Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

Request by Utah Phlllips on scruff

Related to:

This is nearly identical to similar penis pics out there. It is simply educational. And, do a search on penis or ejaculation. Much more "porn-like" than mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utah Phlllips on scruff (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Your penis or your upload? Are you sure you're at the right place? What do you want to be undeleted? --E4024 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - per COM:PENIS. These are unused, terrible quality (especially File:Ejaculation_7"_male_orgrasm.png) with no genuine educational utility. Indeed, both fail to "provide additional useful information" or to be "sufficiently different from existing files." Эlcobbola _talk 17:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: as the deleting admin, and in the light that you have made 3 deletions this month which seem to be all from the same uploader, could you explain why you did not follow the normal deletion process and create a DR for the community and the uploader to benefit from? If there was a copyright issue, or some other issue beyond scope with the user's uploads, it would be useful for that to be clearer than the current deletion log comment or this section at UNDEL when only sysops can see the evidence. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Beata_Migas.jpg

I would like to kindly inform that the file Beata_Migas.jpeg is my own property and I agree for its usage for the sake of the Wikipedia article https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beata_Migas Because of a system misunderstanding about the picture, the discussion about this website appeared. Therefore, I would like to ask you to not delete such a picture, because I confirm that I am its author. The discussion should be ended, a picture added and that's it. --Qsdewr (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Beata Migas, 27.11.2020 r.

Oppose Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder sent permission and a specific release under an accepted free license using ORTS. Please note: 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). Once OTRS has determined that they have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will request or perform undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Cazzey_vs_Betty_White.jpg

I am submitting a request to have this photo undeleted from the Wikipedia page: Cazzey Louis Cereghino. It is my own work, and I own the copyright. I went to Wikipedia Commons and filled out proper places to accept that this pic may be used perpuity, and with the permission of the actor(s) in the pic. Yes, the pic also shows up on other websites, including IMDB as the Bot listed, but that is because I, as the actor's personal assistant and publicist, placed it there. I have filled out the Wikipedia Commons Copyright Page, so please un-delete this pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpockNimoy (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Hi. This undeletion request has been made for the file Cazzey vs Betty White.jpg. As per your requirements, I have went to the Commons page where I have attested that this photo is my own work and owned by me and filled out the required places to verify this. As specified by the remover, it appears on other websites including IMDB, but that is because I placed it there as well, having been a personal assistant and publicist for the actor for many years, and the picture was taken on set at the request of the actor(s) in the pic. Please undelete this photo and place it back on the Wikipedia page as I have released it to be used freely and in perpetuity. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpockNimoy (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose @SpockNimoy: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder sent permission and a specific release under an accepted free license using ORTS. Once OTRS has determined that they have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will request or perform undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Brailoiu-1.png

The picture is a crop from this one, a picture which was launched in his campaign and offered towards the press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstantaEdits (talk • contribs) 12:25, 28 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose Wikimedia is not press. Thuresson (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Spidercam at cricket.jpg

Why did you delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testosterossa (talk • contribs) 12:32, 29 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Info Deleted after request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Testosterossa. Thuresson (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. No reason to restore given. Please review our instructions, which include "State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion." (bold in original). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Spidercam at Rugby world cup in Japan 2019.jpg

Why do you delete my pics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testosterossa (talk • contribs) 12:34, 29 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Info Deleted after request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Testosterossa. Thuresson (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. No reason to restore given. Please review our instructions, which include "State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion." (bold in original). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:1D cable cam.jpg

Why do you delete my pics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testosterossa (talk • contribs) 12:35, 29 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Info Deleted after request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Testosterossa. Thuresson (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. No reason to restore given. Please review our instructions, which include "State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion." (bold in original). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Belay 2020.jpg

this image is my own work for movie poster and i want to add it on wikipedia you remove it from server and i cannot reupload it again thnaks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohjavad (talk • contribs) 18:23, 26 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose - 1) Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission and 2) per COM:NOTHOST as this is apparently a non-notable film per both an utter dearth of coverage and the impending deletion of the related article. Эlcobbola _talk 00:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge visit the National Stadium Belfast, home of the Irish Football Association. (46364812815).jpg

While it does state that the photograph was taken by Press Eye, a PR photography group, it was released by the Northern Ireland Office down to the detail of the camera model, under the commercial license CC 2.0, aka an allowance for commercial use under attribution, which WP requests during upload. I might be a bit new here, but I fail to see why it was deleted? Sorry, thanks.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - This doesn't parse. If requestor acknowledges Press Eye to be the author ("it does state that the photograph was taken by Press Eye"), why would the mere release by a different party ("it was released by the Northern Ireland Office") demonstrate that party has authority to license on behalf of the author? Per COM:EVID, it is incumbent on those desiring retention to demonstrate "any required consent has been obtained." Where is this evidence? How is it that the Northern Ireland Office came to have authority to license Press Eye works? Эlcobbola _talk 01:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Photograph of Musician , songwritter and composor Rarikumar RBS.jpg.jpg

sir / Madam, The deleted file of subject Ravikumar RBS is shooted by me with my camera. with all permissions. So that i uploaded. and there is nobody to apeal for it .and i am new here. its confusing that i own a photo but i cant use it? please let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soorajz (talk • contribs) 13:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - 1) You've already effectively reuploaded this image as File:RAVIKUMAR RBS.jpg; 2) This appears to be a selfie, and, as it's unclear whether you're the subject (e.g., Soorajz ≠ Ravikumar RBS), it's thus unclear whether this is Flickrwashing/lacking evidence of permission; and 3) The foregoing may be moot as per COM:SPAM/COM:NOTHOST; your related sandbox article appears a vanity piece on a non-notable person with no reasonable prospect of entering mainspace. Эlcobbola _talk 19:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Emma Mejía Venegas.jpg

Hola, porfavor pido que no eliminen la imagen. Y si la van a eliminar haganlo bien. Yo saqué la imagen de http://www.muniica.gob.pe/2019/ y ustedes pusieron otra fuente la cual esta claramente equivocada por es UN MONTAJE. La verdadera fuente es http://www.muniica.gob.pe/2019/. La foto que publique es de una funcionaria pública (alcalde) y estoy elaborando su biografía en wikipedia y necesito una foto. Porfavor no la borren, nadie va a reclamar los derechos de autor (si es que lo tiene) Peruimagenes (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - This request does not provide a reason to restore. It merely states the image would be useful for a biography (which is irrelevant as this is a copyright concern, not one of scope) and that "no one is going to claim copyright" ("nadie va a reclamar los derechos de autor "), which is COM:PRP#3. The "correct source" indeed says "Copyright © 2020 District Municipality of Ica - Bscreativa," which is both not a free license and a confirmation that the uploader's purport to be the author was a falsehood. Эlcobbola _talk 18:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:X-Jib scissor crane with Newton stabilized camera head.jpg

I have taken the pic myself

Oppose Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder sent permission and a specific release under an accepted free license using ORTS. Once OTRS has determined that they have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will request or perform undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Will not use (delete) picture, please undelete, so i can use the text

lease undelete, so i can use the text Tillmann Eckardt (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Tillmann Eckardt, schreib lieber auf deutsch, dann verstehen wir, was du meinst. Du möchtest den Text der gelöschten Seite File:Tillmann Eckardt.jpg haben? --Achim (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Content dropped on User talk:Tillmann Eckardt. --Achim (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Content dropped on requestor's user page by Achim. No reason per policy for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Senate Hearing March 30 2012 - Honoring Sen. Gannett.jpg

Please consider this an appeal and undeletion request for the following reasons:

(1) the images consist of photos of public figures, from left to right, Vermont State Senator Galbraith, Senator Gannett, Senator Illuzzi, State Representative Edwards, and Senator Doyle taken in a public place during a public hearing.

(2) the photo was taken by a former photographer employed by the Brattleboro Reformer. A representative of the newspaper gave permission:

Bob Audette <raudette@reformer.com> Mon, Aug 31, 10:47 AM to me

You just need to say photo courtesy of the Brattleboro Reformer --

Robert ‘Bob’ Audette

Inline image

Reporter o. 802-254-2311, ext. 215 62 Black Mountain Road Brattleboro, VT 05301

Inline image

(3) the photographer who at the time worked for the Brattleboro Refotmer was contacted and gave permission:

Zachary Stephens Nov 20, 2020, 12:21 PM (8 days ago) to me

Hey Robert, No worries. Yes, you have my permission for this image to be used. Thanks, Zach -- Zachary P. Stephens Photographer www.zacharypstephens.com

Zachary Stephens Tue, Nov 24, 3:18 PM (4 days ago) to me, Permissions

As the copyright holder of the image, Wikimedia has my permission to use the image. - Zachary P. Stephens

RAOeser (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Info File was deleted as No license since 31 August 2020 --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Commons' licensing policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Fresko Krönung Mariens in der Seekapelle.jpg

w:de:Panoramafreiheit#Österreich --Anton-kurt (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per COM:FOP Austria and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fresko Krönung Mariens in der Seekapelle.jpg --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Interiors of buildings are considered not ok per COM:FOP Austria. Furthermore, per the article, interiors are covered by a barrier restriction. Until such time that there is a change in the law or in the Supreme Court's interpretation, the file will remain deleted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:João Carlos Nunes Abreu em criança.png

Hi there This is a family photo that has no copyrights the person in question Joao Carlos Nunes de Abreu has granted me the rights to publish it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunesdea (talk • contribs) 19:41, 29 November 2020‎ (UTC)

@Nunesdea: Did you also receive permission from the photographer? Who should be credited when the photo is used? Thuresson (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - COM:EVID requires you to demonstrate that the image is in the public domain; merely saying here the image "has no copyrights" is entirely inadequate. (One also notes you uploaded the image claiming yourself to be the author and the license to be cc-by-sa-4.0--claims you appear now to acknowledge were untruthful.) Copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the subject (Joao Carlos Nunes de Abreu), thus the latter would have no germane rights to grant you unless the copyright was formally transferred through a written conveyance. Indeed, merely owning physical property ("This is a family photo") is distinct from owning the related intellectual property (copyright). The photograph has been embossed in the lower right with what is likely the name of the author. When did they die? Эlcobbola _talk 17:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:FIA_logo.svg

This logo was only deemed to be "likely above ToO". That means that the copyright associated with this image has not been questioned/claimed against. Therefore, I believe that this logo should be undeleted, as it does not infringe on any copyright. If it does, I would like to see some evidence regarding that infringement.

--Mdavies1 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Christian Ferrer, Mdaniels5757 as closing admin and nominator of Commons:Deletion requests/File:FIA logo.svg, respectively. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm rather on the Oppose side. If we refers to COM:TOO France, France tend to protect all that is the "imprint of the personality of the author". And here even if they are rather geometric shapes, the whole is rather sophisticated and that matches IMO with the requirement. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Christian Ferrer. Request is also entirely backwards; COM:EVID requires the user advocating retention to demonstrate the image in public domain (here, below TOO), not for others to offer "evidence regarding that infringement (sic)"; request has provided no analysis, evidence, or explanation of the TOO threshold in France, and application thereof to this image, to support restoration. Эlcobbola _talk 17:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Request by Culturehistory

Relates to:

These pictures from my own work and some are given by my friend. my friend gave these pictures because he wants me to upload them on Wikipedia on Gamelan topics. u can check his Instagram on "Central_Gamelan". He is Gamelan Maker. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culturehistory (talk • contribs) 08:05, 30 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose - Despite claiming here "some are given by my friend," you had previously claimed each and every one of them to be your own work. You've thus misrepresented authorship and breached the purported cc-by-sa-4.0 license (the "by" means attribution is required). Indeed, that apparently continues to be the case: File:Sentra Produksi Gamelan Wirun.jpg is attributed to "JP/Ganug Nugroho Adi"; File:Kempul Gamelan.jpg is attributed to the National Music Museum; File:Gong ageng 04.jpg was just taken from an ETSY listing; etc. Notwithstanding the blatant untruths regarding authorship, previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Эlcobbola _talk 17:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Penty Nur Afiani, Aktris Gentabuana.jpg

http://artisfilmsinetron.blogspot.com/2011/06/foto-selebritis-cantik-penty-nur-afiani.html This website uploaded the photo without giving the license, do you have policy for photos like this? Is this photo includes as public domain license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntanGomieber (talk • contribs) 09:21, 30 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close: This is a venue to "ask for a deleted page or file [...] to be restored." (COM:UD) This is not a restoration request--and indeed provides no basis for restoration--but instead a licensing question. Please ask questions at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. --Эlcobbola _talk 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Обложка журнала "Юный техник" №10 за 1983 год.jpg

Я являюсь владельцем данного архивного журнала, поскольку данный издательский дом много лет не работает. --Виктор Зикунов (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Ownership of physical property (magazine) is distinct from ownership of associated intellectual property (copyright). This is merely a COM:DW of a magazine that you thus cannot license; that it is no longer published does not mean the copyright has been extinguished. Эlcobbola _talk 16:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Club Siete de febrero.jpg

7 de Febrero, Ventas, Los Ríos.

Not done: Procedural close. No reason to restore given. Please review our instructions, which include "State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion." (bold in original). --Эlcobbola _talk 17:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Федерація дзюдо України.jpg

Запрос на восстановления файла с логотипом Федерации дзюдо Украины. Из-за удаления мы не можем добавить изображение в шаблон. Пресс-аташе Федерации дзюдо, Максим Чеберяка. --Максим Чеберяка (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - This request is essentially "because this image is deleted, we can't use it in an article," which, of course, does not address the reason for deletion. This is the logo of Федерация дзюдо Украины, which has no indication of a free license (only "© 2010 Федерация дзюдо Украины"). Evidence of permission will need to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola _talk 19:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:The siyar-ul-Mutakherin, a history of the Mahomedan power in India during the last century (IA siyarulmutakheri00ghulrich).pdf

The file was speedy deleted on the day of upload. The deleting administrator @Billinghurst: has refused to undelete the file on request. Refer to User_talk:Billinghurst#PDF vs DjVu. The case made there for undeletion was:

Consensus: Should PDF be preferred over DjVu alternates? is a small consensus supporting that PDFs should be a preferred format and where PDFs and DjVu exist, the PDF should not be deleted, nor is there any consensus to delete the DjVu version.
The upload is part of the COM:IA books project with over 850,000 uploads so far, and so the principle of harmonization applies.
The speedy deletion is out of process. In this scenario a Deletion Request may be appropriate, but none of the criteria defined by COM:CSD applies to this administrator action.
The deleting admin has been unable to provide any consensus agreed policy or guideline to support their assertion that We typically delete PDF files that are solely uploaded as image holders.

In addition it should be noted that the two scans are different.

The DjVu version uploaded in 2015 has every page marked "Univ Calif - Digitized by Microsoft (R)" on the footer of every page. The PDF does not and therefore is potentially of greater value for reusers who wish to print single pages, or read the book.
The compression artefacts of the two documents are significantly different. Neither is equivalent to the original JP2000 scans they are created from.
DjVu is a format now abandoned by the Internet Archive. Though the DjVu claims to have been downloaded from IA, the source page does not contain a link to that format, nor does it mention it as an option. To find it, one would have to search through a list of additional formats. (Further analysis shows the DjVu was created by IA on 15-Feb-2008 and the PDF on 08-Jan-2011.)

As explained on the deletion admin's talk page, the undeletion is important as a test case. It is a case study for setting a precedence for how Wikimedia Commons document uploads from the Internet Archive should be handled and maintained in future years. Keeping both versions harms nobody, neither does deleting it save anyone time or even disk space. As raised in the Consensus discussion linked above, the majority of users and reusers prefer PDF because it is easy to read and use on multiple platforms while the DjVu format is no longer supported on many platforms or browsers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Refused? More declined based on the evidence presented to me that I should undelete and then immediately take it to a DR.
I invited you to give me a better premise, one based on scope and usage. You said you have no intention of using the work. The work itself would not be used for images, and could primarily be used for extraction to a reproduced work at a Wikisource, though it duplicates an existing copy of the same edition.
Some responses:

A gentle conversation in VP is not the basis for claiming a consensus for a policy. That is the most trivial conversation with little input, and where it has not been put to groups that use these types of files. I see no notice to the WSes, nothing! Please don't misrepresent what is a consensus of this community.

The djvu file is uploaded, and is linked back to IA, nothing is broken. Which principle of harmonisation? Are you telling me that you are going to move all the WS works from DjVU to PDF. Which harmonisation?!?
The harmonisation I see at Wikidata relates to linking to the IA item, not any form of subsidiary scan. That would seem to me to be the best form of harmonisation.

This is the same edition of a multipage work, and a work that is in a reproduction framework. The WS communities have had multiple problematic cases of competing transcriptions due to pdf vs djvu, and they lead to complicated and time-consuming cleanups. [Note: djvu files allow for better transcriptions in WS which is why they are preferred.]

Interesting, but so what? It is still the same edition of the work derived from the same scans.

Are you disputing the source and nature of the file? Same base url, same edition, same primary scans. Will be linked to primary url from whichever WD item.

This was completed due to a request for duplicate, and it is a duplicate. With regard to filetype, there are admin bots that remove different filetypes of the same image, so the filetype aspect has to be taken with flexibility based on usage. We don't and should not be using these produced files for the images that we need, we should be going back to the JP2000 files where we want these images. We also delete as duplicate the same edition of a work where it has different page totals, applying the premise of one version of the published edition.
Noting, that typically where a PDF file exists for an edition of a work from Commons, we have stopped the upload of DjVu files based on the principle of one copy of the edition of work at Commons; and even though these PDF files produce more problematic transcription efforts. If we are going to reverse the base principle of one copy of an edition, then I can see that the WS communities will be looking to reverse that decision-making. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read what has been written. The undeletion request here is founded on policy and consensus.

Nobody is proposing that WikiSource change anything.

Nobody has ever suggested that if people from WikiSource want to upload DjVu that they can't.

Nobody has ever suggested that files in use on WikiSource should be deleted or are threatened just because the PDF version of a document is available for reuse.

"it is a duplicate" is untrue, which anyone can check by examining the two files. One has watermarks and the other does not, one can be easily reused across all platforms and the other is in an abandoned format with limited usefulness. These are important key differences.

With regard to filetype, there are admin bots that remove different filetypes of the same image, is irrelevant, this does not happen for document formats.

This deletion was out of process, it is not covered by COM:CSD. If you wish to delete this file create a deletion request.

Your action was as a sysop on Commons. Your actions on Commons are governed by consensus and policy on Commons, not WikiSource. If you are passionate about this issue on WikiSource, then create a consensus about it. So far you have been unable to produce any policy or guideline or consensus on Commons to support your action.

Please stick to policy and consensus.

As a side note, you have used <blockquote> to emphasise your response in this thread. This appears unnecessary and confusing, your words are not a quote from somewhere else, they are not more authoritative just because they are formatted this way.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Both: PDF and DjVu formats have advantages and disadvantages. However, unless some advantages of one of the formats are really needed in Wikimedia, I am against hosting such duplicates. The presented arguments do not convince me that we really need the PDF version in Wikimedia. The PDF can be (and is) hosted elsewhere and Wikimedia Commons needn't to be a IA backup. So Weak oppose undeletion, but as I generally oppose massive uploads without care whether the content is needed or not and whether it is properly categorized to make it useful for reusers, I am leaving a decision to an uninvolved admin. Ankry (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not summarizing clearly.

There are two very obvious reasons to keep the PDF as well as the DjVu. (1) Many users cannot read a DjVu file on their device that they access this project with, but everyone can read the PDF on any device. (2) The DjVu has unpleasant very visible watermarks on every page, while the PDF does not.

To make (2) clearer to everyone, I have added {{Watermark}} to that version. --Fæ (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If they need to see the file content: both formats are presented by MediaWiki. If they want to download it: why should they do it from Commons and not from IA? Ankry (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the version without watermarks has been deleted. We don't need to run a proposal for whether the community prefers to have access to files without watermarks, as {{Watermark}} is already agreed.

As for the rationale that we don't need files on Commons that are on IA, that's not a policy or a consensus, it's something you've just made up. If IA folds, and with the current legal cases against IA by publishers that's a very real possibility right now, then Wikimedia Commons would be a very poor strategic position if we pin our long term future on it remaining online forever. --Fæ (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, bumping into this conversation, I was wondering if this file might be of any help. Lotje (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one in the no longer supported DjVu format with watermarks on every page. The file that has been deleted is in PDF, which can be read on any modern platform, and has no watermarks. --Fæ (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Support I see no reason why duplicating in another file extension isn't supported on this wiki. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done Commons already has File:Siyar-ul-Mutakherin.djvu and there is an ongoing transcription project of this file at wikisource:en:Index:Siyar-ul-Mutakherin.djvu. See also Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats. Thuresson (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:MalaysiaAirlinesLogo Enrich.png

Please restore the following pages:

File:MalaysiaAirlinesLogo Enrich.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Looks like a simple text logo. This can be kept with a {{Pd-textlogo}} license. Sreejith K (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment @Sreejithk2000: The file was deleted as having No source since 15 December 2018 and not a licensing issue. The English Wikipedia source file en:File:MalaysiaAirlinesLogo Enrich.png also has this issue and has accordingly been tagged with that project's {{Di-no source}}. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
www.malaysiaairlines.com is the source. Added this info in en wiki page. --Sreejith K (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Question @Sreejithk2000: Would you have a specific source page? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The direct link to Enrich page is https://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/enrich.html --Sreejith K (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @Sreejithk2000: FYI. Please proceed to add the source to the page. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:میکاسا آکرمن.webp

Hello my friends.

I just uploaded a file from Wikia and in the every footer of every page the wrote:

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

and even you can read more here so would you please give me explain why my file has been removed?

Thanks in advance --GameO7er (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Info @GameO7er: It is a copyright violation to use properly licensed CC-BY-SA files without crediting the creator/copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

So why delete? CC-by-sa is considered a free licence and is acceptable here at Commons. If a credit needs to be added, then add it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - This is like claiming this image to be free because the footer references the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. If you actually look at the image's specific license it is claiming fair use at the attackontitan.fandom.com site. Even if this weren't the case, it would be license laundering as this is the work of the comic artist/publisher, not the editors of some non-WMF wiki (i.e., it is not "community content," and it is "otherwise noted.") Permission needs to be granted by the actual copyright holder(s). Эlcobbola _talk 19:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Avenir_de_Rennes_Basketball.svg

I AM THE CREATOR,AND THEREFORE RIGHTFUL OWNER, OF THIS LOGO ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumaxotl (talk • contribs) 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Эlcobbola _talk 19:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Localidade da Amadora, 1940

Hi, this is a very old photo that the public administration of the Amadora municipality published frequently on social media. Its creator is unknown and even the public authorities don't know who has made the photo. Probably the Portuguese military, because in the photo you can see a military base from the beginning of the XX century. So I don't know what license to use, but is something like "unknown author, but used by everyone, even the public administration, with no property rights whatsoever". Thanks for your help, it is a very significant photo. --Dvfernandes (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - An author is not unknown merely because you personally do not know them, nor because sources of which you personally are aware fail to cite an author (which is itself entirely different than not knowing the author). COM:EVID sets forth "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: the file is in the public domain" (underline added) and, per COM:L, description pages should "contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status." You've provided no such information either in the upload or here. Notwithstanding that this request is effectively COM:PRP#4, we use 120 years as the threshold to assume author death; accordingly, a date of 1940 (itself entirely unsupported) is far too recent (1940 + 120 + 1 = 01.01.2061) Эlcobbola _talk 19:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Delegated operators europe 2020.png

The image was made by me and is not used elsewhere. --Europex (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - This report from 2017 contradicts this claim; minor changes (e.g., to labeling) merely make the 2020 version a derivative work. Previously published works require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Эlcobbola _talk 19:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

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

lyne carol guih

The Picture Lyne Carol Guih is a true copyright owned by me . The picture was used for her website

Not done: Procedural close. Files previously published elsewhere require the copyright holder (generally the photographer unless copyright is tranferable under applicable copyright laws and, if so, was transferred by operation of law or by contract) to send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Please note: File has been reuploaded as File:LyneGuih.jpg. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Metro Manila Bus Transit Map.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Metro Manila Bus Transit Map.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: How come this file is a copyright violation?? This photo is a public domain created by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) which is a government agency in the Philippines and posted by the Philippine News Agency which is also a Philippine government agency. [1] Myrabert01 (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Herbythyme: can you, please, comment on this? LTFRB seems to be indeed a government agency and the image is clearly marked at source page that it originates from LTFRB. Ankry (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

OK - undeleted for now. BUT the source on the image is here actually. On that page there is a clear copyright statement. Personally - as it stands - it is still a clear copyright violation. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see also an ongoing discussion on Philippine government works at Template talk:PD-PhilippinesGov#Not copyrighted but no approval for commercial purposes not OK JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Done: While the PNA website has a copyright notice, the page does note "Map courtesy of LTFRB". Works of the LTFRB are considered works of the government and, therefore, under current Commons position on the matter, ineligible for copyright under Republic Acts No. 8293 and No. 10372. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Namma_Flix.jpg

add that that to namma flix page its A app & it has facebook page also i took from fb page.. it comes under public domain know

Oppose Concerning File:Namma Flix Logo.jpg : Clearly not own work as claimed when uploaded, and no evidence of a free licence here or here. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also per the yet to be closed DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Namma Flix.png and ultimately per COM:SCOPE. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Support Plain text in Kannada and English. We can change license to {{Pd-textlogo}} --Sreejith K (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - The background gradient, the colour selection, and the arrangement of all elements have not adequately been considered in this request; this is not an unambiguous pd-textlogo. This is likely moot, as Namma Flix does not appear notable. Indeed, this was uploaded by a sock for use in w:Draft:NammaFlix which has been declined for mainspace multiple times. COM:NOTHOST/COM:SPAM issue regardless of copyright. Эlcobbola _talk 17:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Kapwing employees.jpg

Hi,

This image has been approved by Kapwing themselves. I am being paid to write the Wiki for Kapwing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafayabubaker (talk • contribs) 14:50, 2 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Info en:Draft:Kapwing has been declined. Thuresson (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per COM:SCOPE and COM:L (No evidence of free licence on source website). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Авраам Яари.jpg

Dear administrators, this photo I got from National Library of Israel with explicit mail from copyright department that this material is fee for use שלום רב, הפריט בנחלת הכלל ומותר לעשות בו כל שימוש. אם תעשה שימוש בפריט נודה לך על ציון מקורו בנוסח הבא: The Pritzker Family National Photography Collection, The National Library of Israel, Abraham Schwadron collection.

בברכה,

   יעל הררי

רכזת שירות הרשאות וזכויות יוצרים

I hope this is enough, Meirantop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meirantop (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - You didn't claim this image to be PD, you claimed it to be cc-by-sa-4.0 with a source that says "The item is subject to copyright and/or contractual terms of use. You may use this item for non-commercial teaching and research purposes only." (underline added) I don't know how you reconcile this with the purported "explicit mail." Nothing is public domain without a reason. If copyright was transferred to the archive and they are releasing copyrights, why does their site say the opposite? Otherwise, Israel is life + 70 years. Even if the author died immediately upon creation, the creation date of "ca. 1963-1965" is far too recent (e.g., in the "best" case: 1963 + 70 + 1 = 01.01.2034) Эlcobbola _talk 17:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Good evening, Beautiful People, I have the total Honor to come and please beg you to please undelete my Page, it will really mean a lot, I am trying to spread positivity, I know you guys don't believe a Word of my saying, because a lot of people misused the privilege of Wikipedia, but please, find, the compassion in your heart, and please allow my Page to exist, I am not using it for my own benefit, I am using it to be the light in lot people home, during time lot people need people like me to inspire them and to make them see how much loved there are. If you don't want to do it for me, at least do it for those amazing people, this is all i will ask you as my Christmas wishes to make other people happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princechristen (talk • contribs) 04:43, 3 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. This refers to a deleted vanity page on en.wiki ("please undelete my Page")--see here. This the the Commons, not en.wiki, and thus this is not actionable. --Эlcobbola _talk 10:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Shameless-season-11-poster.png

This poster is from the same source yall approved for the previous season poster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shameless_season_10.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimoSLAY (talk • contribs) 03:21, 3 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose per COM:FAIRUSE. From imdb.com. No free license. Thuresson (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Rakhmaninova Maria.jpg

I hereby affirm that I, Oleg Andros, the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media as shown here: [File:Rakhmaninova Maria.jpg], and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rakhmaninova_Maria.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

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

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

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

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

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

Oleg Andros (in Ukrainian: Андрос Олег Євгенійович) Copyright holder 01.12.2020 Olegandros (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: procedural close. Undeletion performed by OTRS. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:PSCamera 2 01 1473281166-1024x682.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:PSCamera 2 01 1473281166-1024x682.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: I wanted to use this picture in the Playstation VR article. BrightBlueside153 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @BrightBlueside153: "I wanted to use this picture in the Playstation VR article." is not a rationale as to why it should be undeleted. (1) It is an unambiguous COM:NETCOPYVIO as there is no evidence of an accepted free licence on source website. (2) Non-free content -- whether under a fair use rationale or not -- is not permitted on Common and will be deleted on sight, without warning. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. No valid rationale provided. File is an unambiguous COM:NETCOPYVIO. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Vreme de Albastru - Blue Spirit - Aurel Istrati.jpg

Hello,

I would like to know why was this image deleted. I created this page and added the images as the daugther-in-law of mister Aurel Istrati. Me and my family are the owners of the images as the direct heirs of mister Aurel Istrati. I also saw that all the images I uploaded are going to be deleted if I don't bring any proof of ownership.

I took the photos personally with my phone right before I uploaded them to Wikipedia. What should I bring as a proof!?

Thank you, Theodora Istrati --Theodora.istrati (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Since Commons users are essentially anonymous, this can not be resolved by making a public declaration. Nor can it be resolved through OTRS since Wikimedia volunteers can not investigate who are the legal heirs of a Romanian artist, Aurel Istrati, and if these heirs are willing to freely license some or all of the artist's works. If the artist had a well-known web site then such a declaration could be published there, however there does not seem to be any such official web site. Thuresson (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:A 3D spatial channel model for cellular radio. (IA 3dspatialchannel00sasi).pdf

@Fæ: @Taivo: @De728631: @Missvain: Per the decision here Commons:Deletion requests/File:A framework for collaborative Quadrotor - ground robot missions (IA aframeworkforcol1094510654).pdf

I will note Category:IA mirror related deletion requests/deleted contains some files were the same closure logic as the file being requested for undeletion and thus are potentially open to the same logic in the linked DR being applied for undeletion.

Extended content:

Extended content

It would of course be nice to have ONE consistent DOCUMENTED guideline to apply, so that closing admins can be confident they are closing within policy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - The decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:A 3D spatial channel model for cellular radio. (IA 3dspatialchannel00sasi).pdf was correct. The closure of the The other DR is not, and the closing admin ought to have known better. The comment regarding "imprimatur" in support of retention is utter nonsense. Mere appearance in a Naval Postgraduate School ihesis is not reasonably equated to "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." (underline added) Indeed, 17 U.S.C. § 105 goes out of its way to say explicitly "the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." (There is, of course, also no evidence that the copyright was even transferred.) As an additional thought experiment not germane to this file's use case, but rather to the "imprimatur" absurdity: no competent person would believe screenshots of Movieland software are PD-USGov by virtue of their use in an FTC complaint. The germane consideration is not "imprimatur," but the employment status and duties of the author. The document does say "Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited," but this appears to reference accessibility (i.e., not confidential) rather than copyright (and, even if the latter, is not sufficiently explicit per COM:L. Эlcobbola _talk 15:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
As the uploader it's not that clear to me. I believe none of us know what the expectations on those doing research 100% within the NPS, a federal institution, are for their resultant reports and publications. Other cases where there is a partnership with an external university have more understandable deletions, as these lack an obvious public domain release statement. One can argue a reasonable case for a 100% federal funded researcher working within a federal institute that their works are automatically public domain. One can also argue against this, if you believe that elements of this research are not under a federal contract and federal funding. Why the NPS library has published these as public domain should mean something, and it's unfortunate we have found exceptions where there are conflicting copyright statements which throws shade on all the uploads. --Fæ (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Showcase Logo 2015.png

Please restore the following pages:

File:Showcase Logo 2015.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The image was deleted as no source. The source of the image is https://www.showcase.ca/. It can be restored and kept under the free license {{Pd-textlogo}} Sreejith K (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @Sreejithk2000: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:川本紗矢.jpg

Image was taken from the official Youtube channel and the CC BY license was license reviewed. Although CC BY was later removed but a CC license is non-revocable. --Wcam (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: A CC licence is irrevocable. Regardless of the statement made in the video description, the CC-BY licence would trump it. Furthermore, claims of licence laundering in the DR are utter nonsense as the channel is the official channel of the group. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Gazeta Uliczna Kontra.jpg

This work depicts the cover of an underground newspaper issued by the anti-communist movement in Poland in year 1989. The image was used in infobox included in article about that newspaper and its purpose was to illustrate to the readers how the newspaper looked like and what was the technology of its underground print. The article is approved and available on the Polish Wikipedia. See https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazeta_Uliczna_Kontra

Both the article and this image depicting the article's subject DO HAVE a real educational purpose as they inform about an important historical item the newspaper was on the Poland's way to regain its independence and democracy. I am the author of this work. Moreover, I was also one of the makers of the newspaper itself. The newspaper was entirely FREE, NOT subject to ANY COPYRIGHTS OR RESTRICTIONS, intended to be FREELY distrubuted, used, reused, copied, whatever. It is AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN entirely in the public domain and I do have the right to publish it. Therefore, this work DOES NOT violate any or anyone's copyrights and it DOES HAVE a real educational value (of course to those Polish Wikipedia visitors interested in Polish history and understanding the Polish language, which clearly wasn't the case with the person who mass-deleted those works of mine.

Please undelete the file. If I selected a wrong licence type, please help me correct it insteaad of just mass-deleting my works and this way breaking/crippling the articles they were used in. I'll be happy to serve with any further explanations you might need. Thank you. Konfederat73 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @Konfederat73: As a technical matter, there is no means by which we can confirm your assertions or identity on this platform. Works previous published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As I already explained, it is not 'work previously published elsewhere'. The newspaper itself (underground-published, under the communist regime and Soviet occupation of the country) was not copyrighted, it was a public domain work. So there was no copyright holder. As an underground publication (released outside of state control of the then undemocratic country) it was NOT covered or protected by any of intellectual property laws and at present in Poland it is in PUBLIC DOMAIN. So, once again, the original publication IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. And its digital reproduction published here by me WAS MADE BY ME specifically for the purpose of publishing it in a Wikipedia article, so it was NOT "previously published elsewhere" and I am the sole creator and copyright holder of it, and I already did state my ownership when uploading the file and I already gave my permissions by selecting the licence.

If you don't trust my ownership statements that I've been providing as a registered (for years, with no record of ever breaking any copyrights) and logged in user, i.e. with my email address confirmed and known and my IP address recorded, I can't see how merely repeating the same statements yet another time by email could change anything. And why should I accept being treated like a potential thief and liar if you haven't given any valid reasons of why you've suddenly chosen me to "confirm my assetions or identity on this platform" after years of membership and no record of any faults, and you enforced it by MASS-DELETING all my works. Is this additional procedure enforced on selected people based on their nationality or country that you consider somehow less trustworthy? If so then it is an apparent case of prejudice and segregation.

I repeat: I already did state my ownership and the premissions by selecting the licence - as required when uploading the files. So please either point out any ACTUAL valid faults of mine that justify questioning my credibility and mass-deleting my works like that, or undelete the files that you've clearly had no reasons to delete. The explanation given me by Christian Ferrer (who deleted my files) that "a huge number of other people's claims are false so maybe mine's too" just isn't serious and is an apparent case of applying collective resposibility. Konfederat73 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: By nature, Commons users are essentially anonymous. Email addresses and IP addresses are not infomation that editors, including administrators, are privied to. But that is largely irrelevent to the issue at hand. Statements made about copyright and publication do not reflect the copyright law of Poland (both the 1926 law and the superseding 1994 law). Underground publication is still publication, and such works were -- by clear evidence -- published elsewhere first. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Kontra Komunie & Kontra newspapers covers.jpg

This work depicts a cover of an underground newspaper issued by the anti-communist movement in Poland in the '90s. The image was used in infobox included in article about that newspaper and its purpose was to illustrate to the readers how the newspaper looked like and what was the technology of its underground print. The article is approved and available on the Polish Wikipedia. See https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontra_Komunie

Both the article and this image depicting the article's subject DO HAVE a real educational purpose as they inform about an important historical item the newspaper was on the Poland's way to regain its independence and democracy. I am the author of this work. Moreover, I was also one of the makers of the newspaper itself. The newspaper was entirely FREE, NOT subject to ANY COPYRIGHTS OR RESTRICTIONS, intended to be FREELY distrubuted, used, reused, copied, whatever. It is AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN entirely in the public domain and I do have the right to publish it. Therefore, this work DOES NOT violate any or anyone's copyrights and it DOES HAVE a real educational value (of course to those Polish Wikipedia visitors interested in Polish history and understanding the Polish language, which clearly wasn't the case with the person who mass-deleted those works of mine).

Please undelete the file. If I selected a wrong licence type, please help me correct it insteaad of just mass-deleting my works and this way breaking/crippling the articles they were used in. I'll be happy to serve with any further explanations you might need. Thank you. Konfederat73 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @Konfederat73: As a technical matter, there is no means by which we can confirm your assertions or identity on this platform. Works previous published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As I already explained, it is not 'work previously published elsewhere'. The newspaper itself (underground-published, under the communist regime and Soviet occupation of the country) was not copyrighted, it was a public domain work. So there was no copyright holder. As an underground publication (released outside of state control of the then undemocratic country) it was NOT covered or protected by any of intellectual property laws and at present in Poland it is in PUBLIC DOMAIN. So, once again, the original publication IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. And its digital reproduction published here by me WAS MADE BY ME specifically for the purpose of publishing it in a Wikipedia article, so it was NOT "previously published elsewhere" and I am the sole creator and copyright holder of it, and I already did state my ownership when uploading the file and I already gave my permissions by selecting the licence.

If you don't trust my ownership statements that I've been providing as a registered (for years, with no record of ever breaking any copyrights) and logged in user, i.e. with my email address confirmed and known and my IP address recorded, I can't see how merely repeating the same statements yet another time by email could change anything. And why should I accept being treated like a potential thief and liar if you haven't given any valid reasons of why you've suddenly chosen me to "confirm my assetions or identity on this platform" after years of membership and no record of any faults, and you enforced it by MASS-DELETING all my works. Is this additional procedure enforced on selected people based on their nationality or country that you consider somehow less trustworthy? If so then it is an apparent case of prejudice and segregation.

I repeat: I already did state my ownership and the premissions by selecting the licence - as required when uploading the files. So please either point out any ACTUAL valid faults of mine that justify questioning my credibility and mass-deleting my works like that, or undelete the files that you've clearly had no reasons to delete. The explanation given me by Christian Ferrer (who deleted my files) that "a huge number of other people's claims are false so maybe mine's too" just isn't serious and is an apparent case of applying collective resposibility. Konfederat73 (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: By nature, Commons users are essentially anonymous. Email addresses and IP addresses are not infomation that editors, including administrators, are privied to. But that is largely irrelevent to the issue at hand. Statements made about copyright and publication do not reflect the copyright law of Poland (both the 1926 law and the superseding 1994 law). Underground publication is still publication, and such works were -- by clear evidence -- published elsewhere first. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Krata 1.png

This work depicts a cover of an underground newspaper issued by the anti-communist movement in Poland in the '80s. The image was used in infobox included in article about that newspaper and its purpose was to illustrate to the readers how the newspaper looked like and what was the technology of its underground print. The article is approved and available on the Polish Wikipedia. See https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krata_(pismo)

Both the article and this image depicting the article's subject DO HAVE a real educational purpose as they inform about an important historical item the newspaper was on the Poland's way to regain its independence and democracy. I am the author of this work. Moreover, I was also one of the makers of the newspaper itself. The newspaper was entirely FREE, NOT subject to ANY COPYRIGHTS OR RESTRICTIONS, intended to be FREELY distrubuted, used, reused, copied, whatever. It is AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN entirely in the public domain and I do have the right to publish it. Therefore, this work DOES NOT violate any or anyone's copyrights and it DOES HAVE a real educational value (of course to those Polish Wikipedia visitors interested in Polish history and understanding the Polish language, which clearly wasn't the case with the person who mass-deleted those works of mine).

Please undelete the file. If I selected a wrong licence type, please help me correct it insteaad of just mass-deleting my works and this way breaking/crippling the articles they were used in. I'll be happy to serve with any further explanations you might need. Thank you. Konfederat73 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @Konfederat73: As a technical matter, there is no means by which we can confirm your assertions or identity on this platform. Works previous published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As I already explained, it is not 'work previously published elsewhere'. The newspaper itself (underground-published, under the communist regime and Soviet occupation of the country) was not copyrighted, it was a public domain work. So there was no copyright holder. As an underground publication (released outside of state control of the then undemocratic country) it was NOT covered or protected by any of intellectual property laws and at present in Poland it is in PUBLIC DOMAIN. So, once again, the original publication IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. And its digital reproduction published here by me WAS MADE BY ME specifically for the purpose of publishing it in a Wikipedia article, so it was NOT "previously published elsewhere" and I am the sole creator and copyright holder of it, and I already did state my ownership when uploading the file and I already gave my permissions by selecting the licence.

If you don't trust my ownership statements that I've been providing as a registered (for years, with no record of ever breaking any copyrights) and logged in user, i.e. with my email address confirmed and known and my IP address recorded, I can't see how merely repeating the same statements yet another time by email could change anything. And why should I accept being treated like a potential thief and liar if you haven't given any valid reasons of why you've suddenly chosen me to "confirm my assetions or identity on this platform" after years of membership and no record of any faults, and you enforced it by MASS-DELETING all my works. Is this additional procedure enforced on selected people based on their nationality or country that you consider somehow less trustworthy? If so then it is an apparent case of prejudice and segregation.

I repeat: I already did state my ownership and the premissions by selecting the licence - as required when uploading the files. So please either point out any ACTUAL valid faults of mine that justify questioning my credibility and mass-deleting my works like that, or undelete the files that you've clearly had no reasons to delete. The explanation given me by Christian Ferrer (who deleted my files) that "a huge number of other people's claims are false so maybe mine's too" just isn't serious and is an apparent case of applying collective resposibility. Konfederat73 (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: By nature, Commons users are essentially anonymous. Email addresses and IP addresses are not infomation that editors, including administrators, are privied to. But that is largely irrelevent to the issue at hand. Statements made about copyright and publication do not reflect the copyright law of Poland (both the 1926 law and the superseding 1994 law). Underground publication is still publication, and such works were -- by clear evidence -- published elsewhere first. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Rota KOWzP Radom.png

This work depicts a cover of an underground newspaper issued by the anti-communist movement in Poland in the '80s. The image was used in infobox included in article about that newspaper and its purpose was to illustrate to the readers how the newspaper looked like and what was the technology of its underground print. The article is approved and available on the Polish Wikipedia. See https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rota_(pismo)

Both the article and this image depicting the article's subject DO HAVE a real educational purpose as they inform about an important historical item the newspaper was on the Poland's way to regain its independence and democracy. I am the author of this work. Moreover, I was also one of the makers of the newspaper itself. The newspaper was entirely FREE, NOT subject to ANY COPYRIGHTS OR RESTRICTIONS, intended to be FREELY distrubuted, used, reused, copied, whatever. It is AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN entirely in the public domain and I do have the right to publish it. Therefore, this work DOES NOT violate any or anyone's copyrights and it DOES HAVE a real educational value (of course to those Polish Wikipedia visitors interested in Polish history and understanding the Polish language, which clearly wasn't the case with the person who mass-deleted those works of mine).

Please undelete the file. If I selected a wrong licence type, please help me correct it insteaad of just mass-deleting my works and this way breaking/crippling the articles they were used in. I'll be happy to serve with any further explanations you might need. Thank you. Konfederat73 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @Konfederat73: As a technical matter, there is no means by which we can confirm your assertions or identity on this platform. Works previous published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As I already explained, it is not 'work previously published elsewhere'. The newspaper itself (underground-published, under the communist regime and Soviet occupation of the country) was not copyrighted, it was a public domain work. So there was no copyright holder. As an underground publication (released outside of state control of the then undemocratic country) it was NOT covered or protected by any of intellectual property laws and at present in Poland it is in PUBLIC DOMAIN. So, once again, the original publication IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. And its digital reproduction published here by me WAS MADE BY ME specifically for the purpose of publishing it in a Wikipedia article, so it was NOT "previously published elsewhere" and I am the sole creator and copyright holder of it, and I already did state my ownership when uploading the file and I already gave my permissions by selecting the licence.

If you don't trust my ownership statements that I've been providing as a registered (for years, with no record of ever breaking any copyrights) and logged in user, i.e. with my email address confirmed and known and my IP address recorded, I can't see how merely repeating the same statements yet another time by email could change anything. And why should I accept being treated like a potential thief and liar if you haven't given any valid reasons of why you've suddenly chosen me to "confirm my assetions or identity on this platform" after years of membership and no record of any faults, and you enforced it by MASS-DELETING all my works. Is this additional procedure enforced on selected people based on their nationality or country that you consider somehow less trustworthy? If so then it is an apparent case of prejudice and segregation.

I repeat: I already did state my ownership and the premissions by selecting the licence - as required when uploading the files. So please either point out any ACTUAL valid faults of mine that justify questioning my credibility and mass-deleting my works like that, or undelete the files that you've clearly had no reasons to delete. The explanation given me by Christian Ferrer (who deleted my files) that "a huge number of other people's claims are false so maybe mine's too" just isn't serious and is an apparent case of applying collective resposibility. Konfederat73 (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: By nature, Commons users are essentially anonymous. Email addresses and IP addresses are not infomation that editors, including administrators, are privied to. But that is largely irrelevent to the issue at hand. Statements made about copyright and publication do not reflect the copyright law of Poland (both the 1926 law and the superseding 1994 law). Underground publication is still publication, and such works were -- by clear evidence -- published elsewhere first. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Kontra 9.jpg

This work depicts a cover of an underground newspaper issued by the anti-communist movement in Poland in the '90s. The image was used in infobox included in article about that newspaper (and the underground printing house releasing it) and its purpose was to illustrate to the readers how the newspaper looked like and what was the technology of its underground print. The article is approved and available on the Polish Wikipedia. See https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radomska_Oficyna_Wydawnicza_im._Jacka_Jerza

Both the article and this image depicting the article's subject DO HAVE a real educational purpose as they inform about an important historical item the newspaper was on the Poland's way to regain its independence and democracy. I am the author of this work. Moreover, I was also one of the makers of the newspaper itself. The newspaper was entirely FREE, NOT subject to ANY COPYRIGHTS OR RESTRICTIONS, intended to be FREELY distrubuted, used, reused, copied, whatever. It is AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN entirely in the public domain and I do have the right to publish it. Therefore, this work DOES NOT violate any or anyone's copyrights and it DOES HAVE a real educational value (of course to those Polish Wikipedia visitors interested in Polish history and understanding the Polish language, which clearly wasn't the case with the person who mass-deleted those works of mine).

Please undelete the file. If I selected a wrong licence type, please help me correct it insteaad of just mass-deleting my works and this way breaking/crippling the articles they were used in. I'll be happy to serve with any further explanations you might need. Thank you. Konfederat73 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @Konfederat73: As a technical matter, there is no means by which we can confirm your assertions or identity on this platform. Works previous published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As I already explained, it is not 'work previously published elsewhere'. The newspaper itself (underground-published, under the communist regime and Soviet occupation of the country) was not copyrighted, it was a public domain work. So there was no copyright holder. As an underground publication (released outside of state control of the then undemocratic country) it was NOT covered or protected by any of intellectual property laws and at present in Poland it is in PUBLIC DOMAIN. So, once again, the original publication IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. And its digital reproduction published here by me WAS MADE BY ME specifically for the purpose of publishing it in a Wikipedia article, so it was NOT "previously published elsewhere" and I am the sole creator and copyright holder of it, and I already did state my ownership when uploading the file and I already gave my permissions by selecting the licence.

If you don't trust my ownership statements that I've been providing as a registered (for years, with no record of ever breaking any copyrights) and logged in user, i.e. with my email address confirmed and known and my IP address recorded, I can't see how merely repeating the same statements yet another time by email could change anything. And why should I accept being treated like a potential thief and liar if you haven't given any valid reasons of why you've suddenly chosen me to "confirm my assetions or identity on this platform" after years of membership and no record of any faults, and you enforced it by MASS-DELETING all my works. Is this additional procedure enforced on selected people based on their nationality or country that you consider somehow less trustworthy? If so then it is an apparent case of prejudice and segregation.

I repeat: I already did state my ownership and the premissions by selecting the licence - as required when uploading the files. So please either point out any ACTUAL valid faults of mine that justify questioning my credibility and mass-deleting my works like that, or undelete the files that you've clearly had no reasons to delete. The explanation given me by Christian Ferrer (who deleted my files) that "a huge number of other people's claims are false so maybe mine's too" just isn't serious and is an apparent case of applying collective resposibility. Konfederat73 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Konfederat73: Hello,

The following comments apply also to your other uploads (mutatis mutandis).
As a first question, was there a written notice included in each of those publications stating clearly that the contents of the publication could be freely used, reused, copied, etc.? That would make things much easier. If so, what was the exact wording of each notice? And where can it be read?
If there was no such notice, things will be more complicated:
- You say that you are "the author of this work". The two newspaper pages reproduced in "File:Kontra 9.jpg" are mostly text articles, one photo and two illustrations. Most other files (with the exception of two Barykada images) include mostly a lot of text and some images. Are you personally the only creator and writer of all the elements, of all the text articles and of all the photos and drawings?
- It will be necessary to provide some sort of evidence for your statements of authorship. If such evidence is not already publicly available, it can be provided through email to the team of Commons:OTRS. It may also help if a person who is now publicly known to have been associated with the publications can certify your statements. That person can be yourself, if you are publicly known as such. You will probably need to confidentially disclose your identity to the OTRS team.

-- Asclepias (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Asclepias: ,

It basically takes understanding that those newspapers (as the corresponding Wikipedia articles explain) were UNDERGROUND publications released in a then non-democratic country, under an occupation and lethal communist regime. They were released outside of state control, i.e. outside of any of that state's laws, including intellectual property laws. So they were not, and couldn't have been, copyrighted in any way. The goal of the creators of those newspapers (anti-regime movement fighting for democracy and freedom) was to reach as large number of people as possible, so those publications were provided absolutely free and totally unrestricted, not subject to any copyrights or limitations, actually INTENDED to be widely copied, reproduced and redistributed by anyone. No one explicitly stated it in them because it was obvious, and at the same time no one claimed any copyrights, either. It takes understanding how such undergound movements functioned in an occupied country under lethal regime (not much different than during the World War II), and - as I said - those newspapers were released outside of the state's control so they were not subject to any of its laws (including copyright/intellectual property laws) anyway. They were actually considered illegal by the state. Makers of those newspapers were mostly ANONYMOUS or else they would have been severely punished by the regime, so how could they claim any copyrights even if they ever wanted? Once again, it takes understanding those circumstances.

And in the present democratic Poland those underground newspapers are now legally and officially PUBLIC DOMAIN, freely shared historical items. So the whole historical background described above is actually unimportant, because legally and officially they are PUBLIC DOMAIN now.

When it comes to my digital reproduction of those newspapers, I had the right to make digital reproduction of them because they are PUBLIC DOMAIN. I made those digital reproductions solely for the purpose of using them in corresponding Wikipedia articles (also written by me, approved and available), so they are not copied from anywhere - I am the owner, the author and the copyright owner of those digital reproductions. I did state my ownership and I did select the appropriate licence when uploading those files, so I have no idea what else could I do.

It is completely unimportant if I was or wasn't the author of the texts or images in those newspapers themselves, because - as I wrote - they never were copyrighted in any way, and in the present Poland they are now entirely PUBLIC DOMAIN Konfederat73 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: By nature, Commons users are essentially anonymous. Email addresses and IP addresses are not infomation that editors, including administrators, are privied to. But that is largely irrelevent to the issue at hand. Statements made about copyright and publication do not reflect the copyright law of Poland (both the 1926 law and the superseding 1994 law). Underground publication is still publication, and such works were -- by clear evidence -- published elsewhere first. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Nat: ,

No, sadly you still don't understand or you don't read carefully enough. I clearly wrote multiple times, that the publication (the original newspaper) was PUBLISHED as PUBLIC DOMAIN, i.e. without ANYONE reserving ANY copyrights. That was the intention. It was INTENTIONALLY released as free to copy, reproduce, quote from, re-use in other publications, whatever. We had no guns, we were fighting with the regime using WORDS - INFORMATION, so the publications we were releasing were INTENTIONALLY meant to be as widespread as possible, i.e. so that anyone can further reproduce that information and pass it to others. Let me stress it once again: those publications had absolutely no copyrights of any kind reserved by anyone. And I already said it several times. I can't see how repeating it YET ANOTHER TIME by email could change anything about it. Besides, in such an email no one can claim being the copyright holder (and as such give you any permissions), because there NEVER WAS any copyright holder of a publication that was released WITHOUT COPYRIGHTS. What can I do to make you comprehend this simple fact? Konfederat73 (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Barykada nr 38.jpg

This work depicts a cover of an underground newspaper issued by the anti-communist movement in Poland in the '80s. The image was used in infobox included in article about that newspaper and its purpose was to illustrate to the readers how the newspaper looked like and what was the technology of its underground print. The article is approved and available on the Polish Wikipedia. See https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barykada_(pismo)

Both the article and this image depicting the article's subject DO HAVE a real educational purpose as they inform about an important historical item the newspaper was on the Poland's way to regain its independence and democracy. I am the author of this work. Moreover, I was also one of the makers of the newspaper itself. The newspaper was entirely FREE, NOT subject to ANY COPYRIGHTS OR RESTRICTIONS, intended to be FREELY distrubuted, used, reused, copied, whatever. It is AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN entirely in the public domain and I do have the right to publish it. Therefore, this work DOES NOT violate any or anyone's copyrights and it DOES HAVE a real educational value (of course to those Polish Wikipedia visitors interested in Polish history and understanding the Polish language, which clearly wasn't the case with the person who mass-deleted those works of mine).

Please undelete the file. If I selected a wrong licence type, please help me correct it insteaad of just mass-deleting my works and this way breaking/crippling the articles they were used in. I'll be happy to serve with any further explanations you might need. Thank you. Konfederat73 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @Konfederat73: As a technical matter, there is no means by which we can confirm your assertions or identity on this platform. Works previous published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As I already explained, it is not 'work previously published elsewhere'. The newspaper itself (underground-published, under the communist regime and Soviet occupation of the country) was not copyrighted, it was a public domain work. So there was no copyright holder. As an underground publication (released outside of state control of the then undemocratic country) it was NOT covered or protected by any of intellectual property laws and at present in Poland it is in PUBLIC DOMAIN. So, once again, the original publication IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. And its digital reproduction published here by me WAS MADE BY ME specifically for the purpose of publishing it in a Wikipedia article, so it was NOT "previously published elsewhere" and I am the sole creator and copyright holder of it, and I already did state my ownership when uploading the file and I already gave my permissions by selecting the licence.

If you don't trust my ownership statements that I've been providing as a registered (for years, with no record of ever breaking any copyrights) and logged in user, i.e. with my email address confirmed and known and my IP address recorded, I can't see how merely repeating the same statements yet another time by email could change anything. And why should I accept being treated like a potential thief and liar if you haven't given any valid reasons of why you've suddenly chosen me to "confirm my assetions or identity on this platform" after years of membership and no record of any faults, and you enforced it by MASS-DELETING all my works. Is this additional procedure enforced on selected people based on their nationality or country that you consider somehow less trustworthy? If so then it is an apparent case of prejudice and segregation.

I repeat: I already did state my ownership and the premissions by selecting the licence - as required when uploading the files. So please either point out any ACTUAL valid faults of mine that justify questioning my credibility and mass-deleting my works like that, or undelete the files that you've clearly had no reasons to delete. The explanation given me by Christian Ferrer (who deleted my files) that "a huge number of other people's claims are false so maybe mine's too" just isn't serious and is an apparent case of applying collective resposibility. Konfederat73 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: By nature, Commons users are essentially anonymous. Email addresses and IP addresses are not infomation that editors, including administrators, are privied to. But that is largely irrelevent to the issue at hand. Statements made about copyright and publication do not reflect the copyright law of Poland (both the 1926 law and the superseding 1994 law). Underground publication is still publication, and such works were -- by clear evidence -- published elsewhere first. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Barykada nr 37.png

This work depicts a cover of an underground newspaper issued by the anti-communist movement in Poland in the '80s. The image was used in infobox included in article about that newspaper (and the underground printing house releasing it) and its purpose was to illustrate to the readers how the newspaper looked like and what was the technology of its underground print. The article is approved and available on the Polish Wikipedia. See https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drukarnia_Polowa_im._Jacka_Jerza

Both the article and this image depicting the article's subject DO HAVE a real educational purpose as they inform about an important historical item the newspaper was on the Poland's way to regain its independence and democracy. I am the author of this work. Moreover, I was also one of the makers of the newspaper itself. The newspaper was entirely FREE, NOT subject to ANY COPYRIGHTS OR RESTRICTIONS, intended to be FREELY distrubuted, used, reused, copied, whatever. It is AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN entirely in the public domain and I do have the right to publish it. Therefore, this work DOES NOT violate any or anyone's copyrights and it DOES HAVE a real educational value (of course to those Polish Wikipedia visitors interested in Polish history and understanding the Polish language, which clearly wasn't the case with the person who mass-deleted those works of mine).

Please undelete the file. If I selected a wrong licence type, please help me correct it insteaad of just mass-deleting my works and this way breaking/crippling the articles they were used in. I'll be happy to serve with any further explanations you might need. Thank you. Konfederat73 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @Konfederat73: As a technical matter, there is no means by which we can confirm your assertions or identity on this platform. Works previous published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As I already explained, it is not 'work previously published elsewhere'. The newspaper itself (underground-published, under the communist regime and Soviet occupation of the country) was not copyrighted, it was a public domain work. So there was no copyright holder. As an underground publication (released outside of state control of the then undemocratic country) it was NOT covered or protected by any of intellectual property laws and at present in Poland it is in PUBLIC DOMAIN. So, once again, the original publication IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. And its digital reproduction published here by me WAS MADE BY ME specifically for the purpose of publishing it in a Wikipedia article, so it was NOT "previously published elsewhere" and I am the sole creator and copyright holder of it, and I already did state my ownership when uploading the file and I already gave my permissions by selecting the licence.

If you don't trust my ownership statements that I've been providing as a registered (for years, with no record of ever breaking any copyrights) and logged in user, i.e. with my email address confirmed and known and my IP address recorded, I can't see how merely repeating the same statements yet another time by email could change anything. And why should I accept being treated like a potential thief and liar if you haven't given any valid reasons of why you've suddenly chosen me to "confirm my assetions or identity on this platform" after years of membership and no record of any faults, and you enforced it by MASS-DELETING all my works. Is this additional procedure enforced on selected people based on their nationality or country that you consider somehow less trustworthy? If so then it is an apparent case of prejudice and segregation.

I repeat: I already did state my ownership and the premissions by selecting the licence - as required when uploading the files. So please either point out any ACTUAL valid faults of mine that justify questioning my credibility and mass-deleting my works like that, or undelete the files that you've clearly had no reasons to delete. The explanation given me by Christian Ferrer (who deleted my files) that "a huge number of other people's claims are false so maybe mine's too" just isn't serious and is an apparent case of applying collective resposibility. Konfederat73 (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: By nature, Commons users are essentially anonymous. Email addresses and IP addresses are not infomation that editors, including administrators, are privied to. But that is largely irrelevent to the issue at hand. Statements made about copyright and publication do not reflect the copyright law of Poland (both the 1926 law and the superseding 1994 law). Underground publication is still publication, and such works were -- by clear evidence -- published elsewhere first. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Vladislav_Kohnenko.jpg

Hello. This image is my own. I can provide links to clarify. Please restore the image. --- Andreyheavy2311 (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Support as nominator, per uploader’s clarification on the source website. Sealle (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @Andreyheavy2311 and Sealle: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Ticket:2020101510012054

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020101510012054 regarding File:20191026_West_Kowloon02.jpg and File:Stacey_Long_by_Raymond_Lo2.jpg. The photographer has finally identified himself, so I think we can proceed. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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

(File:Koszegi tamas copyist.jpg)

This photo was done by me in 2017 about Tamás Kőszegi when I was working in his office doing my internship and we together agreed to use it. I have sent an OTRS release form to the email address provided to state that I am the owner of this picture. Now that the picture is down a Google Knowledge panel was falsely generated which shows a different person under Tamás Kőszegis personal data

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. Once OTRS has determined that they have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:The Atomium (2008).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:The Atomium (2008).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Was speedily deleted by Geni on May 3, 2008 because: "Copyright violation: building protected by copyright no FOP." Requesting for its restoration (if the file still exists or not corrupted, and if it was Mskadu's own work) as Belgium has FOP since June 2016. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there any more specific reason to undelete this file when Commons has 852 photos of The Atomium, including at least 319 photos of the exterior? Thuresson (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thuresson: I don't think the redundancy or excessive images should be the reason for not giving this file (if it is an "own work" one) a chance for restoration. Since we have tolerated hundreds of thousands of uploads by Judgefloro and Ramon FVelasquez, two of the most prolific Pinoy contributors here, we should not base the decision based on superfluous number of files. The greater the number of files, the better. I admit, I once made DR's to certain images by Judgefloro by reason of COM:SPAM and COM:EDUSE, but I have already withdrawn those deletion nominations, as I think this is counter-productive in building Commons as a free repository for millions of safe media files. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Done Undeleted, no arguments against undeletion. Ping @JWilz12345: Thuresson (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by INeverCry

Please restore the following pages:

File:ALB 20070713 img 1264.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:ALB 20070713 img 1250.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Pallati I Kongreseve.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Tirana 4-Ever Green Tower.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:ALB 20070713 img 1258.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: all were deleted because Albania had no FOP back then. If ever any of these files show the exterior or outsides of the architecture and/or artwork (deleted files are invisible to non-admins like me), these should be restored per {{FoP-Albania}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Support These are all exterior views of publicly accessible buildings which qualifies them for {{FoP-Albania}}. De728631 (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @JWilz12345 and De728631: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by INeverCry

Please restore the following pages:

File:UET Campus.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Shkolla E Helshanit,Has.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Dhërmi Albania schoolyard.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Kopshti.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Thethi School.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Files were deleted because no FoP in Albania during those days. Now {{FoP-Albania}}, if ever these images show the architectures' exteriors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Support These are all exterior views of publicly accessible buildings which qualifies them for {{FoP-Albania}}. De728631 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @JWilz12345 and De728631: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Juan Mora Fernandez Statue in San Jose, Costa Rica.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Juan Mora Fernandez Statue in San Jose, Costa Rica.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juan Mora Fernandez Statue in San Jose, Costa Rica.jpg. However, the statue has been PD since its sculptor Charles Raoul Verlet died in 1923 (ref. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juan Mora Fernandez statue in San Jose.JPG). Requesting for its undeletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Support See also File:Juan Mora Fernandez statue in San Jose.JPG. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @JWilz12345 and De728631: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Header logo color.png

Please restore the following pages:

File:Header logo color.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The source of the image is https://www.skynewsarabia.com/. It can be restored in the free license {{Pd-textlogo}} because it is simple text. Sreejith K (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The corresponding file on english wiki: File:Sky News Arabia logo.png --Sreejith K (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sreejithk2000: Might not be {{PD-TextLogo}} per COM:TOO UK. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. But the deletion reason is wrong. Can we restore it and open a regular DR instead? It might be worth to debate whether this qualifies for public domain. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @Sreejithk2000: FYI. New deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Header logo color.png. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Ettelaat-e Dokhtaran va Pesaran magazine cover, Issue 756.jpg

File:Ettelaat-e Dokhtaran va Pesaran magazine cover, Issue 756.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: This is the cover of Ettelaat-e Dokhtaran va Pesaran magazine, published on July 8, 1973. The magazine cover itself is in the public domain (after 30 years from the date of publication) and Wikimedia Commons accepts non-free scans of public-domain images per COM:SCAN. Hanooz 22:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Herbythyme and Missvain: Hanooz 22:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Support Undelete and use a {{PD-art}} tag. De728631 (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @Hanooz and De728631: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:2 Entw abgeschl UB 2010-06-16 Entgleisung Z 46676 Braz 27 07 11 doc - 100616 ub braz(...).png

Bilder aus offiziellen Behörden-Berichten (wie diesem Eisenbahnunfall-Untersuchungsbericht) sollen in Österreich allgemein verwendbar sein.--32-Fuß-Freak (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per COM:AUSTRIA#Official works and {{PD-AustrianGov}}. The photo is neither "part of a law, ordinance or official decree". --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Support @Nat: Please note the latter part of {{PD-AustrianGov}} "...or because it is of predominantly official use." This seems to be the case here because the image was taken from an official investigation of a railway accident. De728631 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: and tagged with {{PD-AustrianGov}}. If one disagrees, feel free to open a regular deletion discussion. @32-Fuß-Freak and De728631: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Rebal Alkhodari.png

Please restore the following pages:

File:Rebal Alkhodari.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: I have a License from the photographer which gives me the right to use the photo everywhere. I can send it anytime if requested. Zuher Amr (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zuher Amr: Oppose Having "a License from the photographer which gives me the right to use the photo everywhere" is insufficient per Commons' licensing policy. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:LRH - Book.jpg

Добрый день. Я лично создал это фото и использовал его в нескольких местах для размещения в интернете 1 - Этим файлом я оформил обложку своего компакт-диска: ПРИНЦМЕТАЛА-Хранитель (2013 года) 2 - Этим же файлом я оформил обложку книги своего первого романа "Долгая дорога домой" и выложил роман и обложку на Ridero (в 2017 году), без передачи прав на фото и текст издательству, Поэтому права на файл фотографии принадлежат исключительно мне. Прошу восстановить его в Википедии. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipakurn (talk • contribs) 03:52, 5 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Info File:LRH - Book.jpg is an out-of-process recreation of File:Долгая дорога домой - обложка книги.jpg (Uploaded as "a work by Anatoly Pasichnik from https://ridero.ru/books/dolgaya_doroga_domoi_3/", deleted under the rationale "Copyright violation: COM:BOOK and source website quoted confirms copyrighted: © Ridero, 2013— 2020 and NOT released under the licence stated"). Both deleted by Túrelio. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @Ipakurn: For the possibility of undeletion, works previous published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Photograph of Mexican Actress Christina Pastor, August 2020.jpg

This file keeps getting taken down because it "violates copyright," but I have stated numerous times that I got permission from the subject in question to use this image and I sent an e-mail to confirm its licencing this morning. Here is proof that the picture is 100% public domain. Trevortnidesserped (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. @Trevortnidesserped: This matter is being handled by OTRS under Ticket:2020120510003651 and must be resolved there. Once OTRS has determined that they have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:The UN envoy for Somalia, James Swan in Hargeisa, Somaliland.jpg

Hi, I have uploaded this photo to Wikipedia and am informed that this file is a copyright violation for the following reason: All rights reserved at https://somalia.un.org/index.php/en/24420-hargeisa-visit-un-envoy-highlights-importance-building-somalilands-achievements

In fact, the photo's copyright belongs to UNSOM,as the text at the bottom of the picture shows. And here's the UNSOM's official Flickr link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/unsom/48392647097/in/album-72157716863872558/ I have changed the license to CC0, please help to restore the photo. --Zoeyyy99 (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: undeleted by Túrelio. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Portada libro El Espectador Crítico.jpg

--Carlos Harvard (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)This image has not copyright, it's use is free.

@Carlos Harvard: Unless exempted by law or case law from protection, or protection has expired per the law, everything is, per norms, copyrighted and afforded protection under the law. Please advise as to how you came to the determination that "[t]his image has not copyright, it's use is free". --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: no response to query. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Antonija Mihelic Dingolfing.jpg

The deleter overlooked the licence {{PD-GermanGov}} for this personal document, issued by the German "Werkspolizei", i. e. state authorities in 1942 or 1943, which is hence in PD. Please undelete. --Hladnikm (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hladnikm: If you asserting that the file can be tagged with {{PD-GermanGov}}, could you explain to us how this document "is part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment[...] issued by a German authority or court"? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: no response to query. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 1.jpg

These drone photos of me were deleted with reference to the German freedom of panorama, as drone photos were not covered by them. But: The regional court Frankfurt am Main has decided in a procedure that it is permissible to photograph copyrighted works that are in public space from the airspace and to publish and distribute the photographs (also commercially). Such an act is covered by the panoramic freedom under copyright law (§ 59 UrhG). Source I would therefore look forward to a restoration. --Arne (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Support The court has noted that the location of the object in question needs to be "in public space" and that it is irrelevant from which angle above the ground it be photographed. With regards to FOP in Germany, "in public space" means that the object can be viewed from a public spot, which is the case for this arena. Let's undelete all those images. De728631 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @Arne Müseler and De728631: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Porque la eliminan? Peruimagenes (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. The reasons for deletion are here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Peruimagenes. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Hovhannes-Hovhannisyan4.jpg

This file is my own work. Do not delete it, please. Man in portrait is my grandpa.

This file has not yet been deleted, so we can't do anything here at this board yet. However, if it was published before without a free licence, we need proof of your authorship. Please see COM:OTRS for an instruction on how to verify your copyright by email. De728631 (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. File not deleted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Bridge Logo FullColor.jpg

On behalf of Cherry Creek Media, I request the reinstatement of this Image full as the proper logo of the radio station KQBG-FM.

For more, please contact:

Robb Reel Operations Manager-Wenatchee (Redacted)

or

Travis Cronen Vice President (Redacted)

--TheFace4Radio (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Procedural close. Not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Koi-Koi Setup.jpg

This was mistakenly deleted without resolution of the relevant discussion, which was clearly leaning away from deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldaron (talk • contribs)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hanafuda. --Túrelio (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - DRs are closed on the merits of arguments. When "leaning away from deletion" includes no discussion since July 2020, personal opinions untethered to relevant law or Commons policy, and arguments like "File:Koi-Koi_Setup.jpg is transformative and useful under Fair Use" and "the images card images are generic and the image itself is transformative under fair use," it's devoid of merit. Looks like a reasonable closure to me. Эlcobbola _talk 20:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry by "leaning away" I meant "the images card images are generic and the image itself is transformative under fair use". Those were basically the arguments being made. There's nothing protects about the images at all. I appears there's some confusion though (presumably resulting from lack of familiarity with the history of the images) on the part of whoever deleted the files. Aldaron (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Francisque Gay.png

Missvain and FASTILY : why this file was deleted ? The author is unknown, as evidenced by the site of the Archives départementales of Seine-Saint-Denis ("Auteur : non id." [2].) --Guise (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Info Relevant discussions: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Francisque Gay.png and en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 28#File:Francisque Gay.png. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Question @Guise: Est-ce que vous dites que l'image «File:Francisque Gay.png» est une partie de la photo «File:Gouvernement Félix Gouin.jpg» ? Parce que si on compare l'image «File:Francisque Gay.png» qui, bien que supprimée, est encore visible en cache de Google et la portion montrant Francisque Gay sur l'image «File:Gouvernement Félix Gouin.jpg», ce n'est visiblement pas la même photo, bien que les deux photos soient évidemment du même événement et soient prises presque du même angle. Voir notamment les différences dans l'angle de la tête de Francisque Gay et sa position par rapport à la personne derrière lui. L'appareil photo pour «File:Francisque Gay.png» est légèrement plus haut que l'appareil photo pour «File:Gouvernement Félix Gouin.jpg». Lors de cet événement, il y avait vraisemblablement plusieurs photographes et chacun d'eux a vraisemblablement pris plusieurs photos. Il faudrait identifier d'où provient la photo «File:Francisque Gay.png». -- Asclepias (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Je pensais qu'il s'agissait du même cliché mais eu égard à vos observations, il apparaît effectivement que la photographie individuelle de F. Gay est légèrement différente de la photographie du gouvernement. Nous pouvons donc fermer ma demande de restauration. Cordialement. --Guise (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Short recap for English readers: There was a confusion, understandable, between two photos that look very similar but are not identical. It appears that the information linked in the nomination does not correspond to the nominated file, but to the other photo. The nominator agrees that this undeletion request can be closed as not done. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Setanta sports hd.png

Please restore the following pages:

File:Setanta sports hd.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The source of the image is http://www.setanta.com so the deletion request is no longer valid. The file can be restored as {{Pd-textlogo}} Sreejith K (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sreejithk2000: The claimed source seems not to be reachable. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. That's the url given in the en wiki page Setanta Sports. This might be their new url: https://www.setantaeurasia.com/en/ --Sreejith K (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @Sreejithk2000: FYI. Please update the source and other necessary information. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Olympic record icon.svg

Please restore the following pages:

File:CR icon2.PNG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Olympic record icon.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: valid, widely used files. Maybe they should be substituted (as proposed in the nominations) in the future, maybe they should not. However, they are still in use, nobody has replaced them yet. WTM (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Files not yet deleted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:سالم حميد.jpg

I have permission from the person to place this image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maher fawzy samy (talk • contribs) 11:06, 7 December 2020‎ (UTC)

@Maher fawzy samy: Permission from who? Permission to do what? Thuresson (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Эlcobbola _talk 22:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Pine-court-yard-in-the-vatican-museums.jpg

It was long ago, but it was photo taken by me, with my own camera in 2005, when I was in Rome. Why the image got deleted? It was public place and a photo of a sculpture in Vatican Museum court yard. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jcubic: Please see COM:FOP Vatican. It was deleted as there is no freedom of panorama in the Vatican City. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done Work of art by Arnaldo Pomodoro. Thuresson (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:FcF - logo.jpg

== Logo de "Freedom Cartoonists Foundation – Dessins pour la liberté" / File : FcF - logo.jpg ==

Bonjour,

L'image du logo de "Freedom Cartoonists Foundation – Dessins pour la liberté", qui m'a été fournie par M. Patrick Chappatte (président de ladite fondation) via un courriel privé, et que j'avais intégré à ma contribution (brouillon) a été supprimée à tort.

J'ai l'autorisation de implicite de "Freedom Cartoonists Foundation – Dessins pour la liberté" d'utiliser leur logo afin d'illustrer mon article. S'agissant justement d'une fondation qui défend la liberté d’expression, je trouve ironique d'être censuré :-)

C'est pourquoi je vous prie d'annuler la décision de supprimer le visuel, prise à tort.

Merci d'avance pour votre intervention,

(automatic translation)

The image of the logo of "Freedom Cartoonists Foundation – Dessins pour la liberté", which was provided to me by Mr. Patrick Chappatte (Chairman of the said foundation) via a private email, and which I had included in my contribution (draft ) has been wrongly deleted. I have the implied permission of "Freedom Cartoonists Foundation – Dessins pour la liberté" to use their logo to illustrate my article. As this is a foundation that defends free speech, I find it ironic to be censored :-) This is why I ask you to reverse the decision to remove the visual, taken in error. Thank you in advance for your intervention,

--My Name CH (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Uploaded as own work by User:My Name CH. If there is a permission it should be processed through Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Põhja prefektuur 2020.png

Hi!

Photo is free to use (but not to tweak), made by Estonian Police and Border Guard Board's official photographer Reelika Riimand. Should I add more specific licenses under the file?

Sincerely, Marge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokoroharu (talk • contribs) 12:41, 7 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

@Kokoroharu: Oppose per Commons' licensing policy. No evidence of an accepted free licence at source. "free to use" is insufficient per COM:L and "not to tweak" is not permitted under that policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - "Not to tweak" seems a rather explicit prohibition of derivates, which is not an acceptable condition. Previously published images also require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Эlcobbola _talk 19:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Shibin.jpg

This image has been sent by the author himself. He has granted permission to use the picture in Wikipedia. Kindly allow the photograph to use in his page.

Oppose - 1) "[P]ermission to use the picture in Wikipedia" is not adequate; images must be allowed to be used anywhere; 2) this image appeared elsewhere in a more complete version which demonstrates prior publication requiring COM:OTRS evidence of permission; and 3) phrasing of "the author [...] has granted permission to use the picture in Wikipedia. Kindly allow the photograph to use in his page" (underline added) suggests you are conflating the subject to be the author. The aforementioned permission must from the actual author (photographer), not the mere subject. Эlcobbola _talk 20:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:ADPD Logo.svg

== ADPD Logo.svg undelete ==

I uploaded a file called "ADPD Logo.svg" It's a .svg version of the original logo. I made it clear that I am not the original creator rather it was 2 point 3 a graphic design studio based in Valletta, Malta, with close ties to the party. I want ADPD Logo.svg to be undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No context trav (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose From Facebook. No free license at its source. Thuresson (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg is my Photo, the family Photo ... why You wwant to delete it ??!!

This is our photo of Family, my daughter Alina Fejzo , and Nefew of Muharem Fejzo is the author so WHY you delete it ? i'm the Son of Muharrem Fejzo with phone +393389452308 and email joeartidfejzo@gmail.lcom and i can verify everything my father

regards

Joe Artid Fejzo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.217.30.97 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 7 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close: You've not identified the image and you've posted whilst logged out so we are unable to look at your deleted contributions. Please review our instructions which say "Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above)." (bold in original) If you make a new request, be prepared to explain how a "photo of Family, my daughter Alina Fejzo " is in scope. --Эlcobbola _talk 19:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:R188s 7556 with new LCD Advertisement Screens.jpg

This picture I took was me and is award I didn't copyright violation picture or steal this picture that picture was me I took this new picture there's no evidence to stealing this picture.

Not done: File is not deleted. At least, not yet. --panda kekok 9 02:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:DJ S UNIVERSE Q 27 09 2019.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:DJ S UNIVERSE Q 27 09 2019.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: I want to delete photo. Thank you.

Sddh25181 (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: procedural close. Not an undeletion request: request seeking the deletion of an already deleted file. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:DJ S UNIVERSE Q 27 09 2019.jpg.jpg File:DJ S UNIVERSE Q 27 09 2019.jpg.jpg

Hello. Issues the media photo to criteria for speedy deletion. Delete your my image now. Thank you.

Sddh25181 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: procedural close. Not an undeletion request: request seeking the deletion of an already deleted file. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Logo_Vert.png

File:Logo_Vert.png I am an employee of this company and have full rights to use this logo. --Базаркулова Еркежан (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)EeeeБ 08.12.2020

@Базаркулова Еркежан: If you mean the file that was prevented to be uploaded by filter 153, then this page is out of scope for that, since the file was never deleted. If you mean File:Logo Astana Hub.png, then that image won't be restored until the copyright holder releases the logo under a free license like CC-BY-SA-4.0. Either way, you will need written permission from the authorized representative of your company. In the case of File:Logo Astana Hub.png, sending an email to the OTRS is not necessary, since a change on the website's footer or a written statement on the website should be enough. For File:Logo Vert.png, then OTRS might be necessary. panda kekok 9 08:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: OTRS permission is needed. Also the image must be used in an article. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Емблеми_на_представителния_отбор_в_Црънча.jpg

I try to use this file, a picture, that I created myself, but it was deleted anyway without a notice.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angnkv22 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 7 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

@Angnkv22: You were notified here and here. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:IBO World Champion.jpg

Hello,

This is a picture that I took of the award. I selected it as my own image when I uploaded it on Wiki Commons so I was confused to see that it was flagged for deletion. Any insight you're able to provide is extremely helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFBlackmon (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose - Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:IBO World Champion.jpg. Эlcobbola _talk 22:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Церква Пресвятої Трійці і брама в селі Озерна.jpg

My photo File:Церква Пресвятої Трійці і брама в селі Озерна.jpg removed for no reason. The photo was taken by me personally and uploaded under license. What kind of discrimination? Therefore, I require you to restore this file: File:Церква Пресвятої Трійці і брама в селі Озерна.jpg

Oppose The file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Volodymyr1812 and per the fact that there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. There was sufficient reason to delete the file and we are not required to restore the file. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 08:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Братська могила воїнів УПА в селі Озерна,(стела у вигляді червоно-чорного прапора, з ініціалами місцевих героїв війни).jpg

My photo File:Братська могила воїнів УПА в селі Озерна,(стела у вигляді червоно-чорного прапора, з ініціалами місцевих героїв війни).jpg was deleted for no reason. The photo was taken by me personally and uploaded under license. What kind of discrimination? I require you to restore this file: File:Братська могила воїнів УПА в селі Озерна,(стела у вигляді червоно-чорного прапора, з ініціалами місцевих героїв війни).jpg

Oppose The file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Volodymyr1812 and per the fact that there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. There was sufficient reason to delete the file and we are not required to restore the file. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 08:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Cluber Aliaga Lodtmann.jpg

Hola, Están cometiendo un error al eliminar la imagen que publiqué, porque: En virtud del Decreto Legislativo N˚822, Sexta Disposición Complementaria, Transitoria y Final de la (Ley No 28131) promulgó en 2003 y sigue vigente "imágenes de funcionarios del gobierno o textos (legislativos, administrativos, ejecutivos o judiciales) publicados por el El gobierno de Perú no está sujeto a protección de derechos de autor y es de dominio público. Porfavor, consulte este enlace para ver el decreto: https://www.indecopi.gob.pe/documents/20787/0/DL+822.pdf/f1ed8416-7438-1ff9-eab6-81fa4dcb7505 )

Les pido encarecidamente que devuelvan la imagen que borraron porque no posee derechos de autor SEGÚN LA LEY PERUANA. Yo la saqué de Filckr, pero aunque en esa pagina se diga que tiene derechos de autor, NO ES ASÍ porque la ley peruana dice lo contrario!

Oppose The text does not state that images of government officials are not protected by copyright. Article 9 b. states "No son objeto de protección por el derecho de autor: [...] 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." ("The following are not protected by copyright: [...] The official texts of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature, nor theofficial translations thereof, without prejudice to the obligation to respect the texts andcite the source."). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 08:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - The relevant section (Title I, Article 9(b)) says "Official texts of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature, [and] their official translations, without prejudice to the obligation to respect the texts and cite the source." ("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.") The word official ("oficiales") is an adjective modifying certain documents; it is not a noun, let alone one meaning that all pictures of government officials are deprived of copyright protection (such a statutory provision would be novel, and absurd). The cited phrasing is also consistent with {{PD-PE-exempt}}. The Flickr source has a CC-by-NC-SA 2.0 license which is, of course, unacceptable. Эlcobbola _talk 15:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:M.T. met pistool van Thom Puckey.jpg

Please undelete this picture.

The reason is that I made this picture myself last week in the museum. So, it's my own work.

--83.86.45.6 08:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Huisdoorn

@Huisdoorn: Seems like you are logged out. Please log-in. Anyway, no one is questioning whether you took the picture or not. The issue here is, your photo contains a sculpture of a still-living artist. The sculpture has a separate, still existing copyright, and your photo is a derivative work of the sculpture. That's why the file was deleted. If you want this file to be restored, you have two options: first is to contact Thom Puckey and ask them to send a written permission via email to the OTRS team. Second is to wait for the copyright to expire, which would take a very long time, like a century. Obviously you would want to do the former. panda kekok 9 08:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done Located at Museum MORE which is a museum that charges an entrance fee (€18.50). See also COM:FOP Netherlands. Thuresson (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Son of the revolution.pdf

This file is belongs to me and there is no copyright issues with the publication of this file which a poster of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarshBay (talk • contribs) 10:34, 8 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose - This is a scan of a movie poster that explicitly says "©BBC Persian 2020" and "Designed By Toufan Hosseiny — Photography ©Alfred Yaghobzadeh." Эlcobbola _talk 16:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Lil+Tecca+2019+Made+America+Day+2+G4-MoQFEr8 l.jpg

I had made sure to give context about where I had found the file, how it had been free use, and how it had been on Zimbio.com, which is a public domain site. The photos there are posted for any use, I believe, as I have seen other Zimbio.com images on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalcolmRAMartin (talk • contribs) 15:26, 8 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose - Where do you see the purported {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} on the Zimbio source? Notwithstanding that even if it were there, it would be license laundering; Zimbio credits the image to "Getty Images North America" (indeed, it is here). Zimbio, of course, has no such license. Zimbio.com says "Copyright © 2020 - Livingly Media, Inc" and it's terms of use say "You also expressly acknowledge and agree that Livingly shall have the right to grant a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License ("CC License"), available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/, for all Content posted on or through the Service, including Content you post on or through the service." Even the laundered license would be unfree. Эlcobbola _talk 16:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Lil+Tecca+TIDAL+5th+Annual+TIDAL+X+Benefit+g2XdoU86Jkkl.jpg

I had been sure to list where I found the file (google.com), what date it had been taken (october 21, 2019), who took it (Stephen Smith) and the domain where it had been taken from (zimbio.com) where most if not all images are free to use, including photos of rapper Lil Tecca, which we're the pictures uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalcolmRAMartin (talk • contribs) 15:29, 8 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose - Where do you see the purported {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} on the Zimbio source? Notwithstanding that even if it were there, it would be license laundering; Zimbio credits the image to "Getty Images North America" (indeed, it is here). Zimbio, of course, has no such license. Zimbio.com says "Copyright © 2020 - Livingly Media, Inc" and it's terms of use say "You also expressly acknowledge and agree that Livingly shall have the right to grant a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License ("CC License"), available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/, for all Content posted on or through the Service, including Content you post on or through the service." Even the laundered license would be unfree. Эlcobbola _talk 16:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Abilene-frontier-texas.jpg

The photo that appears on multiple websites because it was provided by Frontier Texas! to media and marketing agencies to use. It clearly states on the Frontier Texas website Press page that the images are welcome to be used for editorial and promotional uses. "Frontier Texas welcomes all journalists and advertising media to use our logo and images for editorial and promotional purposes. For additional assistance please contact our museum staff at (325) 437-2800 or email info@frontiertexas.com." Link to page: http://www.frontiertexas.com/press — Preceding unsigned comment added by 325Sidney (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose Does not allow me to sell balloons with this image. See also Commons:Licensing Thuresson (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - The Frontier Texas website, which you did not reference, says "Frontier Texas welcomes all journalists and advertising media to use our logo and images for editorial and promotional purposes." How do you turn that into the purported {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license? We require an explicit license, that, among others, addresses derivatives and is perpetual. The Frontier Texas phrase is none of those things. Further, the "by" in cc-by-sa-4.0 means attribution is required, yet you purported yourself to be the author; not only was this an additional falsehood, but a breach of your own fictitious license. Эlcobbola _talk 16:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Paramount Theatre in Abilene.jpg

I have received permission from Paramount Theatre in Abilene, TX, which owns the rights to the image, for it to be shared on Wikipedia. Here is the wording from the Paramount: "You have permission to post any photos from our website to any Abilene artistic or informational website, including Wikipedia. We have purchased full rights to the photos. We would ask that you include the name of the photographer: Kevin Halliburton. If you cannot, we and he will understand, but a credit would be preferable. Thank you. George Levesque / Executive Director, The Paramount Abilene." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 325Sidney (talk • contribs) 15:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)‎

Oppose - 1) Permission must apply to all use cases, not be limited to "any Abilene artistic or informational website, including Wikipedia"; 2) permission must be in the form of an explicit license that addresses, among others, commercial uses, derivative works, and perpetual duration; 3) permission needs to be received directly from the rightsholder, not forwarded or posted here; and) 4 relatedly, previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Эlcobbola _talk 16:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per both Thurreson and elcobbola. @325Sidney: the terms of the website is unacceptable. Use for Wikipedia only conflicts with Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. This means the image in question is licensed in a way that discourages its reuse in postcards, commercial YT vlogs, and commercial T-shirt prints. Images should be commercially-reusable for them to be hosted here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Daredevil_Diablo_Guardián.jpg

Hi, I am Cruz Cortés Juan. Daredevil_Diablo_Guardián.jpg must be restored. I taked that picture with my own mobile phone, so it is a totally copyright free picture. It doesnt violate any copyright rule so please, restore the picture. Thanks. --Cruz Cortés Juan (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Blatant copyright violation. Please review COM:DW. Эlcobbola _talk 16:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Icarus Atlanticus (1954).jpg

As representative of the legal heir to the estate of Ger Lataster (D.J.Lataster)I give permission for the use of this file.--DLataster (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Will be undeleted when an OTRS volunteer has successfully processed the ticket. Thuresson (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined that they have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Javiercastellar.jpg

buenas, el archivo File:Javiercastellar.jpg en el que Javier castellar aparece ganando la carrera me fue permitido permitido por el mismísimo Javier castellar, por lo que solicito humildemente sea restaurado, también aparece en el facebook de Javier Castellar. Se lo agradeceríamos sinceramente. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josalon (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - This is a random image you took from Facebook and then concocted a bogus cc-by-sa license. The uploader there is also the mere subject. As copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), even a license statement there would not be adequate. Permission from the actual author, or a copy of the document that transferred copyright to the subject, will need to be provided using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola _talk 20:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Новая_книга.png

Я добавила на вики-склад фото новых книг, которые сделала самостоятельно с личного экземпляра. Извините, но я не поняла, в чем я нарушаю авторские права? Ведь я не выкладывала текст книги? Не называла себя причастной к ее созданию? Я просто хотела рассказать людям о том, что книга вышла? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LudmilaFox (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose - Notwithstanding that there is no reason to restore here (just an assertion that you don't understand the reason it was deleted), this is a clear COM:DW of a book cover. Эlcobbola _talk 20:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Обложка День народного единства - праздник из Нижнего Новгорода.jpg

Извините, пожалуйста. Я подгрузила фотографию обложки новой книги на вики-склад, но ее удалили за нарушение авторских прав. Я не понимаю, в чем я нарушила авторские права? Ведь фото я сделала самостоятельно с личного экземпляра книги, текст книги я не выкладывала, не говорила о своей причастности к ее созданию. Я просто хотела рассказать людям, что такая книга есть? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LudmilaFox (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose - Clear COM:DW of a book cover. Ownership of physical property (book) is distinct from ownership of intellectual property (copyright) ("Ведь фото я сделала самостоятельно с личного экземпляра книги.") Эlcobbola _talk 20:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Poppy Profile.jpg Poppy Profile Image

To Whom this may concern,

I am apart of Poppy's Management team (MDDN) and I have the rights to the image and it should be added back to the page.

Oppose - Image previously appeared here (and many other places) where it is attributed to Charlotte Rutherford. Permission needs to be provided by Rutherford directly (verifiable address here) using the process at COM:OTRS. Alternatively, if the purport that "[you] have the rights to the image" is true, permission will need to be in the form of a copy of the document that transferred copyright to you. Эlcobbola _talk 21:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Amethia Rajput.png

The stated reason for deletion is Copyvio, while this media was created by me as a symbolic insignia(Mentioned in the title of wikimedia) on canvas in 2018. I am being the sole proprietor of this digital art, I released it on wikimedia and it was used by some other persons on YouTube or Facebook which I don't have a knowledge of. It's freely available in public domain and is not entitled to copyright issue.

Just a reverse image search landed me on these 1. Facebook page[3] 2. Quora[4] 3. YouTube thumbnail [5] 4. Various posts on Facebook have used this image(Can't list them all here).

This was my digital art later used by several pages and users on internet. It is certain that it's freely available which is evident from it being used on various social media platforms without copyright/permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anony20 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 1 December 2020‎ (UTC)

The stated reason for the 2020 deletion is not copyvio, it is "author's request", as seen in the log. Not sure what author's request it refers to. The current deletion request for alleged copyvio was still open, not closed, when you posted your comment above. It was closed just a few minutes ago by a non-admin who is claiming to be a retired user. Too bad, because I wanted to post a question there to ask you if you would comment the coincidence that the image was posted on facebook the same day you first posted it to Commons. Copyvio discussion aside, if the symbol is fake as alleged in the October 2018 deletion request, I'm not entirely convinced by the keep decision of 2018. IMHO, posting fake symbols on Commons is not a good idea. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:Taivo: Maybe you can help clarify this matter, please. Is "author's request" correct or was it something else? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems that I have made a mistake. Heba Aisha (talk · contribs) nominated the file for deletion as copyvio from Facebook. After that Anony, the uploader, made 3 more edits without removing speedy deletion request. I mistakenly thought, that the speedy deletion request was made by Anony. The file was really uploaded into Commons on the same day than into Facebook. If we have no copyright problems, then I agree with undeletion. Taivo (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The possible copyvio concern raised by the deletion nominator is at least a reasonable question. There is also the question of scope. The behaviour of the uploader is strange. He refuses to disclose the facebook origin of some of his uploads. After requests, he still refuses to tell his real source for File:Rajput rebels from Bihar, 1857.jpg, which has a facebook identifier, and he still writes a false source (the image is not from the 1857 ILN, something that can be checked easily in the ILN collection online). File:बनकटा अमेठिया द्वार.jpg also has a facebook identifier and was on facebook before the uploader copied it to Commons with a claim of own work and without disclosing the facebook source. Taking into account the general context, it is therefore possible that File:Amethia Rajput.png was also copied from facebook like the other uploads. If the File:Amethia Rajput.png is undeleted, then the early closure of the deletion request by the not-so-retired user should be undone and the discussion should proceed normally. If the file is not undeleted, then a deletion reason should be specified in the closing section of the deletion request. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Taivo plz see the uploader is a sockpuppet.Asclepias, yes I strongly believe that other images are also not his own work as Anony20 is abusing multiple account and I have even shared the facebook link from where he Copyvio the images. Heba Aisha (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Works previously published elsewhere require that that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.orgOnce OTRS has has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Benza English ポスター.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Benza English ポスター.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: OTRS permission confirmed. A representative from the production team responsible for the movie sent us a license statement ticket:2020120410001449. (The file depicts a movie poster.) whym (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Whym: Oppose Ticket:2020120410001449 is insufficient as stands as it does not a specific release under an accepted licence. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misspoke. You are right, the statement is not in the email. The email said that the representative used the Wikimedia Commons account, instead. I remember seeing a standard license (CC BY-SA 4.0, if I remember it correctly) on the file page created by the account. I don't think they are required to license via an email - choosing it from our standard upload form is another valid way to do so. (I'm saying here that they performed the act of licensing it. Whether they were truly someone with the authority do so, discussed below, is a separate question.) whym (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  - @Whym: The copyright holder must specify the licence and specific version in the email before OTRS can process the permission as sufficient. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
    - @Nat: I'm still not fully convinced of the applicability of that rule here - another email just for stating the same license sounds redundant, given that the same person added the license template (I'm assuminig here there was the template, as I mentioned above, although I cannot see the deleted file now) and is confirmed to be the one they are claiming to be. Regardless, I asked for a statement and they responded with it today (10:20 UTC). Please review again. Thanks. whym (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Nat, and why are we accepting permission for a poster from a producer of the film? Permission should come from the appropriate executive/director/however styled for this entity (Tokyo Cowboys). By way of example, surely you wouldn't accept permission for w:File:JAWS Movie poster.jpg if it came from w:Richard D. Zanuck or w:David Brown. Эlcobbola _talk 22:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you mentioned 'producer' here. I don't think they said that in the email. The position they claimed was something else that seems to include licensing as a responsibility (although it might not be the largest part of their duty). I avoid mentioning further specifics for now for confidentiality, I added a note to the OTRS ticket. [6] whym (talk)

Done: @Whym: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Kaali Web series .jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Kaali Web series .jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The image of the poster that I have uploaded was deleted on the grounds of copyright violation. But, I was asked by the producer himself (i.e. the owner of the film) to create a Wikipedia page for the same. I have the right to use the poster on this page. So, I would request the undeletion of the image. ImagineCinema (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImagineCinema: But, I was asked by the producer himself[...]I have the right to use the poster on this page. That claim needs some proof. Ask the producer to send an email to the OTRS team. Or if they don't want to wait for the OTRS to verify (it does take a lot of time), they can just upload the poster to their official Flickr account under a free license, like CC-BY-SA. Or release a written statement on their official website or movie's website that the poster is licensed under CC-BY-SA, or whatever free Creative Commons license they want to use (just don't use those that have NC or ND, they are not allowed on Commons). If they don't want to release the poster under a free license, then you can upload it to the English Wikipedia instead, under fair use. panda kekok 9 13:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Works previously published elsewhere require that that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.orgOnce OTRS has has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

--Ahta123ok (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. No file identify, and no rationale for undeletion made. Requestor has been globally locked. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Garrick babel.jpg

I, Dassi dompie garrick babel, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

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

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrick babel (talk • contribs) 15:38, 9 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Эlcobbola _talk 16:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. @Garrick babel: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note: 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). Once OTRS has determined that they have sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:LogoFWGKrumbach.png

The File was deleted before the company was able to send you their licence.

They should have sent the mail now and in the mail they should have given the licence.

--Thomas Heißenberger (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here, and will be handled by OTRS. Once OTRS has determined that they have sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:WIKI DRAGANA KOSJERINA.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:WIKI DRAGANA KOSJERINA.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Dear, I have got all permission by the person. Miss Dragana Kosjerina is owner of image, author and the only one person with permission for her images. She is my friend and she would like to format her Wiki page and because of that, all images is absoluetely clear for fair usage. User:Eissink wrote in report that person in descripiton "Mitar Mitrović / RAS Srbija" but this is wrong. He is person who create the sourse for press release. So, if you need I can send you the full statement by Dragana Kosjerina and press release that only she has the permission on this image. If you need additional information, please let me know. Regards Alkapone10 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @Alkapone10: Works previously published elsewhere require that that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Please note: 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). Once OTRS has has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here, as the matter must be handled by OTRS. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:BC Olimpi Tbilisi logo.jpg

This is not a violation of the copyrights. this logo was made by me and represents my property. Pls review your decision. I need this logo to make an official Wikipedia page of our basketball club olimpi. You can check all the facts at our Facebook page. (BC Olimpi).

regards Guko Khelaia (marketing manager of the BC Olimpi) 9.12.2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMrktngolimpi (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Info Presumably for en:Draft:Olimpi Tbilisi. Thuresson (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - This is an official logo, which calls into question the purport that you are the author ("this logo was made by me.") That notwithstanding, it was previously published and thus requires COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Эlcobbola _talk

Not done: Works previously published elsewhere require that that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.orgOnce OTRS has has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Welding Judge

The owner of the site of "Welding Judge" give me permission to use these educational materials on Wikimedia.

you can contact the owner of the welding judge or give me your email I will ask my manager to contact you as they did before on the "tennisshoesguides.com" site.

Looking forward to your response.

Thanks

--Nickjohn99 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nickjohn99: Tell the copyright owner to send an email to the OTRS team. Or if they don't want to wait a long time there, they could simply just release a written statement on their website saying that the images are released under a free license. Note that permission to use these educational materials on Wikimedia is not enough, they must also be free to be redistributed, modified, and commercially used by anyone. See our licensing policy for details. If that's not acceptable, then you can upload the files to the English Wikipedia under their fair use policy. panda kekok 9 02:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Billinghurst --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Question @Nickjohn99: Tell me how these uploads are 1) educative, 2) authoritative, 3) should not be considered promotional. Also tell me how their use at the Wikipedias would then be exempted from conflict of interest. In fact as you seem that you are doing this for a number of clients, please tell us how you are exempted from Wikimedia's paid editing rules. At this point of time you don't seem to be editing at Wikimedia sites to improve them, and more aligned with your own interests. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Travel Jobs Opportunities for Welders.jpg

This file is deleted from wikimemdia.

The owner of the site weldingjudge.com gives me permission to use this educational stuff on this platform.

If you say I will ask the owner to contact you via email that is published on the contact us page on weldingjudge.com site as we did before on tennis site.

Looking forward to you

--Nickjohn99 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Nope, we don't accept advertisements here. Please upload that somewhere else. --panda kekok 9 02:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Billinghurst --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Request by Elainelightone

Relates to:

This photo is created by Elainelightone--Elainelightone (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - These are movie posters that appeared numerous places on the Internet before their upload here. We would require COM:OTRS permission. Эlcobbola _talk 00:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Works previously published elsewhere require that that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.orgOnce OTRS has has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

This is my User Profile page

I have just created my simple User Profile page filling "Aslipinartan" user page with real content about myself in summary. I do not understand why it is deleted, and I would like it to be available publicly again. I may or somebody else may edit it further in the future. If Wikimedia Commons is not the correct place, I would like to have it online in Wikipedia if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslipinartan (talk • contribs) 10:14, 10 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose - Per COM:NOT - The Commons is not a venue for article-like self-promotion. We do grant some leeway for established users with a reasonable number of constructive global contributions, but this does not appear to be the case here. Эlcobbola _talk 00:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Big Little Man Movie Poster.jpg

Hi,

I'd like to send an undeletion request. I'm the writer/director of the film Big Little Man (2019) and own the copyright of the movie poster. The file is not copyright violation from the poster of the film because I was the one who built the Facebook page and uploaded all the contents and images there. I can provide further information if needed. Thanks! --Dianaspy116 (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Эlcobbola _talk 00:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Works previously published elsewhere require that that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.orgOnce OTRS has has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Ken Klippenstein image

File:Ken Klippenstein profile.jpg has been released of copyrights from my understanding. What would it take to demonstrate this? Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - "What would it take to demonstrate this?" It would take the same source that gave you that understanding ("from my understanding") in the first place. Contrary to the purport here that it "has been released of copyrights," you'd previously claimed it to be {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. These are mutually exclusive claims; which is it? Where is your evidence for either? Mere appearance on Twitter is in no way a release of copyright (or a free license), especially when the Twitter source is that of the mere subject and not of the author (photographer). Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Эlcobbola _talk 19:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Works previously published elsewhere require that that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.orgOnce OTRS has has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Pngegg.png

I do not have profit with this image, only i like use this file for my userpage, also, in the website who i finded this, not is included a license who restricted the use of the file. Only it's a penguin the image. PinWii Media Commons (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Procedural close. File is not deleted as of 17:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thuresson (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Jenn-Professional3.jpg

I have obtained and submitted a photo release permission from the photographer (see below)

horace@horacelong.com <horace@horacelong.com> Dec 9, 2020, 10:29 AM (23 hours ago) to me

Hello Jenn,

You have my permission to use the image “Jenn-Professional3.jpg” on Wikipedia and anywhere else you would like.

Thanks,

Horace Long

Horace Long Photography www.horacelong.com 910-523-7248 Horace@HoraceLong.com

BurletonJ (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. We cannot accept on-project declarations such as this and we cannot accept forwarded permission. Horace Long will need to provide permission directly using the process on that page. Эlcobbola _talk 18:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Works previously published elsewhere require that that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.orgOnce OTRS has has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:KLM_WP_photo.jpg

Hi!

The photo in question I own the copyright. For this reason I request it be "undeleted". Thank you!

--Katharineleemcewan (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. As copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), you (Katharineleemcewan), as the purported subject (Katharine Lee McEwan), would hold copyright only if formally transferred to you by written conveyance. Permission, in is case, would need to be in the form of a copy of that document. Эlcobbola _talk 18:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Works previously published elsewhere require that that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.orgOnce OTRS has has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Julian E. Bailes Jr., M.D. testifying before Congress.png

The photo I submitted falls under C-SPAN's copyright provisions for use and I would like the image to be undeleted, please. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecmullen (talk • contribs) 23:39, 10 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose - You claimed this to be {{PD-USGov}}, which is patent nonsense. C-Span is not a federal entity, but a private, non-profit organization. Indeed, their site (a .org, not a .gov (!!!)) says "© 2020 National Cable Satellite Corporation" (compare with the absence thereof at genuine federal sites, like whitehouse.gov, senate.gov, nasa.gov, etc.) and their Copyright & Licensing terms, which you reference, say, for example, "C-SPAN does NOT permit unlicensed commercial use of any of its video programming," which is unacceptable. C-Span coverage of debates in U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are public domain, but this is a mere subcommittee hearing. Эlcobbola _talk 00:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Ticket#2020101510012054

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020101510012054 regarding File:Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_01.jpg and File:Stacey_Long_in_West_Kowloon_20191026_by_Raymond_Lo_02.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --De728631 (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:P_M1.jpg

This photo of Massachusetts State Representative Paul McMurtry was deleted in 2018 because of the "copyright violation" from the Massachusetts General Court. However, the PD-MAGov tag has since been updated to note that the Massachusetts General Court has no right to claim a copyright violation. Since then, multiple photos have been uploaded from the same website with the tag.

- Thurgoodmarshallisbae 23:48 UTC, 08 Dec 2020

@Thurgoodmarshallisbae: {{PD-MAGov}} only states the position of the executive branch of the Massachusetts Commonwealth Government, but does not reflect the position of the legislative branch of the Massachusetts Commonwealth Government, which does assert copyright. It is often the case that one branch of a state government has a different position than another (Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Washington State Senators for example). Until such time that state/Commonwealth legislation clearly indicates that works of all branches of the Massachusetts Commonwealth Government are in public domain, Oppose per the Massachusetts General Court assertion of copyright and per COM:PCP. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:MFR0.jpg

This photo of Massachusetts State Senator Mike Rush was deleted in 2018 because of the "copyright violation" from the Massachusetts General Court. However, the PD-MAGov tag has since been updated to note that the Massachusetts General Court has no right to claim a copyright violation. Since then, multiple photos have been uploaded from the same website with the tag.

- Thurgoodmarshallisbae 23:57 UTC, 08 Dec 2020

@Thurgoodmarshallisbae: {{PD-MAGov}} only states the position of the executive branch of the Massachusetts Commonwealth Government, but does not reflect the position of the legislative branch of the Massachusetts Commonwealth Government, which does assert copyright. It is often the case that one branch of a state government has a different position than another (Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Washington State Senators for example). Until such time that state/Commonwealth legislation clearly indicates that works of all branches of the Massachusetts Commonwealth Government are in public domain, Oppose per the Massachusetts General Court assertion of copyright and per COM:PCP. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Jesus Orea Sanchez.jpg

La imagen borrada tiene todos los permisos para su reproducción. Ruego permitan su publicación

--Henry Sacristan (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Henry Sacristan

Oppose Copyright is usually held by the original photographer, and not by the person depicted. So, if Mr. Sanchez is shown in the photograph, it is unlikely that he is the author. Also, if the uploader at Commons is not the copyright holder, we need a permission by email from the actual copyright holder. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Kenneth M Ford.jpg

This photo is the official photograph of Kenneth M. Ford that the Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition supplies to the press/general public. Please make the image available again as soon as possible.

--WilliamHowell 2020 (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@WilliamHowell 2020: So how did it came about that you own the copyright? Thuresson (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: by JGHowes. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Herança_madeirense_Final_GB.jpg Undeletion requests/ pedido de revogação da eliminação

Olá, adicionei vários ficheiro para uma página de uma instituição chamada Associação Académica da Universidade da Madeira, e os ficheiros foram todos eliminados por possível violação de copyright. Venho por este meio pedir que revoquem a eliminação, para se necessário mudar o tipo de copyright, caso seja preciso, e para poder publicar na página, Obrigado!--DiogoMatthew (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose It is not up to you or us to grant a licence -- that prerogative and right belongs exclusively to the copyright holder. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: procedural close. No valid rationale for undeletion, and unambigious copyright violation per statement in request. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:AM_ logo AZ V-01.jpg Undeletion requests/ pedido de revogação da eliminação

Olá, adicionei vários ficheiro para uma página de uma instituição chamada Associação Académica da Universidade da Madeira, e os ficheiros foram todos eliminados por possível violação de copyright. Venho por este meio pedir que revoquem a eliminação, para se necessário mudar o tipo de copyright, caso seja preciso, e para poder publicar na página, Obrigado!--DiogoMatthew (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose It is not up to you or us to grant a licence -- that prerogative and right belongs exclusively to the copyright holder. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: procedural close. No valid rationale for undeletion, and unambigious copyright violation per statement in request. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:TomadaPosse Carlos Abreu instaBig.jpg Undeletion requests/ pedido de revogação da eliminação

Olá, adicionei vários ficheiro para uma página de uma instituição chamada Associação Académica da Universidade da Madeira, e os ficheiros foram todos eliminados por possível violação de copyright. Venho por este meio pedir que revoquem a eliminação, para se necessário mudar o tipo de copyright, caso seja preciso, e para poder publicar na página, Obrigado!--DiogoMatthew (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose It is not up to you or us to grant a licence -- that prerogative and right belongs exclusively to the copyright holder. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: procedural close. No valid rationale for undeletion, and unambigious copyright violation per statement in request. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:TomadaPosse Alex Faria instaBig.jpg Undeletion requests/ pedido de revogação da eliminação

Olá, adicionei vários ficheiro para uma página de uma instituição chamada Associação Académica da Universidade da Madeira, e os ficheiros foram todos eliminados por possível violação de copyright. Venho por este meio pedir que revoquem a eliminação, para se necessário mudar o tipo de copyright, caso seja preciso, e para poder publicar na página, Obrigado!--DiogoMatthew (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose It is not up to you or us to grant a licence -- that prerogative and right belongs exclusively to the copyright holder. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: procedural close. No valid rationale for undeletion, and unambigious copyright violation per statement in request. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Gaudeamus_logo_pos.pdf Undeletion requests/ pedido de revogação da eliminação

Olá, adicionei vários ficheiro para uma página de uma instituição chamada Associação Académica da Universidade da Madeira, e os ficheiros foram todos eliminados por possível violação de copyright. Venho por este meio pedir que revoquem a eliminação, para se necessário mudar o tipo de copyright, caso seja preciso, e para poder publicar na página, Obrigado!--DiogoMatthew (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose It is not up to you or us to grant a licence -- that prerogative and right belongs exclusively to the copyright holder. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: procedural close. No valid rationale for undeletion, and unambigious copyright violation per statement in request. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Brasao AAUMa AF.pdf Undeletion requests/ pedido de revogação da eliminação

Olá, adicionei vários ficheiro para uma página de uma instituição chamada Associação Académica da Universidade da Madeira, e os ficheiros foram todos eliminados por possível violação de copyright. Venho por este meio pedir que revoquem a eliminação, para se necessário mudar o tipo de copyright, caso seja preciso, e para poder publicar na página, Obrigado!--DiogoMatthew (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose It is not up to you or us to grant a licence -- that prerogative and right belongs exclusively to the copyright holder. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: procedural close. No valid rationale for undeletion, and unambigious copyright violation per statement in request. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Enjoy Surfwater everyday.jpg

This image is owned by Surfwater and Serkan Barutcu, founder of Surfwater. It is requested this image be inserted into the Surfwater page. There is no violation according to Wiki education source. This image educates the public on Surfwater identity and brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfwater (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Oppose (1) per Commons' policy on project scope (File was not legitimately in use, file was not realistically useful for an educational purpose); (2) per Commons' policy on what Commons is not (Wikimedia Commons is not a place to advertise or self-promote); (3) per Commons' policy on licensing (File is an unambiguous case of COM:NETCOPYVIO, with no evidence of an accepted free licence at source) --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:SURFWATER Still & Sparkling Water.jpg

This image is owned by Surfwater LLC California and is requested to be uploaded onto Surfwater's Wikipedia page. It is not a copyright violation to upload this image, as it educates the public on Surfwater image and depiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfwater (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Oppose (1) per Commons' policy on project scope (File was not legitimately in use, file was not realistically useful for an educational purpose); (2) per Commons' policy on what Commons is not (Wikimedia Commons is not a place to advertise or self-promote); (3) per Commons' policy on licensing (File is an unambiguous case of COM:NETCOPYVIO, with no evidence of an accepted free licence at source) --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Request by Bougnat87

Relates to:

Hello, this photo and others were deleted because I was not the author, that is true, but these photos are in my family’s possession since decades and were taken before 1925 (some even in the 19th century). That is too bad to delete them for bad reasons, but if there’s nothing to do with Wikimedia I will give them to an american institute. Thanks for helping.--Bougnat87 (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Owning physical property ("these photos are in my family’s possession") is entirely distinct from owning the intellectual property (copyright). The author's heirs, not you or your heirs, would posses copyrights unless you have evidence of a formal written conveyance. Эlcobbola _talk 00:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Limi - Cuts.jpg to undelete

File:Limi - Cuts.jpg

This photo was taken and edited by me. The reason for deletion was marked that it is the cover photo as well. This specific photo from the shoot was modified with varying different resolutions, sizes, and colors for different purposes. The specific edit I submitted was uploaded was specifically produced to be used on informational platforms like blogs, magazines, wikis, and aggregators. There are over 4 variations of this exact photo. Although the cover with typography and instagram content and social covers are restricted, this specific edit was made specifically for the purpose of free distribution for informational purposes.

Probablyanobody (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Probablyanobody: Oppose Works previously published elsewhere require that that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Once OTRS has has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Rozina Anyay Abichar movie Song.jpeg

I can not understand cause of deletion of this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarno rudra (talk • contribs) 05:58, 12 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose Screen capture of actress Rozina from the movie Aar Paar (1985). Thuresson (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Louvre at dusk.JPG and File:Louvre 01.jpg

Someone may have been too fast on the delete button, they were not even listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Arts in Early England (1903). All files deleted via this DR but not listed need to be checked for collateral damage. --Denniss (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Support per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-10#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Louvre Pyramid. In fact, all the eight image files there that were undeleted by Yann were deleted, for some reason. Here is the list of eight files:

Eight files "collaterally deleted"

File:Louvre Pyramid construction 1987.jpg (paging its uploader @Joseolgon: )
File:Louvre at dusk.JPG (mentioned by Deniss)
File:Louvre at dusk2.JPG
File:Louvre (4856978474).jpg
File:Louvre by day centered.jpg
File:Louvre France.jpg
File:Louvre Museum - entrance.jpg
File:Louvre-Bannenhaff-mat-Pyramid--w.jpg

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Support following my previous undeletion. There is a clear court case, where unavoidable copyrighted items are OK. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#France. Yann (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Support. There are about 40 such Louvre-related files so deleted by mistake with a deletion comment mentioning "Category:The Arts in Early England (1903)". See the deletion log from 16:44 UTC. The files seem to have had associated talk pages, so they are likely files that were kept after DRs or UDRs. On the user talk page of the deleting admin, it is said that the deletions were not voluntary. Please do not forget to undelete the associated talk pages. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Priyank chaudhary boxer.png

This is hillarious Is he your enemy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:2218:17b6:b9cb:2cc0:d7be:39b0 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Priyank chaudhary boxer.png. Thuresson (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. No valid rationale for undeletion and file out of project scope. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Le Roomba 4300 "Red".jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Le Roomba 4300 "Red".jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: I would like to restore this page, but this time remove the image. Nonochat23 (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: procedural close. No valid rationale for undeletion, and request does not seek restoration of image. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by User:Zandweb~commonswiki

File:Amuzegar.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Sepehr.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Xalatbari.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Princegustafadolfandrezashah.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

These images are in the public domain (PD-Iran). Hanooz 03:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Info Regarding "Princegustafadolfandrezashah.jpg", prince Gustaf Adolf of Sweden visited Iran and the Golestan Palace from November 11, 1934 for a few weeks of state visit. Thuresson (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Support These are all from 1935 and 34 respectively which qualifies them for PD-Iran. Only the first revision of File:Sepehr.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) should be restored though as the second upload shows a completely different subject. De728631 (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 15:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Nieuwlande word war two two memorials.jpg

Ik wil graag het bestsand Nieuwlande word war two two memorials.jpg undeleten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optilete (talk • contribs) 10:40, 6 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Info Google Translate: "I would like the file Nieuwlande word war two two memorials.jpg to be undeleted". Thuresson (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The deletion reason says that it was an empty file -- the upload did not succeed. So, it would just need to be uploaded again. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes but presumably the file was there before its deletion in 2008 for "missing essential author, permission or licensial information". So it can be restored. It seems the user is merely following the official procedure by requesting undeletion instead of reuploading. It's not that the upload did not succeed. The user recreated the description page with the request "Please restore the file, I shall complete the information". -- Asclepias (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, OK. User:Optilete was the original uploader in 2008, missed that.

Support then, if the file is still there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course, the admins who can view the file would have to check if it meets the requirements. For example, this other upload by the same user is probably not acceptable. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Support This is a photo of a memorial in the town of Nieuwlande. The site itself is too simple for copyright but would have been covered by FOP anyway. Optilete uploaded the image as "eigen werk" (i.e. own work), but did not provide a licence. @Optilete: Please tell us which free licence you would like to grant for this photograph. After all, without a licence, we can't restore the file. De728631 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: per discussion. However, I've marked it as missing license. @Optilete: please add a free license to the file page. Ruthven (msg) 15:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Request by Lucashempa

Relates to:

Olá equipe Commons venho através desse pedido solicitar que o ficheiro nominado File:Gilberto Perin e Marcos Paulo - Em Teu Nome - foto Divulgação Accorde Filmes.jpg tenha sua exclusão revertida. Tenho conhecimento da seriedade do trabalho da Wikipédia e suas afiliadas em manter a autenticidade das informações nela publicada. O ficheiro foi publicado na internet sem autoria, em caráter de divulgação, fotos como essas não possuem direitos conexos e são usadas livremente qualquer site. Peço encarecidamente que o ficheiro tenha a exclusão revertida. Meu trabalho é colaborar com uma Wikipédia segura. Desejo uma boa semana. --Lucashempa (discussão) 20h30min de 07 de dezembro de 2020 (UTC)

Not done: procedural close. Awaiting OTRS processing. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Gilberto Perin em A Pequena Galeria - Lisboa - foto Luís Pereira.jpg

Boa noite equipe Commons, gostaria de solicitar a reversão da exclusão do ficheiro File:Gilberto Perin em A Pequena Galeria - Lisboa - foto Luís Pereira.jpg. No dia 25 de novembro as 12:16 enviei a documento assinado pelo titular da fotografia autorizando a hospedagem da mesma, assim como renunciando direitos conexos. Acredito que a remoção tenha sido precoce. Peço encarecidamente a reversão da exclusão. Desejo uma ótima semana. --Lucashempa (discussão) 20h38min de 07 de dezembro de 2020 (UTC)

Not done: procedural close. Awaiting OTRS processing. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Khachkar by Rafayel Israyelyan.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Khachkar by Rafayel Israyelyan.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: File was speedily deleted because there was no FOP in Armenia. Now there is — per {{FOP-Armenia}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: per {{FOP-Armenia}}. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Alisha - Madonna of India.png

The photo was of the actual cassette of the album that I have. It’s a publicly released album. I took the photograph of the cassette myself. Now who’s permission do I need to provide?! The music company?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJ-India (talk • contribs) 15:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Owning the physical album does not make you own the copyright to the cover image. This is in fact held by the record company or the original artist. So without permission from the original copyright holder, we cannot undelete this image. De728631 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per De728631. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Micheal1.jpg

please allow my pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaitan michael Olanrewaju (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Oppose Wikimedia Commons is not a social network, is not your personal free web host, and is not a place to advertise or self-promote. Other than COM:SCOPE issues, the uploader is assumed to be the subject of the photo and, as such, is assumed not to be the copyright holder.
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). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Natalia Q-A&E.jpg

Este diseño es propio de Natalia Armienta hecho en su computador --Andre saracho (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose For images like book covers that have been published before without a free licence, we need a permission coming directly from the copyright holder. Please sse COM:OTRS for instructions on how to verify the licence by email. De728631 (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per De728631. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:NandoGenova.jpg

Esteemed Wikimedia,

I am requesting the undeletion of File:NandoGenova.jpg, following the feedback by EugeneZelenko.

Here follows and excerpt of our exchange. --- -NandoGenova.jpg

File was claimed to be your own work. I could restore it if you'll properly attribute author/license. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC) ---

The file has been deleted and so I do not know how to properly attribute the author/licence. If I am doing this wrong, please let me know which procedure I should follow. Otherwise, if you can do this for me, these are the required data:

author: Bruno Oliveri and Lorenzo Gammarota licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Thanks a lot!

Max Olitz (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: Originally from Flickr with CC-by-sa-2.0. --De728631 (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Praveen Kumar Purushothaman MVP.jpg

This was completely created by me. Can this be undeleted? If you require anything else from me, let me know.

Praveentech (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Your portrait photograph does not look like a selfie, but rather like a professional photoshoot. So, we would require permission from the original photographer and also from Microsoft (regarding the lower part with the group photo). Apart from that, your image is not within our project scope because it only promotes you and Microsoft but it lacks an educational purpose. De728631 (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per De726831. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Hovhannes-Hovhannisyan4.jpg

Album cover for music album of Հովհաննես Հովհաննիսյան (ոստիկանապետ)

Oppose We need a permission by email from the copyright holder because such covers are copyrighted and non-free. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions on how to verify the licence by email. Do not reupload the file again or your account may be blocked. Once the email has been processed by our team of volunteers, the file will be undeleted automatically. De728631 (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per De728631. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Jerry B. Brown.jpg

I am requesting a Undeletion for the following reasons. This is a photo of me. It is my official author's photograph, taken by Isaac Hernandez on May 13, 2017, as a work for hire. I compensated Hernandez for this photo and own all the rights to use it. --Aranthama (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose In such cases we require a copy of your written contract with Mr Hernandez which should be sent to permissions-commons

wikimedia.org. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per De728631. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Alastair_Caithness_-_San_Diego_Skyline.jpg

File:Alastair_Caithness_-_San_Diego_Skyline.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

== https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alastair_Caithness_-_San_Diego_Skyline.jpg ==

This photograph is taken of me by a professional photographer and I own the images and copyright.

I don understand why someone in Africa has the right to say it is copyrighted by them and they deleted the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlastairCaithness (talk • contribs) 17:27, 14 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

@AlastairCaithness: Oppose The admin who deleted the file did not claim its copyright but marked it as a copyright violation per policy. Previously published works require that the copyright holder send permission and specific release uner an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

4 paintings by Bassel Khartabil

These 4 files have been deleted a few times, due to rights confusion.

They are CC photos of artwork whose license was apparently not sufficiently clear. I have asked the artist's heir to send permission to OTRS, referencing the entire source photoset.

Deformity-Bassel-6-17-15.jpg

Resurrection-Bassel-7-10-15.jpg

Uncertain-Dream-Bassel-6-15-15.jpg

Uneasiness-Bassel-7-11-15.jpg

--SJ + 21:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

NB: pointed the OTRS discussion here to indicate the images in question. --SJ +

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

File:Disc Golf played at Fountain Park's 18-hole championship course.jpg

This photo is owned by the Town of Fountain Hills and they have the exclusive rights to it. Is this still a violation?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by BowenLarsen (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

@BowenLarsen: Please add the name of the file or your request can not be processed. Thuresson (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@BowenLarsen: Yes, it is a copyright violation, because you haven't shown proof that you obtained permission from the copyright holder. Pinging Thuresson due to section name change and Túrelio as deleting admin. panda kekok 9 07:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Unambigious copyright violation. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Heba Aisha (talk · contribs)

The copyright status of these files: They are royalty free usable for all purpose as per Government of India 's National Data Sharing and Accessibility policy 2012. The reason for nomination for delition was given as no problem evidence of copyright status on source page. But a logo called data.gov.in was available at the bottom from where one could download the Policy document which testifies that these files are covered under GODL-INDIA licence. Many other files with same status have been approved at commons in past.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

providing evidence--

see the policy statement of NDSAP[7][8]

These data need to be made available in an open format to facilitate use, reuse and
redistribute; it should be free from any license or any other mechanism of control. Opening up of government data in open formats would enhance transparency and accountability while encouraging public engagement. The government data in open formats has a huge potential for innovation building various types of Apps, mash-ups and services around the published datasets.Notification of NDSAP mandates government departments to proactively open up data. NDSAP in India is applicable to all entities of Government Setup. Also page 13 of the one of the two document(which can be downloaded from data.gov.in says that: Data will remain the property of the organisation where it is published but sharing donot imply any violation of act and rules of GoI. These two policy document are available on clicking the logo of data.gov.in on the copyright page of the source I listed.

Heba Aisha (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Gautam Gambhir - LS MP.jpg, this file was using same license and is passed as clean, then why my files were deleted?? Heba Aisha (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Elcobbola. The relevant deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Heba Aisha. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - The rationale here, like the comments at the DR, is both otherstuff and non-responsive to the issue. Indeed, the comments at best relate to substantiating the existence of the GODL template, but that is not the issue; it is whether that template correctly applies to these images. (By way of analogy, the comments are akin to quoting 17 U.S.C. § 105 when someone questions whether a work is truly of federal authorship--it's a failure to address the actual concern.) As I said at the DR, the source, that the uploader themselves gave us, says "the material listed may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study and for criticism, review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed." (bold added) The only on-point response, that the page has simply not been updated is nonsense; they've had over 3.5 years (!!!) and there is plentiful contemporary content at the source (e.g., [9], [10], etc.) When a black and white statement at an official source contradicts the novel interpretation and speculation of a wikimedian, COM:PRP says we side with the former. Эlcobbola _talk 17:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

What is the rationale behind keeping Gautam Gambhir image then?Heba Aisha (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Four-sisters-before-the-wedding-poster.jpg

The article of Four Sisters Before the Wedding was already released thus there should be a poster already uploaded there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcolacson (talk • contribs) 03:40, 15 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Oppose No evidence of an acceptable free licence on source/production company website. Unambiguous NETCOPYVIO. @Marcolacson: Commons is not Wikipedia. Please read Commons' licensing policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

S.A.Raja.jpg

Hello,

I am the grandson of the person in the picture. The picture in question was taken by our university photographer in our university office. All rights of the picture belong to the S.A. Raja Family. However a lot of media outlets have begun using the picture without asking us for the rights. Now I'm trying to upload his most recognizable picture on to his wikipage and it is taken down by wikipedia. I am the original user/creator for his wiki page and this has been a problem for so long.

Could you please help me with this and undelete the picture, so my grandfathers wikipage can have his photo?

Thank you.

Oppose Please provide a copy of your written contract with the university photographer wherein the transfer of copyright is made. This is required per our rules for images that have been published before without a free licence. Please see COM:OTRS for more information. De728631 (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per De728631. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Vaglaskógur göngukort.png

Image copyright: Icelandic Forest Service - Skógræktin - an Icelandic Governmental Institution. Image is therefore unclassified governmental material and should be open-source. --Skogarpesi (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose No information about free license at skogur.is. No information about "open source" at government.is. Thuresson (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

There is {{PD-IcelandGov}} but it only applies to "acts, regulations, administrative provisions, court rulings and similar official documents", so I don't think a map like this would fall under the PD provision. De728631 (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Pride of the North 1866.jpg

Hi there,

A number of images linked to Blackburn Bus Company have been removed for copyright reasons.

Since then (as recommended) I have had the photographer email commons@wikipedia.com stating that I have been granted permission to use his images.

Many thanks, AshlyJethro (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose The processing of permission emails by our volunteer team may take a while. Once your mail has been approved, the image will be undeleted automatically. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per De728631. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:LGO Official Photo.jpg to undelete

I have been asked by a staff member of the Idaho Lt. Governor Janice McGeachin to update the photo used on Wikipedia. I received the file LGO Official Photo from the Lt. Governor's office. I do not know who actually took the photo, but can ask the staff member. The current photo in use was not uploaded by the individual that took it since the photo is, at least, 10 years old. The LGO Official Photo has been widely used on campaign material and the Lt. Governor's website, as well.

Michanikos43 (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Michanikos43

Oppose - If you don't know who the author is ("I do not know who actually took the photo"), you, by definition, cannot have permission to upload the image here. Previously published works require COM:OTRS permission to be submitted directly by the actual author. Эlcobbola _talk 20:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Elena Beuca at the 64th Golden Globe Awards.jpg

Permission has been emailed to the Wikipedia team. Kind restores the email, a legal document is also sent in there along with an email by the photographer itself.

Thanks!

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Welcome dinner for Horizon.au (2652931569).jpg

This DR decided in favour of deleting it, based on the notion that the depicted person is not identified and, once it was identified («Phillip D. Long is Senior Strategist for the Academic Computing Enterprise, and Director, Learning Out-reach, for MIT iCampus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.»^MIT), based on the notion that the depicted person is not notable. Since Commons doesn’t have notability requirements, this photo should be undeleted. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - While we indeed do not have a notability requirement, we do have a COM:SCOPE requirement. Consideration of educational utility, the threshold of scope, necessarily requires considerations similar to, or overlapping with, notability. This was an unused image of a person for whom the only description you found necessary to retain was "A guy with a lanyard that says MIT." If owning an accessory emblazed with a notable institution makes one educationally useful, everyone would be in scope--an absurdity. No demonstration of being in scope, the reason for deletion, is on offer here. Эlcobbola _talk 01:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Everybody can read the DR in question and see how much «A guy with a lanyard that says MIT» was NOT the gist of the argument presented: The o.p. mantained that the identity of the depicted subject could never be ascertained and yet in a matter of hours we had this guy’s name. Meanwhile goalposts were moved, and, it was suddenly a fact that MIT faculty is not in scope. Should this guy’s photo be needed for an article in Wikipedia or Wikinews, his name is Phillip D. Long, as can be also read in the DR. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done, per elcobbola. Thuresson (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:中国首次实现月球轨道交会对接嫦娥五号完成在轨样品转移.webm

@JGHowes: The original reason of deletion is "Video is not created by China News Service. Towards the end of the video: "All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission." (版权所有，未经许可请勿转载)". However, this video first offered by CASIC (China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation), obviously has already permitted to CNS (China News Service), one of the authoritative media in China, and at the end of this video, CNS listed some information:

Reporter: Guo Chaokai

Souce of the video:

CASIC

Editor:

Yue Xiaomin

We can see, CASIC just only offered the video to CNS, reporters and editors are staffs of CNS and audios were also added by CNS, CNS was permitted to use the video and has the copyright at all. And the tag of "All rights reserved" is added by CNS, for they realsed videos on a lot of platforms and usually states keeping copyrights on these platforms, rather than added by CASIC. However, they also upload videos onto Youtube, and tags CC-BY with some of their own videos, as the permisson couldnt withdraw, so we can use it free even they state on other platforms that they own rights. In addition, does CNS check the copyright before the upload to Youtube? Yes they do, and I offered examples in RFD, if needed, I will offer more, obviously their editors understand the copyright very well. And as one of the largest media in China, it is really creditable. So we also don't have to worry that CNS will infringe copyright. I hope I can explain it more clearly and dispel your doubts this time, thanks a lot. -- Vikarna 02:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. CASIC created the video contents about the mission and is the copyright holder. CNS is only a licensee of the content for their own use only and is NOT the copyright holder, thus is not able to relicense the content under CC. A free license must come from the copyright holder. Also CNS clearly indicated that the source of the video is CASIC and "All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.". --Wcam (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Wcam. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

- @Wcam and Nat: It's misleading to hint that "All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission" is indicating CASIC , the tag was obviouly added by CNS in this file, together with other listed imformation (Reporter, Editor and Video Source), so it is obviously CNS stating its ownership. If it is a video from a normal civilian and permitted to CNS, should we also discuss it for it was not first created by CNS, should we find out this civilian and let his show that he tranfered all rights to CNS? And the man is CASIC and we begin to doubt that CNS is not the holder of copyright? CNS is obviuly creditable on copyright than us, I don't think it's neccesary to doubt their editors. -- Vikarna 07:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Niraj Singh Wiki.jpg

I own the image on facebook that has been cited for violation. You ask us to own the rigts for the imiage used. not for the image to be exclusive

The image cited in the link below is privately owned by me and hence is not in infringement of any copyright laws https://www.facebook.com/SinghNirajDhanbad/photos/pcb.2066635773580403/2066635506913763/

I understand that the image uploaded on wikimedia commons must be free, which it is, but it doesn't have to be wxclusive for wikipedia, as per my understanding. Kindly undelete the said image with file name- "Niraj Singh Wiki.jpg"

@Pranav.pgp2013: What about proving that you are the copyright holder by commenting on the Facebook photo using your account there? Just comment "I confirm that I am Pranav.pgp2013 on Wikimedia Commons and that I release the photo under the stated free license on the description of File:Niraj Singh Wiki.jpg, which is a copy of this photo". Shouldn't be hard. Thanks, panda kekok 9 09:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pranav.pgp2013 and Pandakekok9: Oppose Previously published works require permission via OTRS. The image was posted to the subject's facebook page, and the subject is unlikely the copyright holder of the work in question. 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). But that is moot as file was not legitimately in use at time of deletion and fails our policy on project scope. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Marcin Król.jpg

Buddies,

for unknown reason the file has been delated. Would appreciate if you could restore it. The file is a work of a reputed photographer Mr. Dariusz Piasecki. There is not the slightest reason why it has been unprofessionally delated. I would appreciate your kind support.

Best, Marcin — Preceding unsigned comment added by KonsulRP (talk • contribs) 09:20, 16 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

@KonsulRP: Lying that the file was deleted for an "unknown reason", and attacking our admins' work as "unprofessional" will not help your case. We know that the photographer is Dariusz Piasecki. What we don't know is whether you had evidence of permission from him, which is why the deleting admin correctly assumed that the upload was a copyright violation. We just simply don't accept copyright violations here, for obvious reasons. panda kekok 9 09:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - You purport to be Marcin Krol (and indeed signed "Marcin" here), and claimed yourself to be the author. The metadata, however, credit "Author: DARIUSZ PIASECKI piaseckiphotos.com." You claimed the image to have a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license. The metadata, however, say "Copyright: Wszelkie prawa autorskie zastrzezone" (All [copy]rights reserved"). Эlcobbola _talk 15:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Eglise de Valaurie René Margotton.jpg

Bonjour je suis Bernard Mary-Joseph Margotton le fils de René Margotton(wikipédia) Héritier patrimonial direct et légal depuis son décès, détenteur des droits d'auteur, de son œuvre et détenteur de nombreuses œuvres et documents sur sa vie ainsi que sur Fernand Léger que j'aimerais mettre à votre disposition. J'ai autorisé les utilisateurs Sofiacamu66 et B.Margotton à mettre des images sur Wikimedia car je ne maitrise pas le langage Wiki. D'autres oeuvres de mon père ont été uploadées dernièrement par l'intermèdiaire des "Users" B.Margotton et Sofiacamu66 avec mon autorisation. Il semble qu'ils ont eu des problèmes de copyright avec suppression des Files; Pouvez-vous rétablir leur compte? Certaines œuvres gemmaux , vitraux sont juridiquement dans des lieux publics puisqu'elles sont dans des églises , des basiliques ou le musée de mon père. Pourquoi une œuvre d'un gemmail de mon père que nous avons trouvée sur Flickr qui se trouve partout a été supprimée ainsi que celle-ci sur l'Eglise de Valaurie ? C'est un comble! C'est plutôt à moi que l'usager de Flickr aurait dû demander. Lui a le droit de publier mais pas moi qui prend des photos des œuvres de mon père qui sont maintenant ma propriété. Je vous prie donc de bien vouloir rectifier le plus rapidement possible; merci ; vous trouverez des photos de mon livret de famille attestant que je suis bien son fils. J'ai envoyé un mail à ce sujet à CONSENTEMENT COMMONS également pour d'autres œuvres . Je vous remercie de votre vigilance, mais en l’occurrence mes envois sont parfaitement légitimes y compris ceux des usagers cités plus haut à qui j'ai donné ma permission. Je peux vous envoyer si nécessaire tout document manuscrit signé de ma main ou des preuves de ma filiation. En ce qui concerne le vitrail de Valaurie j'ai de mon père l'original qui a servi pour l'église et qui serait de bien meilleure qualité pour l'encyclopédie puisque je peux le photographier directement chez moi ( c'est d'ailleurs pour moi un effort car j'ai bien conscience que je ne pourrais en aucun cas réclamer des droits d'auteur et que je les laisse à disposition du public, ce qui est déjà le cas pour les basiliques ) Bien cordialement Bernard Margotton (Redacted)

File:Bernard Margotton fils de René Daniel Margotton.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Margotton‎ (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Bonjour, bonsoir @B.Margotton: Malheureusement, pour des raisons techniques, nous ne pouvons pas confirmé votre identité ici sur le site. Pour la possibilité de restaurer l'image, il faut envoyer une autorisation sous une licence dite «libre» par courriel à l'OTRS (permissions-commonswikimedia.org ou permissions-frwikimedia.org). Merci de votre compréhension. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Horner - The Greatest Composer.jpg

I sent an email to SoundTrackFest, the people you say own the rights to the image, and they told me that they don't own the right of the poster, so in this case I own the rights: it's not copyright infringement, because I am the one who have created the poster. --Stefan Balugani (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Although previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission, this is moot per COM:NOTHOST. The it.wiki article has been deleted multiple times (and salted) and the en.wiki draft has been declined five times (!!!) Эlcobbola _talk 21:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Agata Różańska 2016.jpg

Could you undelete the file: File:Agata Różańska 2016.jpg. A proper agreement has just arrived: See: ticket:2020121410023193. Thank you in advance! --Micalek (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. @Micalek: Once OTRS has received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Johanchristell99

== [[:File:Example.jpg]] ==

Reason: RUBRIK: File:Väktare_som_hundförare_på_svensk_grundskola_2013.jpg

INNEHÅLL:

These are my pictures that I took myself. They are low resolution when I took them with my mobile and then sent them via facebook to then publish on wiki. I have sent a link to my pictures which I would like you to restore both in the articles and so that people can take part of them openly via your homepage. (Johanchristell99 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC))

Info The deletion discussion concerned Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Johanchristell99. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Several of these appeared elsewhere before upload here (e.g., File:Väktare, hundförare från g4s nuvarande avarn visar arbetet som väktare för grundskoleelever i Höör 2013.jpg was here, File:Sjukvårdare på musikfestival bestående av Undersköterska, sjuksköterska samt läkare- paramedic on music festival in Sweden Båstad.jpg was here, etc.) and thus require COM:OTRS evidence of permisison. That notwithstanding, how are images like File:Vårdpersonal i hemsjukvården med bärbart SRT överfallslarm.jpg and File:Utrymningsledare med reflexväst på skola.jpg in scope? Эlcobbola _talk 18:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Atomium 2621.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Atomium2006.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Atomium 2621.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Atomium image redlinks found while browsing on the older revisions of the structure's enwiki article. Files were speedily deleted (as no FOP existed in the artistic work's home country). Now, {{FoP-Belgium}}. If the files still exist and are indeed the photographers' own images and/or freely-licensed sourced. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: These are original photos by the uploaders and the Atomium is now covered by FoP. --De728631 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Agata Różańska 2016.jpg ticket:2020121410023193

The proper agreement is here: ticket:2020121410023193 Polimerek (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nat and Polimerek: Polimerek is an OTRS team member, so I take this as an request to undelete the file because the ticket has been properly checked and approved. De728631 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @Polimerek: FYI. In the future, proper procedure dictates that the onus is on you the OTRS agent to request undeletion, not the uploader of the file. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:KhojinINDIA..jpg

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/khojinindia source --223.236.7.42 19:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, that page is copyrighted by crunchbase, there has never been a file here with that exact name, and the OP appears to be a sock of blocked and globally locked Khojinindia. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 19:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close: There is no file called File:KhojinINDIA..jpg and, indeed, there is no file called File:KhojinINDIA.jpg. As you've posted as an IP we cannot look at your deleted contributions. You, further, have not provided any reason for restoration (a raw link is unhelpful, and that site says "© 2020 Crunchbase Inc. All Rights Reserved" anyway) Please review COM:UD which says both "Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion" and "State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion." (bold in original). --Эlcobbola _talk 15:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Kirkuk Demographics.jpg

The file hasn't copyright, I put the source, but the file is my own. I think the bot deleted it by mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torivar (talk • contribs) 11:38, 16 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Oppose The file is out of Common's project scope. Tables should be coded directly at Wikipedia using wikitext, but not be published as an image. De728631 (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Agree with De728631 above. COM:SCOPE requires that content be media files, which is a defined term that excludes raw text, ASCII files, etc. I think this table is sufficiently rudimentary as not to qualify as a media file. Эlcobbola _talk 20:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done At Help:Tables you will find instructions on how to create a table in wiki markup. Thuresson (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Esther Walls with a copy of La Vida by Oscar Lewis.jpg

I am new to adding images and other supplementary materials so I was unsure of where to put this. I am aware that the image is for educational use only and I have contacted the University of Iowa Archivist for permission in use of their image on the Wikimedia Commons. Below is the email of the permission granted by the institution, I whited out my personal information for privacy concerns.

File:WallsEsther Permission1.png --Csgiallourakis (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Permissions like this need to be emailed by the copyright holder directly to our volunteer email team (see COM:OTRS for details). Also, a permission to use the image in a Wikipedia article is unsufficient. All uploads at Commons need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose even outside Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: 1) We cannot accept on-wiki permission like this for the same reason we cannot accept forwarded permissions and 2) the "permission" of "you are welcome to upload the photograph of Esther Walls [...] to the Wikipedia creative commons for your article about Esther Walls" is entirely inadequate as it is, among others, not an explicit license and limited to a specific article. Please review and follow the procedures at COM:OTRS. --Эlcobbola _talk 16:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Sajith Thomas.jpg

New Version image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omkv69 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 18 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Not done: Sock nonsense. --Эlcobbola _talk 16:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:PIROUETTE 2020 Poster.webp

I can confirm that I own the copyright to this image and it was produced by me. It also links to the wikipedia article 'Draft:Pirouette (film)' which is currently awaiting a re-review. --Petedavidhoward (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - You claimed "illustration by Mikael Hattingh," which, of course, is not Pete David Howard (Petedavidhoward). Hattingh will need to provide permission directly using the process at COM:OTRS or, alternatively, you can provide a copy of the document that transferred copyright form Hattingh to you. Эlcobbola _talk 16:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done Per elcobbola. Also, en:Draft:Pirouette (film) has been rejected. Thuresson (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Storsjoyran Bear Quartet photo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Storsjoyran Bear Quartet photo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The file falls under fair use because the file was being used on the article for the rock band The Bear Quartet which had the explicit purpose of educating the reader on The Bear Quartet, and this image enhanced the article because it shows the reader what their final performance looked like, therefore, the context in which this file was being used was transformative. Edit: I would like to cancel this undeletion request. Cliferton (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @Cliferton: Please do not upload any more files until you have read Commons:First steps and Commons:Fair use. Thuresson (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Uploader understood that fair use images are not accepted here on Commons. panda kekok 9 03:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:Parco Sempione Map.pdf

Please restore the following pages:

File:Parco Sempione Map.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: OTRS procedure in progress, Ticket#2020112410008175 .av gas 14:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @.avgas: Please check the file and add the licence. --De728631 (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Ittzsav

I think my artictle should be undeleted because im a real music artist verified on many different platforms with press releases wich makes me authentic and notable please undo my deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ittzsav (talk • contribs) 09:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Commons is not an encyclopedia and does not host articles, as you have already been advised ("Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles.) Эlcobbola _talk 11:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: Are you kidding? User:Ittzsav deleted, en:Ittzsav deleted 3 times, en:Talk:Ittzsav deleted twice, en:User:Ittzsav deleted twice, wikt:User:Ittzsav deleted, mw:User:Ittzsav deleted, n:User:Ittzsav deletion pending. Don't you get it? --Achim (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: The user just doesn't seem to get the point. From what I'm seeing here, this user is one stone throw away from being globally locked. panda kekok 9 12:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:Lauren Mackay.jpg

This picture is of me and taken by me

Procedural close: File is not (yet) deleted. Please address what the tag is telling you first. Though I guess C1K98V could explain much better if they convert the tag to a DR... panda kekok 9 05:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:8210 CTB 48 08-08-2017.jpg and File:003 Ma On Shan Line(Made in China) 24-06-2017.jpg

I already change the license to CC-BY-SA for these files in hkbus and hkrail wikiaː

https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:8210_CTB_48_08-08-2017.JPG

https://hkrail.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:003(EWL_C_-Train)_Ma_On_Shan_Line_24-06-2017.JPG

I hope admin can redevelop these two files,thank you.

LN9267 (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Support - hkrail.fandom.com is a non-WMF wiki and suffers the same infirmities as a source (i.e., can be edited by anyone), but the uploader was the first to reference that source, and the deletion nomination of "© Wong Chuk Hang" appears a conflation with the mere location. I don't find alternative previous publication, and the images are higher resolution, have intact EXIF (including with a camera--iPhone 6s--to which a typical user would be expected to have access), and of subject matter to which a typical user would have access. To the extent there's doubt, I don't believe it rises to the "significant" threshold of COM:PRP. Эlcobbola _talk 20:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: per request and Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:CONGRESS COLUMN-BRUSSELS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (11).jpg

File:GARDEN OF SCULPTURES-BRUSSELS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (3).jpg

Per COM:FOP Belgium. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Info both were actually restored, per their deletion logs ([11] and [12]). But they were deleted again because according to the admin INeverCry, "oops - {{FoP-Belgium}} doesn't cover texts." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- The text on the plaque appears to be rather unoriginal, but I can't find any notes on the TOO in Belgium. De728631 (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Original does not mean lengthy, insightful, profound, etc. It means a work "owes its origin to the author" and is "little more than a prohibition of actual copying." COM:FOP Belgium does not cover text; thus, unless there is actual evidence that this was copied or otherwise ineligible for protection in both the US and Belgium, there is no support for restoration. Further, if the argument is to be that this is mere text (there is, of course, the sculpture graphic), it would be out-of-COM:SCOPE as mere text is not considered a media file. Эlcobbola _talk 20:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Anamaria_Rusi.jpg

File: Anamaria_Rusi.jpg. I am husband of the artist, Anamaria Rusi. I work also as her manager and I have full rights to use her PR-photographs.

--Artist1981 (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Copyright usually rests with the original photographer, so if the copyright was transferred to you, we need a copy of the written contract between you and the photographer. Also, when an image has been published before without a free licence, a permission needs to be sent by email as described in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - You claimed this to be the work of Marika Kiviharju. We thus require COM:OTRS evidence of permission directly from Kiviharju, or, alternatively, a copy of the document that transferred copyright from Kiviharju to you ("I have full rights to use her PR-photographs"--notwithstanding that "to use" is not the same as "to license.") Эlcobbola _talk 15:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Broken Lizards.jpg

Hi,

Please undelete the contents from Erik Stolhanske's Wikipedia page. I added onto his page previously, and transitioned my account to be a 'paid editor'. I understand we needed to reference credible 3rd party sources, which we do have now. Please advise on next steps to get the page restored. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheena Dhawan (talk • contribs) 17:40, 17 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose This file was deleted because it has been published elsewhere without a free licence, so uploading it here is an infringement of copyright (actually it appears to be a screenshot). To undelete the file, the copyright holder needs to send an email as described in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission from the actual author or copyright holder, if different. Эlcobbola _talk 15:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:1958 Stanovisko pracovniku RTN e.jpg File:1958 Stanovisko pracovniku RTN d.jpg

rights granted on ekortn.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdenbe (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 December 2020‎ (UTC)

I don't see those two files in https://ekortn.com/galerie-ekortn.html. The licence over there is only valid for the images shown in that specific gallery. If you meant any other page of this website please provide a proper weblink. De728631 (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - These are scans of printed pages with no evidence whatsoever of their genuine status. Indeed, per above, the pages do not even appear at that link, and there's every reason to believe that link is license laundering. Notwithstanding that you intially claimed these to be your own work (!!!), how, precisely, is it that "ReinventedImmunology.com" came to hold the copyrights of, and thus the ability to license as a purported "CC BY-SA 4.0," documents with creation dates of 1918? Эlcobbola _talk 15:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Bionicman und Michel Fornasier .jpg - File:Michel Fornasier.jpg

Ich habe zu beiden Bildern im Artilel zu "Bionicman" und Michel Fornasier" klar kommunziert, dass ich im direkten Kontakt mit dem Inhaber der Bilder stehe, habe den Namen der Fotografin hinzufügt und eine komplette Seite erstellt zu Michel Fornasier, die scheinbar gelöscht wurde und ohne etwaige nachvollziehbare Information.

Die Vorgehensweise ist für jemanden der/die erst kurz hier in den Community ist, sehr befremdlich?

Besteht die Möglichkeit dass jemand hier Hilfestellung gibt und Artikel, sowie Angaben zu Bildern, an denen ich inzwischen doch inzwischen mehrerer Stunden gesessen habe, nicht ohne solche gelöscht, verschoben oder whatever werden?

Vielen Dank und beste Grüsse

ProbonoCH (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Das Problem mit der Kommunikation ist, dass neue Bilder automatisch auf Wikimedia Commons hochgeladen werden, aber Deine Kommentare zum Kontakt mit den Rechteinhabern auf der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia geschrieben wurden. Diese beiden Seiten tauschen sich aber nicht automatisch aus, sondern solche Themen sollten immer auch hier angesprochen werden. Abgesehen davon brauchen wir bei Bildern von Dritten immer eine Freigabe per E-Mail, die direkt vom Rechteinhaber kommt. D. h., wir können leider keine weitergeiteten Zusagen akzeptieren, da diese in der Vergangenheit zu oft gefälscht wurden. Wenn Du also in Kontakt mit den Urhebern stehst, dann bitte sie, jeweils eine Freigabe an Wikimedia Commons zu mailen, in der auch der Dateiname des jeweiligen Bildes erwähnt wird. Mehr dazu auf COM:OTRS/de. Sobald diese Mails von unserem Freiwilligen-Team bearbeitet worden sind, können wir die Bilder wieder herstellen. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per De728631. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:OFiodaMeada.jpg.jpg

Dear, I kindly request that the image in question be inserted again. The image is free, has no copyright and was sent to me by the director / scriptwriter of the film. The site www.adorocinema.com (whose image was inserted on the page http://www.adorocinema.com/filmes/filme-284902/) does not have copyright on the image. This was created for the release of the film O Fio da Meada. The site only used it for this purpose, since it is a cinema site.

Thank you in advance.

-LaMattos-LaMattos (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@LaMattos: The image is free, has no copyright and was sent to me by the director / scriptwriter of the film. AFAIK, it is the producer who holds the copyright on film posters, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Does the film has an official website? They could easily prove that they are releasing the poster to the public domain by stating so on their website. Otherwise, they will have to send an email to the OTRS team. panda kekok 9 07:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Previously published works require that the copyright holder (in this case, the production company) to send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Paywith.glass thumbnail tile.jpg

We are currently editing a future Wikipedia page and have uploaded multiple images for which we own the IP rights. One of these images was deleted for copyright violation, without the editor even asking a question first and this is completely unacceptable. It has disrupted our edit and wasted valuable time.

If there is a specific way in which we should tag or announce the rightful sharing of the images with Wikimedia Commons, we would appreciate instructions on what we should change to avoid these issues in the future.

Hatter.glass (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Copyright questions aside, the image is highly promotional and therefore it does not fall into the project scope of Commons. It would not be allowed at Wikipedia either. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per De728631. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Moshe Lewenstein foto Peter Weiner.jpg

hi The photograph received the approval of the photographer himself. There is no reason to delete it. Everything is legal. ProfNews (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The image is available at Flickr under CC-by-2.0: [13]. However, the metadata tells us that it is "Copyright 2015 Peter & Others, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED". So the question remains how avi shmoul got the Creative Commons licence for his Flickr upload. It seems that we need a permission from Peter Weiner to undelete the file. De728631 (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - 1) The image was uploaded to the Flickr source the same day it was uploaded to Commons and 2) the Flickr account is that of "Avi Shmoul, yet the image is explicitly credited as "foto Peter Weiner" (at both Flickr and in the Commons file name). While the former alone is generally the strongest indicator of Flickr-washing, aggregation with the Flickr user/author mismatch and metadata suggests this is almost certainly license laundering. Эlcobbola _talk 11:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Page Faysal Shaqooli, File:Kani Tu.jpg

Please undelete my page (Faysal Shaqooli) I have received a note that my page was deleted for a copy right violation of a File:Kani Tu.jpg. this is my song and i really don't understand why it has been blocked or deleted. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faysalshaqooli (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Unfortunately we get a lot claims of authorship from impostors, and there is no way to verify that you are the real Faysal Shaqooli by checking your Wikimedia account. Also, copyright in photographs usually rests with the original photographer and not with the person depicted. Therefore it is required that we get a permission by email that comes directly from the copyright holder of this image. Please see COM:OTRS for more instructions. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - "Your song" ≠ "your photograph" and, indeed, the implication of that statement that you are the musician suggests you to be the mere subject, rather than the actual author (photographer). As copyright initially vests in the latter, and indeed because this was previously published, COM:OTRS evidence of permission is needed. Эlcobbola _talk 11:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Survival of the Friendliest US cover.jpg

Hi there,

The publisher has given permission for this artwork to be uploaded onto wiki commons - is there a form they should fill in, or can I just forward the email?

Thank you

Hello. Please ask them to send an email as explained in COM:OTRS. Unfortunately we can't accept forwarded permissions. De728631 (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Die Siedler von Catan - Stadte & Ritter.jpg

I'm upload photo of board game after getting approve from official regional distributor - Hobbyworld (Russia). There is no copyright violation at any kind. Page link in VK - https://vk.com/hobby_world

File:Temp-hobbyworldpermission.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord daggert (talk • contribs) 10:07, 21 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Oppose I don't read Russian, but the snapshot of the chat you uploaded here does not seem to mention the Creative Commons licence you applied to the upload of the game cover. Also that would not have been your {{own}} but the copyright is still held by Hobby Games, the original distributor Kosmos Verlag and/or the original game designer Klaus Teuber. Moreover, a permission to use the file at Wikipedia is not sufficient. All uploads at Commons need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose even outside Wikipedia. It can't see how Hobby Games would have agreed to such a permission, so we require a verification by email from the copyright holder. This would have to go through COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, always forget about signature. Is I understand correct: If I will get official letter from official russian distributor, for ru-cover, for releasing pictures under CC-BY - in will be ok? Lord daggert (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lord daggert: No. Hobby Games is ultimately just a licensee, not the primary copyright holder. The copyright holder is Catan GmbH and Klaus Teuber. Permission would be needed from Hobby Games for the licensed derivative, and Catan GmbH and Klaus Teuber for the base original work. And based on Catan's IP policy, it would be very unlikely that permission under an accepted free licence would be granted by any of the rights holders. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per De728631. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

All the pictures and information are my property all my work and my ownership filled with Barker and Brettell copyright and Trade mark Attorney in 2008 if any person refuses this they will be reporting a false statement. Please support your claim that l should not show my work l have a registered company and all my work. I will one day be supported in one way or another and appear on this platform as a creator of the above products. Kind regards Paul julian Cross Manager Director of Portrait card games Ltd — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a01:4c8:418:b2ae:1:2:b9dc:4329 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. (1) As this UDEL request was submitted while logged out, there is no way to determined the files in question. (2) Previously published works, with no evidence of a free licence at source, require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org for the possibility of undeletion. Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission and there are no grounds for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by KanavaroT

These were deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KanavaroT, proposed by EugeneZelenko with the rationale, "Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions." The uploader KanavaroT then requested undeletion at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-09#File:Bird Thongchai 1.jpg, which was declined by Fastily, the original closing admin (at the time), who advised sending OTRS confirmation. However, since the original rationale did not mention any conflicting evidence of ownership, it's unclear to me what OTRS would have achieved.

Looking at KanavaroT's currently non-deleted uploads, all of them have intact EXIF info. While quite a few different cameras were used, they span quite a wide range of years that it's plausible one may have used that many cameras over that time period. Their file descriptions contain enough specific detail to suggest that they are indeed the author. (E.g., from File:Bird Thongchai concert.jpg, it seems unlikely that someone stealing a photo off the internet in 2012 would know the name of the exact event which took place in 2009. Maybe they were his personal photographer or something.) If the deleted files have similar characteristics, I don't think there's reason to presume otherwise. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

EXIF data of files concerned
File name	WidthxHeight	Camera	Date	Time	Notes
File:Bird Thongchai Mcintyre.jpg	533x800 px	Canon EOS Kiss X2	2012-08-20	16:21:07
File:Bird Thongchai.jpg	405x659 px	Canon EOS Kiss X2	2012-08-15	18:27:53
File:Bird Thongchai 1.jpg	405x352 px	Canon EOS Kiss X2	2012-08-15	18:27:53	(crop of File:Bird Thongchai.jpg)
File:Bird Thongchai KPN.jpg	434x600 px	Canon EOS Kiss X2	2009-12-20	00:00:33
File:Bird Thongchai Siamdara.jpg	458x503 px	Canon EOS Kiss X2	2012-06-20	21:48:52
File:Bird Thongchai song for King.jpg	400x415 px	Canon EOS Kiss X2	2010-12-01	18:23:15
File:Bird Thongchai concert2.jpg	551x450 px	Canon EOS Kiss X2	2011-02-27	22:30:31
File:Bird Thongchai Byrdland.jpg	400x526 px	Canon EOS Kiss X2	2012-03-21	14:47:05
File:Bird Thongchai concert.jpg	545x816 px	Canon EOS Kiss Digital X	2009-08-02	21:09:03
File:Bird Thongchai 2.jpg	442x500 px	Canon EOS 40D	2009-07-01	20:32:15

Info The EXIF data from the files concerned seem to be relevant to this discussion. Thuresson (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

How did File:Bird Thongchai Mcintyre.jpg and File:Bird Thongchai concert.jpg get undeleted? I can't see anything in the logs other than the deletion by Fastily. De728631 (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@De728631: They were both reuploaded in violation of COM:CSD#G4. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 01:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: That' what I thought too, but there is only one original upload for each file in the logs. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Neither are correct. File:Bird Thongchai Mcintyre.jpg was deleted 3 September 2012 and a different image was uploaded under that file name 6 September 2012‎. File:Bird Thongchai concert.jpg was deleted 3 September 2012 and a different image was uploaded under that file name 24 September 2012‎. Эlcobbola _talk 19:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Эlcobbola: Thanks for the update. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 07:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Thuresson for providing the EXIF. I'd say I support the restoration of the images. I'm not convinced of the deleting rationale. The resolutions are inconsistent indeed, but that may have a reason. Looking at the existing uploads of the user, they seem to use Photoshop to scale down their images. While that may be unreasonable these days, back in 2012 it is quite normal, as not everyone has as much bandwidth before. Or maybe they set their camera to shoot at low resolution, to save space on the SD card. Again, quite normal, especially in 2009 where space is quite limited. They might be taking a lot of photographs at that time, which may be why they decided to set the photos at a low resolution. --panda kekok 9 07:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Undeleted, ping @Paul 012: Thuresson (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Demchok-sector-map.jpg

Hello, I was told that this image was deleted because I hadn't provided licensing information. It is OpenStreetMap screenshot, which is covered by template:ODbL OpenStreetMap. Can you please undelete it? Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Support As this file comes from Opentopomap.org and not directly from OSM, the correct licence is CC-by-sa-3.0 though. De728631 (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @Kautilya3 and De728631: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Afrika ontwaakt

Sculpture Afrika ontwaakt thumb|Afrika ontwaakt in june 2020

In 2019 and 2020 I filled the category:Afrika ontwaakt with six pictures of the sculpture Afrika ontwaakt by Wessel Couzijn. The pictures of 2019 were taken during the temporary exhibition ArtZuid of which the sculpture was part. They were deleted rightly. However after they were removed I found out that Afrika ontwaakt was placed on the Emmeplein, Amsterdam in 2016, long before the exibition and was still standing there after. To prove that I took some new photos. I placed the new photos and via a undeletion request the 2019-photos were placed back. However, now the sculpure is in the news again (it gets new neighbours) I found out that all the pictures are deleted again, without letting me know. Even the category has gone by october 2020. Please undelete the following pictures of this statue that is placed in a park that is accessible for everyone: File:ArtZuid 2019, Couzijn, Afrika ontwaakt (8).jpg, File:ArtZuid 2019, Couzijn, Afrika ontwaakt (7).jpg, File:ArtZuid 2019, Couzijn, Afrika ontwaakt (5).jpg, File:ArtZuid 2019, Couzijn, Afrika ontwaakt (4).jpg, File:ArtZuid 2019, Couzijn, Afrika ontwaakt (3).jpg, File:ArtZuid 2019, Couzijn, Afrika ontwaakt (2).jpg, File:2020 Afrika ontwaakt (1).jpg, File:2020 Afrika ontwaakt (2).jpg, File:2020 Afrika ontwaakt (3).jpg en File:2020 Afrika ontwaakt (4).jpg. Hereby a ping to @Podzemnik: who deleted all the pictures and category, Ceescamel (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

seems the ping failed due to a newline, so @Podzemnik: pinging again. Akoopal (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Support A placement in a park or other public location other than a temporary exhibition is obviously intended as a permanent location. So FOP applies in those cases. De728631 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Weak Support I've deleted the photos based on this request (see my reasoning there). If the sculpture is still there, then we can consider it to be permanent I guess, although it's hard to say why the sculpture is still there, maybe it'll be gone by tomorrow, and then is it still permanent? I wish we had more information from the authorities to know their intentions so we can appropriately decide whether it's temporary eg. with a deadline, or not. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Podzemnik: The sculpture is still there; I was there this morning; it will stay there for at least a couple of years as part of a collection of sculptures,Ceescamel (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Podzemnik: Did you notice the requestor of the delete is the same as the requestor of this undelete, and that the request was more then a year old? The first request was apparently handled outside the request and it was still open. The deleted pictures where already undeleted. Akoopal (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Support Sculpture made in 1961; sculpture garden of Stedelijk Museum until 1991; at Emmaplein Amsterdam since 2016. Looking at Dutch copyright law and jurisprudence: certainly Freedom of Panorama NL. Vysotsky (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Support - The Sculpture "Afrika ontwaakt" (or "Rising Africa") by Wessel Couzijn has been permanently placed in the public park Emmaplein for years, see here. Gouwenaar (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: per discussion @Ceescamel, Akoopal, De728631, Podzemnik, Vysotsky, and Gouwenaar: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Produktmanagement in Clarity.png

Further files in question: File:Demand Management in Clarity.png File:Budgetplanung in Clarity.png File:Portfolio Alignment in Clarity.png File:Roadmapping in Clarity.png File:Ressourcenplanung in Clarity mit itd Advanced Resource Planning.png File:Projektmanagement in Clarity.png

Reasons for request: As we made the screenshots of the software by our own with our own system, we can decide about the copyright (they are my own). Please let me know for what reasons the pictures were deleted. Thanks!

--The Clarity Expert (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @The Clarity Expert: Previously published works require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission and there is no other rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:ahmadghorbani1.jpg

--Ahmadghorbani1 (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC) it's taken by me this pic for me --Ahmadghorbani1 (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmadghorbani1: The problem is not the copyright, but that it is a personal photo. Since you haven't contributed much in Wikimedia other than promoting yourself in Wikidata, the admin decided to delete your photo. Maybe do some useful stuff first before asking your photo to be undeleted. panda kekok 9 05:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Kurdish languages.png

Request temporary undeletion

I request a temporary undeletion for the file in order to check if the issues raised here (Fan fiction, the source doesn't show any map like this) are founded or biased. Once I'm sure of its authenticity I'm planning to further discuss the reasoning behind this with the nomitor of the deletion. The reason why I believe it might be biased is one of the nominations done by User:Beshogur seems to be careless or even in bad faith. Check here [14] He gives a link to a third party while completely disregarding the original file File:Kurdish_majority_Turkey.svg (which I find suspiciously underused, most likely due to accessive edit-warring done by a few users here including the nominator for the deletion of both images and many other images related to Kurds and Zazas in Turkey) which references a valid source M. Izady's map on the Kurdish Institute's webpage, readily available in the source of the original file [15].--Balyozxane (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Done I have undeled the file for the time being. The source presented on the file page is this website (note also the menu offering "Kurdistan Maps"). De728631 (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Nominators were right to delete this file. None of the maps on the Institute's page reach this far. Thank you for taking the time to help.--Balyozxane (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Spidercam Light with Newton stabilized head.jpg

I have now read more about the policy of wikimedia commons and this is a photo I have hold the rights and taken myself. This photo has been published on the web before by me. I subject to wikimedia commons photo policy that it is free to use.

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. Previously published works require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission and there is no other rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:MostanadTV.svg

File:IRIBOmid.svg

File:Imam Khomeini Relief Foundation Logo.svg

File:QuranTv.svg

Hello, what is the reason for deleting this file ??? If there is a legal problem, can you fix it yourself?

Behnam N (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. No rationale for undeletion has been provided. Reasons and rationales for deletion listed on the redlinked pages. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Beatrice Fleischlin in "THIS IS ME".jpg

Ich habe eine Mail vom Fotografen, in der er mir nochmal versichert, alle Nutzungsrechte zu besitzen. Ich kann die zusenden. Aber wie?--Amazer1304 (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. File has not been deleted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Artist as a Artist Attendant.jpg

Permission granted by original author (Bas Fontein) send on email Ilze van Veelen (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Bas Fontein Artist December 9 2020

www.basfontein.com

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note: 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). Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission and there is no other rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Bas Fontein.jpg

Permission granted by original author (Bas Fontein) send on email Ilze van Veelen (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Bas Fontein Artist December 9 2020

www.basfontein.com

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note: 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). Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission and there is no other rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:WHAT TO DO.jpg

Permission granted by original author (Bas Fontein) send on email Ilze van Veelen (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Bas Fontein Artist December 9 2020

www.basfontein.com

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note: 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). Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission and there is no other rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:I will not make any more boring art.jpg

Permission granted by original author (Bas Fontein) send on email Ilze van Veelen (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Bas Fontein Artist December 9 2020

www.basfontein.com

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Please note: 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). Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission and there is no other rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Ángel Gustavo Infante.jpg

Ángel Gustavo Infante.jpg‬ ´´´´

Not done: Procedural close. No rationale for undeletion provided. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Carlos Garcia y Garcia.jpg

Conforme a la ley peruana, respecto de File:Carlos Garcia y Garcia.jpg, es una foto de dominio público, sin derecho autor, fue tomada por la prensa del Congreso. Aca la ley:

LEY Nº 27806.- Ley de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública
Artículo 10º.- Información de acceso público
Las entidades de la Administración Pública tienen la obligación de proveer la información requerida si se refiere a la contenida en documentos escritos, fotografías, grabaciones, soporte magnético o digital, o en cualquier otro formato, siempre que haya sido creada u obtenida por ella o que se encuentre en su posesión o bajo su control. Asimismo, para los efectos de esta Ley, se considera como información pública cualquier tipo de documentación financiada por el presupuesto público que sirva de base a una decisión de naturaleza administrativa, así como las actas de reuniones oficiales.

https://www.peru.gob.pe/normas/docs/ley_27806.pdf
https://sgp.pcm.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/F2-Acceso-a-la-Informacion-Publica.pdf

English version:
According to Peruvian law, regarding File: Carlos Garcia y Garcia.jpg, it is a photo in the public domain, without copyright, it was taken by the press of Congress. Here is the law:
LAW Nº 27806.- Law of Transparency and Access to Public Information
Article 10.- Public access information
Public Administration entities have the obligation to provide the required information if it refers to that contained in written documents, photographs, recordings, magnetic or digital media, or in any other format, provided that it has been created or obtained by it or that is in their possession or under their control. Likewise, for the purposes of this Law, public information is considered to be any type of documentation financed by the public budget that serves as the basis for an administrative decision, as well as the minutes of official meetings.
Jjrt (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Per Peru's Copyright Law (Legislative Decree No. 822) of 1996, works of the government are afford protection under the law. Works first published before 1971 are protected for a period of 25 years, and works first published after 1971 are protected for a period of 70 years. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, "public access" does not equate public domain. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I will explain in a little more detail this topic, and the mistakes made in Wikipedia, regarding Peruvian laws.

- The text cited in works of the government, comes from Law 13714 of 1961, this law was repealed by Legislative Decree No. 822, (published on 24 April 1996), implies that what is written in works of the government is not valid. In the current legislative decree nothing is mentioned regarding Works of "legal entities", like Government, municipalities and organizations.

- Law No. 27806.- Law of Transparency and Access to Public Information, allows not only access but also its unlimited use, since said law does not prohibit it. According to the Constitution of Peru (1993): No one is obliged to do what the law does not mandate, nor is they prevented from doing what it does not prohibit.

- What is more, the Peruvian constitution says:

Art.151.- Coercion: Anyone who, through threat or violence, forces another to do what the law does not command or prevents him from doing what it does not prohibit will be punished with a prison sentence of no more than 2 years.

Indeed our laws don't need to tell things like "public access" does not equate public domain. Jjrt (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jjrt: Firstly, please keep the conversation in one place. There was no need to leave an identical message on my talk page. Secondly, this is not Wikimedia. This is Commons. Thirdly, as a default, everything is protected by copyright law, unless the law explicitly exempts it from protection or the work does not meet the legal threshold for protection. Fourthly, Law No. 27806 does not enumerate that works of the government are in public domain, only that the government has an obligation to provide access under article 10, but does not exempt such work from protection. Copyright in Peru is governed by Legislative Decree No. 822, and works of the government, which are considered collective works, are protected for a period of 70 years after first publication per Art. 54. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: Let me explain, Legislative Decree No. 822 does not speak of government work, consequently, it cannot be inferred that because the previous law considered it as collective works the current one considers it as well. The regulations of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Peru have serious problems, I am going to delete collective works because it is causing confusion. As I have already mentioned, our laws allow doing what is "literally not prohibited".

If you want to present an opposed position you need to understand Spanish to read properly our laws. The official source of the government is INDECOPI, the subject is called "OBRAS": https://www.indecopi.gob.pe/marco-normativo-pi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjrt (talk • contribs)

There is no confusion. And please do not change COM:Peru just so that it suits your needs. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: I checked that you reversed my changes in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Peru, I posted my explanation in the project page discussion. I will revert your reversion, here mi explanation: It is not acceptable that foreigners make inferences, conclusions, and write about Peruvian laws, thus generating confusion. If it has to be discussed, it will be among Peruvians, if necessary we will ask the government institution to pronounce on the issue, meanwhile, that text must be deleted. I respect foreign laws, I claim the same respect.

The last text is independent of my petition here, the photo was taken by the press of the Peruvian Congress to diffuse the recognition that Carlos Garcia y Garcia has received there. Jjrt (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jjrt: Per COM:EVID, you must make the case that such works are in public domain. You have not. Changing COM:Peru to suit your needs will be considered disruptive and may result in administrative action. Please refrain from doing so. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: I decline my request undeletion written here so that I am not misunderstood. However, it is not acceptable that foreigners make inferences, conclusions, and write about Peruvian laws, thus generating confusion. If it has to be discussed, it will be among Peruvians, if necessary we will ask the government institution to pronounce on the issue, meanwhile, that text must be deleted. Peruvians are independent. Jjrt (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: UDEL request withdrawn. Additionally, COM:Peru should not be altered unless there is a change in legislation or a clear and explicit legal opinion by Peru's Copyright Office (INDECOPI) on copyright status of government works. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Amel sur Étang BL PNG.png

Je suis le créateur du blason d'Amel sur l'Etang et je suis également gérant de mon site "nos blasons Lorrains" . On ne peut être plus qualifié pour insérer ce blason dans wikimédia.
Le cas de Han les Juvigny est identique

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojac55 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose From [16], "Copyright © 2018 Nos Blasons Lorrains. Tous droits réservés" who has the following information about the creators: "Armoiries composées et dessinées par Robert André LOUIS, héraldiste, et Dominique LACORDE, historien". Thuresson (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Bonjour, bonsoir @Rojac55: Œuvres publiées pour la première fois ailleurs nécessitent que le titulaire du droit d'auteur envoie une autorisation sous une licence dite «libre» par courriel à OTRS (permissions-frwikimedia.org ou permissions-commonswikimedia.org). Merci de votre compréhension. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Natem, papel de abacá y cobre grabado, 20x150 cm. Premio Mariano Aguilera 1995.jpg.jpg

Eventhough the artist is still alive, copyright for the pictures uploaded has been released by the authors for purposes of the arts dissesmination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgisspal (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Oppose Uploaded as own work. You must present verifiable permission from the artist if you wish to disseminate your photos of copyrighted works. Thuresson (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Thuresson. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined that they have received sufficient permission and there is no other rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Enhypen logo.jpg

This file only contain EN-, mean text logo which is too simple to be copyrighted. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ talk to me ] 09:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The threshold of originality seems to be very low in South Korea. According to COM:TOO South Korea, a work is eligible for copyright when it is distinguishable from others and has its own characteristics as a product of mental efforts. This logo appears to meet these definitions. De728631 (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

So I may speedy close it and mark as kept delete, ok? StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ talk to me ] 14:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per De728631. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Modista sevillana - Gonzalo Bilbao.jpg

Hello. This file was deleted in 2017 due to copyright violation, with the text "(..) Include in undelete in 2019". Since we are in 2020 and the file is in public domain now, could be possible to undelete the file?. --Hameryko (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Support 1904 painting by Gonzalo Bilbao. Thuresson (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Works must be PD in the country of origin and in the US. 1938 + 80 + 1 = 01.01.2019, which is after URAA of 01.01.1996; thus, per COM:HIRTLE, the earliest this would be PD in the US is 2021 unless there is evidence that a different circumstance is in play here. (Mere creation, 1904, is not publication. If this was also published proximate to that date, evidence of the same should be provided as it could then be restored per pre-1925 publication.) Эlcobbola _talk 11:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This painting was a present from his creator, Gonzalo Bilbao, to a friend, Ángel Avilés. The latter wrote on the back of the painting a poem dedicated to Gonzalo Bilbao in gratitude for the gift, signing it on September 3, 1904. Since in 1904 the painting was finished and delivered to the recipient of the painting, can it be considered that it was already published on that date? This can be consulted in the following reference. --Hameryko (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Support The US Copyright Office has a note about the act of publication: "Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. ..." Presenting a work to someone else is also a transfer of ownership, so the work has been published before 1925. PD-US-expired applies. De728631 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Support While publication was necessary, sounds like that was probable. The lack of publication seems more like a theoretical doubt, not something that is particularly likely. Under a main theory of the "limited publication" doctrine, a distribution would have to be to a limited set of people, for a limited purpose, and no further right of distribution, to not be "general publication" (which started the copyright clock). Giving to a friend would not seem to check all those boxes, so likely published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: per discussion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:499785 original.png

The author of the picture made a post on his blog where he wrote that all materials, including this picture, from his blog are available under a license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International link to the author's post: https://acer120.livejournal.com/168185.html?view=comments#comments

Great, it should be straight-forward in undeleting this image then. @Sealle: What do you think? panda kekok 9 13:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. De728631 (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: per above. Licensed reviewed. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Untitled - panoramio - serjserg (22).jpg

This bot upload has been deleted multiple times by Shizhao for being out of project scope. It would, however, fit into Category:Haymaking in Russia to illustrate that the traditional method is still being used today. The image in question can be seen here. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Support I think. Seems like the bot uploaded it multiple times within a few days. Not technically eligible for speedy deletion but can sort of understand that while moderating a bot's uploads. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @De728631 and Clindberg: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:KhojinINDIA organization.png

Dear Sir, it is not for a promotion we have not to insert a single external link, I agree previously we had a mistake, but this is not mean we never file a portal logo. please consider the same for the undelete thank you. --Navneetsinghc (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: COM:SPAM/COM:NOTHOST nonsense by sock. --Эlcobbola _talk 18:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Keiko Fujimori detenida 2018.jpg

Esta foto fué cortada y mejorada de la siguiente pagina https://www.eldiario.es/politica/keiko-fujimori-primer-cumpleanos-prision_1_2725088.html, se atribuyó como corresponde el crédito por la foto. En esta web en el pie de página indica que se manejan bajo Creative Commons (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.es) Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Usted es libre de:
Compartir — copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato Adaptar — remezclar, transformar y construir a partir del material

La licenciante no puede revocar estas libertades en tanto usted siga los términos de la licencia

Bajo los siguientes términos:
Atribución — Usted debe dar crédito de manera adecuada, brindar un enlace a la licencia, e indicar si se han realizado cambios. Puede hacerlo en cualquier forma razonable, pero no de forma tal que sugiera que usted o su uso tienen el apoyo de la licenciante.

NoComercial — Usted no puede hacer uso del material con propósitos comerciales.

No hay restricciones adicionales — No puede aplicar términos legales ni medidas tecnológicas que restrinjan legalmente a otras a hacer cualquier uso permitido por la licencia.
Jjrt (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - The notice you received says "For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing." If you had done this, you would have observed non-commercial licenses are "forbidden on Commons" (emphasis in original). Эlcobbola _talk 18:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Блокадный дневник постер .jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Блокадный дневник постер .jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Hello there! I am the executive producer of the film " A Siege Diary " (Блокадный дненик) (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Блокадный_дневник) , my name is Sonya Uritskaya. I am the author and have the rights to this image. Also on the image: • File:Блокадный дневник фото-030.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-031.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-029.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-028.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-027-3.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-027-2.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-024.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-023.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-021.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-020.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-019.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-018.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-016.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-015.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-014.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-08.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-06-6.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-06-5.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-06-4.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-06-4 (22).jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-06-3.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-06-2.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-06.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-05.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-03.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-02.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-01.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-00-1.jpg • File:Блокадный дневник фото-00 (1).jpg • File:Блокадный дневник постер .jpg We Would really like to have images on the page of our film. Unlock them, please! thank you! Urison79 (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Эlcobbola _talk 18:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:CONMEBOL Libertadores (1960-).png

This image is just an illustration of the trophy

Victoralves12 (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Please review COM:DW. Эlcobbola _talk 18:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Cyanide and Happiness.png

I don't understand why the file was deleted. The picture only has text and simple shapes, therefore, ineligible for copyright. The characters featured in the logo also are not copyrighted according to Explosm, rather listed under a trademark. Also, the current image used over wikis is clearly fan-art as NONE of the characters ever looked like that in the comics, nor in animation. Shaddai Wright (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

thumb|right|This is DenBleyker's sketch. thumb|right|This is fan-art and it is being used all over several wikis.

Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cyanide and Happiness.png. Work is not only text and simple shapes, but contains copyrightable elements. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Unambigious copyvio. Work is not only text and is not composed of "simple shapes" claimed -- a primary component is copyright artwork. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:I cavalli bronzei di san Marco vengono inviati in Francia.jpg

I would like to request this image be undeleted for use with in an article that I'm currently translating from Italian Wikipedia.

First, this image has been on Italian Wikimedia for over 10 years without comment (link), suggesting it is unlikely to receive further copyright challenges. Second, the work is dated to around 1797, which definitely meets the criteria of Template:PD-Old and Template:PD-Art, even though its author is unknown. Finally, the low quality resolution of the print, distortion at the left edge of the image, and grid pattern from scanning or photography make this a Template:PD-Scan. This is not a high-quality image being used by an existing copyright holder.

All of this go toward a fair use argument for the use of this image, particularly because it documents an important historical moment of the Horses of Saint Mark that is not currently on Wikimdia—their removal from Venice by Napoleon's armies. Wingedserif (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wingedserif: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Helvio ricina, the rationale for deletion was that no proper source or author was given. Indeed, Helvio ricina claimed {{Own}} and used {{Self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} when it was clearly not own work, claims to be the copyright holder were false, and the use of the Cc-by-sa-4.0 licensing tag was incorrect. Could you tell us what is the source? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

And it was reuploaded with a different filename. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Sidenote: For future reference, please note that (1) fair use is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons, and (2) "unlikely to receive further copyright challenges" is not a valid rationale per Commons' precautionary principle. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Gestumblindi, Ruthven for comment. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment The uploads by Helvio ricina discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Helvio ricina were a quite nightmarish and time-consuming affair to review, as it was a mix of reproductions without proper source and apparently "real" own works (photos of various places and objects taken with an iPhone). Regarding the specific file in question here, I commented "Photo of reproduction (rasterized) of some apparently older work, but no proper source/author given". The date of 1797 for the original work was not given in the Commons description (instead, it was the upload date "10 September 2019"). If it is indeed a 1797 work, as assumed in Italian Wikipedia, then I agree that it's a case for {{PD-Scan}} and could be restored, but where's the source for that? The image depicts a historic event in 1797, but how do we know that it's contemporary? Who is the artist, where and when was it published, what was the uploader's source? Gestumblindi (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: Sorry, I'm new to Wikimedia specifically & didn't realize (and have a muscular reflex to argue for fair use from working in book publishing): please just apply my argument towards why the work and the specific photograph is likely in the public domain. I definitely agree that this shouldn't by a CC or "own work". Regarding Gestumblindi's comment above, I'll keep looking, but I did find (this doesn't look great) another photograph of this print on the photo database Alamy (link) that dates the work to 1797, without an author. This source, a translated excerpt used in the article I'm translating, suggests both that the work dates to 1797 and that the work was made anonymously, which would make a finding an individual attribution impossible. Wingedserif (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Per Getty, this is the work of Jean Duplessis-Bertaux, who died 1819; thus this is safely {{PD-old}}. That said, I wouldn't support restoration both because 1) we already have a copy of this version (higher resolutions/better copies could simply be uploaded there) and 2) the Commons would be better served by a new upload of the colour version (which we do not currently have) like that present at the Getty link. As a bonus, this would also not entertain the nonsense of original upload. Эlcobbola _talk 18:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, better, and sourced, reproductions exist on websites of public libraries (e.g. Gallica) and websites of art dealers. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your research. Getty's colour version is probably a later colourisation and I'm not fond of these. If it was colourised by/for Getty, there might also be copyright concerns for the colour version. I think that the 2010 upload you linked to is fine for now. Thanks to Asclepias, I see that Helvio ricina recently uploaded "their" inferior copy again at File:Chevaux de bronze de saint Marc sur le point d'être envoyés à Paris.jpg. I propose to not restore the file in question, and to delete that copy as well. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, thanks all! Wingedserif (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Per discussion. File:Chevaux de bronze de saint Marc sur le point d'être envoyés à Paris.jpg speedied under CSD G4. @Wingedserif: Work already exists on Commons as File:Enlevement des chevaux de la basilique Saint-Marc de Venise.jpg. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Suppression de l'article Nolwenn David

Je ne comprends pas pourquoi l'article Nolwenn David a été supprimé, premièrement car il ne contenait AUCUNE je dis bien aucune copie d'écran d'une source non citée, or la raison de la suppression de l'article laissant penser la contraire en effet j'ai pris soin de de créer mon article avec des images dont seule moi avait l'accès. Deuxièmement, je pense que l'article avait sa place sur Wikipedia car elle n'entravait le bien de personne. Bonne journée — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maelle.lm1 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose File:Nolwenn David .png is a screenshot from instagram.com. Thuresson (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Per Thuresson, and per the fact that the request is for undeletion of an article on French Wikipedia. Bonjour, bonsoir @Maelle.lm1: Icit n'est pas Wikipédia, c'est Commons, donc, nous ne pouvons pas restorer l'article. Au sujet de l'image, oeuvres publiées pour la première fois ailleurs necessitent que le titulaire du droit d'auteur (c-à-d. le photographe) envoie par courriel une autorisation sous une licence dite «libre» à l'OTRS (permissions-frwikimedia.org ou permissions-commonswikimedia.org). Une fois que l'OTRS a déterminé qu'ils ont reçu une autorisation suffisante et qu'il n'y a aucune autre raison de suppression, un(e) agent(e) de l'OTRS effectuera ou demandera la restauration. Merci de votre compréhension. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

This is the proper symbol to promote united Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.111.198.139 (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Procedural close. You have not identified the file you wish to have undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:TR440_RM_1972-11-x.jpeg

Hallo,

inzwischen wurde die fehlende Erlaubnis des Bildautors erteilt.

--Knottel (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------

Betreff: Erlaubnis für CC0-Lizenz für Image "Junger Systemprogrammierer am TR440" Datum: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 10:39:40 +0100 Von: Reginald Muchsel <Reginald.Muchsel@uni-konstanz.de> An: Otto Stolz <Otto.Stolz@uni-konstanz.de>

Hiemit erteile ich Herrn Otto Stolz die Erlaubnis, das Bild „Junger Systemprogrammierer am TR440” unter der Lizenz CC0 auf Wikimedia hochzuladen und die Angabe des Bildautors (Reginald Muchsel) ganz wegzulassen. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, der Bildautor: Reginald Muchsel

Sorry, wrong file name. Please ignore request. -- Knottel (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Procedural close by request. Thuresson (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:TR440_RM_1972-11.jpeg

Inzwischen habe ich die fehlende Erlaubnis des Bildautors erhalten. --Knottel (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Erlaubnis für CC0-Lizenz für Image "Junger Systemprogrammierer am TR440"
Datum: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 10:39:40 +0100
Von: Reginald Muchsel <Reginald.Muchsel@uni-konstanz.de>
An: Otto Stolz <Otto.Stolz@uni-konstanz.de>

Hiemit erteile ich Herrn Otto Stolz die Erlaubnis, das Bild „Junger Systemprogrammierer am TR440”
unter der Lizenz CC0 auf Wikimedia hochzuladen und die Angabe des Bildautors (Reginald Muchsel)
ganz wegzulassen. 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen, der Bildautor:
Reginald Muchsel

Oppose Instructions on how to submit written permissions are available at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:ConanCreepsLarge.png

Please undelete https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ConanCreepsLarge.png as I personally painted it.

Hi,

I received a notification that my artwork was deleted due to copyright notification:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ConanCreepsLarge.png

File:ConanCreepsLarge.png

I personally painted that image, and I am the copyright owner. My username is Dsicore.

Sincerely,

dsicore — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:6C56:4800:4D98:E522:5CFD:90A5:82A2 (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Derivative of Henrik Sahlström's art here. Thuresson (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2020 (UT

Countering the : Oppose :

Interpretive paintings of other paintings are not violations of copyright. My painting is substantially different in many regards, far beyond the basic requirements for avoiding copyright infringement just like making a drawing of Conan using the style of Steve Buscema, a famous Conan the Barbarian artists, isn't an infringement.

Not done: Per Thuresson. Please read COM:DW. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:KnockADoc.jpg

This is an image developed by Homo deus proprietary designer and is owned by Homo deus tech solutions. Please check the website https://homodeustechsolutions.co.in . This is public knowledge and the company homo deus tech solutions pvt ltd is an established company.

The company that owns this logo is Homo Deus Tech Solutions Pvt Ltd, established in Gurgaon, Hyderabad, India. This is a proprietary logo that they have been using on their website, www.homodeustechsolutions.co.in and www.knockadoc.com as well as their playstore app for Android phones. I want to know why this photo was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahiakil (talk • contribs) 16:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Out of scope since en:Draft:Homo Deus Tech Solutions has been rejected. Also, I am not fully convinced that uploader is also the copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The faith of graffiti, original cover, 1974.pdf

I believe that it is impossible that the closing admin actually read the discussion. The file was deleted "per nomination". The nomination was mine, and I have voted keep. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 03:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gone Postal: Question Could you provide us a rationale as to why you believe that the file falls under {{PD-text}}? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, I can no longer see a file. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: File:The faith of graffiti, original cover, 1974.pdf has been undeleted for the duration of this discussion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I remember now. The text "The Faith of Graffiti" is what I was talking about in regards to it being PD-text. Now as for "Toots Sissy" text it is no more creative that a signature, for example; it is much less creative than other photos of graffiti (see this) and it is way too short to be copyrighted as text. And this makes a photo of it a 2D representation of a non-copyrightable 2D object, which we consider public domain. Now I must admit, that it is possible that we need to look closer at all the graffiti uploads and create a policy on how to deal with them, but (although I am not a lawyer) I would be very surprised if a writing of a 2 word phrase in a non-caligraphic way constitutes a copyrightable work in any jurisdiction. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
"The closing admin" mentioned above is Ellin Beltz, who might want to weigh in. whym (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The two o's are not simply written as letters - it looks like they are stylized as eyes. It may still be a too simple piece of artwork, but it contains something more than written words. whym (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I did not see it as too simple. With that said, I would not oppose the restoration should that be the consensus. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the "Toots Sissy" itself is too simple on its own, unless all of that was put there by a single artist (there would be a selection and arrangement copyright on the entire thing in that case). Stylizing as eyes doesn't really matter -- they are still small variations on letters. However, I'm not as sure about the photograph itself -- the particular framing might be a claim, though that is probably about it. Per this page, the photographer is claiming copyright on the photo. The graffiti is from 1973 in NYC, meaning it would need a copyright notice anyways, so the debate really is over the photograph. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: Per Carl Lindberg above, there might be a case in which the photo is copyrightable and there appears to be a claim. Thoughts? Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, Nat. My understanding is that we do have {{PD-scan}} because of something like this. I do realise that this is not a scan, and if the photo was taken as a weird angle we would perhaps have a reason to conclude that it is under copyright, otherwise it is a faithful reproduction of an existing work. Personally I would argue that even if it had some minor 3D elements it might be in PD, but even that is not a case here, not withstanding the width of the paint it is a 2D wall surface. I thought that a while back there was a talk about Legal making a public opinion on such matter, but I cannot find a link now. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: Thoughts? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure a "faithful reproduction of an existing work" is exactly the right phrase; it's not really an existing work in a copyright sense. I havered to myself about the difference between colorizing a photograph (not copyrightable in the US) and colorizing a whole movie (copyrightable in the US), and compared that to copying an existing painting, versus any 2-D surface. Given that there's a claim, it's hard; there's a good argument for it being PD, but it's also beyond anything a court has said, and I could make the argument against it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Like Prosfilaes, I'm kind of on the fence. The template would be {{PD-Art}}, not {{PD-scan}}. It is certainly a straight-on photograph. I don't know if it's a picture of the whole wall though; it could be a very specific section with a very specific framing, which might evoke something very different than just looking at the wall. I don't think there is much else than original framing of the photograph that could be copyrightable -- so it's pretty thin. (And the book cover itself is sort of a crop itself, though maybe the back cover had the rest.). Per the Copyright Office it's possible for a crop to itself be copyrightable, but it would be rare. I'm not sure we have good examples of cases either way, for this sort of thing. Focusing on a detail of a PD painting... we have kept those under PD-Art. But the question is if there is enough creativity in a photograph of a particular section of a wall (graffiti or not) -- it is still a photograph. Outside of the PD-Art case, where the framing was not creative either, I'm not sure I've heard of a photograph ruled below the TOO in the U.S. lately. It's not exactly a single work that is being cropped either; the photograph is creating the framing for the work. Good arguments can probably be made on either side... but I wouldn't be comfortable recommending someone to go and make further derivative use of it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: This was a hard decision, however, I must close this as Not done per COM:PCP. If the uploaded file were just a photograph, and the upload was that photographer, that would be one case, and there would no significant issues hosting it on Commons. However, while one could argue that {{PD-Art}} could apply (i.e. "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain") as the graffiti is in the public domain as they are without a copyright notice, there is an assertion of copyright by Jon Naar, the photographer of the image used in the cover of the essay The Faith of Graffiti, who is also named as an author per the entry on Google Books. One could suspected that there is a copyright notice that exists within the flaps or pages of the printed essay -- and as such, significant doubt as to the freedom of the work. As Carl stated above, "I wouldn't be comfortable recommending someone to go and make further derivative use of it". Unless there is clear evidence that the copyright notice was absent within the pages of the printed essay or the copyright holder has relicensed the work under an accepted free licence, the file will remain deleted, and can be undeleted in 2071 (1974+95+1). Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Rhynchophorus vulneratus (IA proceedingscali00calic) (page 70 crop).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Rhynchophorus vulneratus (IA proceedingscali00calic) (page 70 crop).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Request temporary undeletion. I don't remember my reasoning and would need to look at the page to remind myself. BumpySlug (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose We need a valid rationale before considering undeletion, temporary or permanent. Furthermore, the image was deleted as a copyright violation, and is in fact a heavily pixelated version of this image. It is available on the UC Riverside Center for Invasive Species Research website under a CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0 unported licence which is not permitted per COM:L, and the publication, File:Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences (IA proceedingscali00calic).pdf (Available on Internet Archive here), listed as the source of the now-deleted image, has a clear copyright notice of Copyright © 2016 by the California Academy of Sciences All rights reserved. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Vigeland (Oslo, Norway) sculpture/3D artworks images

The artist w:Gustav Vigeland died in 1943. So, 1943+70+1=2014, his artistic works are now in public domain in Norway. Please also see some Vigeland art images undeleted at Category:Norwegian FOP cases/undeleted.

If ever these are indeed his works.

Files:

Done: Done per request. --De728631 (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:ODA NORMAL.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:ODA NORMAL.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: this is my art. I made this draw. I have the copyright and I want to post it on the Wikipédia FelipeHonorio (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose @FelipeHonorio: Are you Eiichiro Oda? If you are not and you drew the file in question, then it is a derivative work and the underlying copyright continues to belong to Eiichiro Oda. Even if you were Eiichiro Oda, as a technical matter, there is no way we can confirm such an assertion or claim. As the base work was first published elsewhere, it requires that Eiichiro Oda, the copyright of the original work, send permission under an accepted free licence to OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Palatinate 834 front page

The image of Palatinate's 834 front page was deleted over copyright concerns. I own the copyright to the image, as the Editor who created the page! All of us at Palatinate agreed to update the image and chose that page. We have no copyright issues with it being used on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A00:23C7:641A:C300:A0AF:6D77:CC7A:D286 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Info This request may be concerning File:Palatinate 834 front page.png, deleted December 0025 by EugeneZelenko under the rationale "Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): Newspaper" --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose @Livvylitchfield: Previously published works require that the copyright holder(s) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Please note: There appears to be 2-3 copyrights in play: (1) the newspaper, (2) the image by a Mark Norton, and, perhaps, (3) the image of the origami. Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Hardik Gohel.jpg

Sent written permission to OTRS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulpatelfan (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 December 2020‎ (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Rahulpatelfan: Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Norman Daly.jpg

We have an OTRS ticket Ticket:2020122710004788 for this file. Please restore for review. Ww2censor (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Done: @Ww2censor: FYI, please note both File:Norman Daly in His Studio, 1972.jpg and File:Norman Daly.jpg exist and are duplicates. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

(File:Dmsf-logo.png)

this logo belongs to my client and I am using this on behalf of him in this Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghav93 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Oppose @Raghav93: You claimed that you are the copyright holder (by using {{Self}}) and that it was own work (by using {{Own}}) when you uploaded the file. Per your statement above, this was patently false. No evidence of an accepted free licence at source. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined that they have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Salani12jpg

Please don't delete my profile photo (Prince Salani) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSDigital Team (talk • contribs) 12:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. File with that name does not exist, files uploaded by the user have not been deleted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Prince Salani Sitting Lonely.jpg

(29 Dec 2020) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2402:3A80:9FE:2637:0:8:F557:AC01 (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close duplicate request. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Kutlug Ataman.jpg

I have given permission via my email to wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariagopian (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. Once OTRS has determined that they have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Comrade-yutyo -- Rationale #2

File:Kimjunghoon.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I have asked the permission of the person, but they couldn't make a detailed respond as they don't know English much. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Turkiye sosyalist isci partisi.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I have asked the permission of the copyright holder but they weren't capable of writing an email. Are there alternative ways of showing evidence that they just agree on sharing of it? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Denizgezmisreading.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I have asked the permission of the copyright holder but they weren't capable of writing an email. Are there alternative ways of showing evidence that they just agree on sharing of it? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Norzartonk.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I have asked the permission of the copyright holder but they weren't capable of writing an email. Are there alternative ways of showing evidence that they just agree on sharing of it? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Barisatay.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- I have asked the permission of the copyright holder but they weren't capable of writing an email. Are there alternative ways of showing evidence that they just agree on sharing of it? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Erkanbas.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I have asked the permission of the copyright holder but they weren't capable of writing an email. Are there alternative ways of showing evidence that they just agree on sharing of it? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Aydemirguler.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I have asked the permission of the copyright holder but they weren't capable of writing an email. Are there alternative ways of showing evidence that they just agree on sharing of it? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Kemalokuyan.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I have asked the permission of the copyright holder but they weren't capable of writing an email. Are there alternative ways of showing evidence that they just agree on sharing of it? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Sodaplogo.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I have asked the permission of the copyright holder but they weren't capable of writing an email. Are there alternative ways of showing evidence that they just agree on sharing of it? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Comrade-yutyo: This is not Village pump or Village pump/Copyright. If they are unable to understand English, that is not an issue as we are a multilingual project -- We have the permissions template in multiple languages and please see meta:OTRS#Permissions for the appropriate email address for the language in question. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpgGimécourt blason et Lavallée 55 Blason

je demande le maintien de ces deux fichiers dont la suppression m'a été annoncée sous prétexte de copyreight du site nos "blasons Lorrains".
Je confirme que je suis le créateur et dessinateur de ces deux fichiers et que le site "nos blasons lorrains " est le mien comme je le signale dans ma page d'utilisateur  dans wikipédia. C'est moi-même qui est également inséré les deux blasons dans mon site sous une autre dimension.
Merci de régulariser.

Cdlt --Rojac55 (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC) == [[:File:Amel sur l'Étang BL PNG.png .png ==

je confirme que je suis le créateur et le dessinateur de ce blason dont la suppression m'est annoncée sous prétexte de copyreight du site "nos blasons Lorrains"

je précise que le site "nos blasons Lorrains" est le mien comme je l'ai précisé dans ma page personnelle dans wikipédia.
Je demande le maintien de ce fichier.
Cdlt
--Rojac55 (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

== [[:File: Han lès J BL D.png ==

je confirme que je suis le créateur et le dessinateur de ce blason dont la suppression m'est annoncée sous prétexte de copyreight du site "nos blasons Lorrains"

je précise que le site "nos blasons Lorrains" est le mien comme je l'ai précisé dans ma page personnelle dans wikipédia.
Je demande le maintien de ce fichier.
Cdlt
--Rojac55 (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. User was already informed of options in a previously rejected UDEL requst. @Rojac55: Œuvres publiées pour la première fois ailleurs nécessitent que le titulaire du droit d'auteur envoie une autorisation sous une licence dite «libre» par courriel à OTRS (permissions-frwikimedia.org ou permissions-commonswikimedia.org). Une fois que l'OTRS a déterminé qu'ils ont reçu une autorisation suffisante et qu'il n'y a aucune autre raison de suppression, un(e) agent(e) de l'OTRS effectuera ou demandera la restauration. Merci de votre compréhension. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)