo of Taiwan Academy of Banking and Finance (台灣金融研訓院), the copy rights belong to Taiwan Academy of Banking and Finance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tojiusagi (talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 June 2020‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Copyright holder needs to send permission and a release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Pere Rosell i Foxà.jpg

Forma parte de una página en cosntrucción — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanpuigvinyes (talk • contribs) 14:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Comment As nominator of the SD subject seems absolutely non notable. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Эlcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:28, 11 June 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 Marcywinograd

I respectfully ask that the four photos deleted from my entry Puppets Against AIDS be reposted to my article (that is still posted on Wikipedia). Wikimedia approved the use of the photos after weeks of back and forth communication with signed releases by Gary Friedman, the owner of the copyright, as well as by Mr. Trupin, the heir to the deceased photographer Gisele Wulfsohn. 

Below are some of the relevant communications:

Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> Thu, Apr 23, 5:55 AM to me

Dear Winograd,

Thank you for your information, your liaison work and Mr.Turpin's permission. I am writing to inform you that the permissions listed images has been verified.

The permission has been added to the file pages. Please verify that the file descriptions contain the correct author attribution you desire. If you have any concerns, please respond to this email.

Should Mr.Turpin is ready to release his permission of the remaining 5 images, please inform me at once.

Thank you for your contribution to Wikimedia Commons.

Yours sincerely, Chris Wong OTRS Volunteer


I was unable to do the interactive release as preferred by Wikimedia, so instead I have printed the email template, inserted the links, and signed it as per attached…

I hope you can forward it to them and this works out.

Good luck with it.

Mark Turpin


Fwd: [Ticket#2020041110000219]

Hi Mark, Nathaniel (photo submissions at Wikipedia), and Gary, I am forwarding Mark Turpin's (copied here) letter granting permission to use the four photos for my Puppets Against AIDS draft Wikipedia entry. Below the ticket number are links to the four photos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. To clarify, after I originally uploaded the photos, the pictures were nominated for deletion because I do not hold the copyright on the photos; Gary Friedman (copied here), creator and former director of Puppets Against AIDS, holds the copyright on the photos. The photos were taken by late-Gisele Wulfsohn in Johannesburg. Since Gisele passed away and Gary holds the copyright, Wikipedia asked Gary to have Gisele's heir use the Wikipedia templates to grant a release under Creative Commons to put the photos in the public domain. Mark Turpin is Gisele's heir and I am forwarding his letter because he had difficulty using the Wikimedia/Wikipedia upload. Thank you, Nathaniel and Wikimedia/Wikipedia, for your assistance in this matter. See below. Best wishes, Marcy Winograd


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soweto,_South_Africa._1980%27s._Children_following_puppeteers_with_Puppets_Against_AIDS.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cape_Town,_South_Africa,_1980s._World_AIDS_Day_Performance_of_Puppets_Against_AIDS.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cape_Town,_South_Africa,_1980s._World_AIDS_Day_Performance_of_Puppets_Against_AIDS.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1992._World_AIDS_Day,_Cape_Town,_South_Africa._Joe_%26_Gladys,_the_two_puppets,_discuss_whether_to_have_sex_without_a_condom.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcywinograd (talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: by clpo13. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Manjappada Logo.jpg Image is licensed under CC-4.0

This image is licensed under CC-4.0 International license, yet it has been deleted. See the footer of site : https://manjappada.club/ The author who uploaded it first failed to mention this, but was mentioned in the second upload, yet it was deleted again. This is a mistake and should be rectified by undeleting.

Subins2000 (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Second guessing self from above: fan logo may be different enough from offiical logo. @Subins2000: the purport that this "was mentioned in the second upload" is patently untrue. Please update the information on the file page. --Эlcobbola talk 15:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


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

Archivo:Ejemplo.jpg

por problemas de derecho de autor quiero que elemine el escudo_de_guapota.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamiloW2020 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close: this is a request to remove an image that has already been deleted. --Эlcobbola talk 15:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:JuanCarlosFranciscoRivera.jpg

JuanCarlosFranciscoRivera.jpg

Good afternoon, the photograph in question has the necessary permissions. They are reflected on the newspaper's website (spanish).

https://www.laregion.es/estaticas/condiciones-de-uso.html


3.2. En ningún caso se entenderá que el acceso y navegación del Usuario implica una renuncia, transmisión, licencia o cesión total ni parcial de dichos derechos por parte de La Región. Sin embargo, y para facilitar la propagación de información en Internet, La Región ha decidido flexibilizar su política de derechos mediante una licencia “Creative Commons” cuyas condiciones son de obligado cumplimiento. El texto explicativo de las mismas, enlazado desde esta misma página, se entiende como anexo ineludible de estas condiciones generales. Adicionalmente a las condiciones establecidas en la mencionada licencia, y primando sobre ésta, la empresa propietaria impone las siguientes condiciones especiales de obligado cumplimiento:

No reproducir contenido alguno de LR en periódicos digitales u otros medios de comunicación digitales cuya audiencia principal y/o sede empresarial se encuentren en territorio español. No reproducir bajo ninguna circunstancia, ya sea en formato digital, en papel o en cualquier otro, aquellos contenidos que lleven la mención “Agencias” o el nombre de una agencia, al no estar autorizada LR a permitir su redifusión. Al reproducir en cualquier otro sitio web, blog o publicación digital contenidos de LR, establecer un vínculo de hipertexto (link) a LR, que deberá aparecer en la misma página del contenido reproducido, sea bajo su titular o en la mención obligada a LR como fuente, y deberá llevar a la página de inicio de LR. Este enlace deberá ser directo, abrirse en la misma ventana, carecer de mecanismos que eviten la indexación o la transmisión de valor del enlace de cara a los motores de búsqueda, y permanecer durante al menos tres meses en el sitio web emisor. En la página de origen del enlace no deberá haber más de cuarenta enlaces a páginas de otros dominios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borjaseob (talk • contribs) 14:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close: image is not yet deleted. Comments should be entered at Commons:Deletion requests/File:JuanCarlosFranciscoRivera.jpg. --Эlcobbola talk 15:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Это моя работа — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.46.182.28 (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close: no file indicated. --Эlcobbola talk 15:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Campus Guns.jpg

No valid reason for deletion. This photo was created by the Associated Press and first published on April 21, 1969, in numerous newspapers in the U.S., without copyright notice. Therefore it is public domain, per {{PD-US-no-notice}}.

No papers, as far as I've found, placed a copyright notice specifically on the photo. A very small number of the papers (2 out of the first 20 I found) had a general copyright notice for the entire newspaper, in the name of the newspaper's publisher. While such a notice arguably might cover contributions licensed from other authors such as the AP (under later case law such as Fantastic Fakes v. Pickwick International), the inclusion of copyright notice on some copies is insufficient to secure a copyright. Per § 10 of the Copyright Act of 1909, notice had to be "affixed to each copy thereof published or offered for sale in the United States by authority of the copyright proprietor."

The only thing approaching a valid argument in the deletion discussion and subsequent discussion with the closing admin is (roughly paraphrasing): Virtually all newspapers from that era were copyrighted, and the AP's business model couldn't have existed if they didn't copyright their works, so there must have been some contract requiring AP members to attach copyright notice to AP works, and therefore any publications omitting that copyright notice were unauthorized publications, which did not put those works into the public domain.

This argument fails on multiple counts. First, it is not true that most newspapers of that era were copyrighted; most were not. Second, there is no evidence to suggest the existence of such a contract. Third, even if such a contract existed, the massive failure of the AP to enforce that contract rendered it ineffective in protecting the AP's copyright.

If there were such a contract, we might expect to find at least one newspaper that honored it. Yet, out of dozens of instances where this photo was published (found on Newspapers.com), not a single one that I found had a copyright notice on the photo. A few had a general copyright notice for the whole paper, but such a notice would not have been expected to cover works licensed from other authors, under the case law in existence at the time. And, more broadly, out of hundreds of newspapers I've looked at over the last several months (in the course of uploading many other Pulitzer-winning photos to Commons), not a single one made a general practice of printing copyright notices on AP photos. Can anyone produce a counter-example?

As a point of contrast, the AP did, very rarely, publish photos with copyright notice, and a substantial number of newspapers did honor that notice. For example, on the same day that "Campus Guns" was published, the AP distributed several copyrighted photos of Rudolf Hess in Spandau Prison. Out of the first 20 instances of these photos that I found, 6 of them (30%) included an AP copyright notice in the photo caption or credit. See, for example, the photos as published in The Fresno Bee and The Bismarck Tribune. So we can see what it looks like when the AP intended to copyright a photo. And that's not what we see with "Campus Guns" (or the vast majority of AP photos from that era).

Finally, even if you believe, as an article of faith, that the AP had some rule requiring its photos to be published with copyright notice, that rule was apparently universally ignored by newspapers over the course of decades. Per Nimmer on Copyright § 7.03, "whether pre-1978 or thereafter, if a licensee has published vast numbers of copies without a proper copyright notice, all of this with the full knowledge of the licensor and without the latter voicing any objection to such practice, the licensor will not thereafter be heard to claim that such publication without notice was in violation of either an express or implied condition of the license." Thus, invoking this rule to classify billions of copies of AP photos as unauthorized publications would fail. Toohool (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Comment I did a search (using academic historical newspaper databases) and it does appear that the image was published without the copyright formalities next to the photo or in the captions. As noted above, I also found that some publications did publish a general copyright notice in the issue's masthead. Whether that is sufficient, I don't know and can't say. However, I will note that AP through their general counsel's office has taken a position in the past (see en:File talk:TrangBang.jpg#Permission Obtained from AP) that such images are copyrighted and that AP "specifically does not agree that any Wikipedia publication of a copyright-protected Associated Press photo which a Wikipedia user chooses to upload would constitute fair use." Whether that is valid position, I don't know. All I know is that "With respect to any and all other photographs in which The Associated Press is the copyright holder, The Associated Press reserves all its rights." Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 03:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The Assiciated Press could also be talking about copyright protection in other countries. For example, the French supreme court found that the Berne Convention doesn't allow you to apply the rule of the shorter term if the copyright has expired in the country of origin due to lack of compliance with copyright formalities. Such works would be copyrighted in France until the standard French copyright term (for example 70 years p.m.a.) or the full 95-year United States term has expired, whichever is earlier.
It is probably a bad idea to state that something is in the public domain or covered by fair use if you are the potential copyright holder. This might make courts side with the other party if you find a situation some country where you think that you would successfully be able to sue for copyvio. It makes perfect sense for the Associated Press to argue like that in the correspondence with the Wikipedia talk page editor. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree, but seeing as their 2005 faxed letter was sent domestically within the US and AP is a US organisation, I believe AP is asserting copyright, although not explicitly stated, in a US context. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 15:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    FWIW, that letter also implied that they held a copyright on Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, which Commons editors have since determined not to be true. They have nothing to lose by making a baseless copyright claim. Toohool (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perhaps it's worth directly asking photographer Steve Starr why he's still claiming © Steve Starr 2020 for this image... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Patrick Rogel: I don't believe he's claiming a 2020 copyright on the image. As you can see, the page contains a non-trivial amount of text, so the copyright notice is probably referring to the webpage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    Yes it's on the website. But is there an impossibility to ask him anyway? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    Potential copyright holders will always claim that their work is copyrighted; to not do so is legal malpractice. Their word should not be given too much weight in determining PD status. In any case, it is impossible for the photo to be copyright 2020 (unless he is claiming copyright for the scan, which we explicitly reject). Copyright renewal is no longer a thing, and even if it were a thing the correct form is "Copyright XXXX, renewed YYYY". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think people are in principle dishonest but you are free to think so. It was just a suggestion that appears to me to be the most logical, at least more constructive that octets of speculations on the status of the file. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    Making a false claim about copyright is not necessarily dishonest. With the complicated state of affairs of US copyright pre-1978, I wouldn't be surprised if even professional photographers can't figure it out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the risk here is that AP may send a DCMA takedown notice, which generally means, if we undelete here, WMF Office action and removal of the image anyways. ––Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 21:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    Fortunately, the WMF doesn't blanket accept every DMCA that comes its way (like other content platforms such as Youtube do). At the very least we will receive a reason why AP does not believe that PD-US-no-notice applies. For now, given strong evidence that it does apply, I  Support restoration. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per rationale provided by Toohool. If someone finds a source at the time of first publication (on or around April 21, 1969) where the copyright notice does exist or if AP files a DCMA notice that is accepted by the WMF Office, then the file will be redeleted at such time. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Lalit Mangal.jpg

This picture of lalit mangal is my own work and I really want to knwo the reason why it is getting deleted? I have shared the same image with everyone whoever asked for it. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 106.51.29.34 (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Support Although the article was deleted at AfD in 2015, I do see his name popping up quite a bit in Google News so he is probably on the borderline of notability; in such cases we should err on the side of inclusion so that we'll have a picture handy if the article ever gets recreated. The image is full-res and not available elsewhere per Tineye, with consistent EXIF between the three portraits uploaded by Govinda rajpurohit, so I'm inclined to accept the claim of own work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @106.51.29.34 and Govinda rajpurohit: Please log in to comment. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 04:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Notability isn't really our concern here--it's whether the image is in project scope or not. If an article or draft is created or recreated per EN.WP policies, then we could consider undeletion. In the meantime,  Oppose for now per COM:SCOPE. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 16:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    I feel like our scope should be broader than Wikipedia; if a file is used on Wikipedia it is automatically in scope, but the inverse need not be true. I think "reasonably likely to be used in a recreated Wikipedia article" qualifies as "realistically useful for an educational purpose". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: I remind you article has been first speedy deleted 2013 and 2015 then another time after community discussion in 2015 and protected to creation after being repeatedly recreated so I wonder how it can "reasonably likely to be used in a recreated Wikipedia article". Despite you seems to propose that Commons Admins disallow their Wikipedia counterparts. May you tell us on what basis? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    I will note that the article on CommonFloor exists and appears to be substantiated with significant coverage in reliable sources; a photo of one of its co-founders could plausibly be used there as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm finding a lot of trivial information on even the most recent posting aggregated by Google News, and the non-trivial ones have substantial input or have been written/co-written by the subjects. IMHO, I don't think any recreation would pass notability. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I don't know what KoH is talking about. Inconsistency is everywhere. The EXIF for this image is consistent with only two other images the user has uploaded - both also commonfloor executives. These three images are professionally staged, of professional quality, of purportedly notable persons, and taken with a professional camera (Canon EOS 5D Mark III, whose body alone costs nearly $3,000.) This looks like the user was uploading corporate press images, which would be consistent with their en.wiki block for promotion of this entity. The EXIF is inconsistent with other undeleted images uploaded by this user (e.g., File:Old art in khichan.jpg, File:Hawa jali in khichan.jpg, etc.) all of which are taken with a mere consumer camera (NIKON D70s) and are obviously the work of an amateur. It is simply not believable that the same person took these images. Further, the user's deleted contribs contain unambiguous COM:NETCOPYVIOs of related subject matter, which further undermines credibility. Doubt here is well past significant, the COM:PRP threshold. Эlcobbola talk 20:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    Those D70s photos are from 2012. What is so unbelievable about that? In 2009 I was taking photos like this, and two years later I got my first FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion: out of COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Club De Futbol Mazatlàn

AdelMistery Media:Club de Futbol Mazatlán.png Es un logo en alta resolucion el cual es para uso multimedia con permisos de Wikimedia Common

AdelMistery (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File-RosenvaldoJúnior.a ser restauradojpg

Boa noite, Peço que reiterem a decisão sobre a retirada dos arquivos por mim inseridos na Commons. Os citados arquivos serão utilizados em um artigo na wikipédia, sobre o prefeito de Imbituba-SC, Rosenvaldo da Silva Júnior. Sou responsável pelas imagens veiculadas no site da Prefeitura Municipal de Imbituba e redes sociais do prefeito citado, https://www.imbituba.sc.gov.br/noticias/index/ver/codMapaItem/16434/codNoticia/469839 https://www.facebook.com/rosenvaldojunior/ Como assessora de imprensa do prefeito Rosenvaldo detenho os direitos autorais de imagens feitas durante seu mandato. Peço que reconsiderem a decisão, e restaure as mesmas, muito obrigada, Segue,

File:Rosenvaldo-Júnior .jpg File:Rosenvaldo Júnior .jpg File:Assessoria Pref Imbituba Rosenvaldo Bombeiros.jpg File:Assessoria Pref Imbituba Rosenvaldo Família.jpg File:Assessoria Pref Imbituba Rosenvaldo.jpg


(--" (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)) Brisa

 Not done: Per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Shubham Kumar.png

The image is used in the wikidata item. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidda Rohaila (talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Nicoli Nattrass 2011 Yale - Resistance to HIV treatment.png

The YouTube video was loaded with licence CC 3.0, I took a screen shot and attributed it to the uploader, Yale University. This should not have been deleted. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Эlcobbola. -nc- licences are not compatitible with Commons licensing policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Shubham Singh2.jpg

The file was provided to me by the person in the photograph. Accordingly, it was clicked on his phone and it's unethical to delete the file without asking for any valid proof. I would request you to consider this undeletion request.--Pankajraman (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - @Pankajraman: please familiarise yourself with COM:AGF and refrain from characterising the actions of others as "unethical," especially when your premise is so completely uninformed. 1) Copyright initially vests with the author of an image (the creator, not the owner of a mere apparatus--presumably you do not think that writing a novel on a public library computer would cause the novel's copyright to vest with the library); 2) the subject of the photograph would hold the copyright only if transferred to them by the author (photographer) through a formal written conveyance (evidence of which you have not provided; per COM:EVID: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: [...] that any required consent has been obtained." (underline added)); and 3) even if that transfer occurred, COM:OTRS requires evidence of permission for previously published images. This image was published here (which says, by the way, "©2020 All rights reserved") before upload to Common; and 4) the preceeding is in fact moot, as this is not a notable person and the article for which you uploaded it is nominated for certain deletion (see COM:NOTHOST). Эlcobbola talk 14:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support@Эlcobbola I am sorry for using the term unethical. I have gone through the the COM:AGF and would like to ask you for further advice on how to provide the proof that is being asked so that I don't commit the same mistake again. Your help will be much appreciated.--Pankajraman (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Pankajraman: supporting or opposing own request is pointless. Opinions of advanced users matter here. You claimed that this is a selfie. That is clearly false. If you cannot properly identify the photo author, how can we rely on your declaration that the author has already granted the free license? And, if the license has not been granted yet, the photo should be speedy deleted due to legal reasons. The above sentence suggests that you do not even intend to fix your mistakes. So how can we apply AGF?  Oppose unless proper information about author / granted license is provided (here or following COM:OTRS). And the license is the information that we require an evidence for. The only exception is when the autor uploads their own non-professional work. Ankry (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Pankajraman, I would even go further: supporting your own request is detrimental to your case. It insults the closing admin (implying they care about icons rather than substantive arguments); implies you have only icons (and no substantive argument) to offer; and can be interpreted as an attempt at deception (implying there is more support than there actually is). This is, of course, an argument about optics rather than intent; you are not assisted by bad optics. Эlcobbola talk 18:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Эlcobbola and Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:블랙핑크, 여름 이벤트에 딱 맞는 리액션- (Tik Tok) -blackpink.webm

not simple advertisement but depict the south korean girl group en:black pink. Please be aware just saying "AD" can't make a valid reason of deletion. Our purpose to use can differ, no matter what the video creator's first purpose is. Puramyun31 (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Puramyun31: Nothing is linked to en:black pink. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This is approximately 4 seconds of low quality video of en:Blackpink, edited into a 3 minute loop. I don't see how this is useful for any Wikimedia project. Thuresson (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Undelete. Even if it's an ad about the group, or by the group, it's in scope and should not be deleted for csd g10. We cant assess the quality without seeing the file. Its youtube page has vanished.--Roy17 (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment This file has not undergone a discussion: it was speedily deleted. If there’s no copyright issue, I suggest temporary undeletion to allow discussion.
Also, do we have evidence that it was uploaded for advertising purposes? Brianjd (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • the upload on commons itself is not intended for ad. just saying "AD" can't make a valid reason of deletion. No matter what the video creator's first purpose is. Others'(including us) purpose can differ or cannot be affected by the video creator's first purpose, For example, the video (the whole or a part of it, such as a screenshot) can be used depicting en:Blackpink.

✓ Done: Undeleted to allow for regular DR discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:블랙핑크, 여름 이벤트에 딱 맞는 리액션- (Tik Tok) -blackpink.webm. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Princess Aiko.jpg

This file has been removed as being provided by the Imperial Household Agency, which is a complete misunderstanding. First of all, the image is not provided by the Imperial Household Agency, and there is no such description. I am familiar with Imperial Household copyrights as I have uploaded many photos of the Japanese Imperial Household. Again, this deletion is unfounded. I will not upload images that say "Provided by the Imperial Household Agency" on the page. The website of the Japanese Embassy in China does not say that it is provided by the Imperial Household Agency, so we can determine that this file complies with the Japanese Government Standard Terms of Use. We request that you withdraw the deletion.--RSSFSO (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The photo was published earlier here with the folowing information:
This handout photo taken on February 12, 2018 and released by the Imperial Household Agency of Japan on February 22 [...] (AFP/file)
@RSSFSO: Please advice: is this information incorrect (we would need an evidence for this), was the copyright to this photo transferred from the Imperial Household Agency to Japanese government (we would need an evidence for this), or there was a free license granted directly by the Imperial Household Agency (we would need an evidence for this). As there is a doubt who is the copyright holder to this photo and so, whether the government was authorised to grant a license for the photo, we cannot undelete it per COM:PCP until the doubts are resolved. Ankry (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@RSSFSO:  Comment AFP (for Agence France Presse) images are never free. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Imperial Household Agency (宮内庁) is part of Japan govt. AFP is not even the owner of this photo but just a news distributor.--Roy17 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The legend above is ambiguous because it seems to say the contrary ("AFP file released by the Imperial Household Agency of Japan") but you might be rightː I found it under Imperial Household Agency of Japan/Handout via Reuters too. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done As Nat has discovered, the Imperial Household Agency is part of the Japanese government and is thus covered by the same license. A Google search of "Imperial Household Agency via" shows their photos being distributed via many agencies, but the original source and copyright holder remains the Imperial Household Agency. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


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

Gemeentevervoerbedrijf Amsterdam

I followed a link from a wikipedia to this page, which was deleted. The deletion comment appears to show there was content, but I don't know if a deletion reason was given. I asked the deleting admin, but did not get a response. Was there a good reason this gallery was deleted, especially with active links to it from a wiki? If not, could it be restored? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Undelete. That's weird. See the logs https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=Jcornelius&page=&wpdate=2019-11-11&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers .--Roy17 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per above. No rationale was given for deletion, either as a nomination or in the deletion log summary. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Проф. Камен Велев.jpg

Hello,

We received a notification that the main photo of the article we submitted has been deleted due to issues with the copyrights.

We'd like to request for the photo to be restored, as the person who is in the picture, and who the article is about, provided us the photo and by extent the copyrights to it.

Pending your response.

--OtDoConsult2020 (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose @OtDoConsult2020: Copyright does not function the way you have described. As the image was previously published elsewhere first and appears with no indication of a free licence, the copyright holder must provide permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note that the copyright holder is the person who took the photo rather than the person who appears in it, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract (written and signed by the original/first copyright holder). Please also note that OTRS is unable to accept forwarded permission statements or proxy statements for legal reasons. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done As per Nat. Ankry (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Anucha-BProfilePic.jpg

Owner of the deleted picture --Jburapa (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose @Jburapa: This image has appeared here 29 October 2019, nearly a month before you uploaded File:อนุชา บูรพชัยศรี ProfilePic.jpg (your only deleted contribution). The image also appears here, albeit without a date, but has the following notice (in Thai) "สงวนลิขสิทธิ์โดย กลุ่มงานคณะกรรมาธิการแก้ไขปัญหาหนี้สินแห่งชาติ" (English: "All rights reserved by National Debt Resolution Committee"). Additionally, you have only stated that you are the "Owner of the deleted picture" but did not clarify if you are the photographer or by which reason you became the holder of the full and exclusive copyright, or if you are just in possession of a copy of the photograph. Please note that ownership or possession of a photo, the equipment used to take that photo or being the subject of the photo (i.e. appearing in the photo) does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the person who took the photo, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract--written and signed by the original/first copyright holder. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 08:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:JOSEPHINE FLORENS " FACE".jpg

Good afternoon! Thank you for your comments. Please do not delete images from my article. There is no copyright infringement. I am an artist Josephine Florens and these are my personal artworks and my personal photos. If the administration needs my documents, I will provide them without problems. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephineflorens (talk • contribs) 08:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your tips. I will try to follow your advice and solve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephineflorens (talk • contribs) 10:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 08:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:L'Etna dalla Sila, nei pressi di Parenti (CS).jpeg

The file is just a photo of the Etna volcano, I don't think it doesn't fall within the scope of Wikimedia Commons. Have a nice Sunday 😄! —Samuele Wikipediano 1348 (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Thank you for testing the upload function. Your test was successful and the uploaded file with a blurry nondescript image has been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Thuresson: Like I said above, I cannot see this file. But I find this response difficult to believe. Samuele Wikipediano 1348 (talk · contribs) has more than a year of experience across multiple projects and appears to have a good record of uploads here, including many uploads used on other projects. I cannot believe they would upload a test file, then come here and argue multiple times that it is in scope. Brianjd (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It really is a blurry nondescript photo. Thuresson (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
And low resolution. Also  Oppose Ankry (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose The photo is blurred and nothing is distinguishable. Cannot be used for educational purpose (or any other thing). --Ruthven (msg) 08:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson and Ankry. Four admins (this includes myself) have reviewed the deleted file, and it is most certainly a blurry, nondescript photo. Our decision to decline undeletion is not a reflection of Samuele Wikipediano 1348's contributions, but is solely based on the file itself. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 08:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Faiq Agayev.jpg

Photographer himself (Niko Abbasov) send me this image to upload. What should I do? EyyubVEVO (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@EyyubVEVO: per policy, you need to provide an evidence that the photographer granted the declared free license. You can either link to it (if it is public) or ask the photographer to send us a written free license permission following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: I've sent mail. EyyubVEVO (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 08:23, 15 June 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:Joaquim Mir

Copyright in Spain for content by authors dead before 7 December 1987 lasts 80 years after the death, per this, not 80+1. Joaquim Mir died in 27 April 1940. Strakhov (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Support Restoring all of the works above that have dates.
 Oppose Restoring the undated works. All of these works were under copyright on the URAA date. All of those above with dates are pre-1925, so URAA exempt. However the WP:ES article lists two works with 1926 dates, so we know that some of his works are still under URAA copyright and therefore cannot assume that the undated works above are out of copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
See also ca:Joaquim Mir i Trinxet#Obres destacades: the latest dated work in that list is from "c. 1935". Another problem with paintings is that a painting may remain unpublished for a long time after it was made, so some of the paintings could in theory first have been published after his death. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Stefan, that's true in many places, but I don't think it is a problem in Spain. The post-1987 copyright lasts for 70 years pma or 70 years after creation. The pre-1987 copyright law calls for 80 years pma when the author is known. Publication does not seem to be an issue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem with publication is about United States law. All works by this painter were copyrighted in Spain on the URAA date, so only those which were published more than 95 years ago are in the public domain in the US. You were the one who first brought up United States law. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Right you are, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • According to COM:PUBLISH, exhibition does not qualify as publication in most countries. Evidence of publication for a painting could include, but is not limited to, exhibition catalogs or art books that include reproductions of the painting, prints made available for sale to the public, or a digital reproduction on a museum's website. It's also worth noting that, per COM:HIRTLE, previously unpublished works, or works first published in 2003 or later, have a copyright term of the artist's life plus 70 years. clpo13(talk) 21:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We typically tend to assume publication near the time the works were made. If there is some evidence that a painting was kept in the author's possession for a long time, that could change the assumptions -- but to me, the possibility of being unpublished (and therefore not PD-US-expired) is a theoretical doubt, not a significant doubt, and not subject to COM:PCP.  Support any of the the ones dated before 1925. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done imges with pre-1925 dates undeleted. Ankry (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:MAGGIE KNOWS EVERYTHING .jpg

Hello. Please restore this image. This is my personal work done by me personally.--Josephineflorens (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: @Josephineflorens: Repeating a request for undeletion will not result in the restoration of the images. As we've previously stated, for the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. An OTRS agent will the one to request undeletion. Please do not submit any further undeletion requests regarding these files. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Oliver LaGrone 1972, photographed by Richard Anliot.jpg

The co-executors of the photographer Richard Anliot's estate have given permission for the Oliver LaGrone 1972, photographed by Richard Anliot.jpg to be freely licensed. Their permission statement(s) uses an earlier title for the same photo, File:LaGrone UCH chldrn class (2) edited-1.jpg. The mix up occurred due to multiple misunderstandings of process, and geographic distance.

The co-executors of the Anliot estate, the photographer's adult children, each individually emailed their joint permission statement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Ticket number 2020050210003241 was merged with 2020042310005031, regarding emailed scans of a single jointly signed letter from Linda Anliot Miller and James Anliot.

Their permission statement(s) used an earlier, February 2018 title for the same photo, "LaGrone UCH chldrn class (2) edited-1.jpg". (The photo has been edited to remove the faces of living persons.) However, because their first attempts at permissions had not been submitted in the Wikimedia required format, by June 2020 the photo under that title had already been deleted by Wikimedia. When I reloaded it in 2020, I used the title Oliver LaGrone 1972, photographed by Richard Anliot.jpg.

A single photo is referred to by two different titles because of miscommunication. There is no ambiguity of intent. Please un-delete the photo, using whichever title is preferred by Wikimedia. Cordell Affeldt (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted for OTRS processing. @Ganímedes: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Alexandre Arraes.jpg

Hello there!

The image, Alexandre Arraes, was uploaded by me and a few days later I requested its deletion. At that time, there was a misunderstanding about the file. However, the file is correct and photo is from a government webpage, the chamber of councilors of Rio de Janeiro's city. http://www.camara.rj.gov.br/vereador_informacoes.php?m1=inform&cvd=327&np=AlexandreArraes&nome_politico=Alexandre%20Arraes So, the photo is a public file, according with Brazil's law.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Outputsistemas--Outputsistemas (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Image has not been deleted. @Outputsistemas: If you disagree with the nomination for deletion, please comment here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexandre Arraes.jpg. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Léa Jarry Baie-Saint-Paul.jpg

Hi, I'd like to request an undeletion as I am the author of his work and therefore can allow it to become park of Wikimedia Commons. Thanks! --Domchampagne (talk) 13:25, 15 June 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) 17:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Carolina Bello - retrato de Eliana Cleffi (2020).jpg

La foto fue cedida por la autora, Eliana Cleffi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelEVargas (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoelEVargas: We need an evidence that the photographer granted the declared free license. You provided such evidence neither at the upload nor here. You may need to point out the COM:OTRS procedure to the photographer.

 Not done: Per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:OlimpiaOccidentallogo.png

Is the logo of a second division football team from Honduras of a poor village I made this logo based in the original C.D Olimpia logo olease undelete this many people want this team to have his logo no one is doing to demand because is my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josem1258493939 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Josem1258493939: Unofficial logos are out of scope. For official logos, we need a written permission from the logo exclusive copyright holder following COM:OTRS. The above sentence suggests also that the logo may be COM:DW. Ankry (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:NghiaSinh Logo.png

My name is Thang Do, I am one of Nghia Sinh International Official members. NghiaSinh Logo belonged to Nghia Sinh International. I uploaded it. Please undelete this logo. Please let me know if you need more information. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dothang80 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Big T Evans.jpg

This picture is about to be used in a upcoming article about the person in this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigT Evans (talk • contribs) 21:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Info w:Draft:Big T Evans has been tagged for speedy deletion. "Big T is expected to release his debut album, [...] this year of 2020." Thuresson (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Undelete File:Faiq Agayev.jpg for OTRS review

We have Ticket:2020061610004542 for this file. Please temp undelete for permission statement review. Ww2censor (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ww2censor: Gbawden (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Gbawden. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:CSA Memorial Counties.pdf

This file was created by self, Stephen Wilkus, and makes it available under the Creative Commons Copyright agreement. Stephen Wilkus wrote the software that took the counties listed in the table, and mapped it out in the file File:CSA Memorial Counties.pdf.

I, Stephen Wilkus, declare that I am the sole owner and originator of the graphic, File:CSA Memorial Counties.pdf and make it available under the creative common copyright agreement, and hereby transfer all rights to the WikiMedia Commons, with the intention of displaying this map on Wikipedia.

Stephen Wilkus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkus (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The work is a derivative work based on a map of an unknown source. As such, the base map itself is assumed to be not free (in the sense of libre and not gratis). For the possibility of undeletion, the uploader will need to provide evidence that the base map is under an acceptable free licence. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Side profile MordechaiLando.jpg

I have loaded this image which is mine for use in my user profile. My daughter took my picture upon my request using my smartphone.

MordechaiLando (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Comment User's Wikipedia in Hebrew user's page has already his photo uploaded locally. User has no page about him on Wikipedia. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment The phrase My daughter took my picture … made me think there might be a copyright issue here, and the deletion log shows that the file was indeed deleted as a copyvio. Brianjd (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (typically the actual photographer, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract--written and signed by the original copyright holder) must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Bita_Elahian.jpg

Undeletion Request for File:Bita_Elahian.jpg this pic was taken by me --Arashkardan (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: @Arashkardan: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (typically the actual photographer, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract--written and signed by the original copyright holder) must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Candidate-amita-kuttner.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Image was provided directly by the campaign director for Dr. Kuttner and the permission of the photographer was granted. info@amitakuttner.ca can be contacted for more information.

Messages indicating permission are also available upon request. MPen92 (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: @MPen92: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (typically the actual photographer, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract--written and signed by the original copyright holder) must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Lichtdruck um 1900 Tafel128 u.a. Schleusingen.jpg

--Knautschzone20 (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

... which is not valid. Since the author is unknown user can't add {{PD-old-70}}. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Author (according to file description): unbekannt
Upload description: Uploaded a work by völlig unbekannt …
I can’t read anything on that page, so I don’t know whether this is gibberish or whether it contradicts your claim that the author is unknown. Brianjd (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Image not deleted. Please nominate for deletion or move discussion to Village pump if one wishes to discuss this further. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Blizzard Battle.net logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Below threshold of originality. Qualifies for {{Pd-logo}}. The similar logo in a different color was denied deletion here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blizzard Entertainment Logo.svg Sreejith K (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Undelete File:Faig Agayev 2.jpg for OTRS review

We have a second file on this ticket Ticket:2020061610004542 for this file. Please undelete for permission verification. Ww2censor (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ww2censor: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Sculpture élysée.jpg

I have requested the undelititon of the photo because it is my own work, I thinks I have the rights on it. I think it's not a violation of the copyrights.-Dorian crd (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dorian crd: Is this a work of art by Arman (1928-2005)? Thuresson (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose No FOP in France, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France. Thuresson (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Cuirt 86.jpg

If I have obtained written permission from the Festival organizer to post the Festival poster image, how do I document that in Commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phogieone (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Comment For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (typically the actual photographer, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract--written and signed by the original copyright holder) must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is unable to accept forwarded permission statements or proxy statements for legal reasons. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:South Park - Dee Stab der Wahrheit.jpg mein Bild und ich sage ok.

Ich habe dieses Bild damals als Thumbnail für ein Youtubevideo erstellt. Es ist eine Collage aus Elementen des Pressekits und eigener Schöpfungen. Ich, der Urheber dieses Bildes gebe das OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dettmero (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Dettmero - 17.06.2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dettmero (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Apple Watch Series 5 with Neon Lime Green Sport Loop Band.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My apologies for violating, but the image I had uploaded was just for putting it in the infobox for the Apple Watch article so people can see what it looks like because it shows no image of it and only the logo of it. I just want to help improve the article by putting it there. Dnkography (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per De728631. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Sebastian Höffner.gif

It's from my Account on Tenor. It's a Clip from my Video on Youtube. I am the OWNER

https://tenor.com/users/unglaublichungestaehlt https://tenor.com/view/no-words-dont-know-trolling-wtf-talk-gif-16508785 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCINCaS0tls

It's my stuff and i will bring it to the Wikimedia. It's a gift for everyone.

Dettmero 23:18 - 17.06.2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dettmero (talk • contribs) 21:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC) --Dettmero (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose We cannot verify your claims and identity through your Wikimedia account. Therefore our rules require that the copyright holders sends a permission by email using the COM:OTRS procedure. Alternatively, and this is going to be much faster, you may change the licence at the YouTube page to Creative Commons, and then let us know about it. De728631 (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Oppose For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (typically the actual photographer, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract--written and signed by the original copyright holder) must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Nolan North Interview.gif

It's from my Account on Tenor. It's a Clip from my Video on Youtube. I am the OWNER

https://tenor.com/users/unglaublichungestaehlt https://tenor.com/view/wink-wink-zwinker-zwinkern-nolan-north-uncharted-gif-16469267 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpyCTs3M4OQ

It's my stuff and i will bring it to the Wikimedia. It's a gift for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dettmero (talk • contribs) 21:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC) --Dettmero (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Concordia Britz beim Spiel auf dem Sportplatz am Buschkrug.gif

It's from my Account on Tenor. It's a Clip from my Video on Youtube. I am the OWNER

https://tenor.com/users/unglaublichungestaehlt https://tenor.com/view/seal-dribble-kerlon-seal-dribble-football-brasilian-dribble-gif-16468600 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl8AXs6_9d4&t=2s

It's my stuff and i will bring it to the Wikimedia. It's a gift for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dettmero (talk • contribs) 21:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC) --Dettmero (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

Nicholas f..jpg

Dear Sir/Madam, I did not realize until the notifications that it was not right to add images as such. However, I have shared all the people who the articles are made for by email and they have not stated any complaint regarding the use of the pictures. I will send a personalized representative information as part of the Wikipedia project to all uploaded images soon. Many thanks for reminding me of this. --Dukula Jayasinghe (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Dukula De Alwis Jayasinghe

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Rioo Denero.jpg

I want my profile back, I'm in the process of making my own wiki page.

Comment Not deleted but will be - likely taken from FB Gbawden (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. File under deletion discussion but has not been deleted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Gerbcavad.jpg

I mentioned the source while downloading them. These are historical coats of arms. The latter is a historical picture, which also has a source.

--Sword313 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: @Sword313: This is a repeat request. Please discuss your points above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:LogoJavad.gif

I mentioned the source while downloading them. These are historical coats of arms. The latter is a historical picture, which also has a source.

--Sword313 (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: @Sword313: This is a repeat request. Please discuss your points above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Sabirabad (Petropavlovka).Village of Saatli.jpg

I mentioned the source while downloading them. This is historical photo. TheThe latter is a historical picture, which alsoalso has a source.

--Sword313 (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: @Sword313: This is a repeat request. Please discuss your points above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Bucerius Gruner Jahr 1968.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020061910002879.

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=2020061910002879|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) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Olaf Kosinsky: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Julia Jäkel 2015-1.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020061910002913.

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=2020061910002913|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) 07:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Olaf Kosinsky: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Julia Jäkel 2015-2.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020061910002913.

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=2020061910002913|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) 07:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Olaf Kosinsky: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Julia Jäkel 2017-1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2020061910002913.

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=2020061910002913|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) 07:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Olaf Kosinsky: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Undelete my files and accept other!

Please, help our discussion about deletion of my files: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Fingertipsandcompany I have submitted tickets and written evidences for uploaded photos, but files still nominated for deletion.

Also 3 files have also been deleted. I have included evidences for them, please restore them. Bullfight series by Andrey Kulagin Vintage.png, Portrait of Pope John Paul II made by Artist Andrey Kulagin.jpg, Ох уж этот Мюнхгаузен! - интерактивная аудиокнига игра. Первое путешествие на Луну.png --Fingertipsandcompany (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Still no Wikipedia article. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment Careful! I went to investigate a stray character after {{Delf}}, and found that the uploader has been adding comments after an admin closed the latest DR. Brianjd (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, the comment seem to be unrelated to the deletion rationale (scope) of the deleted pictures. Also located in another DR (which was kept, BTW). Ankry (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Fingertipsandcompany: OTRS can be used to resolve copyright related issues, not scope issues. To go on here we need an explanation why the deleted images are in COM:SCOPE? Works by non-notable artists are out of scope and atrist's notability has to be proven (one of the ways to do so - but not the only one - is pointing out a Wikipedia article about the artist). Ankry (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


I was trying to prove to Rogel notability of artist Andrey Kulagin by next articles:(Showing them again-they are from my ND page)
1) On 12 April 2020 I have given next evidence of notability: "Here is a book fragment with info about Andrey Kulagin ("Ukraine's honorary names - the state's elite") http://logos-ukraine.com.ua/project/index.php?project=piued5&id=2406"
2) On 26 May 2020 I have added this: "Let me start from next ukranian journal ("RESIDENTS.UA Encyclopedy of life") (turn to pages 59-61 please): https://docplayer.ru/56076651-Rubrika-2-residents-ua-enciklopediya-zhizni.html" You can find the bio of Andrey Kulagin and his works". Also other articles were attached to my ND page.
I am making a wikipedia page of him, and can't finish it, without pictures.
I just have stuck in this "rights" things. Please, check the links!--Fingertipsandcompany (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fingertipsandcompany: Images are unrelated to painter's notability and their presence does not matter for accepting the article or not. They can be added later. And articles in Wikipedia are never "finished" as they can be edited by anybody at any time... Ankry (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per the discussion. Notability is not directly relevant here--The main issue is whether or not the images are in scope. There is currently no page across any of the projects concerning this artist--no article in a mainspace, no article in the draftspace, no sandbox page in the userspace, no Wikidata entry--i.e. zero evidence across any of the other projects. I am, therefore, declining this undeletion request. Fingertipsandcompany can submit a new UDR only when something is in the works (an article, a draft, a draft in a userspace sandbox, etc). Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:PSX 20200518 092657.jpg

Please do not delete it. This photo is my personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by باوا جی (talk • contribs) 07:51, 16 June 2020‎ (UTC)

 Not done: The request is now moot. باوا جی has decided to recreate out-of-process the images under the names File:Fotor 158625691699991.jpg and File:PSX 20200407 155953.jpg. That being said the former is in scope as it is being used on a project (the latter may not be). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Logo Partido Liberación Nacional.jpg

This file was deleted by EugeneZelenko however the logo consisted in the letter PLN and this symbol:

File:Logo PSOE, 1976-2001.svg

In fact it was basically the same logo just with PLN instead of PSOE. So I'm not sure what's the problem. If the socialist rose logo is in public domain why wouldn't be able to be used with a different acronym? --Daioshin (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Is uploader really copyrights holder? Should be deleted too. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 Comment I wonder why the PSOE logo has been recreated despite Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo PSOE 1976-2001.svg. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The Socialist Rose is not on public domain? --Daioshin (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
And of that were the case can I use any of this and change the acronym or are all this logos soon to be deleted?
--Daioshin (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Some folks have argued that the rose that the 'rose in the fist' (Rose au poing) is below the threshold of originality and therefore is in public domain. While others are of the opposite opinion. I believe whether such an image is below or above ToO depends on the jurisdiction. As far as I can tell, the rose au poing originated in France when the Parti socialiste (French Socialist Party) adopted the symbol as their logo in 1971. What is notable here is that French Wikipedia treats the original logo fr:Fichier:Parti Socialiste (emblème).svg as a copyrighted image. In short, per the context and the information provided, I believe that each rose au poing logo should be treated as a derivative work of the French Socialist Rose au poing. However, as I've stated before, whether such an image is below or above ToO depends on the jurisdiction. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I will note, however, that while the fist is that of PSOE/Socialist International, the rose itself is very different. And appears to be quite non-trivial and appears to be above COM:TOO. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Is there any risk for any of this two files to be deleted anytime soon? I think I can make the PLN logo using any of both, in the first case just by changing PSOE for PLN in green color and on the second just by adding PLN or maybe even with the logo as it is right now as the Andalucian flag is similar to the PLN flag. --Daioshin (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Logo PSOE, 1976-2001.svg File:Logo PSOE de Andalucía, 1979-1996.svg

 Not done: While the PLN logo is a derivative of Albanian, Socialist International, and Spanish logos, the PLN rose is substantial different from the roses of the fore-mentioned logos, and is, above COM:TOO and non-trivial. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Gerbcavad.jpg File:LogoJavad.gif File:Sabirabad (Petropavlovka).Village of Saatli.jpg

I downloaded these files before. I also mentioned the sources. Thanks,Sword313

  •  Oppose (1) Fair use is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons; (2) You claimed PD on some of the works, but the photo of a work in PD and an interpretation of a Coat of arms attracts their own copyright--and, therefore, cannot be hosted here without permission and specific release under a free licence from the copyright holder (3) You claimed {{Self}} in the licencing of the third image, but you are not the author and I doubt the copyright holder. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is unable to accept forwarded permission statements or proxy statements for legal reasons. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • To claim the images PD status you need to provide a source that (1) provides information about it PD status and why it is PD, or (ii) provide an evidence that the image is PD yourself (eg. pointing out that it originates from a source that was published more than 95 years ago). Ankry (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nat: ,Thank you for your answer. I mentioned the source while downloading them. These are historical coats of arms. The latter is a historical picture, which also has a source.I also wrote the source of the photo. I even mentioned the author. I do not know exactly what the problem is. Thanks in advance. --Sword313 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: ,Thank you for your answer. I mentioned the source and the author. --Sword313 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sword313: It is required, but not enough if the source is not under a free license. Ankry (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sword313: Mentioning the source does not mean that the work is in public domain. Furthermore, the source websites for the coats of arms do not mention the images being under a free licence, and, in fact, one of them has a clear copyright notice. Again, while a version of a coat of arms may be in public domain, a photo of it or a rendering/drawing of the arms can attract its own copyright and, therefore, be protected. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 09:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. The photo of the coat of arms and the modern rendering of the CoA are assumed to be not free (free in the sense of libre, and not gratis). However, while File:Sabirabad (Petropavlovka).Village of Saatli.jpg has not been restored per se, the original digital file File:Persian Tatars. Saatly. Mugan. (Digital color composite).jpg was uploaded and sourced directly from the Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division, available under the digital ID prokc.21606. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Pestingrad.jpg

This file was deleted because of copyright violation. But this file is my creation and rights belong to Pestingrad Holding, my company. I uploaded this file to illustrate a page in Wikipedia. We're sharing our pictures under CC Attribution-ShareAlike license.--MiavchikM (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:PrototypeSpacetrain.jpg

I'm the author of the picture "PrototypeSpacetrain.jpg" and it totally illustrate the content bellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by European Gold Fish (talk • contribs) 14:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Hmm. We have a widely used reliable system for such cases which is called OTRS. Besides uploader hasn't followed your advice since he has reuploaded previously deleted files outside of process. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
OTRS is useless here, as no email is publicly connected to the Clubic profile. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: I’m curious as to why you are opposed to the Twitter idea. Don’t we normally say that it’s faster and easier to put a statement on your website than it is to use OTRS? Brianjd (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I oppose nothing. In fact I don't understand how Twitter and Clubic may validate an ownership... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Previously published images require additional evidence of permission. That permission can be via OTRS (and the Twitter profile linked by KoH does have an email address, so that method is not useless) or by a tweet. That the uploader has ignored guidance here and instead elected merely to reupload the image out-of-process is particularly bad optics and suggests the issue cannot be remedied (i.e., they are not in fact the photographer). This circumstance would be consistent with another of their uploads also claiming self authorship yet containing metadata crediting "Laurent GRANDGUILLOT/REA". The uploader is not simultaneously Alexandre Boero and Laurent Grandguillot. Эlcobbola talk 15:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Twitter may be a solution if this image has been published earlier on Twitter. But has it? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
That's not relevant. The known author is Alexandre Boero and that author has a known Twitter account. If that account tweets that this image has a free license, that is all that is needed. Эlcobbola talk 15:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Alexandre Boero may well post a photo which is not his own work, as you suggest yourself ("they are not in fact the photographer"). Hence the questionː has this photo being posted on Twitter before being uploaded here? Because if I remember well when I put this image on deletion it came not from Twitter (but I may be wrong; I've no access to this picture anymore). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about, and I don't think you do either. The link evidencing a copyright violation, that you provided, says for this image "Credits: Alexandre Boero for Clubic.com." That article, authored by Alexandre Boero, also links to this twitter account. This image is the work of Alexandre Boero. We have evidence that the Twitter account is controlled by Alexandre Boero. A tweet from that account would thus adequate. If you believe the account untrustworthy, why would the email (which we know through the same linkage as the twitter account (!!!)) be any better? (The "they" in ""they are not in fact the photographer" refers to European Gold Fish. It is clear that European Gold Fish ≠ Alexandre Boero ≠ Laurent Grandguillot. That European Gold Fish is untrustworthy has no reflection on Alexandre Boero; the latter is merely a victim of former.) Эlcobbola talk 16:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
You are rightː I don't know what I'm talking since as I've said to you I have no access to deleted files and I don't always remember the sources of the few hundreds files I put on deletion each day. My memory is not fullproff, sorry for the disturbance. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
That link is in the public log and visible to everyone. No special access is necessary. Эlcobbola talk 17:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Эlcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Шднф078.jpg

I didn't copy the exect image, i edited it before uploading and mentioned the authors. This image was shared to publicity, so it's a copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitold07 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose @Vitold07: Please note that editing someone else's work does not mean that you hold the copyright to that work or have the right to license or re-license the work. Please also note that Commons does not allow fair use and if works are uploaded under such a rationale, they are subject to immediate deletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Eric_Bourdon.jpg

Hello, today I uploaded a new (3rd) and better version of the file : File:Eric_Bourdon.jpg

and it has been deleted :

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q8078381&action=history

Please restore it, I released the first version under a Creative Commons license back in 2013...

I'm the basic owner of the photo and you can check it easily by using my email which is related to my official website.

The licence was valid back in 2013 until now, nothing has changed...

Please restore it and restore the links from wikipedia pages using this image, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Bourdon Media (talk • contribs) 20:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That was done in 2013... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Bourdon Media (talk • contribs) 07:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  1. As a purely technical matter, there is no way to us to verify here that you are who you say you are.
  2. If you are Eric Bourdon, then the issue becomes whether or not you are the photographer, as you are the subject of the photograph. The copyright holder is the person who took the photo rather than the person who appears in it, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract (written and signed by the original copyright holder).
I would recommend contacting OTRS (permission-commons@wikimedia.org) to resolve these issues. Thank you for your understanding. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 08:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Per Nat. As uploader no doubt noticed, no verification was required to create the account "Eric Bourdon Media." Any user can create any name; accordingly, we require additional evidence in these circumstances. Further, as copyright initially vests with the author (photographer), that permission cannot come from the subject. The evidence can be, for example, a formal written conveyance transferring copyright from the author to the subject or direct correspondence from the author. Both may be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 15:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Cbwt5.jpg

Catalinb2005 (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Catalinb2005

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Unione Satanisti Italiani Logo.jpg

The file was deleted because an ipotherical Copyright infringement. I have Explained to user:Phirexyan I have the permission of the owner/creator of the logo Jennifer Crepuscolo to use it for the creation of the Unione Satanisti Italiani page on Wikipedia. For this reason I ask for the undeletion and I am ok with giving you all the documents needed for resolving this issue. Sincerly --S.M..L83 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@S.M..L83: As you are not the author, policy requires you to provide an evidence of free license originating directly from the actual copyright holder. This may be a link to a free license declaration at the initial publication site, or COM:OTRS permission send by email by the actual copyright holder directly. Ankry (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Luisa porritt london 2019.jpg

Deleted for copyright, because it was uploaded to a local party site but I took the photo and own the copyright.

--Vogon101 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Caroline Birthday Party 1983.jpg

This image is scanned from a polaroid photo take in 1983.

I am making this request because the owner of the image, Caroline Rose, has given me permission to use it in the Wikipedia page I am creating for her.

I can provide proof of her permission via an email she sent to me, or, if necessary, a written letter.

Feel free to contact me regarding the use of this photo, by email or phone [phone number redacted].

Regards,

Henry Ross

--Postsingular (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Postsingular: You claimed that you are the photographer who took the photo; now you say something else. How we can rely on your declarations, then? For already published images, a written free license coming directly from the actual copyright holder (who is by default the photographer, not the photo owner) and following COM:OTRS is needed. Ankry (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:CE PdM.jpg

It is me on the photo (press article on me) and Moto-net.com agrees with it. "CEPdM" means "Conseil d'Etat - Paul de Métairy". Otherwise, I can delete the Internet address at the bottom. This is not a photo from Internet.

Thanks.

--PaulVerh (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@PaulVerh: For watermarked images (when watrmark is different to the uploader username) a free license evidence is needed: either from the website where the image was initially published (if it was) of following COM:OTRS. Watermarking is considered copyright claim. And http://www.moto-net.com/article/recours-contre-les-80-km-h-le-conseil-d-etat-tranchera-la-semaine-prochaine.html is a part of Internet. No free license evidence there. This is another reason why the written permission is needed and why the image cannot be declared {{Own}}. Ankry (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please note that the copyright holder of a photo is the person who took it, rather than the person who appears in it, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by contract (written and signed by the original copyright holder). For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 08:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I asked for the authorization to motor-net and I send it as soon I receive it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulVerh (talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Once the sufficient permission has been accepted by OTRS, an OTRS agent will request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Thierry Dans pochette album.jpg

bonjour a vous équipe de wikipedia c'est pour vous signalez que la pochette que j'ai publier sur wikipedia fait partie de l'artiste et il a demander quelle soit lisible et en ligne merci de respecter sa demande !!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thierry-dan (talk • contribs) 10:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Once the sufficient permission has been accepted by OTRS, an OTRS agent will request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Portrait de patrick nee.jpg

Hi, this photo of the University of Poitiers has been provided by Patrick Née himself (when he was teacher at the university), he gave me the rights to publish it on his page. Thus, there is no violation of any rights. I thank you for your correction and kindly ask you to undelete this image.

Regards, --Jean-Baptiste Née (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Jean-Baptiste Née

  •  Oppose @Jean-Baptiste Née: Veuillez noter que le titulaire du droit d'auteur d'une image est la personne qui a pris la photo plutôt que la personne qui y apparaît, sauf si le droit d'auteur a été transféré par opération légale ou par contrat (écrit et signé par le premier titulaire du droit d'auteur). Pour la possibilité de restauration, le titulaire du droit d'auteur (c-à-d. le photographe, sauf si le droit d'auteur a été transféré) doit envoyer une autorisation sous une licence dite «libre» en utilisant OTRS à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Merci de votre compréhension. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Once the sufficient permission has been accepted by OTRS, an OTRS agent will request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:CE PdM.jpg 2

Hello,

Here is the authorization for the still:

Sujet : Re: photo pour Wikipedia Date : Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:13:19 +0200 De : Eric Michel <<censored> Pour : <censored>@gmail.com


Bonjour,

Yes you have my authorization to use for your Wikipedia article the picture I made at the Conseil d’Etat, as long as it is fully credited to www.moto-net.com.

Cordialement, Éric Michel

> Le 19 juin 2020 à 14:00, <censored>@gmail.com a écrit : > > Bonjour, Dans votre article du 19 juin concernant mon action au Conseil d'Etat, je souhaiterais pouvoir utiliser ma photo à la sortie du CE pour ma page Wikipedia. Pouvez-vous me donner cette autorisation (en anglais, dé préférence...). Merci bien d'avance. Paul de Métairy Message envoyé depuis www.moto-net.com


--92.133.234.156 12:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. The first discussion for this file is still open, additionally, this should be sent to OTRS. @PaulVerh: Veuillez demander au titulaire du droit d'auteur d'envoyer un courriel en utilisant OTRS à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Merci de votre compréhension. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Serebryanka--from-drone.jpg

deleted public domain photo from flickr, please restore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaly Zdanevich (talk • contribs) 13:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vitaly Zdanevich: Can you please indicate where on Flickr the file is available? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/188754327@N03/49971964743/ Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Vitaly Zdanevich: That is not the same image. The deleted image whose restoration you are requesting is here and the comment "Здравствуйте, да нет, не против" is entirely inadequate permission. Эlcobbola talk 16:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per Эlcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Sergiu Matveev.jpg

Poza mi-a fost transmisa direct de catre Sergiu Matveev pentru articolul de pe Wiki. Deci, eu sunt autorizat sa folosesc aceasta fotografie direct de la persoana de pe fotografie.

Va rog sa imi dati o adresa de e-mail ca el sa va confirme ca sunt autorizat de a folosi aceasta fotografie. O zi buna Andre Naechter (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - 1) Copyright initially vests with the author (photographer), not the subject. That Sergiu Matveev (subject) provided this image to you is not adequate and 2) image previously appeared here, among other places, prior to Commons upload. Both cases require evidence of permission from the author (or, if copyright was tranfered to Matveev, a copy of the formal written conveyance) to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 17:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per Эlcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Animal-Logic-promo.jpg

This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.

Purpose of Use: Identification and critical commentary in the Animal Logic article, a subject of public interest. The image confirms to readers they have reached the correct article, and illustrates the group.

Replaceable?: No free alternative could be created to illustrate the topic in question. The band have been split for eighteen years, and a new one is unlikely. A free contemporary image would not convey the same information.

Other Information: Use of the promotional photograph in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above. The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopaedic.
The "Animal Logic", and "I.R.S. Records" logos are visible framing the photo, supporting the claim that it was originally used to promote the band.

--MykillinK (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per Эlcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Selfie with President Shavkat Mirziyoyev.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I took this selfie, it's my own photo with President of Uzbekistan. I did not break any rules. Thank you for understanding. Khushnud.Khudayberdiev (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selfie with President Shavkat Mirziyoyev.jpg; it wasn't deleted for copyvio-suspicion, but for cross-wiki spam. --Túrelio (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - This was not deleted as a copyright issue ("I took this selfie, it's my own photo"), but as self-promotion/spam (and, indeed, at least 94 percent (64/68) of your non-Commons contributions appear entirely that of self-promotion). While this image technically contains a notable person, he does not appear the true subject and this image is inferior to the many we already have on Mirziyoev (especially after cropping and rotating that would be necessary to make the image truly focused on Mirziyoev). This request does not address the implicit COM:NOTHOST issue, so absent a very good explanation of what this image's genuine educational utility is above and beyond what we already have, I'm inclined to agree with the DR's closure. Эlcobbola talk 20:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per Túrelio and Эlcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

{{Potd/2016-05}}

Hi, anybody hanging around who can take a look at May 8, 2016? There is an Image Not Available on the Lenin Kino-Pravda N° 21 is a Russian silent newsreel of 1925 made by Dziga Vertov to celebrate the first anniversary of the death of Lenin. It starts with Fanny Kaplan's attempt to assassinate Lenin in 1918, moves to his illness and death, and ends with his legacy. Thank you for your time. :-) Lotje (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. @Lotje: Unfortunately, this is the incorrect venue for such issues. Discussion would be more appropriate at COM:Village pump/technical or COM:AN. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Joh Bjelke-Petersen.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Copyright expired: http://www.archivessearch.qld.gov.au/Image/DigitalImageDetails.aspx?ImageId=5717 https://www.flickr.com/photos/queenslandstatearchives/39205708061/ .--RZuo (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Image has not been deleted and is not under consideration for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Addendum—✓ Done: File previously named File:Joh Bjelke-Petersen.jpg has been moved to File:Joh Bjelke-Petersen (78979r).jpg and deleted revisions restored and properly tagged. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


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

Request for undeletion my account

As I'm a new user I don't have enough knowledge about it. Please considering this don't delete my account. In future I'll publish something logical thing. So, please don't delete my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Tahmid Raj Mollick (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: After reading en:User talk:Md.Tahmid Raj Mollick#To unblock my account., it appears that the user has mistaken undeletion with unblock. @Md.Tahmid Raj Mollick: This venue is for the undeletion (restoration) of files, and not for users to request blocks to be lifted. Furthermore, this is Wikimedia Commons, not English Wikipedia. Concerning your deleted contributions, they are both out of project scope, and as such will not be undeleted. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 09:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:منتظر صالح 04.jpg

I request the undeletion because its a model picture that can be used for anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobyi789 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


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

[6]

request un-deletionPeteschulz210 (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasacommons/9458170307/in/photolist-fpMAvR-4jyt8V-2hBHqdb-edz1pF-4jCvCW-8mjdgj-bMJ5fe-4jypMT-bNwiCV-4jCrX9-7QenvT-vv5jkx-4jypzF-G7sheg-4jypQB-aNxjrr-vEoJKw-oeUpUf-4jCs8W-4jyt6n-vQHhdE-hLscFB-fqAtZ5-4jCvMQ-yCDBeW-bzBEnd-4jCvqb-aXZAnT-bzBEkY-uwCZU5-oFtob9-fqHgd5-i8bZHa-LY52P3-4jCvJG-2cq9yTZ-hUw8zT-REYpem-5QuATi-VXVPRx-oweaaH-CTjWoc-7Dix2d-owceBf-zuzh5x-28fQp3L-4jyz5u-69TKqR-WLc5hu-DnEccc

from Flickr with NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS: T. Keith Glennan Shows LBJ Aluminized Mylar Flim Used to Make Echo I NASA Administrator T. Keith Glennan shows then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, Chairman of the Senate's Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee, a sample of the aluminized Mylar film used to fabricate the 100-foot-diameter Echo I balloon. Project Echo was the U.S.'s first passive communications satellite. It was a balloon that inflated once in orbit and radio signals were "bounced" off the aluminized surface of the balloon. It was launched into orbit on August 12, 1960 at 5:39 am EDT.

Image Number: glennan_01

 Not done: Procedural close. File was deleted as a duplicate and the exact same image exists at File:T. Keith Glennan Shows LBJ Aluminized Mylar Flim Used to Make Echo I - GPN-2002-000025.jpg. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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

FOP in Belgium since 2016

Hello, Wenn I began taking pictures for Commons I was a new user, I had not received any training and I had never heard about POP. This is the reason why many of my pictures were deleted. And it was right to do so. As you know, fortunatelly the policy about FOP in Belgium changed in 2016 (FOP in Belgium). For this reason you can now undelete all the pictures below, which were taken in Brussel (Belgium). Thank you very much, my friends :-)

  1. File:Comic wall Corto Maltese 2 by Hugo Pratt, Brussels.jpg
  2. File:Comic wall Corto Maltese by Hugo Pratt, Brussels.jpg
  3. File:Comic wall Corto Maltese 2, Hugo Pratt, Brussels.jpg
  4. File:Comic wall Corto Maltese, Hugo Pratt, Brussels.jpg
  5. File:Comic wall FC de Kampioenen, Hec Leemans, Brussels.jpg
  6. File:Mur BD Yoko Tsuno by Roger Leloup, Brussels.jpg
  7. File:Mur BD Yoko Tsuno, Roger Leloup, Brussels.jpg
  8. File:Comic wall XIII, William Vance and Jean Van Hamme, Brussels.jpg
  9. File:Comic wall XIII by William Vance and Jean Van Hamme, Brussels.jpg
  10. File:Comic wall Gaston Laggaffe by André Franquin. Brussels.jpg
  11. File:Comic wall Gaston Laggaffe by André Franquin. Bruxelles.jpg
  12. File:Comic wall Gaston Laggaffe, André Franquin. Brussels.jpg
  13. File:Comic wall Le Scorpion by Enrico Marini. Bruxelles.jpg
  14. File:Comic wall Le Scorpion by Enrico Marini. Brussels.jpg
  15. File:Comic wall Le Scorpion, Enrico Marini. Brussels.jpg
  16. File:Gaston Lagaffe monument. Boulevard Pachéco. Brussels.jpg
  17. File:Gaston Lagaffe statue. Boulevard Pachéco. Brussels.jpg
  18. File:Comic wall La vache, Johan De Moor. Brussels.jpg
  19. File:Comic wall Bot et Bobette 4, Willy Vandersteen. Brussels.jpg
  20. File:Comic wall Bot et Bobette 3, Willy Vandersteen. Brussels.jpg
  21. File:Comic wall Bot et Bobette 2, Willy Vandersteen. Brussels.jpg
  22. File:Comic wall Bot et Bobette, Willy Vandersteen. Brussels.jpg
  23. File:Comic wall Cubitus by Dupa. Brussels.jpg
  24. File:Comic wall Blake & Mortimer 4. Edgar P. Jacobs. Brussels.jpg
  25. File:Comic wall Blake & Mortimer 3. Edgar P. Jacobs. Brussels.jpg
  26. File:Comic wall Blake & Mortimer by Edgar P. Jacobs. Brussels.jpg
  27. File:Comic wall Blake & Mortimer, Edgar P. Jacobs. Brussels.jpg
  28. File:Comic wall Cori le Moussaillon by Bob de Moor. Brussels.jpg
  29. File:Comic wall Cori le Moussaillon, Bob de Moor. Brussels.jpg
  30. File:Comic wall Caroline Baldwin. André Taymans and Bruno Wesel. Brussels.jpg
  31. File:Comic wall Caroline Baldwin. A. Taymans and B. Wesel. Brussels.jpg
  32. File:Comic wall Caroline Baldwin, André Taymans and Bruno Wesel. Brussels.jpg
  33. File:Comic wall Caroline Baldwin, André Taymans et Bruno Wesel. Bruxelles.jpg
  34. File:Comic wall Caroline Baldwin, André Taymans et Bruno Wesel. Brussels.jpg
  35. File:Comic wall Les rêves de Nic, Hermann Huppen. Brussels.jpg
  36. File:Comic wall Lucky Luke, Morris. Bruxelles.jpg
  37. File:Comic wall Lucky Luke, Morris. BD, Brussels.jpg
  38. File:Comic Wall Lucky Luke, Morris. Brussels.jpg
  39. File:Comic wall Lucky Luke. Morris. Brussels.jpg
  40. File:Comic wall l'archange, Yslaire. Brussels.jpg
  41. File:Comic wall l'archange, Yslaire. Bruxelles.jpg
  42. File:Comic wall Isabelle et Calendula, Will (Willy Maltaite), Bruxelles.jpg
  43. File:Comic wall Neron, Marc Sleen. Bruxelles.jpg
  44. File:Comic wall Isabelle et Calendula. Will. Brussels.jpg
  45. File:Comic wall Neron, Marc Sleen. Brussels.jpg
  46. File:Comic wall Monsieur Jean, Dupuy-Berberian, Bruxelles.jpg
  47. File:Comic wall Monsieur Jean, Dupuy-Berberian, Brussels.jpg
  48. File:Comic mural Olivier Rameau, Dany (Daniel Henrotin), Brussels.jpg
  49. File:Comicwand Ric Hochet, Tibet, Bruxelles.jpg
  50. File:Comicwand Ric Hochet, Tibet, Brussels.jpg
  51. File:Comic wand Ric Hochet, Tibet, Bruxelles.jpg
  52. File:Mur BD "Le Passage", François Schuiten. Bruxelles.jpg
  53. File:Comic wand "Le Passage", François Schuiten. Bruxelles..jpg
  54. File:Mur BD "Le Passage", François Schuiten. Brussels.jpg
  55. File:Mur BD Broussaille, Frank Pé. Bruxelles.jpg
  56. File:Mur BD Broussaille, Frank Pé. Brussels.jpg
  57. File:Mur Bande Dessiné Broussaille, Frank Pé. Bruxelles..jpg
  58. File:Mur BD Victor Sackville, Francis Carin. Bruxelles.jpg
  59. File:Mur BD Victor Sackville, Francis Carin. Brussels.jpg
  60. File:Comic mural Olivier Rameau, Dany (Daniel Henrotin), Brussels.jpg
  61. File:Comic wall Le jeune Albert, Yves Chaland, Brussels.jpg
  62. File:Comic wall Corto Maltese 3, Hugo Pratt, Brussels.jpg
  63. File:Mur BD Victor Sackville, Francis Carin. Bruxelles.jpg
  64. File:Mur BD Victor Sackville, Francis Carin. Brussels.jpg
  65. File:Comic wall Le jeune Albert, Yves Chaland, Brussels.jpg

Ferran Cornellà (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Info The Yoko Tsuno and Gaston Lagaffe mural paintings were still around when the Google Streetview car drove by in 2019. Thuresson (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 Info Pointing out this DR and pinging @Jameslwoodward: per it. Should we verify anything except that the mural paintings were still there in 2016? Ankry (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
No other opinions. So I suggest undeletion of images with all murals that existed in 2016 (we need an evidence). @Ferran Cornellà: can you help us with this? Ankry (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 Info Bot et Bobette, Corto Maltese and Le Scorpion were there in 2019. Ankry (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: Yes, I am helping :-)
File:Comic wall FC de Kampioenen, Hec Leemans, Brussels.jpg existed till november 2017 (Stripmuur FC De Kampioenen verdwijnt) (in dutch). You can also verify it at the nl.wiki.
All File:Comic wall XIII, William Vance and Jean Van Hamme, Brussels.jpg XIII has a category in Commons where you can see more pictures: Category:Parcours BD (XIII).
File:Gaston Lagaffe monument. Boulevard Pachéco. Brussels.jpg existed till 2019 :Gaston Lagaffe (in french)
File:Comic wall La vache, Johan De Moor. Brussels.jpg this one has nothing to do with FOP, because the mural is inside a building, in fact.
File:Comic wall Cubitus by Dupa. Brussels.jpg: still exist according to Google Streetview Cubitus
All files File:Comic wall Blake & Mortimer 4. Edgar P. Jacobs. Brussels.jpg exist according to Google Streetview: Mortimer
File:Comic wall Cori le Moussaillon by Bob de Moor. Brussels.jpg, Cori exist according to Google Streetview: Cori le Moussaillon
All pictures of Caroline Baldwin exist, also according to Google Streetview: Carline Baldwin
All pictures of Lucky Lucke, also at Google Streetview: Lucky Luck

Ferran Cornellà (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A little more, all Google Streetview:
Both files File:Comic wall l'archange, Yslaire. Brussels.jpg, proof of Google Streetview here: wall l'archange, Yslaire
All pictures of Ric Hochet. Of course such a classic could also not disapear: Rich Hochet
Neither both pictures Le passage File:Comic wand "Le Passage", François Schuiten. Bruxelles..jpg, another classic Le Passage

--Ferran Cornellà (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Some more:
Also this File:Comic wall Le jeune Albert, Yves Chaland, Brussels.jpg: Le jeune Albert
Here Broussaille of Frank Pé: Broussaille
and just opposite: Victor Sackville

--Ferran Cornellà (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help :-) here almost the last ones, also according to googlestreetview:
Mural Oliver Rameau Olivier Rameau
Monsieur Jean: Monsieur Jean
Mural Neron Mural Neron
Mural Isabelle et Calendula: damaged/removed in 2016 according to Mural Isabelle et Calendula (french). However, with own category in Commons, Category:Parcours BD (Isabelle).

--Ferran Cornellà (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per COM:FOP Belgium.  Not done: File:Comic wall Isabelle et Calendula. Will. Brussels.jpg (removed 1-2 months before FoP law was in force), File:Comic wall Isabelle et Calendula, Will (Willy Maltaite), Bruxelles.jpg (removed 1-2 months before FoP law in force), File:Comic wall La vache, Johan De Moor. Brussels.jpg (Interiors not covered by FoP in Belgium). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Sheohorn by The Moon Exports.jpg

Wikimedia commons doesn't permit uploading personal files/copyright violations,spams and files without a source/license, while none of such condition true. It's totally permissible to publish own work, no reason for deletion.


--Kamrankhan78694 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural closure: This file has not been deleted yet. --De728631 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Vivianne Slioa - July 2014.jpg and File:Vivianne Slioa -July 2004.jpg

I am copyright holder of this two pictures, i sent permission (Ticket#2020061310007027). I just uploaded some pics and i see they are deleted soon, while i emailed OTRS at same day when labaled by @Alaa: . --Ruwaym (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose@Ruwaym: Permission has not yet been accepted. The OTRS agent handling the ticket will either request undeletion or undelete the files themselves once they confirm to have received sufficient permission. Until then, the files cannot be undeleted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Hey @Nat: , I just checked my mailbox. I thought OTRS people don't replied me, my fault. Well, i sent again what is needed. But i don't understand, why i need to email them for any picture wich is i am it's copyright holder. --Ruwaym (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
      • @Ruwaym: Anyone can make an account with the name “Ruwaym” (or any other name). Anyone can say they are the copyright holder. We need to check if you are actually the copyright holder. Brianjd (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @Brianjd: Thanks for the tip. But how? how can i proof that? Currently for around one year i am in ArWiki, and i work on Arabic poets, this is my routine : I make sure the person is notable, i create the article in ArWiki, i make its entire in Wikidata, then i look for pictures of him/her in public domain/creative commons/expired (70/50/30 years after publishing) contents (like File:Hanadi Al-Jowder - May 26, 2020 (02).jpg). If the person is alive, and there is no creative commons file about him/her, i go look after the person in social media or just make contanct via offcial website. If the person reply me, i really became happy, and ask him/her to send me some not-published pictures and gave me its copyright. Well, while i get bored sometimes to explain them how Commons works and why the copyright is matter, But the result enjoy me, Just like this two files. I worked hard to conect her, she gave me the copyright and i see now they are deleted. --Ruwaym (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
          • @Ruwaym: You do it by following the OTRS instructions. It sounds like you have already done this. So now you need to wait. Like Nat said, if what you sent to OTRS is OK, the OTRS agent will restore the files. Brianjd (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: When OTRS has determined that there is sufficient permission and accepted it, an OTRS agent will either request undeletion or undelete the files themselves. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Home button of The Moon Exports website.png

Wikimedia commons doesn't permit uploading personal files/copyright violations,spams and files without a source/license, while none of such condition true. It's totally permissible to publish own work, no reason for deletion.


--Kamrankhan78694 (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This file was not deleted because of copyright concerns but for "Cross-wiki spam, Wikidata item was removed". Wikimedia Commons is not a place for advertising, so please explain how your logo fits into our educational project scope. De728631 (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per De728631. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

The Image You removed is my Own Android app Image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid Aziz Sofi (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per King of Hearts. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:KSC-20181201-PH RKL01 0002.jpg

Image was deleted under the argument that on the EXIF data the photographer was credited as Rocket Lab, yet on the same EXIF data on the copyright section it redirects you to the NASA guideline which is public domain. If someone usually publishes images under "all rights reserved" doesn't mean that they always do, for example, SpaceX publishes their image under the CC-BY-NC license but for File:Crew Dragon Demo-2 Bob and Doug.jpg they published it with CC-Zero. What is likely is that Rocket Lab created the images and then ceded them to NASA.--BugWarp (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

See discussion at File talk:KSC-20181201-PH RKL01 0002.jpg. The Guideline referred to above explicitly states "NASA occasionally uses copyrighted material by permission on its website. Those images will be marked copyright with the name of the copyright holder. NASA's use does not convey any rights to others to use the same material. Those wishing to use copyrighted material must contact the copyright holder directly." Rocket Lab is clearly identified in the same EXIF as the originator of the image. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - The purported {{PD-USGov-NASA}} template applies to content "created by NASA" because, indeed, per its basis in 17 U.S.C. § 105 "Copyright protection [...] is not available for any work of the United States Government." 17 U.S.C. § 105 also says "but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." A work a Rocket Lab is not eligible for the {{PD-USGov-NASA}} (it is not created by NASA, or any other federal entity) nor is a reference to NASA's Media Usage Guidelines a license or evidence of freeness (the guidelines even say, for example, "NASA material [distinct from Rocket Lab material] is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use.") Per COM:EVID, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that the image is in the public domain or is properly licensed; that has not been provided here. Эlcobbola talk 20:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support While not a NASA-authored image, contracting parties quite often allow media to be used under the same basic terms (i.e. no real copyright). We typically still use the PD-USGov-NASA tag for those, when they are hosted on NASA sites. See m:Wikilegal/NASA images; NASA should note when there is third-party copyright, and they did not do so here. The EXIF clearly makes reference to the NASA image rights pages. It certainly seems as though the photograph was published with expectations that it would go out under that image policy. Rocket Lab is given the credit, but that's not the same thing as a note of commercial use restrction. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As Huntster stated above, the terms state: NASA occasionally uses copyrighted material by permission on its website. Those images will be marked copyright with the name of the copyright holder. NASA's use does not convey any rights to others to use the same material. Those wishing to use copyrighted material must contact the copyright holder directly.. The only explicit notices are the name of the author (Rocket labs) and a link to the terms. In a case like this, the assumption must be that the image is copyrighted and the copyright is held by Rocket Labs. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Not exactly, NASA says they will usually mark such images with a copyright note that commercial use is not allowed. As the Wikilegal text says, Notice of copyright, however, should not necessarily be conflated with attribution given to parties that contributed to an image. Credit given to a contributing individual or institution may not necessarily mean that the attributed individual or institution also holds a copyright in the image. Contributing a photo to KSC's website is generally done with knowing that such photos are treated as public domain. This seems to be more that case, just giving attribution, with the intent to treat it like NASA-authored images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Except that I'm not aware (at least not off the top of my head) of any image on the site that's explicitly marked with a copyright note of that nature. By that argument, literally every image therefore is public domain, which makes no sense. I'm sorry, but other space agencies like Roscosmos and ESA do not release their images to the public domain. I feel like you're operating on the opposite end of the spectrum from the precautionary principle. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
        • They are typically marked "Courtesy of" when they came from outside a typical NASA program, I think -- see for example this image. In the end, it is what the authors intended to do with their copyright. Even for that one, you could even argue that simply giving a photo like that to NASA without any restrictions is basically assuming it will be treated as PD, with just an author credit. However in that case, the "Copyright" section of the EXIF does say "Courtesy of the Washington Nationals", which may be an indication that further permission should be obtained, so I could understand not allowing that. In this case, the Copyright mention in the EXIF explicitly points to NASA's own image policies, indicating this should be treated the same way. Many NASA projects do require collaborators to put the results into the public domain -- the PD-USGov-NASA tag is still the most convenient for those when published on a NASA site. See for example here, where most things are PD by contract unless copyright is explicitly reserved, but they still want attribution. Obviously, other entities may do things differently. The precautionary principle is for significant doubts, not theoretical ones. I can't realistically think that the author really intended to exercise copyright control when they publish an image on a NASA website, and explicitly point to NASA image use guidelines from a Copyright section. There is no explicit statement to the contrary. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the discussion. As this is not the work of a US Federal Government agency and it is the work of a non-governmental, private entity, there must be substantial evidence (1) that the file is in public domain as a result of copyright assignment or transfer; OR (2) that the image is freely licenced. While m:Wikilegal/NASA images does cover "Images Hosted by NASA", it notes that "unfortunately NASA’s stated policy is unclear on when copyright, rather than mere credit, is indicated." and the redirect to NASA's terms of use does not clarify the file's copyright status, but is much more of an indication that the image is copyrighted rather than being in public domain. For those who disagree with this decision: The next steps should be, if one is willing, to contact Rocket Lab and/or NASA on this particular question and have OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) in cc. If the response is positive, we can proceed with undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Kim Wehle Headshot.jpg

Hello,

I work on the representation team for Kimberly L. Wehle. Kim had asked us to update her wikipedia page for her as she is uncertain of who created the original page in the first place. She had provided me with the attached photo to be put up on the page. It is a headshot of herself, that she has also used on her website. We would like for permission to use this photo on her wikipedia page. Please let me know how I can accomplish this properly?

Sincerely, --Fromano024 (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Frank Romano

  •  Oppose @Fromano024: Images and other media files previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note that the copyright holder is the person who took the photo (i.e. the photographer) rather than the person who appears in it (i.e. the subject), unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by contract (written and signed by the original copyright holder and explicitly transfers/assigns the copyright). Thank you for your understanding. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Fromano024: Also, even if the copyright issues are resolved, it will be up to Wikipedia editors whether to use your photo in this article or in any other article. Brianjd (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:LIYANN AARIANNA SEET.png

Good day. This photo includes a picture of a public figure. I am the photographer and creator of this photo/work. The model in the photo and I have also granted the permission to post this picture on Wikipedia and granted permission for anyone to use, copy and modify. This is my original work. We have also granted other publication to post this picture on their website or promotional materials. If required, you can contact the model and/or I for verification. Alternatively, we can write an email to to verify that this is our original work and we grant the permission to be posted on Wikipedia. Thank you. --Tatianajames (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

2 files from Flickr now relicensed

These 2 images was deleted because they were PD Mark. Now the user on flickr changes to cc. Please undelete:

Thanks! --MGA73 (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @MGA73: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Mohammad sima.png

Hi, Please undeletion; Because it's my own work. In fact, I am the designer of this logo Thank you. --pournia (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Animex Club Logosu.webp

This file is my creation. Is made for Animex Club and not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmeteminkocal (talk • contribs) 02:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Per policy, for files previous published elsewhere first (and not under a free licence), the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS for the possibility of undeletion. However, please note that sending permission and OTRS concluding that the file has sufficient permission does not guarantee undeletion or that the file will be kept. I will also note that the image may be also out of project scope. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:B-1866@PEK (20200518061055).jpg

This file is taken by myself, but User:A1Cafel made a wrong accusation. How can I copyvio my own photograph? --N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 12:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nat: "J.O.S.O. Photos" produces no relevant hits on Google, so there isn't really anything to be authenticated by OTRS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Dapat-tawaran-gituan-dengan-bayaran-puluhan-juta-dari-artis m 143371.jpg

Photo of Oliolie published in June 27th, 2019 issue of BaliExpress/JawaPos.com

Information about published photo
Section Bali Under the Moon
Title Behind the Glitter of the Modeling World (part 1)
"Got a "Bid Gituan" with Tens of Million Payments from Artists"
Date June 27th, 2019
Editor I PUTU SUYATRA

Do not the rules stated in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia#Not protected apply to this?

Specifically, the section I have bolded :

According to Article 43, Acts that are not considered as Copyright infringements include:

  • Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature
  • Any Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction executed by or on behalf of the government, unless stated to be protected by laws and regulations, a statement to such Works, or when Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction to such Works are made
  • Taking of actual news, either in whole or in part from a news agency, Broadcasting Organization, and newspaper or other similar sources provided that the source is fully cited
  • Production and distribution of the Copyrighted content through information technology and communication media that are not commercial and/or lucrative for the Author or related parties, or the Author expresses no objection to the manufacture and dissemination in question.
  • Reproduction, Publication, and/or Distribution of Portraits of the President, Vice President, former Presidents, former Vice Presidents, National Heroes, heads of State institutions, heads of ministries/non-ministerial government agencies, and/or the heads of regions by taking into account the dignity and appropriateness in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikin00b1979 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

URL to photo: https://cdn-radar.jawapos.com/thumbs/l/baliexpress/news/2019/06/27/dapat-tawaran-gituan-dengan-bayaran-puluhan-juta-dari-artis_m_143371.jpg
Wikin00b1979 (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have examined the photo uploaded and its source, and it is a copyrighted image. The alleged source is not the copyright holder and it credits someone else. Uploading an image not under an acceptable free licence is, by definition, a copyright violation. The quoted section of copyright law does not define the image in question as public domain, but is akin to the US concept of fair use or similar to non-commercial free use--both of which is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Nat: -- thank you! I was wondering if you could share with me, so I can avoid situations like these in the future and bothering everyone involved with my mistake here. Can you explain where it was you found that picture's ownership or attribution back to it's source? I checked the tags in the file and they were apparently cleaned to save precious bytes on the JawaPos.com CDN (I guess??) -- I suppose I didn't try running a TinEye or reverse image search on it, but if that's simply all you did, I'm going to feel like a real doofus. Thanks again! Cheers! Wikin00b1979 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
      • @Wikin00b1979: You’re going to feel ike a real real doofus when I tell you the answer: you posted the source yourself a full 40 minutes before @Nat’s comment. (I assume that @Nat is referring to the copyright notice at the bottom of that article. Since I can’t read Indonesian, I can’t go any further.) On a more serious note: The admins here regularly run reverse image searches using services like TinEye when an image’s source or copyright status is in doubt. Brianjd (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @BrianJD: ahhh, are you talking about this at the bottom of the page??? "© 2020 PT Jawa Pos Multimedia Group"? If so, then that's clear enough, but I was looking for more attribution to the photographer -- I suppose the PT Jawa Pos Multimedia Group could also be the copyright holder assuming that the photo was taken by the newspaper, but I do have my doubts about that. There are several other articles that she has appeared in where she is on laying on top of a car, it seems a bit too over the top for a Newspaper photographer to setup that kind of shot -- but what do I know!?  :-D Thanks, again guys. I'll be more cautious in the future. We can close out this request now, unless there is any more housekeeping that needs to be done with it. Wikin00b1979 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
          • @Wikin00b1979: You used a different capitalisation for my name. A reasonable capitalisation, actually. But the software does not recognise it and the software failed to tell me that you had mentioned my name.
          That is the coypright notice I was talking about. I agree that there’s a good chance that the photo came from elsewhere, but it doesn’t really matter. If a photo has been previously published, and there’s no free licence notice, and none of the PD tags apply, then we have to assume it’s a copyright violation and delete it. An admin will close this request soon. Brianjd (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:UR-82060 over Shunyi (20200413174641).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Believe to be own work, based on ongoing DR and the userpage info 219.78.191.53 13:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Nude woman standing on log.JPG

Deleted only for scope reasons. This was an error, as the file was the source for File:00-Nude woman standing on log.JPG. Suggest undeleting and adding to Commons:Deletion requests/File:00-Nude woman standing on log.JPG. Brianjd (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: Procedural undeletion so that it can be properly discussed at DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:KimWehle.jpg

I have connected with the proper copyright holder and they are willing to release this file for usage. Please advise on how I can accomplish this? Fromano024 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Fromano024

 Not done: Repeat request, no new rationale for undeletion. @Fromano024: Images and other media files previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:MGB Rodzaevsky.jpg

The file has been deleted. When I said that there are many files from the materials of the investigation cases of the MGB and the NKVD, they were also put up for deletion, but they were left. Please restore the file for the same reasons. Kolchak1923 (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Question @Kolchak1923: You declared this file to be {{PD-Russia}}. Which exactly clause of 1-5 from this template applies to this image? A work by unknown author, published in 2003 will be PD in 2074. You need to provide appropriate copyright information and/or appropriate source related to it. Ankry (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Originally there was {{PD-RU-exempt}} paragraph 1. Kolchak1923 (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 Support then as other materials of [...] judicial character Ankry (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmm. @Ankry: Per Alex Spade's points on Commons:Deletion requests/File:MGB Rodzaevsky.jpg, it appears that jurisprudence does not support the image falling under {{PD-RU-exempt}}: "No. The state creates many, many works, but not all of them are uncopyrighted. Criminal proceeding has not got judicial nature. As I said, only docs from court itself had got judicial nature (plz, read for example Комментарий к ГК РФ. М.: Кодекс, 2007, первый абзац на стр. 128). In this case judicial nature is судебных характер in Russian, not юридический характер in Russian. In addition, criminal proceeding has not got judicial nature as whole, it is not edict, order, direction, etc. These docs are example of administrative docs. Some parts of criminal proceeding can be uncopyrighted (for example, arrest warrant, search warrant), but not all of them.
    In addition, freedom must be proved, not vice versa. So, plz give us jurisprudent commentaries or court decisions in Russia, where mug shots descibed as part of {{PD-RU-exempt}}. I never saw them: I only know some commentaries (not court decisions), where mug shots (and shots for passports and similar docs) descibed as possible part of {{PD-trivial}}, but they are not suitable for us - in US-law such work are enough untrivial.
    [...]
    {{PD-RU-exempt}} is extremely different from {{PD-USGov}}. As I said, the ru-State creates many, many works. According to ru-law copyright-holder (including State or more exactly its specific agency) isn't obliged to indicate which its work is copyrighted. The specific agency (or control agencies) could close their eyes in relation to the wide spreading of some material from them without its/their permission, but such silence action is not reason to declare, that respecive material is un-copyrighted. Is this photowork used in history-scientific works and in press? It is nothing for us. They don't need permission from agency, they just use Russian analog of fairuse (article 1274 - free use for scientific, educational and informational purposes)    ". Pinging @Alex Spade. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strange, several dozens of similar images remained with this license, and what started it all was deleted, and it is proposed not to be restored. Kolchak1923 (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: {{PD-RU-exempt}} covers official documents and not official works. Per the same template: Warning – This Russian official document, state symbol or sign (postage stamps, coins and banknotes mainly) may incorporate one or more works that can be copyrightable if separated from this document, symbol or sign. In such a case, this work is not an object of copyright if reused in its entirety but, at the same time, extracting specific portions from this work could constitute copyright infringement. As such, one could argue that the image is in public domain if published as part of a document and that document is published in its entirety but the image on its own may be subject to copyright. I am, therefore, declining this undeletion request based on this reasoning. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:KB Gasthaus Engel 1920er Jahre.jpg

Das Foto wird auf die 1920er Jahre geschätzt, der Fotograf ist unbekannt, die Einträge rechts oben und unten lassen jedoch annehmen, dass es sich um einen Berufsfotografen gehandelt hat. Dies waren damals auch infolge der Komplexität von Technik und Logistik (Fahrten zum Objekt) ältere Männer, sodass die Annahme gerechtfertigt ist, dass der Fotograf vor mindestens 70 Jahren verstorben ist. Das Bild befindet sich heute in einem Archiv („Archiv Rolf Bendel“ wie angegeben), das auch einen offiziellen Status in der Gemeinde Küssaberg besitzt. Dies spielt jedoch keine Rolle — es ist lediglich der Quellennachweis — im Zusammenhang der freien Verfügbarkeit sollte die Lizenz „PD-old-70“ hier ausreichend sein. Mit der Bitte um Wiederherstellung.--GerhardSchuhmacher (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Uploader suggest there that Archiv Rolf Bendel might be available at www.kuessaberg.info but there's no such material there, Bendel being neither the copyright holder (as shown here). May uploader recontact them about the copyright holder because www.kuessaberg.info (Archiv Rolf Bendel)/Unknown/{{PD-old}} won't make it. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: @GerhardSchuhmacher: As the photographer is not unknown or anonymous, we need to know when J. Zürcher-Hauser died to determine whether or not such works are in public domain. If you can supply evidence of J. Zürcher-Hauser's year of death, you can sumbit a new undeletion request. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Чоловіча.гімназія.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: it's Russian Empire postcards Чорний Кіт (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please, request again when you are able to provide the required information. We do not need images with false creation dates. Ankry (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Rebekah Jones Photo.jpg

This file is not a copyvio. The nominator, User:NedFausa, has also been trimming the subject's Wikipedia page, see en:Talk:Rebekah Jones. NedFausa claimed FSU copyright because the photo was previously posted here. I can't see the file, but I assume it looks similar or is a copy, though it just looks like a homedesk selfie to me. In any case, that link to academia.edu should prove the image did in fact come from the subject, since academia.edu is not affiliated with any academic institution, but is a general place for academics and others to share papers and blogs. I also have an account there to read papers. By posting a selfie there, the subject did not relinquish copyright and the photo is a perfectly fine selfie, suitable for Commons. Jane023 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Georebekah: Are you Rebekah Jones? If that is the case, and the photo is a selfie, please send us an email following the instructions at COM:RELGEN. In order for us to verify your identity, you should use either an email affiliated with an academic institution, or the Gmail account listed on your Academia.edu CV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Why is the link I posted not enough? She already stated it's hers on the talkpage of the WP article. Obviously she is the only one logging in to that account on Academia - you can't add another profile photo to someone else's account. Think of it like facebook for paper-sharers. Jane023 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, the Twitter account appears to endorse the authenticity of the Wikimedia account. The pose makes it believable that it could be a selfie, so we'll believe her if she says it's a selfie. But we actually need her to state that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Please explain what you mean by "the Twitter account appears to endorse the authenticity of the Wikimedia account." Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The Wikimedia account is called Georebekah, which matches her Twitter account (which is not a common name), so it is at least claiming to be her. The fact that the Wikimedia account uploaded the photo one afternoon and she proceeds to tweet out a screenshot of her Wikipedia profile the same night makes it implausible that the Wikimedia account is an imposter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Thanks for your reply. But you're assuming, of course, that @GeoRebekah is the authentic account of Rebekah Jones. However, despite being six years old, that account is not verified by Twitter. (Their verified account program was put "on hold" 18½ months ago.) It seems to me you are inferring something supported only by circumstantial evidence. Is that really enough to override the published Copyright claim of Florida State University Academia ©2020? NedFausa (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Her Twitter is linked from her personal website https://geojones.org/, which has existed since 2017 per the Internet Archive. Technically none of them show up on her Academia.edu profile, but it is ridiculously unlikely that an imposter can maintain a fake personal website for three years and amass 18.9K Twitter followers without someone noticing in all this time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Thanks again. However, this all leads back to the single-purpose Wikimedia account User:Georebekah, which as you said "is at least claiming to be her." (Emphasis added.) Relying on that unverifiable claim, instead of on the published copyright claim of a reputable university that has been in continuous operation since 1851, is in my opinion unjustified. NedFausa (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Academia.edu is a "social networking website for academics", and anything on her profile is controlled by her and no different from Twitter or LinkedIn. The generic copyright tagline "Academia ©2020" is obviously false for any user-submitted content. If she confirms that the photo is in fact a selfie, then I would be satisfied. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (typically the photographer, unless copyright is transferred by operation of law or by contract--written and signed by the original copyright holder) must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Kokoni Puppy.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is not a copyright violation beacuse I am the original poster of said picture in reddit. Ι own both the puppy and the Copyright to the picture. As proof for my statement I present this image: https://imgur.com/a/T26ALXN

You can clearly see the edit button, which would not exist if I did not own the account. If this isn't enough proof, do tell me what would qualify as acceptable. 2A02:2149:8753:D900:CD5D:CE7E:9A5E:32A3 13:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Both the deleted image and the one on Reddit are missing their EXIF metadata. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (typically the photographer, unless copyright is transferred by operation of law or by contract--written and signed by the original copyright holder) must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:BR-Partners.jpg

O logotipo é de minha autoria e preenchi todos os requisitos da página. --Alessandra Pereira de Azevedo Souza (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose Logo of BR Partners, "Copyright © 2020 BR Partners. All rights reserved.". Thuresson (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:HydroMC Studios Logo.png

The logo is made by a graphic for my "company". And it is not Copyrighted yet. So there is no motivation for remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcoLvr (talk • contribs) 00:41, 25 June 2020‎ (UTC)

@MarcoLvr: Any creative work is copyrighted unless copyright expired. The logo does not seem to be more than 70 years old. Ankry (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Any creative work is copyrighted unless the copyright as expired or there is an exemption from protection in the law. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


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

3 files from ja.wiki

Hello!

I'm checking files from ja.wiki and found these 3:

  1. ja:File:Chibacityoffice_sta01.jpg = File:Chibacityoffice sta01.jpg - deleted as copyvio - why?
  2. ja:File:Chibadera_sta01.jpg = File:Chibadera sta01.jpg - deleted as copyvio - why?
  3. ja:File:Daqiao04.jpg = File:Daqiao04.jpg it is from http://px820.onmitsu.jp/kankou/daqiao/daqiao.html and deleted because there was no permission. If I look at http://px820.onmitsu.jp/index.html I see a text saying that the photos are free and can be used for anything (according to Google Translate). Perhaps someone who speak Japanese can have a look and see if the text is okay for Commons.

I can of course only see the text on ja.wiki (via Google Translate) so there may be added some additional information on Commons that gives a good reason to delete the files. In that case I would like to know so the files can be nominated for deletion on ja.wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


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

You have been deleting my actual work. Why do you remove actual original content.

I've been uploading my works onto this page today and everything's been deleted. I fail to see how you guys enforce such a strict policy that just bars anyone from uploading anything. I took all of the pictures myself and had someone delete them, and claim without reason that they're not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherAKaram (talk • contribs)

 Not done: If these are indeed your own works, please first serve a DMCA takedown request to Getty and have them removed or update the credit to yourself. As it stands it appears you are uploading other people's work as your own and fraudulently taking credit. --Storkk (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


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

Undelete this picture

thumb|Al Maari Imagining "The Epistle of Forgiveness" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taha 423 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: at this point that picture is not deleted. --Strakhov (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Mercado-Joseph.jpg

The image, since it was uploaded on the PUP's (a government run school) official website, the image may be deemed in the public domain as is File:Deguzmanemanuelofpup.jpg. I am requesting undeletion and switching the license to "Public Domain." --Phwikimaker12 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Phwikimaker12: File:Deguzmanemanuelofpup.jpg is not public domain but protected by copyright. Please clarify why the file you uploaded is a government work and if so, which government. Thuresson (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Thuresson: Please ignore my statement about File:Deguzmanemanuelofpup.jpg. Back to the topic, the image, being taken from https://www.pup.edu.ph/news/?go=U/c2oqQ50hM= the website of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, is controlled by the government of the Philippines. When you scroll down all the way to the bottom of the page, you would find the statement, "Republic of the Philippines, All content is in the public domain unless otherwise stated," therefore releasing the image in question to the public domain. The image is also backed by: {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. I apologize for the misrepresentation of the license of the image. --Phwikimaker12 (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose State-owned universities are typically not considered a government agency or department or a government-owned and controlled corporation as defined by Phillipines law (a list of GOCCs can be found here), and, therefore, {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} may not apply. Furthermore, the website of the institution in question has the following notice on its website, "© 1998-2020 Polytechnic University of the Philippines." That being said, on the university executive page has a second notice, "Republic of the Philippines All content is in the public domain unless otherwise stated." However, the "...unless otherwise stated." is key here as just above it is the first notice asserting copyright. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 20:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict)  Support I disagree with Nat, I do think that the PUP is GOCC. Expecting documents produced by the Philippine government bureaucracy to be complete is a mistake; this is one of my preferred contribution areas so I have lots of experience reading them. I've found Supreme Court cases to be the most reliable information on the bureaucracy, and at least Alliance of Government Workers, et al. v. Minister of Labor and Employment, et al. ([7]) seems to point to the PUP being a GOCC. All the PUP's assets including its campus came from the State, so I'd be shocked if it wasn't a GOCC. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Psiĥedelisto: Publicly-funded higher/post-secondary education institutions in the Philippines are defined as "State Universities and Colleges" or SUCs and not as "government-owned and controlled corporation" or GOCC in various Philippines legislation and government materials. Additionally, it appears that all SUCs make an assertion of copyright and other IP claims (at least on their websites) while GOCC generally do not. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr. 22:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, wait a minute. Republic Act 8293, indeed, doesn't say anything like "unless otherwise noted". So I was about to tell Phwikimaker12 that actually it doesn't matter at all that they say it's copyrighted. But I may have found a worse problem in RA 8293 § 176:

No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use of any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character.

This seems like a very serious problem to me! COM:L is clear: Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted either. The entire category might need to go. What am I missing? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I do believe you may have just stumbled upon something. As stated on the creativecommons.org website, Commercial purposes refer to the intent for commercial advantage or monetary compensation, and the text found on RA 8293,

".....for exploitation of such work for profit,"

does correlate to the definition of 'commercial purposes.' Phwikimaker12 (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Phwikimaker12: I was wrong, thank God! I've changed my !vote back to  Support for your undeletion request; if you want to know why I'm wrong, I've opened an edit request on Template_talk:PD-PhilippinesGov#Clear_up_unclear_wording. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: due to uncertainty if SUGs are indeed part of the Government of the Philippines or just institutions that are funded by the government. Universities and Colleges in the Philippines assert copyright on their websites. For the possibility of undeletion, please contact the university administration via email to confirm whether or not works published by the university are in public domain in the Philippines and please have OTRS cc'ed using the address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Activists paint "Defund the Police" on the street in Baltimore.jpg

I took and uploaded this photo that has been deleted. File:Activists paint "Defund the Police" on the street in Baltimore.jpg To crop the photo to remove folx faces, I took a screen shot on my own device and realize that is the reason it was deleted, but confirm I took the photo. What's the best next step here? --Kiraface (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: As there is no way to confirm here that the Kiraface is in fact the photographer, we cannot proceed with undeletion. However, the version with its full EXIF metadata can be uploaded. If privacy of those photographed is an issue, @Kiraface: you can use a number of free applications on a mobile device (such as Adobe Photoshop Lightroom mobile) to crop the images. If you are transferring the image file from your computer to your mobile device or vis-versa, please avoid using a Facebook product (such as Facebook, its messager, Whatsapp) as that will completely overwrite the metatdata. To check if the metadata is still there, you can use tool such as Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer before trying to upload. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:廖城兰（大马美食家食公子）造型照.jpg

Hi, I request to undelete the photo File:廖城兰（大马美食家食公子）造型照.jpg, since one of the admin deleted it because of copyvio, I am here to explain that this is not copyvio, I am the owner of the photo. Kindly accept my request thank you. (Patricialiew (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC))

✓ Done Thank you for providing photographic evidence that you set up the camera/tripod and took the photo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Luca Trandafir in Studiourile Black Pixel.jpg

File:Luca Trandafir in Studiourile Black Pixel.jpg Aceasta fotografie este exclusiv prorietatea mea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luca Trandafir Fan (talk • contribs) 10:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Luca Trandafir din prim-plan. Poza cu fata..png

File:Luca Trandafir din prim-plan. Poza cu fata..png Aceasta fotografie este exclusiv proprietatea mea! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luca Trandafir Fan (talk • contribs) 10:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Tupac Shakur.jpg

It was previously requested to be speedy deleted when the image is expressly in public domain in Dreamstime. This is not a copyright violation. Stock is free.

Please see Dreamstime Terms and conditions:

Public Domain (RF-CC0) Images

Dreamstime offers a large selection of images that it believes have entered the public domain, either through the copyright owner`s express dedication to the public domain (as described here), or for some other reason, such as expiration of copyrights. You are free to use public domain images you download from Dreamstime in any manner you choose, subject to our Sensitive Subject restrictions and provided you do not use them in connection with offering a service that is competitive to Dreamstime. Dreamstime offers no model or property releases in connection with any public domain image, and notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Dreamstime will not provide any warranty or indemnity with respect to your use of any public domain image.[8]

Please review this.

Thanks.

--Santiago Plá Casuriaga (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. For the possibility of undeletion, we will need permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence from Ken Nahoum (the photographer/copyright holder) using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Anna-lewitt.jpg

Zdjęcie zostało przekazane bezpośrednio przez dr Annę Lewitt w celu rozpowszechnienia jej wizerunku na wikipedii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomekwie (talk • contribs) 10:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose @Tomekwie: Zgodnie z prawem najczęściej to autor zdjęcia jest wyłącznym dysponentem autorskich praw majątkowych do niego, i to on może rozporządzać nim wedle uznania, a więc i wydać zgodę na rozpowszechnienie swojego utworu na określonych warunkach. W określonych przypadkach zdarza się także, że prawa do utworu zostały przeniesione na mocy umowy na inny podmiot. Prosimy o przesłanie odpowiedniego formularza zgody na wykorzystanie przez autora lub właściciela autorskich praw majątkowych. Treść gotowego formularza dostępna jest pod adresem COM:CONSENT, pismo należy wysłać na adres permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Candidate-amita-kuttner.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The author is prepared to submit an OTRS granting permission of use under a free license (CC BY-SA, Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0). Please restore the page as OTRS Pending and I will send it to them. Once the author has this they will provide permission. MPen92 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose @MPen92: No valid rationale for undeletion. An OTRS agent will request undeletion or will perform the undeletion themselves when they have determined they have received sufficient permission. Until then, the file will remain deleted. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. This is essentially a repeat request, and restoring now would be out-of-process. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Bellingham Metro News.jpg

I am the owner of Facebook.com/intGBN I haven’t used that page in a long time. I am the owner and can prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:602:A7F:700:4D60:8AF7:C778:F9EB (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Image has not yet been deleted. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bellingham Metro News.jpg for deletion discussion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Asvamedha ramayana.JPG

With reference to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Asvamedha ramayana.JPG, this British Library link conclusively proves that image is PD and by Shahibdin.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Rick_Danko_memorial_plaque.JPG

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020061210007565 regarding File:Rick_Danko_memorial_plaque.JPG. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: File:Rick Danko memorial plaque.jpg undeleted. @Ganímedes: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Jeff Healey live 1999 - © Jeff Healey Archives.jpg

I am respectfully requesting the undeletion of the above file.

I am a representative of the Jeff Healey Estate and the Jeff Healey Archives. I am the one who uploaded the file in question some time ago. We hold the copyright to the file and I believe when I uploaded it I had to give permission to allow the file to be used freely. That has not changed.

Not certain why four years later someone would decide to arbitrarily delete it.

Thank you for your time.

Roger Costa The Estate of Jeff Healey contact@jeffhealey.com

--Rog9000 (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  • How did it come about that the estate of Jeff Healey owns the copyright to this photo of Jeff Healey? Thuresson (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @Rog9000: Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). For the possibility of undeletion, the photographer (or, if transferred, the current copyright holder) must send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence themselves using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Gandara, Samar Logo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Official logo of a Filipino city should be in PD {{PD-PhilippineGov}} 219.79.96.173 10:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Local governments in the Philippines, while under the general supervision of the executive branch of the Government of the Philippines, are not components of the Philippines Government. Local governments are not enumerated in the Republic Act No. 8293 or Presidential Decree No. 49 November 14, 1972--it only notes the national government (i.e. The Government of the Philippines) --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jsnueva1022: In the future, please use the appropriate licence tags. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Vietnam t-54m pic1.jpg

This image is free to use and widespread in Vietnam internet community. I added this on Wiki so people around the world can see it too. So I requested to file an un-deletion request. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanhthaibp (talk • contribs) 07:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose "free to use and widespread in Vietnam internet community" does not mean that the work is under a free licence. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, 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. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


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

File:Vietnam scud-b.jpg

This image also made an public in Vietnam, it free to use so I added this image to replace the old image on PAVN wiki page with this new image about this vehicles. Your reason for deletion and your link which lead to Bobby diaper which is really weird. I believe you made some mistake here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanhthaibp (talk • contribs) 07:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  •  Oppose An image made "public" and "free to use" does not mean that the work is under a free licence. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, 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. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

File:10000-Khmer Riel Note.jpg

Dear Admin,

Please reconsider your nomination for deletion of my photo as this is solely my own work. I took it with my own camera. I love sharing my own creation for others to benefit from it. --Pisethinfo (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedual close. @Pisethinfo: If you want to contest the nomination for deletion, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:10000-Khmer Riel Note.jpg. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2020-06&oldid=429722382"