Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-09

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

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. @Ankry I cropped the second image because I'm on it with 2 of our friends.

I Wanna Be a Sailor (1937)

The following list of deleted files to restore:

Those few nominations (right here and here) are absolutely vague and invalid because Racconish improperly reviewed the copyright of the animated short film. I believe, according to the notes of the file, the animated short film freed restrictions away under the public domain in 1966 without getting renewed the copyright to extend by the United Artists (UA).

HarvettFox96 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC), edited 01:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Clindberg and @Racconish, are you up to support this request?
HarvettFox96 (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Have to admit, I don't see a renewal in 1964 or 1965. The wiki article I Wanna Be a Sailor also mentions the PD status. The link found in the DRs is not a renewal or a registration, but is a "recording document", which get filed to simply claim ownership, or (more often) document a transfer, or an other information a possible copyright owner wants to get on record -- they are received and filed by the Copyright Office but they have no legal effect. This short does not appear to be derivative of any characters, either. Unsure if there is any copyrighted music in the soundtrack, but otherwise  Support undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Temporarily undeleted, please have a listen. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The theme song seems to be the standard Merry Melodies theme song, Merrily We Roll Along (song). The annoying sound recording aspect is probably moot, thankfully, since it's part of a movie -- but unsure if this copy not being renewed serves to put it in the public domain. Also unsure of the copyright of the original written song -- that may be the more relevant aspect, as silly as that seems. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Cameron Archer.jpg

This image was taken by his Dad, sent to me and put on the H%V FB Page by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HVLegion (talk • contribs) 15:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose We need a permission coming directly from Cameron Archer's father since he is the original photographer and holds the copyright for the image. Please ask him to contact our Volunteer response team by email. De728631 (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. The photographer is the copyright holder and must freely license the image in writing using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done VTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Vogelvlucht_Broich.png

The source name of the picture Vogelvlucht_Broich.png was a picture first published over 70 years ago in an book with the title; Mülheim a.d. Ruhr by dr. Otto R.Redlich, Staatsarchivdirektor i.r Dusseldorf. . Page 12-13 With the Titel: Prospekt des Schlosses Broich drawn bij Jakob Becker around 1819.The books with this picture were sold and distibuted by the Town of Mühlheim a.d. Ruhr dated 1939--VanlmugH (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 CommentIf the drawing was made in the early 1800s, then it is certainly PD. However, the file description is not clear whether the drawing was made in 1815 or made later showing the scene as of 1815. The date of creation of the drawing is important because the book you cite may or may not still be under copyright..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Info This is already available in a larger version as File:Prospect des Schloss Bruch.jpg and without the phony Creative Commons license. There is a German engraver called Jakob Becker (1810-1872). Thuresson (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Better version exists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Manfre y Brisa Fenoy 2.jpg

La fotografía es de mi propiedad y tengo todos los derechos sobre ella ya que se realizó desde mi dispositivo.

Solicito la restauración de la fotografía.

Gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfre Human (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Manfre --Manfre Human (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Notwithstanding that previously published images require COM:VRT evidence of permission, that is not how copyright works. Copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject or the owner of the device. Accordingly, the aforementioned permission must come from the actual author. Besides the copyright issue, this also appears to be COM:NOTHOST/self-promotion. Эlcobbola talk 19:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Elcobbola. --De728631 (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Dibako

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received on ticket:2021071210014124. Albertoleoncio (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Albertoleoncio: Please add the VRT templates to the file pages. --De728631 (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Lolita Morena smile.jpg File:Lolita Morena sourire.jpg

I'm the author of both of these pictures. I took the File:Lolita Morena Smile.jpg picture in Saint-Aubin, Switzerland on 28th Nov 2018 and the File:Lolita Morena Sourire.jpg picture in Yverdon, Switzerland on 24th May 2013. Lolita Morena is a family member of mine and fully approves the usage of any all photos that I publish of her. --Ltpcb (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC) 28.08.21

You could simply re-upload them. But please read COM:LICENSING first and also indicate on the upload that you have granted a suitable licence for these images to be used. In the past they seem to have not indicated this correctly. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 Support Please DO NOT upload them again -- I don't know why Andy suggested that. Nothing is ever actually deleted from Commons, so it is never necessary to upload an image again. These both list you as the author and have a CC-BY-SA license, so I don't understand why they were deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The point about re-uploading them is that it avoids further admin interaction. Which as two admins have already deleted them, undiscussed by a DR, for no evident reason, seems like an advantage here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko and Fitindia: pinging involved admins for potential comments in order to avoid deletion/undeletion ping-pong. Ankry (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: A valid reason for re-upload would be if it was deleted as a suspected copyvio due to missing metadata, and they now want to upload it with metadata. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
King, I read the note to suggest that the user upload the images with new file names -- that is never useful. You are completely correct that an upload over the old image might be a good thing for better EXIF or higher resolution.
Andy, if you did mean that they should reupload with a new file name, I disagree. The same problem may occur. On the other hand, if we restore these two, there will be a trail in the log to this UnDR and the files are unlikely to be deleted again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
{{Temporarily undeleted}} for discussion. While the first image seems to be an amateur photo made using iPhone, the 2nd one is a crop of a photo made using a more professional camera. Ankry (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ltpcb: Could you please upload some other images to prove that you own or have owned a Canon 6D? Can be photos of anything like nature, architecture, etc. Or if you don't have anything lying on your hard drive, even a picture of a wall would be fine. The only requirement is that the images be previously unpublished online. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The first is a good sized image with EXIF, so it looks OK to me. The second has EXIF, but it's small. KoH's method is good -- or just upload it with the same name at full camera resolution. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done for one photo,  Not done for one photo. Ankry (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster.jpg

Bonjour. Plutôt que de supprimer complètement le logo, pourquoi ne pas modifier le type de copyright pour ensuite la re-publier sous le bon copyright ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JpPgn (talk • contribs) 11:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The file you name above has never appeared on Commons. Did you mean File:FFX X-2 HD Remaster.png? That is a copyrighted logo -- it cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the copyright holder using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done VRTS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Taaj Ministries.jpg

This is my own work. It is registered as our logo in the Essen, Germany court office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaderMek (talk • contribs) 06:36, 31 August 2021 (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 This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Ankry (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from the copyright holder via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


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

Undelete 2 gallery pages deleted for invalid reason.

As per my watchlist log for 26 Aug 2021, two gallery pages I recently created have been deleted.

26 August 2021

  • Deletion log 13:20 Jameslwoodward talk contribs deleted page Piste cyclable - Langon (La Gourmette) à Roaillan ‎(Gallery page without at least two images or other media files; see Commons:Galleries (GA1): content was: "\{\{Gallery page|Voie verte de Roaillan à Langon}}

    <gallery caption="Langon (La Gourmette) à Roaillan" mode=slideshow > File:CycleTrack - LangonLaGourmette-Roaillan - series 2 - 001.jpg File:CycleTrack - LangonLaGourmette-Roaillan - series 2 - 002.jpg File:CycleTrack - LangonLaGourmette-Roaillan - series 2 - 003.jpg File:CycleTrack - LangonLaGourmette-Roaillan - ser...)

  • Deletion log 13:19 Jameslwoodward talk contribs deleted page Piste cyclable - Roaillan à Langon (La Gourmette) ‎(Gallery page without at least two images or other media files; see Commons:Galleries (GA1): content was: "\{\{Gallery page|Voie verte de Roaillan à Langon}}

    <gallery caption="Roaillan à Langon (La Gourmette)" mode=slideshow > File:CycleTrack - Roaillan-LangonLaGourmette - series 2 - 001.jpg File:CycleTrack - Roaillan-LangonLaGourmette - series 2 - 002.jpg File:CycleTrack - Roaillan-LangonLaGourmette - series 2 - 003.jpg File:CycleTrack - Roaillan-LangonLaGourmette - ser...)


The reason shown for both is "Gallery page without at least two images or other media files; see Commons:Galleries (GA1): ", but as can be seen even from the truncated log shown, each contains at least 4 images. In fact each gallery page contains about 60 images from their parent category page. Please can both of these

be undeleted.

This has happened before with other sub-categories of Category:Cycling infrastructure in Gironde, gallery pages being deleted asserting too few images when they contain 40 or more images. See the log page of view history for Gallery - Piste cyclable Saint-Macaire à Langon (La Gourmette). Some people confined at home in the current emergency have told me that they find these galleries quite a breath of fresh air, so I'd really rather prefer it if the galleries didn't disappear without notification.

Philh-591 (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

These galleries were presented as slide shows, so only one image shows when you display the page. Since Admins work very fast, I did not see that there were more images on the page. With that said, however, the intent of galleries is to allow the user to compare images, so, while the slideshow format exists in the software, I don't think its use falls within scope. As the deleting Admin, I will restore these without the slideshow tag. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: per my comment above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Eiffel Tower 2014.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: if the lighting is ordinary, then this image of Eiffel Tower at night should be fine. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Procedural close: Duplicate of File:Eiffeltoren - Parijs - 2014 - panoramio.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:VA 400 years plate with blue VIRGINIA from my own collection.png

Hello,

I am making a new request, although the previous one was refused.

Since this plate not been deleted and came as a replacement for my deleted picture, it is therefore considered acceptable by Commons. I formally request the undeletion of this picture.

The boat which is the disputed element can be considered to be a de minimis imo (this design is just an oversimplification taken from one of the ships that arrived to colonize Virginia in 1607)

This is not about deleting my pictures at the first request made by IP addresses that constantly stalk me. If this picture does not have to be, the other either : simple equality.

Thank you. Drake317 (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:2003-2006_Montana_license_plate.png

Hello,

Since this plate not been deleted and is an embossed version of the same plate as my picture, it is therefore considered acceptable by Commons. I formally request the undeletion of this picture.

Imo I think the design of the plate background is very simple, and does not fall under copyright protection.

As for the stylized skull at the bottom left, it has been present in ALL Montana plates since 1976, it may fit PD.

Thank you. Drake317 (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per KoH. Also, it is essentially a duplicate of the cited image. Although it's a different plate number, I don;t think we need two images of the same series of plates. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Sharif sheikh discussing the election at a conference.jpg

I nominated this file for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sharif sheikh discussing the election at a conference.jpg but since then I've learned of Template:PD-Somalia, which seems to apply [1]. Asking because it was a good leadimage on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Info en: Universal Television (Somalia) appears to broadcast from United Kingdom, not Somalia. Thuresson (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
That's according to WP, and the ref wasn't brilliant. This [2] says "Somalia and UK". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose The cited template applies only to works where the creator was a Somali citizen. As noted in the template, works by citizens of other countries will be protected in their home county:
"Works published in these countries by citizens or permanent residents of other countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention or any other treaty on copyright will still be protected in their home country and internationally as well as locally by local copyright law (if it exists)."
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Not done, per discussion. Universal Somali TV Limited runs its operations from Islington, London, United Kingdom. Thuresson (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:MohdZaki.jpg

i have articles with my images please make it available — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imohdzaki255 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Which articles do you mean? Please provide some links. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
On another note, you referred to this image as you "own work" but is does not look like a selfie. Who is the actual photographer? De728631 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: No response to question. Also, probably not a selfie as claimed, therefore needs a free license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Peter Daut.jpg

This is my own headshot, and I give permission for it to be used. Thank you! Journalism714 (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC) 8/31/21

 Not done: Requires a free license from the photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:1. Elias.jpg

The painting was painted and photographed by the artist, Jaakko Valo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helinpe (talk • contribs) 07:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Helinpe:  Weak oppose unless Jaakko Valo (who appears to be alive) agrees to your use of free CC license on his artwork. Therefore he needs to send a correspondence to Commons Volunteer Response Team (VRT) admins, stating that he agrees to have his work licensed under the free license. A blanket statement is not enough. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The email address of VRT for handling permissions is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose In the image description, you claimed that the image was your own work. Now you claim that the photograph and painting were both done by the artist. In order to restore the image, the artist must send a free license using VRT..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Paul Tay in 2012.jpg

This file was intended for a new Wikipedia page, currently in draft status at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DeltaGeo/sandbox . Please undelete this file, as I finish the draft. Also, please indicate the reason for the original delete. Tnx DeltaGeo — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltaGeo (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The file description indicates that the photographer was Chris Tay. In order to restore the file on Commons, Chris Tay must himself send a free license using VRT. The file was deleted because it is unlicensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Not done, will be undeleted if and when successfully processed by an OTRS volunteer and when considered to be in scope. Thuresson (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Sacred Heart of Jesus Shrine - Roxas City 01.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: file was deleted because no FOP in the Philippines. However, the upload log reveals its uploader is actually the artwork's sculptor himself. See also both File:Sacred Heart of Jesus Shrine - Roxas City 02.JPG (another photo by the sculptor) and w:Sacred Heart of Jesus (Roxas, Capiz). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Seems OK. --Yann (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:UP Diliman Carilion - panoramio.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1952, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: No opposition, request seems legitimate. --Yann (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


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

Museo Iloilo (1971)

File at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Museo Iloilo.JPG
Files at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Museo Iloilo

Per recent consensus (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works), 1951-72 buildings are in public domain. Thus this building, completed in 1970, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: No opposition, request seems legitimate. --Yann (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


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

Parish of the Holy Sacrifice (1955 architecture)

Per recent consensus (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works), 1951-72 buildings are in public domain. Thus this building, completed in 1955, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}.

Note that some images do not show the building itself, but as per Rubin16 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parish of the Holy Sacrifice, these images that do not show the building itself may fall out of scope (I suspect these are Ramon Fvelasquez files), hence do not restore them (I cannot tell which of them are OOS since deleted files are invisible to non-admins like me).

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 i think I have missed the discussion that resulted in changes to PD exemptitons, let me have a look and I will restore if it so. rubin16 (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: the discussion came after the said DR was closed. But at least it is better late than never, like one saying states. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 ✓ restored most of them rubin16 (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: I'm thinking of File:Church of the Holy Sacrifice 2007 historical marker vicinity.jpg and File:Church of the Holy Sacrifice 2015 historical marker vicinity.jpg, if both show commemorative markers, these may be public domain as literary works of those under Philippine government employment. If ever, like the cases of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paco Park - Gomburza Memorare NHCP historical marker.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:20161015 Titopao NHCP Marker.jpg. But if not, then these shall remain deleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
the first one is of not the best quality and you can't read the text even if you zoom it, so, I would have kept it deleted. The second is readable but I would let some other sysop decide on that, not sure. rubin16 (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: I undeleted the remaining files, as per above discussion. --Yann (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

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

InterContinental Hotel Manila (1969)

Per recent consenus (Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works) for 1951-December 1972 buildings. Building was completed in 1969 = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}.

Files deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:InterContinental Manila. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: No opposition, request seems legitimate. --Yann (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Princely coat of arms of the Gediminids.svg

National coat of arms of Lithuania in 1990-1991
1991 stamp

Please restore File:Princely coat of arms of the Gediminids.svg. The vector file was created by me. A similar file File:Princely coat of arms of the Gediminids.gif was uploaded by me from the Gerb.bel.ru site, which belongs to me. The file was deleted without specifying which rule was violated.

  1. The original image is taken from the Russian book “Noble family coats of arms” (Russian Empire). The drawing is not signed. If this is a pre-revolutionary image, then license {{PD-RusEmpire}}. is valid.
  2. This image was used on Lithuanian coins and postage stamps of 1991 as the coat of arms of Lithuania. Therefore, it is no longer subject to copyright. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Лобачев Владимир: Could you, please, provide exact bibliografic information about the book you refer? (exact title, date, publisher; I do not think that it has an English title) so the information you are providing can be verified. Ankry (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Дворянские роды Российской империи = Families of the nobility of the Russian empire : Т. 1: Князья — Санкт-Петербург: ИПК "Вести", 1993 — 343 с. (djvu, Page 33). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Лобачев Владимир: This is a 1993 book, {{PD-RusEmpire}} cannot be applied to its content. You need to provide a pre-1918 source. Ankry (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The book states: Families of the nobility of the Russian empire. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
If I made an image of a medieval COA, and claim it a medieval image, then it is still my modern, copyrighted work, not a medieval one. Same applies here: in order to claim it a PD-RusEmpire image, we need an evidence of pre-1917 publication, at least as a reference in the modern one. No soch evidence found. So we can consider this a modern drawing based on an old COA, not an old image. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 Support This figure, the knight on the horse, is also called Vytis and the design on the deleted image is remarkably similar to the figure on the public domain Lithuanian stamps of 1991. Thuresson (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
This means that the image may be PD, but on other grounds than declared. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 Support undeletion, but I reject the {{PD-RusEmpire}} claim. Likely just {{PD-anon-70}}. Ankry (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 Support Per Ankry, the tag should be changed when restoring. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Janath Sri Vidanage.jpg

Hi Could you restore the deleted file, I am authorized to make his page --Kamilaneun (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded this image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you say "I am authorized to make this page" which strongly suggests that you were not the photographer. It is hard to follow our policy of "Assume Good Faith" when you create such conflicts.

In any case, the image appears at https://www.lakpohora.lk/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=54&lang=en with "Copyright © 2021 Ceylon Fertilizer Company Ltd. All Rights Reserved." Therefore policy requires that the actual photographer must provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Male mount from the female.jpg

Kindly restore the above file because it's my own work. In fact, I uploaded it on facebook before uploading same on Wikipedia.

Kindly check back from the facebook page you cited as my source of the said photograph. I have indicated free license under the photo. Here's the link https://m.facebook.com/ahafomBoadu Emma (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Boadu Emma: Saying just "free license" is not sufficient, as it is not clear which free license it is referring to. If you are the owner of "Welcome To Ahafo Mim", then please edit https://www.facebook.com/ahafomim/photos/a.297011972168852/304585154744867 to say "My Wikimedia account is User:Boadu Emma." After that we will record that confirmation permanently to prevent this from happening in the future. If you are not the owner of that page, then ask the owner to edit the caption to say "This photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, I have done it as you directed. You can check back the facebook page https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=304585154744867&id=100987571771294&set=pcb.304585821411467&source=49. Boadu Emma (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Ручкина Гульнара Флюровна.jpg

Dear Sir/Madam!

I revieved an information about violation of author rights for uploaded file File:Ручкина Гульнара Флюровна.jpg, which was taken

I hereby affirm that I am the author of the media work (photo)  File:Ручкина Гульнара Флюровна.jpg and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

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

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

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

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

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

Ismail Ismailov

--Ismailovism (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ismailovism: Did you personally take this photo? If so, you will need to upload the original version of this photo (full resolution, with EXIF metadata) as corroborating evidence. Please navigate to the file description page (which I've temporarily undeleted) and click "Upload a new version of this file". Also, can you please explain why you previously listed "Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации" as the author? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Philippine Research Reactor.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1963 (source) is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: No opposition, request seems legitimate. --Yann (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Ramon Magsaysay Center.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: if this file shows w:Ramon Magsaysay Center, then the building is in PD, as it was completed before December 15, 1972. Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1967, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: No opposition, request seems legitimate. --Yann (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Clubfiljf.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1970 (source), is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: No opposition, request seems legitimate. --Yann (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


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

Iglesia Filipina Independiente National Cathedral

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1964 (w:Iglesia Filipina Independiente National Cathedral), is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: No opposition, request seems legitimate. --Yann (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:POSTER-LMP.jpg

Regarding this deleted file, as already communicated several times, I have the authorization of Plays productions for the concession of the image. I have already completed the certification over a year ago. Thanks--Varu1971 (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Then, why was nothing of this written in the description? --Túrelio (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
If by "I have already completed the certification" you mean that you have already submitted an email to OTRS (now called VRT), in order to rely on that, you will need to provide the ticket number which you received in a return e-mail. If that is not what you mean then please follow the instructions at VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion: VRTS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Joe Gordon.png

File:Joe Gordon.png
Joe Gordon on debut against Sussex

This is a photo of Joe Gordon himself and should be undeleted and placed back onto his wikipedia page. The Image is not copyright as he was sent the photograph by the photographer David Vokes and has given him full use of it on any platform.

2/9/2021

--Jakespires1 (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose From [3], photographer Neil Marshall. Previously deleted as File:Joe Gordon on Debut vs Sussex.jpg. OP may be identical with User:Jackspires. Thuresson (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done A free license permission following VRT instructions from the actual copyright holder is needed. Ankry (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Kaysee Gregorio.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have been given permission by the person in this photo to use the media for Wikipedia purpose Nhone13 (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose First, permission of the subject, while it may be necessary in some jurisdictions, is not the important permission. In order for the image to be kept on Commons, we must have a free license from the copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer and not the subject. Second, permission for Wikimedia is not sufficient. Images on Commons must be freely license for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Agrotis poliotis.jpg

This image has been deleted by Masur as lacking valid license at the external source. I requested undeletion at their user talk page among some more similar cases, but they seem to have overlooked this one. Validity of the source can be seen at this archived link. Lymantria (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Ncantor clj atrium headshot 0.jpg

<img width="250" height="369" class="media-image media-image-left" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em; height: 369px; width: 250px; float: left; margin: 9px;;;;;;;;;;;;" src="https://www.newark.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/ncantor_clj_atrium_headshot_0.jpg" alt=""> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dachgr01 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose "Copyright © 2021. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. All rights reserved" at rutgers.edu. Thuresson (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose In order to restore the image to Commons, an authorized official of Rutgers must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: "All rights reserved" means that it cannot be uploaded here. --De728631 (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Abdoulaye Diakité.jpg

There was zero intention to perform copyright infringement. There is no stated owner of the photo and no one claims ownership. The subject is deceased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peabodyb (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Peabodyb (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright to anonymous photos expire in US 95 years since initial publication or 120 years since creation. Can you prove that any of the terms has already expirfed? Before that, we cannot host the photo without a free license from the photographer. Lack of author information in not helpful here, as in order to receive a free license permission you need to identify the author first. Ankry (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose It is a color photograph, so it almost certainly recent in copyright terms, taken in the 20th or 21st century. In order to have it restored here, you must either get permission from the actual photographer using VRT or prove that it is in the Public Domain for some reason..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As explained above, there is no indication that this photo is out of copyright. --De728631 (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:“Sunnee.jpeg”.jpg

File:“Sunnee.jpeg”.jpg of the file you delete.jpg I have been given permission by the person in this photo to use the media for Wikipedia. Asked for permission to use the images from Universal Music china. --fcsunnee 05/09/2021Fcsunnee (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fcsunnee: , why did you chose not to convey this infomation when the file was uploaded? Thuresson (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose First, permission of the subject, while it may be necessary in some jurisdictions, is not the important permission. In order for the image to be kept on Commons, we must have a free license from the copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer and not the subject. Second, permission for Wikipedia is not sufficient. Images on Commons must be freely license for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As explained by Jim. --De728631 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:STYLE-FASHION-Josh-OConnor-November-2020.jpg

It was published online in a magazine article where the author was credited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandacat2 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 September 2021‎ (UTC)

 Oppose True, but irrelevant. Almost everything published on the web is copyrighted. The source from which this image was taken has "Image Amplified © 2021 All rights reserved. ". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --De728631 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Brian Cox on The New York Times 2020.jpg

The photo was published in an online magazine article and the author was credited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandacat2 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose True, but irrelevant. Almost everything published on the web is copyrighted. This photo, taken from the New York Times certainly has a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Per JIm. Crediting the author is irrelevant if the copyright holder does not allow free use of the work. --De728631 (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Archive sur les symboles du Vietnam (temporary undeletion)

I am researching several topics related to historical Vietnamese symbols and want to be able to access a source that doesn't seem to be preserved anywhere. As I don't know what it is and knowing who uploaded it isn't always the smartest when it concerns sourcing I am asking to be able to look at a small sample of this work to see if it's a good source or not and see what symbols are discussed.

Sample pages I want to be temporarily undeleted

Perhaps this book is free, perhaps not, but it doesn't seem to be anywhere else online. I will immediately tag them for speedy deletion when I have seen them. Please always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Donald, please leave a note here when you are ready for them to be deleted again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  • @Jameslwoodward: , you can  Delete them again. These images are from TTXVA, while the sockmaster in question is known to be associated with this website and I personally think that they are likely the author of these images. They were first published in 2014 and uploaded here in 2019 so they would still need VRT permission. As the website is now defunct the sockmaster or someone else associated with TTXVA should have to confirm this. I know that this sockmaster has an active sock here now so I will ask him later, but as he hates me and constantly tells me to go f#©k my mother I highly doubt that he will be receptive. But I have enough information for now and thankfully these aren't new. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Per request for temporation restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Bandera Univalle.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The deletion reason given was "University logo", but the logo is an acceptable text logo, and several versions exist on Commons at Category:Logos of Universidad del Valle. Senator2029 03:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Lack of description is not helpful. However,  Support as {{PD-textlogo}}. Ankry (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I would say it is better to recreate a PNG file. The GIF format is obsolete. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Senator2029: any comment? Ankry (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per Yann. Ankry (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Eagle Nebula (M16) by NOAO.jpg

NOAO images are now under the CC-BY 4.0 license as part of NOIRLab. [4] Original deletion request for reference. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: I think we have a problem here: there is no evidence that the image was still available at the NOAO website after the license was changed. The license applies to images currently available at the website, not to those that were available in the past. Ankry (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: Is it the same image as either this one or this one? Ixfd64 (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 Support The image is still available here. De728631 (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per De728631. Ankry (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Mithila 2018.jpg

This file is created by me. I am a researcher of Jamuna Television. During the TV show I was there at the television studio and took the photo. Aashaa (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Jamuna Television already published the entire show without a free licence, and we cannot verify your claims through your Wikimedia account. Please email our Volunteer Response Team and verify the free licence. This is required per our rules. De728631 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose The file is small and has no EXIF, both of which are indications that it did not come out of your camera. If you actually took the photo separately from the show's video, please upload the file with EXIF at full camera resolution. You should use the same filename. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Liquid Cube на выставке в Агентстве стратегических инициатив.webm

Hello!

The video that has been deleted is under the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License. The original video is on the YouTube(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-4_ruPID7c&t=6s) already and in fact belong to the AO «Телекомпания НТВ». I can use this video with the link inside the description to the original url https://www.ntv.ru/novosti/2234686/. It is described at the buttom of the site ("При любом использовании материалов НТВ ссылка (для сайтов - гиперссылка на www.ntv.ru) обязательна.")--Inprotechnologies (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose No declared license at YouTube and ntv.ru generates 429 error. Ankry (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you mean? The license it self is on the video page at https://www.ntv.ru/novosti/2234686/. At the buttom of the website you will find it writen in cyrillic "При любом использовании материалов НТВ ссылка (для сайтов - гиперссылка на www.ntv.ru) обязательна.". In translate it means "For any use of NTV materials, a link (for sites - a hyperlink to www.ntv.ru) is required."--Inprotechnologies (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean that https://www.ntv.ru/novosti/2234686/ page is not available: I got "429 Too Many Requests". Ankry (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm not sure if you did it deliberately, but your quote of the license was very selective. The full notice appearing on the source page:

https://www.ntv.ru/novosti/2234686/

reads as follows:

© AO «Телекомпания НТВ», 1993-2021. Все права защищены.
При любом использовании материалов НТВ ссылка (для сайтов - гиперссылка на www.ntv.ru) обязательна.
Используя настоящий сайт, вы обязуетесь выполнять условия данного соглашения
© JSC NTV Television Company, 1993-2021. All rights reserved.

For any use of NTV materials, a link (for sites - a hyperlink to www.ntv.ru) is required.

By using this site, you agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
translator: Google

That is certainly not an acceptable license for Commons -- "all rights reserved" is no license at all. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:2015 Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Awards (21091332843).jpg

File was deleted for missing license. Flickr shows image as public domain, so I believe that the image can be undeleted and the license field corrected. If this is incorrect, please let me know. Thanks! Penndyl (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Straightforward COM:PDM case. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Nguyen Imperial Pennon (m1).png

Is this by any chance this PD-flag? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Per the DR. According to the upload, the image is not PD -- the uploader claims to have drawn it. However, the DR makes it clear that it is out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Similar, but different. I agree with James. Ankry (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The original DR claimed that the flag was unsourced and should be deleted bases on the trend that they didn't provide a source. The current flag on Wikimedia Commons displays a green dragon and I am sure that this is even more inaccurate than the one drawn by the Musée Annam sock above. "Scope" means having an educational value, if an image is more historically accurate than what we currently have (an SVG based on reports and assumptions that Vietnamese dragons have to be blue) then it's more "in scope" than what we currently have. The question here is if it's similar to the one reported on in the French government book, I know for a fact that Musée Annam likes to draw slightly different flags but if the dragon is blue or gray it is probably more accurate than what we have. Always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: , is it by any chance this flag? (which would be in scope, but a copyright violation so ineligible for undeletion if so). Apparantly that website took its images from Wikipedia, so it wouldn't be a copyright violation but it would very unlikely be this flag. Always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  • File:Imperial Flag of Annam.svg, apparently this flag is based on the deleted file, the reason for this flag's deletion was that it was unsourced and uploaded by a user known to create fantasy flags, but this flag is sourced to the deleted file, so is the dragon on the original green? On Wikipedia this flag is confirmed and has been mentioned in flag books, if true then the original DR was false. Also "out of scope" really doesn't apply here, if it's a 100% fake flag like the "LGBT flag of Vietnam" this user created then it would be an understandable assumption, but at no time did the original DR say "Out of scope", that is simply an argument made at this undeletion request, the original file was removed for being unsourced but if this is this specific imperial pennon then it can be sourced and is a reliable file. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Tour Eiffel notturna.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: if the lighting is ordinary, then this image of Eiffel Tower at night should be fine here as the relevant court ruling refers to a particular lighting in the '90s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion: clear consensus to undelete. Ankry (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:In and out of Bloomsbury (Martin Ferguson Smith).jpg

This is a book cover. I have permission from the owner of the copyright and can include as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbirtwistle (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done VRT permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Doris Funnye Innis.jpg to Undelete

Deletion was made in error I believe. There are no ownership problems regarding the image.--Kishi2323 (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kishi2323: Who is the copyright owner? Thuresson (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Being resolved via COM:VRT, no need to keep this open. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:JavaFX Logo.png

That logo is very stylized using very little strokes. It is clearly not above the threshold of originality. That deletion was unjustified and there was no discussion about it. Matt (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Converted to DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:JavaFX Logo.png. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Juris-Hmelnickis.jpg for undelete

Picture added in article https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_Hme%C4%BC%C5%86ickis has no violations of copyrights. Its owned by the person, who is in the photo.

Please let me know about undeletion.

e — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgilsDoro (talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: Deleted file is File:Juris-Hmelnickis .jpg, deleted as a COM:NETCOPYVIO of https://grindeks.eu/company/about-grindeks/photos/. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@EgilsDoro: If the subject of the photo owns the copyright, then why do you also claim to own the copyright? Thuresson (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image does not actually appear at the cited web site, but two very similar images do, so they were probably all taken by the same photographer. That site has "© Grindeks 2021". As a general rule the subject of a photo does not have the right to freely license it -- that right belongs to the photographer. In any case either the copyright belongs to the subject (unlikely but possible) or the photographer and in no case to User:EgilsDoro, so whichever one actually has the copyright must send a free license using VRT..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - The image was here on Grindeks' Facebook site 27 August 2020, well before the 5 July 2021 Commons upload, and thus requires COM:VRT permission per above. Эlcobbola talk 15:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion: VRTS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Star Wars Tie Fighter Logo.png

It can't be a copyright violation as it is a simple text logo. The threshold of originality isn't high enough for copyright protection. There has been no discussion about the case. Matt (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The 3D effect and a non-standard font make it non-trivial, IMO. Ankry (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 Support I think it's worth a discussion, and is definitely not a speedy deletion candidate regardless of whether it is kept or deleted in the end. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 Support It's a US logo, so US rules apply. There is no copyright in the US for unusual fonts of any kind, including the shadows. While this would have a copyright in the UK, it does not in the US. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done UDR is not meant to have original jurisdiction, so as soon as it is clear that the case is controversial it is best to move the arguments to DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Star Wars Tie Fighter Logo.png. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Raphaâl Pannier JB08278∏Jean-Baptiste Millot.jpg

Hello, I'd like to request the permission for this image as it is free of rights. I know the photographer personally and this series of photos appears on the artist's public website. https://www.raphaelpannier.com/photos

(Jazzlover123 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC))

@Jazzlover123: Where do you see an evidence of CC0 license for this image on the abovementioned webpage? Freely available is not the same as CC0-licensed. Free license permission has to be granted by the photographer, not by anybody here. Ankry (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose Needs a free license from the photographer, Jean Baptiste Millot, using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Rina Bovrisse.jpg

Request to reupload as CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Deletion was due to licensing error.

--UralKazan1985 (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose @UralKazan1985: Either you need to provide a link to the license of Zach Sutton's photos on his webpage, or Zach Sutton needs to provide a free locense as descriper in VRT. Ankry (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Napoleon Star, 2021.jpg

Request to reupload as CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Deletion was due to licensing error.

--UralKazan1985 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose @UralKazan1985: Either you need to provide a link to the license of Zach Sutton's photos on his webpage, or Zach Sutton needs to provide a free license as described in VRT. On-wiki license declaration can be applied only to unpublished non-professional photos being personal works of the uploader. Ankry (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Source page is marked "Copyright © 2021 by Zach Sutton All Rights Reserved." Either that must be changed or Sutton must provide a free license via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Sheikh Mustafa Al-Adawi.jpg

this file is official profile picture of Mustafa Al-Adawi youtube channel, is there anyway i can keep it on wikipedia commons? thanks. Daniel abdullah (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel abdullah: Yes, contact the photographer and ask her or him to follow the instructions at Commons:VRT to have an acceptable license verified. Thuresson (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See Thuresson's comment above. --Yann (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Nuclear Strike Logo.png

This is a text logo with a simple color gradient and a nuclear hazard logo which is in the public domain. It was deleted without any discussion. Matt (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @EugeneZelenko: for potential comments. Ankry (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 Weak support It's probably OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Rasselenie baltov.png

Please restore page, or show the info.--Dim Grits (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dim Grits: What do you mean by "show the info"? Is there some information on the file description page that you wish to retrieve? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Dim Grits: Using a CC-BY-SA licensed map, like this one and not attributing its source/authors is a serious copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It's easy request. Don't need long political discussion and irrelevant advice, but do yours work, please.--Dim Grits (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  • author:
  • source:
  • description:

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Ddanish.jpg

The image is non copyrighted then why did wikimedia commons delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauqeer,27124 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, per above comments. --Yann (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Ord.S.G.png

this file it is my onw creations and it doesnt violate any copyright this with other similira file has been delated witouth a good reason and i ask for them to be restored sincerily --Ancsav (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC) angelo gigliotti

 Not done: Obviously not, per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


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

Inyo-22-Nevada-State-Railroad-Museum.png.jpg

This image is my own work and the Flickr page license has been updated into Public Domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSchrantz (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@SamSchrantz: You have not uploaded any files, please explain. Thuresson (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Carson-city-nevada 43524122735 o.jpg
(okay it didn't let me actually upload it, but it's in the Flickr post.

This one. (different filename, but it's the same picture) And this is the flickr page that was listed as showing its copyright violation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/166176539@N03/43524122735/in/album-72157701286754784/) I have since updated the flickr page to show proper copyright attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSchrantz (talk • contribs) 09:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Procedural close. Files that have not been uploaded can not be undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

UP Carillon Tower (1952 architecture)

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1952, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Files deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:University of the Philippines Carillon Tower

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Doing… Yann (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: No opposition. Request seems legitimate. --Yann (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:الأسطول النيلي المصري في السودان.jpg

I have the rights to publish this image and I have put its sources and it belongs to the Hindawi Foundation and I have a copy of the rights to publish this image --Ahmed88z (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This has been published before without a free licence and we cannot verify your claims at this noticeboard. There are two ways now for this file to get undeleted: You either need to send an email to our Volunteer Response Team with a copy of the documents that let you publish the image, or the Hindawi Foundation should release the image under a free licence at their official website. De728631 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Comment It depicts an event from 1870. The author of the book from which it was taken, Abd allah Hussein, died in 1943. (see https://www.noor-book.com/en/ebooks-Abd-allah-Hussein-pdf) Although the author may or not have drawn the illustration, given that and its overall look, I strongly suspect it is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ahmed88z: Can you provide more information about the illustration? Per above, it cannot be made month ago as you declared at upload. Ankry (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Каталог персональной выставки Иванова-Радкевича Михаила Павловича. ВСЕКОХУДОЖНИК. 1937 г. (оборотная сторона).tif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please restore the following 2 files. The images are scans of the artist's exhibition catalog. There is no meaningful author's text - just a trivial chronological ordered list of the names of paintings and their sizes, as well as the output data of the catalog; without any images or graphics. In my opinion there is nothing copyrightable. MalemuteD (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-ineligible. @MalemuteD: Please categories (in English). --Yann (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Pavillon du Sud-Vietnam.jpg

A French Cochinchinese (French Indo-Chinese) photograph published in either 1947 or 1948, therefore "{{PD-Vietnam}}". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:La Foire-exposition du Sud-Vietnam.jpg

A French Cochinchinese (French Indo-Chinese) photograph published in either 1947 or 1948, therefore "{{PD-Vietnam}}". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Ho-chi-Minh's telegraphese congratulated Chiang Kai-shek on his longevity, Hanoi 31 October 1946.jpg

Musée Annam sock upload, this one is either "{{PD-VietnamGov}}" as an official document, or "{{PD-Vietnam}}". Uncle Ho died in 1969, so 1969 + 50 + 1 = 2020, though I believe that it is now PMA+70, so otherwise tag it as "Category:Undelete in 2040" if not an official Democratic Republic of Vietnam government document. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Center (1968 Philippine architecture)

  1. File:Imposing ABS-CBN HQ - Flickr.jpg (DR)
  2. Files deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:ABS-CBN Broadcasting Center:

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1968, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: No opposition, request seems legitimate. --Yann (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Eiffel0Tower.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ordinary lighting cannot be copyrighted. The particular court ruling concerning Eiffel lights refers to a particular lighting in the 1990s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Commons has much more detailed information in the many past discussions than that Wikipedia text. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: According to the court, the magazine published several photos of sequences of that dynamic show copyrighted by the company La Mode en images. Commons never hosted an image of that show. We never found any image of it online. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Juris-Hmelnickis .jpg

Please undelete this picture as it does not violate copyright rules. The picture is my and I submit it for the use. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.232.162.118 (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose For reasons per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-09#Juris-Hmelnickis.jpg for undelete. Uploader did not respond to questions about this file. Thuresson (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson above. --Yann (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Terpaksa Menikahi Tuan Muda.jpg

it is the official poster from the ANTV Official page on Facebook. Promotion Poster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigpurnomo (talk • contribs) 10:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That's why it was deleted. No free license, no permission. --Yann (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Anarchist black cat flag.svg

This file was deleted as a copyright violation based on the cat symbol used. However, the cat was a derivative work of File:I.W.W. One Big Union "Sab Cat".tif which is hosted on Commons and is in the public domain. The deletion rationale stated (in German) "it must be assumed that the copyright has been violated", but this is not the case as the original work is in the public domain. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK, fine. --Yann (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Arjun MK1.jpg

Hlo, there, this is one of my creation which I made ,it has been tagged for speedy deletion ,the citation link provided by the speedy deletion request editor is not sufficient/not reliable as there is no page that contains this image or claims ownership of this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios007 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not: clear copyright violation. --Yann (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Andres Bonifacio Monument.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File was deleted thru Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Guillermo Tolentino (FOP-related). However, as it was unveiled during the time of old copyright regime (Act of 1924, which only gave 30 years copyright protection and required registration), it can be said that it now falls as {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. See the latest input of Clindberg at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City).

Note that for the first file (File:Andres Bonifacio Monument.jpg), the version to be restored is from 2012 and not the more recent file that is an outright/blatant copyright violation. Additionally, the third file (File:Bonifacio Monument.jpg) is more complicated as the first version shows the Caloocan monument (which is PD as per the current consensus here), while the latest version shows a clearly unfree monument like the file here, per the upload log. So I suggest a renaming of this file after undeletion and move to another title so that the road is clear for the unfree monument if FOP is introduced here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping the participants of that DR, including the closing admin of that DR @Howhontanozaz, Clindberg, and Rubin16: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: 2 files restored. The others are very small, and may not be own works. --Yann (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Philamlife Building facade 2.JPG

To depict the main subject of Philam Life Theater. There is presumably no FOP in the Philippines but the photo could be reuploaded in the English Wikipedia. Building was also demolished. Also I am not sure if this is the best photo to depict the exterior of the building. If there's a better photo please temporarily undelete one of the photos at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Philamlife Building instead.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment @Hariboneagle927: the building was completed in 1961. This and all other images of Philamlife Building that were deleted might be eligible for restoration in accordance with newly-accepted consensus which now considers August 1951–December 1972 buildings as in public domain (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew). Though I might modify COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works if the entire section at COM:VFC is archived (as I will link that discussion section to the CRT/Philippines page). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
List of deleted files and eligibility for restoration as per recent discussion and consensus at VPC
  1. Per Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, Philippine buildings from 1951 to Dec. 14, 1972 are now OK.
  2. Philamlife Building was completed in 1961.
OK - shows architecture. Tag: {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}} (updated to reflect on recent VFC discussion and consensus regarding 1951-72 buildings)
 Unsure combined architecture and 2D art. Is 2D art in both images COM:DM?
 Unsure as these mainly show artworks like 3D reliefs, engravings, or murals. But per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City), in the absence of a proof of copyright registration (registration fornalities still prevailed for works until December 14, 1972), these may be OK

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Architecture and 3D art attached to the building restored. --Yann (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


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

St. Andrew the Apostle Parish Church, Makati

  1. File:06575jfSaint Andrew the Apostle Church Bel-Air Kalayaan Nicanor Garcia Street Makati Cityfvf 18.jpg
  2. All files deleted by: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Saint Andrew the Apostle Church

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this Leandro Locsin building, completed in 1968, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}.

However, some of the images may contain other works like stained glass windows and others. If so, please don't restore them if those stained glass or sculptural works are not de minimis (deleted files are invisible to non-admins like me). _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: No opposition, request seems legitimate. --Yann (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Shadrinsk photo0001mini.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Russian building in Shadrinsk. There is {{FoP-Russia}} for architecture since 2014. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Apink Logo 01.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: After I found precedents of South Korean TOO for logos, South Korean TOO for logos is not low. Look at the precedents below to decide whether or not to undelete.

Ox1997cow (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

In addition to this logo, I think it is necessary to restore logos in South Korea that have been deleted because TOO was wrongly thought to be uncertain or low. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose There are only two administrators on Commons who speak Korean and as far as I know they do not normally get involved with undeletion requests. I do not expect any other administrators to be able to fully grasp court decisions written in Korean. This subject should better be discussed at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea and advertised at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Thuresson (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@Thuresson:  Comment I talked South Korean TOO for logos at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. But I didn't get a proper answer. Ox1997cow (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: If there is no community decision in this matter (eg. in VPC), we can do nothing here. Ankry (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: did you ask any of the two administrators mentioned above for help? Ankry (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: No, I didn't. Ox1997cow (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done @Ox1997cow: Please, come back when you receive comments by Korean-speaking admins/license-revievers about these cases in VPC or a translation of them. Ankry (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Evening Cherry Blossoms at Gion.jpg

{{PD-Japan}} and {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} per https://www.ohmigallery.com/DB/ItemDetail.asp?item=10095 but nominated for deletion en masse out of an overabundance of caution at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Necrocancer, sorry.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose as below. Ankry (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
This 1932 work should be PD in US in 2028. Ankry (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per my comment and per lack of other opinions. Ankry (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Chinese Warship Ting Yuang Visiting Japan.jpg

{{PD-Japan}} and {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} per https://www.artelino.com/show/japanese_single_print.asp?mbk=55968 but nominated for deletion en masse out of an overabundance of caution at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Necrocancer, sorry.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} should not be applied to post-2012 uploads. Ankry (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: I've never understood why we grandfather pre-2012 URAA uploads. Generally, grandfathering is useful only when community standards have changed, whether regarding which licenses are considered "free enough" (GFDL) or regarding how much evidence is required to demonstrate that a file is validly licensed (COM:GOF). Now, obviously we shouldn't mass-delete pre-2012 URAA uploads. But I don't get how they are often protected from deletion even after the research has been done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, I also have some doubts here: from legal point of view there is no difference, IMO. I think that the goal is not to shift the responsibility for mistakes in US copyright law interpretation made by WMF to the uploaders. I think the template will disappear some day or we will take a decission to ignore URAA-based protection in some cases. Ankry (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
If we have an exact publicaion date, it might be PD. Otherwise, I suggest to undelete in 2022. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per my comment and per lack of other opinions. Ankry (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Tnovlan.jpg

I have the rights to this photo. I am a personal friend of Sthanlee B. Mirador who took the photo at the twisters premiere. He does not care at all and is glad I want to use it on wiki page. Please stop posting the blurred blackberry looking image of CIFF red carpet. Ironically that photo has no licensing and is not evident anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assisttn (talk • contribs) 20:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Assisttn: Could you please clarify which rights you have? Thuresson (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose OP do not respond to a relevant question. This photo has been published elsewhere without an acceptable license. Thuresson (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done as per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:योगाचार्य विनय पुष्करणा.jpg

यह योग फ्रन्ट के संस्थापक का चित्र है — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevPushkarna (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose This was deleted because you didn't contribute anything useful to Commons (only copyrighted images), and not much to any Wikimedia project]. So contribute positively, and then you can create a home page with your photo. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

इसे इसलिए हटा दिया गया क्योंकि आपने Commons (केवल कॉपीराइट की गई छवियों) के लिए उपयोगी कुछ भी योगदान नहीं दिया, और के लिए बहुत कुछ नहीं दिया। कोई विकिमीडिया परियोजना]। तो सकारात्मक योगदान दें, और फिर आप अपनी तस्वीर के साथ एक होम पेज बना सकते हैं। सादर, Yann (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done As per Yann: a personal photo by a non-contributor. Ankry (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Robinsonsc90s.jpg

File:Robinsonsc90s.jpg
Ortigas Center along EDSA during the 1990s before the Robinsons Equitable Tower and other taller skyscrapers were built
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdt111803 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 13 September 2021‎ (UTC)
Found at http://www.wvcarchitects.com/50-years-of-wvca/#!prettyPhoto, specifically http://www.wvcarchitects.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Robinsons.jpg. Definitely copyvio and shouldn't be undeleted. pandakekok9 04:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 Strong oppose second in motion to Pandakekok9's discovery. I also went through TinEye to check this out, but anyway kudos to Pandakekok9 for tagging as copyvio.  Speedy delete the copyvio image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done copyvio. Ankry (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Enrique Iglesias' Final.jpg

The image in question is allowed under the rights of free use as the album cover is of significant importance to the article, and free use alternatives cannot be made. [9] — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 114.77.166.51 (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The article it would be used for is Final (Album)

 Oppose per Commons:Fair use. Forthcoming album cover Final. Thuresson (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No Fair Use in Wikimedia Commons.

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

File:Vyanra.jpg

why is file being deletec

--Vyanra (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)--Vyanra (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)--Vyanra (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)--Vyanra (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)--Vyanra (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vyanra: this is explained in the deletion log. And this is not the right venue to ask such questions, use Village Pump. Ankry (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done not an undeletion request.

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

File:Build engine logo.png

Logo which appears to be below TOO in the USA. The deleting administrator has declined to restore, and I think at the minimum this should be discussed at DR. Courtesy ping for @Explicit -FASTILY 07:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I forgot about this because EugeneZelenko doesn't use pings. I felt that I provided both a legal and community-based precedence regarding logos with textures that at least merits a discussion here. Rejecting restoration to allow further discussion seems rather unreasonable. ✗plicit 07:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Build engine logo.png. No need to keep this open longer as this page is not meant for original jurisdiction, and the objections of two long-term trusted editors is prima facie evidence that the image is controversial and thus ineligible for speedy. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Ваха_Прелић.jpg

This is my original photo I made. Vahidin Prelic is friend of mine and he asked me to make photo and add it on Wikipedia. That photo is made by me and my Canon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djqb031 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: image not deleted. Ankry (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Reopened -- I have just deleted the image because it is taken from Facebook. Policy therefore requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. Alternately,User:Djqb031 could upload it directly here from his computer at full camera resolution, including the EXIF, using the same file name. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Vahidin Prelic.jpg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djqb031 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Jameslwoodward: for a comment after the new upload. Ankry (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

There's still no EXIF which is a question and while the new version has more pixels, it's still below full camera resolution. It's a close call, but I am inclined to let it go to VRT unless others think otherwise. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Since it doesn't appear on the Internet, VRT is totally useless here as there's nothing that can be verified through VRT that can't be verified on-wiki. Our only options are to accept it as is or ask them to try another re-upload. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes and no -- sometimes a VRT dialog can reveal things that don't come up here for one reason or another -- the reason for the absence of EXIF for example. It's worth a try, since otherwise I don;t think we should keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
If they have anything to say, they can say it here. There is no reason for a case relying solely on AGF + heuristics to go through VRT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@Djqb031: Please reupload the photo with EXIF metadata. The version you most recently uploaded, File:Vahidin Prelic.jpg, does not have EXIF metadata. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose also. The lack of EXIF requires explanation, IMO. Either here or via VRT, if they do not want to make the explanation public. Providing the original photo is also still an option. Ankry (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion; waiting for an explanation or for a version with EXIF. Ankry (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Skopové na porážku, Divadlo Ungelt, Praha, 2019.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Offical permission in ticket 2021082410006252. janbery (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Janbery: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Mtx_logo_1945.jpg

We consider the logo on wikipedia to be useful so that our brand can also be explained visually and linked to our company name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaltex Deutschland (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  1. which Wikipedia page do you wish to use the logo on?
  2. please, respond to the doubts raised in this DR; jpg is not the right format for an image with sharp colour boundaries.
Ankry (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Wrong format and likely out of scope. Ankry (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


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

Undelete

This is my own image, please undelete. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaMogul21 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done as per elcobbola. Ankry (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Mickey Mouse Hot Girl Twerk.webm

I think that this file should be undeleted because it can actually serve a useful purpose. I'm pretty sure they said mere nudity should not be nominated. The titular "Hot Girl" in the video is wearing a bra and a thong. Plus, no penises, no sex act, just a woman twerking. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.225.243.136 (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@173.225.243.136: Were not able to upload inappropriate images and it was deleted for that 68.193.199.8 22:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
As I indicated in the DR closure, we can only restore an image if you identify a specific article on a Wikimedia project where it can be used. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done as per King: out of scope. Ankry (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Kit body MonaghanUtd2122h.png

Hello,

I'm requesting the undeletion of Kit_body_MonaghanUtd2122h.png.

I created the template, but I didn't realise at the time i was supposed to post a copyright tag - I thought since it was my own work, and something that small, it was a case of go ahead and use it. To be honest, reading the message now, I'm still not sure how to do it, so if you can please undelete the file, and add the relevant tag, please do so.

Thanks. ATFC666--ATFC666 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@ATFC666: , the image is undeleted. Please add a license such as {{self|cc-by-4.0}} soon. Elly (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Action taken. Elly (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Tapis rouge de la Mostra internazionale d'arte cinematografica di Venezia 2014.jpg

Hello, File:Tapis rouge de la Mostra internazionale d'arte cinematografica di Venezia 2014.jpg was deleted of Dominique Uber in disregard of the fact that it is her own picture took with her own phone and uploaded on her own Facebook account: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1481293795223022&set=picfp.100000272462386 We would like to re upload it back as there is no copyright infringement. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selestz (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Published outside Commons before being uploaded here. We don't know who is behind the account, here and on FB. Why not uploading the original image? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done as per Yann. For published images, we need to verify whether the person granting the license is the author. If this is not possible online, there is the VRT path. Ankry (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Logo 2021 Compatto02.jpg‬

The file is property of the organization I'm working for as communication manager. I can add the licence that we have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrij83 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Andrij83: Please add the license on the logo initial publication site and provide a link. Or follow VRT procedure. But we would need an evidence that you are aurthorized to sign a contract in behalf of your organization. License is a contract. Ankry (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: needs VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Assisi roccamaggiore.jpg

perchè deve essere cancellato è una foto che ho fatto ad assisi nel 2010.

Buongiorno perchè deve essere cancellato è una foto che ho fatto nel 2010 ad assisi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldo fiorenza (talk • contribs) 09:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Procedural close, obviously about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Assisi roccamaggiore.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


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

Please restore File:Veteranos.jpg

We have permission per Ticket:2021091310008644. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the 2nd (latest) file-version. --Túrelio (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Antipolo Cathedral (1954 Philippine architecture)

  1. File:Antipolo Church Facade.JPG(DR)
  2. File:Antipolo - National Shrine.jpg (DR)
  3. Files deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with incategory:"Antipolo Cathedral"

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, current architecture completed in 1954, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: I have restored all of these so they can be seen by all. However I suspect that some are works other than architecture and may still be under copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Baclaran Church (1958)

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1958, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support undeletion per JWilz. Actually was going to refund these myself due to the update in consensus. Sennecaster (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:A man masturbating and ejaculating.ogg

This video is educational — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im greenland (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Undeleted. The file is renamed into File:A man masturbating and ejaculating.ogv. I undeleted the redirect as well. I consider this film of educational value. I looked at various films in Category:Videos of male masturbation. This film is of more value, because it is showing the face of the subject, while the other films only show hand/penis. Perhaps this is seen as porn in some cultures, but imho this should not be censored. Elly (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Sunny 2021 malayalam movie.jpg

Sunny 2021 Malayalam Movie Poster We are Authorised to publish this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhilashsnair (talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Abhilashsnair: Authorized to publish is not the same as authorized to grant a license. License is a legal contract. If you are authorized to grant it, you need to follow VRT instructions. Ankry (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Not done, movie poster of an Amazon Prime orginal movie. Thuresson (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Fitindia

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per discussion and Commons:Fan art. - Coagulans (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Coagulans: Can you please explain why you believe these logos to be useful in compliance with COM:SCOPE? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
"MediaWiki-powered FanArt-Wiki via InstantComnmons". As a mere occasional uploader, I don't know how it works. - Coagulans (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Not done, these are JPEG variations of File:ABBA-Logo.svg (with compression artifacts) and OP has not explained why they are useful for a Wikimedia project. If they are useful they should be made in a different format than lossy JPEG. Thuresson (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Ayan Nayak portfolio 2020.jpg

I have tried to add copyright to the website but failed so I did it's my own work I request to undelete it and give the copyright claim to the owner and give fair use. Caboti24 (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair use is not permitted here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
And CC-BY-SA 4.0 license )as declared at upload) for an already published photo needs to be emailed to VRT. Ankry (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Nchavance

These files were deleted because there is no freedom of panorama in UAE.

However, when I looked at File:Lotte World Groupe F Seoul.jpg, I noticed that the main objects in these files were fireworks.

Photos of fireworks are allowed,(See also: Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Fireworks displays) so these files can be undeleted.

For the same reason, File:Lotte World Groupe F Seoul.jpg was kept. (See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lotte World Groupe F Seoul.jpg)

Ox1997cow (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose the first one. While the fireworks are certainly prominent, the Burj Khalifa is squarely in the middle of the image, highly visible. There is no way in the world to claim that it is de minimis.  Support the second two. I'm not sure exactly what we're seeing in the images, but I see nothing with a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Fanis Christodoulou Panionios.jpg

This file was wrongly deleted, citing copyright violation from a 2020 online article, https://www.enimerotiko.gr/plus/athlitika/fanis-christodoyloy-i-agonistiki-aytokatastrofi-toy-ellina-paichtara-poy-tha-mporoyse-na-kanei-kariera-sto-nba/. However, this file has been made available for free use from 2014 (i.e. six years before publication of the online article) on the Greek wikipedia site (see https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A6%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%82_%CE%A7%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%B4%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85#/media/%CE%91%CF%81%CF%87%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BF:Fanis_Christodoulou.jpg). As such this should be undeleted. Thank you.

Ioannis.kingdom (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The file is small and has no EXIF. It appears without a free license in several places on the Web. The uploader has many contributions, but few uploads. While it has been on the Greek WP site for 7 years, it is not clear that their requirements are the same as Commons. A small, no EXIF file, with web use almost always requires a VRT interaction here unless the uploader is a well known and trusted contributor. Since User:mousi has not made a contribution there in some time, it is unlikely that we will be able to restore this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not agree. The photograph is clearly not a violation of the website article originally cited. On this basis, the file should not have been deleted in the first place. It was deleted on a wrong claim of copyright, and therefore should be restored - unless you can find a copyright claim preceding the Greek Wikipedia upload date. Thanks. Ioannis.kingdom (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ioannis.kingdom: It looks like a scan of a printed photo. These generally require VRT confirmation unless the uploader regularly uploads similar photos. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: I'm sorry, but we are entering the realm of conjecture now. The photo was originally deleted on the basis that it breached copyright from a 2020 online article, which it clearly doesn't as it has been on Greek Wikipedia on a free licence since 2014. Therefore, the reason for deleting the picture was invalid. So it should be restored. I have shared a reference on a sister site that the picture is available to use on a free licence. If you can evidence that this is wrong, fair enough, delete the photo. Otherwise, please restore it - and I ask that we refrain from conjecture. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioannis.kingdom (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanis Christodoulou Panionios.jpg. We still don't have enough evidence to keep the image outright IMO, but the existence of the Greek Wikipedia image means that the speedy deletion rationale is no longer valid, so the status of the image should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Parque Vila Germânica Blumenau SC (40175077724).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons now accepted PDM per {{PDMark-owner}}. @SCP-2000: who has voted in the DR A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  •  Question Does FoP apply here? Is this a permanent instalation? (source image) Ankry (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Well I see another problem: MTur Destinos does not seem to be the photographer (and so the photo is not their own work), so the {{PDMark-owner}} does not apply. Ankry (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
      • If MTur Destinos owns the copyright, it is fine. The tag is about the copyright owner (usually the photographer, but not always). That can be a harder question, though the statement on the account seems fairly specific. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
        • @Clindberg: The template states: when a copyright holder applies the PDM to their own work (my highlighting). If somebody owns copyright, is does nit automatically mean that the work is their own work (I assume the template says about authorship here). Maybe the template needs to be modified? I did not follow the discussion whick led to this template creation, so I am not sure if this is justified by the consensus. Personally, I would also be very careful with declarations by companies, due to multiple cases when company staff think that their company owns copyright, while it actually does not... Ankry (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
          • In that context, "own work" means "works they own". As in, owning the copyright, be that by authorship or transfer. If someone declares their own work PD, that's when it falls under that tag, as they are waiving the copyrights they had owned. If the photos were works for hire for example, they would own the copyright and it would be fine (outside of derivative work issues, of course). If there are claims of ownership of the individual photographers in EXIF or something, indicating it's possible the organization merely licensed the images and have no right to relicense them, I'd be a bit more leery. I have not looked carefully. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment According to Flickr tags, this is Parque Vila Germânica, a tourist spot in Blumenau, Brazil. FoP can be apply per {{FoP-Brazil}}. Description said "Crédito obrigatório: Renato Soares/MTur" (English:Mandatory credit: Renato Soares/MTur), so Renato Soares is an employee of MTur Destinos, thus MTur is the copyright holder of this image. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


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

Tanghalang Pambansa images

All files deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tanghalang Pambansa
Other deleted files

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this Leandro Locsin building, completed in 1969, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support per JWilz12345's rationale and the Village Pump discussion. Howhontanozaz (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Ping @Jameslwoodward: (whom I mentioned here for his input over the matter), @King of Hearts: (who mentioned about my involvement for Philippine buildings here), and @Rubin16: (who worked on restoration of images of the Parish of the Holy Sacrifice, 1955, down below), for this and perhaps all of my undeletion requests involving 1951–December 14, 1972 Philippine buildings. My act of mentioning is per an admin's suggestion on my talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I make no comment on this case as I have not looked at any of the files listed, but the general principle appears to be correct, so that I would support restoring any files that show buildings built before the cutoff date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per new understanding of law. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:1922 letter from President de Valera, appointing Irish plenipotentiaries.jpg

Seems to be same as zh:File:Plenipotentiary.jpg which is currently a fair use file. --GZWDer (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I disagree with the original deletion rationale that it was out of scope, but I don't know if it's out of copyright in the country of origin, though it is in the United States. The Irish Republic probably didn't have its own copyright laws during its short time of existence. {{PD-IrishGov}} may apply, but I don't know if that includes works predating the current Republic of Ireland. clpo13(talk) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. One of three rules may apply:

  1. de Valera may have held the copyright. He died in 1975, so it would still be under copyright in the UK and US. I don't think that a work done by a government official in the course of his duties has a personal copyright.
  2. UK Crown Copyright may apply. Our summary at COM:United Kingdom does not discuss works such as this that would be covered as literary works. The law calls for ongoing copyright in unpublished works and a fifty year Crown Copyright from the time of publication. It seems unlikely that this has been published, in the copyright sense, until recently. If this is the case, it is still under copyright.
  3. Irish law may apply. In that case, as a government work, copyright expired 50 years after creation.

One might also argue that it is below the ToO. I am inclined to believe that Irish law applies, so it was out of copyright in 1972, before the URAA date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Was it published? It seems to me almost certain that it was published before 1978. Thus in the US, if it was published contemporaneously, it's out of copyright. If it was covered by copyright in its source nation in 1996, it'll get the full 95 years of copyright from publication. If it was out of copyright due to Irish law in 1996, then it'll be fine.
I could do more diligence on it, but I just feel this is the type of stuff that was published before 1926 and stressing about the US copyright issues is silly. Also, that resolution is making my head hurt trying to read it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
It says there were five copies created in 1921 -- hard to imagine it was not published at the time. But, it could not possibly be a Crown Copyright work. Most of the text is bare information, or pro forma type stuff, so threshold of originality could also come into play. I would just call it {{PD-IrishGov}} though, to be safest, and that seems the most likely to me anyways, as the current government would have inherited any copyrights of previous government bodies. It would be either {{PD-1996}} or {{PD-US-expired}} or maybe {{PD-EdictGov}} for the U.S. side. I don't think it's worth worrying about the details.  Support undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: We have three different lines of reasoning, but all agree it's OK for Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Deleted photos of South Korean Bridges

These photos were deleted because there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea.

However, in South Korea, bridges are not copyrighted.

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Yi Sun-sin Bridge, COM:FOP SK

So, these photos can be undeleted.

Ox1997cow (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  •  Support The second image restoration. Copyright in South Korea covers "buildings". Bridges are not mentioned and are not buildings.
  •  Oppose The first image restoration. Although the question of FoP was raised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seohae Bridge.jpg, the principal reason for the deletion was that it looked as if the Flickr user did not actually have the right to freely license the image. The image is no longer on Flickr.
  •  Oppose The third image restoration. It is arguable whether the bridge or the building is the main object -- but:
the bridge is truncated while the building is whole.
the bridge is ordinary while the building is striking
the image is vertical, if the main subject were the bridge, it would be horizontal and include the whole bridge. so I would argue strongly that the main subject is the building

Note that de miminis requires that an ordinary observer would not notice if the object were removed from the image. That's clearly not the case here as the building is very much in the center of the photograph. However, Korean law requires that for Article 35-3 to apply that the object in question must be incidental to the main use of the image. That's a much less stringent requirement than de minimis, but the file name and image framing make it clear that the building is not incidental..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I don't have permission to see deleted files, so I don't know what the main object of that file is. So I guessed by the file name. Also, I limited the cause of the deletion to simply the lack of freedom of panorama. Therefore, two of the three images are excluded from recovery. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: . Re: first file. Confirmed after a few visits of related links of the DR of the first mentioned file: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bru216. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: One as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Muhammad Labib Sikder.png

File:Muhammad Labib Sikder.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.labibsikder (talk • contribs) 12:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Also File:Muhammad Labib Sikder Two.png

 Oppose These are personal photos of a non-contributor and therefore out of scope. They are also copyvios -- the subject is the uploader who claims that he was the photographer. That is obviously not the case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:California independence flag.svg

This file is cited as the source from which File:California independence flag 2.svg was derived (and it's unclear what "derived" means in this situation). No earlier (pre-2012) alternative sources can be found linking this flag with any California independence movement or organization. It would be beneficial to be able to see the source of the original file so it can be determined whether it came from another reliable source or if it was just a user-created theoretical flag not connected to any organization or political movement.

Reverse image searches return identical (or near-identical) flags for multiple non-US entities:

  1. Gubin, Poland
  2. Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico
  3. San Rafael, Heredia, Costa Rica

--GEFinley (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is identical (except, perhaps for small differences in aspect ratio) to File:California independence flag 2.svg and to the three flags cited above. It appears to have been made up by the uploader/creator. The information block reads:

Description
English: Flag of independent California / California secession movement.
Date
Source Own work
Author PadreDelElToro

Rather than restore this one, I think the question is, should we delete the other one as it is used only once, incorrectly, in an article on WP:HU. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Nancy Rotering 39701076811 e00a2be8f4 o.jpg

While some of the photos that have been uploaded to this Flickr account have not been of their own authorship, some have. This image, very clearly, was of their own authorship. Should be undeleted. SecretName101 (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The flickr account is not a personal account. If they lie about copyright elsewhere, how can we believe that they signged an appropriate contract with the photographer for this image? Photographer name is not provided despite licensing requirement to attibute the author. I strongly suggest to verify copyright status through VRT. Ankry (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose The CC-BY license requires that any user name the photographer. The Flickr account is in a corporate name and the photographer is not named, so the use on Flickr is a violation of the CC-BY license. It cannot be kept here without the photographer's name and a clear understanding its license status. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: That's not strictly true; there are many works of corporate authorship which should be attributed to the company (i.e. work for hire). The problem here lies squarely with this specific bad-author. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
User:King of Hearts, yes. My vacation has left me out of practice. About all that is correct in my comment above is that we need a clear understanding of the license status. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The nays have it. I see nothing that shows that the image "very clearly was of their own authorship." The matter can be clarified if an authorized official of the company uses VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Files from When We Were Young Festival, The Observatory, 04/08/17-04/09/17 | Flickr

The files from this Flickr album are published in the public domain, per the Flickr uploader. All but 4 of the files were deleted for having no license. It will be easier to add the license after undeletion rather than re-uploading them all. Οἶδα (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Files
 Support The {{PDMark-owner}} seems applicable. Ankry (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: PDM mark by owner. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Sage-članovi.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Dear Wiki, this is image of my band and it was made by Janett Vučeta. I've had a conversation with her about Sage band images and she said that I'm allowed to use band images for Wikipedia page. If it is not enough, please help me with fixing that, thanks. Kristian Tomić KristianTomic (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to restore the image, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. Note also that "use band images for Wikipedia page" is not enough. Images on Commons must be free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. This means, of course, that anyone could make and sell tee shirts or posters with the image on them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Bashar al-Assad mural in Latakia.jpg

The deletion was requested per lack of "freedom of panorama" in Syria. However, the note about Syria states that:

1. The situation has been regulated with decree 62/2013, which was after the said photograph had been taken (late 2011). Therefore it cannot apply to the removed image. 2. The explanation there seems unclear and probably misleading. It doesn't state clearly whether the original or the derived work is supposed to be "permanently present in public place". However, both the mural on the street and my picture in Wikimedia Commons are.

--Emesik (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Leaning towards  Oppose @Emesik: continued existence here on Commons means continued exploitations of your image of the copyrighted public artwork without artist's licensing permissions. The fact that the law was implemented in 2013 means the exception ceased to exist at that point (assuming your statement may mean Syria had FOP before 2013), and all images have become violations of architects' or artists' right to pictorial exploitations. It is not on when the images were taken, but on if the continued free uses to pre-2013 images of contemporary Syrian architecture and public artworks is allowed or not after 2013. Perhaps only a law change to (re)introduce freedom of panorama for free uses of images of public works may solve this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree. The date of creation is irrelevant. The current law is the one that applies and that we must honor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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

María Herrera Mellado

File:María Herrera Mellado.jpg

I would like to request the undeletion of the file María Herrera Mellado. --María Herrera Mellado (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC) María Herrera Mellado 20 de september, 2021

 Oppose While we keep personal images for use on the User pages of active contributing users, "active" and "contributing" must come first. Also, the uploader claims to be the photographer and has the same name as the subject. Since it does not appear to be a selfie, the license must come from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:龟山汉墓 0558.jpg

Several files uploaded by me were deleted, including this one. I leave wikicommons for a very long time, so I did not receive the notice message in time. I am pretty sure all those photos were taken by myself, I did not copy any images from the internet! But the messages showed that some were believed to be derivative works. But this one was not even taged as a derivative work. The target I photoed is an ancient mausoleum whose creators have died two thousands years ago! It must be a mistake, or maybe other websites copied the images I uploaded here. Please undelete it for recheck. --Cangminzho (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Túrelio: who deleted the file.
@Cangminzho: The image is overwritten with some text in Chinese. Did you add this text yourself? Do you have the original image? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Overwritten? No, not overwritten by me. I can't recall if I add any text, but if it's not added under my current username it's not me. I have changed my computer these years and I'm not sure if I can find the original file. Is it possible to recover the original image alone? -- Cangminzho (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose As Yann says, the image is a large bronze disc, probably in a display case, with what appears to be white Chinese writing on the glass of the display case. I do not read Chinese, but I think it is probably a description of the bronze. Since the text has a copyright, the image is derivative of the text and infringes its copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

So if the text erased can the fixed image be uploaded? --Cangminzho (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 Info Very little will remain if the uploaded file is edited to remove the text. Thuresson (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Even if somehow -- magic? -- it were possible to remove the white text and have the underlying bronze disk remain, whole, its a very poor image of the disc, probably not usable for any purpose. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
OK --Cangminzho (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Per agreement of requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Talat Shikhaliyev selfportrait.jpg

Hi There. My name is Shahin Talishkhan. I uploaded the painting which was created by my father Talat Shikhaliyev (1928-1987), for inclusion to the page dedicated to him. These paintings are inherited and in my possession. I used {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} which as I understand indicates it. Please advise how I can save images of his works as well as his personal photos

Thank you Shahin Talshah (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The best way is to follow the procedure outlined at COM:VRT. The volunteers on the e-mail system will answer your emails. Please include links to the deleted images if you can. Elly (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. And please do not re-upload content deleted per community consensus. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cardiff street today - Prince Charles - Wales Doesn't Need a Prince.jpg

This is my own photograph. Please undelete asap. I took several images and deleted the exif for data protection. John Jones (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@John Jones: as a photograph of a poster, this is a derivative work, meaning that permission is needed from whoever created the poster in order to host it on Commons with a free license. Additionally, even though it was posted in a public place, freedom of panorama in the UK doesn't extend to two-dimensional graphical works, such as posters. clpo13(talk) 19:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. This image infringes on the copyright belonging to the person who took the photograph of Prince Charles. If the text passes the Threshold of Originality in the UK, then the image also infringes on that copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Taivo (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Professor Liam C. Kelley (Lê Minh Khải).jpg

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2021091910000051 regarding File:Professor Liam C. Kelley (Lê Minh Khải).jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:WillDraper.jpg

I am not sure what is meant by permission not found? I have permission from the photographer? The photo does not exist anywhere else online (excluding the subjects social media pages). Thank you. T.MD. MCDE82 (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Every previously published file (for example published in social media) needs evidence of free license, for example OTRS-permission. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The permission must come from copyright holder, that means from photographer, not from you or from depicted person. Taivo (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Samson Sudhakar.jpg

I have found the copyright of the picture that the person in the picture is ready to give the copyright & license. Mercy k (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Depicted person is not notable. Please look en:Draft:Samson Sudhakar. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Vietnamese symbols in the public domain uploaded by Fataobstant

First Republic of Vietnam files

These are all based on government works that ascended into the public domain before the last date based on 50 (fifty) years at "{{PD-Vietnam}}".

Grey area.

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Quoting Nội dung toàn văn Ordinance No. 38-L/CTN1 of December 02, 1994, on protection of copyright:

"Article 7.- The author or the owner of copyright, as prescribed in Article 24 of this Ordinance, must comply to all provisions of law when he uses his copyright.

The State does not protect the copyright of the works which:

1. Go against the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, damage the bloc of unity of the people; 2. Campaign for violence, aggressive wars, sow hatred among nations, diffuse reactionary ideologies and cultures, depraved and debauched life, criminal behaviors, social evils, superstitions, which sabotage the fine customs and habits; 3. Disclose secrets of the Party, State, military and security secrets related to the economy, foreign policies, private life of citizens, and other secrets which are protected by law; 4. Distort history, negate revolutionary achievements, offend great men and national heroes, slander and hurt the prestige of organizations, and the honor and dignity of citizens."

Any works from the Republic of Vietnam can be seen as #7 § 1, at least it States that such works are not eligible for copyright protections, not sure if this is the same as base copyright, but I am willing to open a village pump discussion. Further, that logo was created by the globally locked Sockmaster based on an old design, they are actually a very good graphic artist and the logo was used until 1944 meaning that it is a derivative work of a public domain file, meaning that the CC license holds up. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The French work is PD-France, at the latest it os from 1944. So it's a DW of a free work. No author is listed and the organisation in that form ceased to exist in 1944. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Original designs are PD-Vietnam. --Yann (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


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

First Republic of Vietnam files from Fataobstant

These are all based on government works that ascended into the public domain before the last date based on 50 (fifty) years at "{{PD-Vietnam}}".

I will have a reply later. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Original designs are PD-Vietnam. --Yann (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:GS 3479.jpg

Instytut De Republica ma pełne prawa do dysponowania tym zdjęciem.--InstytutDeRepublica (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Instytut De Republica, 21.09.21

 Oppose That may be correct, but we have no way here of knowing that InstytutDeRepublica is an authorized official of the organization. In order for the image to be restored, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:BONES with his brother Elliott.jpg

Guten Abend,

leider wurde das Bild was ich vor längerer Zeit auf Wiki Commons hochgeladen habe als Urheberechtsverletzung markiert und gelöscht. Ich habe bei dem Urheber nachgehakt und er hat kein Problem damit.

Ich bitte daher, das Bild wiederherzustellen.

Hier sind zwei Screenshots der Konversation: https://prnt.sc/1t4mirn https://prnt.sc/1t4mkb4

Vielen Dank und LG,

Deniz aka mcexpertdefan Mcexpertdefan (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose per policy, for images that were published without a free license declaration, a written free license permission is required to be send by the actual copyright holder following VRT instructions. Ankry (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The file description claims that Elliott is the photographer. He is in the photograph and it does not appear to be a selfie, so that is a problem. Uploads from Instagram are also a problem. In order to restore the image, we will need a free license from the actual photographer using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:You are launched logo white.png

I own the company and would like to put my logo for use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Fortuna (talk • contribs) 09:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose @Ivan Fortuna: You were already notified about VRT procedure that is necessary in such cases. Ankry (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: needs VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Afsaneh Sho - Tahmoures Pournazeri.jpg

All the cover albums that I uploaded were used on the Album page in Wikipedia as they used on related albums on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiva tr (talk • contribs) 11:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose This was uploaded from Amazon[10]. There is no evidence that it is freely licensed. It can be restored only if the album's Producer sends a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviouly not, clear copyright violation. Fair use not allowed on Commons. --Yann (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File: Chrysoula Zacharopoulou.jpg

That pic was abusively removed by a member unaware about copyright. EU citizens can use pics/videos from the European Parliament as stated here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legal-notice/en/ "As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words “© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament” or “© European Union, [year(s)] – EP”) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged." Therefore I hereby request the undeletion of that picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leurocrate (talk • contribs) 14:48, 22 September 2021‎ (UTC)

@Leurocrate: May I ask where the Creative Commons license comes from? Thuresson (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The file was not "abusively removed" and User:Túrelio, who deleted the file, is third on the all time list of Administrative actions here, and is certainly completely aware of copyright. The terms of use you quote above are unacceptable for Commons. Specifically,

"...provided that the entire item is reproduced..."

prohibits cropping. Commons requires that derivative works, which includes cropping, must be permitted. In fact, since you cropped the image on the right side and the bottom before uploading it, you yourself have violated the EU terms of use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose  :@Jameslwoodward: The pic was not cropped. It was directly downloaded from the EU database available here: https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/home so there's no violation of the EU terms. Leurocrate 18:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

First, in the file description, you said that the source was https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/fr/chrysoula-zacharopoulou-in-ep-in-strasbourg_20190718_EP-090920A_FMA_019_p. It is certainly cropped from that.
Second, that question is irrelevant to keeping it here -- the terms are unacceptable to Commons because they prohibit cropping. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


Not done. This photo was uploaded by User:Leurocrate with a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-4.0 license but it has not been shown that this particular license is correct. EU Parliament photos has been nominated for deletion several times over the years, for example at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:EuroparlTag. See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/02#Feedback of a license template for the European Parliament. Thuresson (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Старое объявление.jpg

This photo has been deleted by mistake. It is not subject to copyright according to {{PD-RusEmpire}}--Zinnsoldat (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jim. Ankry (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Vasconcelos Neto.jpg

Public figures (politicians) with public domain pictures. It should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felypearaujo (talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Felypearaujo: May I please ask you to clarify which section of the Brazilian copyright act that deals with photos of politicians? Thuresson (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose This photo was deleted one hour after upload in 2013. OP has not given any explanation why this photo is public domain. Thuresson (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Shukriaraad.webp

I uploaded File:Shukriaraad.webp to be used on a new draft page [11] and an existing page [12] on Wikipedia. The picture is of the daughter of last ruler of Bukhara. Can you please undelete the picture so that I can be able to add it to the two article's page?

Rezanaul (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose 2017 photo with "unknown" author. As far as I can tell, [podrobno.uz found a picture of the subject on the internet without giving a source. Thuresson (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Thuresson: correct. That is why I stated unknown. So just for my understanding, can the picture only be undeleted if the source of the picture is known? Rezanaul (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
No, you need to contact the photographer and ask her or him to release the photo under an acceptable license. This release should be verified by using the procedure outlined at Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Emirdesc.jpg

I uploaded File:Emirdesc.jpg to be used on an existing page [13] on Wikipedia. The picture is of the granddaughter and great-granddaughter of last ruler of Bukhara. Can you please undelete the picture so that I can be able to add it to the article?

Rezanaul (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Please contact the photographer and ask her or him to follow the procedures at Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Theatrical Release Poster for "The David Dance" Feature Film.jpg

I am the owner of Theatrical Release Poster for "The David Dance" Feature Film.jpg.

I hereby affirm that I, Don Scime, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work: Theatrical Release Poster for "The David Dance" Feature Film.jpg


Don Scime 2021-09-14

[generated using relgen.js]


Don Scimé is the copyright owner: United States Copyright Office webpage: https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search%5FArg=David%20Dance&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=My1wh00nCcKGqtjQx88gQ9mlGycD&SEQ=20210914105217&SID=1


All the Best, --Braveladdy (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Don Scimé (646) 462-5777 www.donscime.com www.thedaviddance.com

Thanks for you permission. Can you please follow the procedure outlined in COM:VRT. Your permission is then stored permanently (and privately) while volunteers will discuss the details with you. After that, the photo can be undeleted. Elly (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Samson Sudhakar.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have a copyright of this person. I can provide the copyright and license to be used on a new draft page on Wikipedia. Can you please undelete the picture so that I can be able to add it to the article's page? Mercy k (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The reason to delete this image was "Content created as advertisement (G10)", see Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G10. So it was not a copyright problem. Elly (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Logo_THPT_Cong_Nghiep.png

This is the logo of my school and it has free license. Moreover, I have the permission to upload this. Please recover this file. AnnVux (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see you did not give a link to show that the logo has a free license. You may follow the procedure of COM:VRT to obtain permission of the school board to publish the logo with a free license. After that, the image can be undeleted. Elly (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:digitalis_distribution_map_europe_near_east.png

The map-image is my own work on the basis of data of C. Bräuchler et al. in Molecular phylogeny of the genera Digitalis L. and Isoplexis (Lindley) Loudon (Veronicaceae) based on ITS- and trnL-F sequences September 2004 Plant Systematics and Evolution 248(1):111-128 /// DOI:10.1007/s00606-004-0145-z . For map I used free QGIS software with map_data from the NaturalEarth project (public domain). --- QGIS.org, 2021. QGIS Geographic Information System. QGIS Association. http://www.qgis.org --- https://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/ Where you saw any reason for deleting that map? Best regards... Nalagtus (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Support The deleted map is very different from the one cited in the DR -- as this was apparently developed from data which could not have a copyright, it is entirely up to the creator to license it as they wish. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Undeleted per arguments above, Nalagtus uploaded many distribution maps (thanks). I mentioned in the file description that the map is based on the data in the publications. Can you please check this, @Nalagtus: ? The deletion request of november 2020 was listed on yourtalk page: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Digitalis distribution map europe near east.png. Perhaps you were busy or missed it. Elly (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Vignette - Les jumelles.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2021090910004941. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: Which license is declared in the ticket? The image has been uploaded without licensing info. Ankry (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: cc-by-sa-4.0. Cheers, --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Five Alive Logo.jpg

It makes no sense for the Five Alive logo to be deleted. Look up Crystal Pepsi’s page, their logo is there. It states that the logo uses simple geometric shapes and is thus fair use. Crystal Pepsi’s logo is not simple however and features distinctive text akin to Five Alive. If Crystal Pepsi’s logo is fair use, then Five Alive is very clearly suitable as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh Phoenix (talk • contribs)

@Pharaoh Phoenix: Wikmedia Commons hosted logos must be free in the country of origin. While Pepci Co. is US based, this logo seems to originate frem Canada. And Canada have much lower ToO. Can you compare this logo to a PD-simple Canadian logo of similar complexity? Ankry (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: Although Five Alive is currently primarily sold in Canada, its logo dates back to the United States as that is the country of origin for the beverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh Phoenix (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Support Five Alive is a Minute Maid product, which originated in the US. The logo is text only and text fonts do not have a copyright in the US. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  •  Support - Five Alive was introduced in the 70s, and Minute Maid had itself been acquired by Coca Cola in the 60s, so this is firmly of US origin. The leaf is the only potentially copyright element (it wasn't original), but it's an edge case that would need a proper discussion rather than speedy deletion. Эlcobbola talk 15:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done with no prejudice against DR should anyone wish to open one. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:ObispoSegundoReneC.jpg

El archivo en cuestión fue eliminado por un falso copyright, ¿ por que falso ? porque el archivo ya existía mucho antes de que el obispado castrense de Argentina publicara el archivo como imagen en su web de Facebook [14] , así que creo que es algo injusto que hayan nominado para su supresión rápidamente, sin ver la fecha de publicación del archivo, sin saber de su información que tenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marium Alberto (talk • contribs) 11:59, 21 September 2021‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The file is not the work of the uploader, but has a CC license requiring credit to the uploader. The stated source is http://obispadocastrenseargentina.org/2014/06/francisco-nombra-nuevo-obispo-en-ecuador/, which page no longer exists (404 error). We cannot restore the image without knowing that the source is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, the uploader never claimed to that they need to be attributed. However, the photographer attribution was not correctly added and I see no CC license at the archived image source page. The uploader declared that this is a 2014 photo, too new for copyright expiration. No evidence provided that the photo is nmore than 120 years old, nor that it was PD in Argentina in 1996 (as required by URAA). Ankry (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: no license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


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

JoavBarEl images undeletion request

regarding the following files:

I wish to request an undeletion as the copyrights holder will send a permission via COM:VRT

--Nachtailer (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nachtailer: Hi,
As I say on my talk page, the files will be undeleted when the permission is accepted. Just ask copyright holder(s) to send the permission with the file names. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Kirchturmuhr Dornburg-Elbe Hammerwerk-mit-Prellfeder.JPG

== [[:File:Kirchturmuhr Dornburg/Elbe Hammerwerk-mit-Prellfeder.jpg]] {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} ==

{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} --Udo Otto Müller (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Procedural close: The file is not deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Alessandra Mastronardi La Verité.jpg

I am the admin of the facebook page where I took this pic (https://www.facebook.com/164931700186759/photos/pb.100044192451294.-2207520000../4349065818439972), so I kindly request to undelete this image. Thank you in advance.

Magibrillìo (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose For images that have appeared on Facebook, policy requires that the actual photographer (or other copyright owner) must send a free license usinig VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:First res church.jpg

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted. Panama City News Herald ~ 501 W. 11th St, Panama City, FL 32401

https://www.newsherald.com/news/20190616/past-could-mean-future-for-wewahitchka-church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzygibson (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzygibson (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 September 2021‎ (UTC)

@Lizzygibson: Non-commercial licenses are not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. See COM:L for details. clpo13(talk) 19:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons requires that images be free for any use anywhere for any purpose including commercial use. Therefore NC license such as the one above are not acceptable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Commons-incompatible license. Ankry (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Francisco Aldir Chaves da Silva, prefeito de Uruburetama.jpg

Public figures (politicians) with public domain pictures. It should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felypearaujo (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the photographer. Now you claim something else. In order to restore the image, we will need to know exactly where you sourced it and that it has a free license there. Very few images you find on the web are actually in the public domain. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. 161×225 pixels sized photos are generally not own work. No real source is given. Taivo (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:אור אלתרמן ברנע.jpg

שלום תודה רבה, התמונה נרכשה ונמצאת במאה אחוז בבעולתי, וכן כוללת את הקרדיט לצלמת התמונה, שמכרה אותה לאישור כל שימוש במאה אחוז, אנא אשרו תודה רבה Hello Thank you, the image has been purchased for 100% owner rights - which belongs to me, for any use, credit has been given to the photographer. please un-delete. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrBarnea1 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. After receiving and accepting the VRT permission the file will be restored. Taivo (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Tree of Life (Disney)

The Tree of Life should be classified as a building and not a sculpture. It contains a theater (Its Tough to be a Bug) and is in a public place (Walt Disney World). Style elements should be protected under Leicester v. Warner Bros.. Should fall under Template:FoP-US. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Info a prior DR is found here. Also, per enwiki article: "The Tree of Life is a 145-foot (44 m) sculpture of a baobab tree at Disney's Animal Kingdom, Walt Disney World Resort...." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@(Oinkers42): What has changed since those community decissions? Can you point out a consensus of otherwise?  Oppose if no consensus. Ankry (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - A "building" is a defined term of "humanly habitable structures that are intended to be both permanent and stationary," and the tree sculpture itself is understood not to be humanly habitable. The theater, the habitable structure, is under the tree (even per Disney--"Now Playing Under the Tree") and thus the argument offered here would be akin to arguing the Statue of Liberty is actually a building, not a statue, because there's a museum in the pedestal. That is, of course, nonsense. There could also be conceptual separability issues, including related to the carvings. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The theater is actually inside the tree (under and inside the base are more or less the same thing) (see Tree of Life (Disney)), but I don't think the inclusion of a theater makes the the sculpture a habitable building. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:GAIL.svg

India has a similar ToO as the U.S. according to COM:TOO India. I don't believe this logo meets the threshold. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Adrienn-Czifra-FB-2021.jpg

Dear Team,

Please undelete this photo. I have full rights on this photo. I made it with my smartphone in 2020. This is how the person looks like, whom wikipedia page I am creating.

Thanks in advance! --Bobyonekenobi86 (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose @Bobyonekenobi86: As the photo has already been published elsewhere priot to its upload here, it cannot be licensed on wiki. We need an evidence that the free license has been granted at the initial publication site (faster way) or receive a free license permission via email following VRT (slower path as such perissions needs verification). Ankry (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Omega from Seamaser to Seamaster Rizzoli.png

Hello, Our graphic design agency is responsible of the whole art direction of the book. The uploaded image consist of a photo our employee photographer took of the book cover and we are releasing it on creative commons.--Qhfofi (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Qhfofi: Copyright to the book photo was not the deletion reason, but copyright to the book cover and to the photos used on the cover was. If you own copyright to them, please follow VRT sending a free license permission and an evidence that you own the mentioned copyright. Ankry (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose I see ten copyrights here: the photo of the book, the book cover as a whole, and each of the eight images of watches on the cover. The typical license for the use of the photographs of the watches does not allow the publisher to freely license their use, so they are all a problem. All of this will need to be sorted out between the various copyright holders and VRT. We certainly can't restore it here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Thank you James, I see your point. What if I upload a very simple photo of the cover - without the horizontal band with watches-. The cover has been designed by Yorgo&Co studio as well as the Type design on the cover. Would that be acceptable ?--Qhfofi (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Aha -- I did not see that the watches are on a separate band. The answer to your question depends on the country of origin. There is no copyright on type faces and typesetting in the USA. There is in the UK. Other countries vary. Switzerland, I don't know. I see "Rizzoli" at the end of the band -- they are Italian, again I don't know. It might be simplist to get Yorgo&Co to send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The text-only cover might be OK. The title itself is purely informative, the font looks quite standard. Ankry (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. But in my opinion text-only cover would be OK. Taivo (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Juwel Chowdhury.jpg

Please undeletion it's my own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juwel chowdhuryyy (talk • contribs) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I support restoration on scope grounds -- see https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12456610/ where he has a long list of credits. However, he claims the image of himself is "own work" and it does not look like a selfie. We will need a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Notwithstanding that copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the subject (image appears to be credited to MG PHOTOGRAPHY here), this is blatant self-promotion by a non-notable person. The IMDB credits are clearly bogus; for example, Chowdhury purports to have been born 2004. Amazing that they were responsible for "Dak Bangla (Song)" in 1987, or a playback singer for Chungking Express in 1994, a music editor for Indian in 1996, or indeed a playback signer for Spider-Man 2 in 2004. Owner of time machine? Talented newborn? Or disingenuous self-promoter the likes of which we see daily? Эlcobbola talk 15:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Thank you, elcobbola for adding to my education. I had assumed -- shame on me -- that IMDB had some sort of moderation so that its entries were checked for accuracy. I should have noticed that the dates didn't work.  Oppose .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:therealestwaves.jpg

I'm requesting for this file to be undeleted so that I can use it in the infobox of a record label. ~bonnieolnga, September 24, 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverGoinDown (talk • contribs) 13:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose It's a copyrighted logo and cannot be restored to Commons without a free license from an authorized official of the record company via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. After receiving and accepting VRT permission from company representative the file will be restored. Taivo (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Bergrid Fjose.jpg

Jeg ønsker å tilbakestille fjerning av bildet av tidl. stortingsrepresesntant og statsråd Bergfrod Fjose. Har sjekket bildet med hennes datter Arnhild Fjose, som bekrefter at bildet er tatt av fotograf Sturlason i 1970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effem (talk • contribs) 16:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Translation from Norwegian to English: I wish to roll back the deletion of the photo of the former member of the Stortinget and cabinet minister Bergfrod Fjose. I have checked with her daughter Arnhild Fjose, who has confirmed that this photo was taken by photographer Sturlason in 1970.
@Effem: Menar du Svein A. Sturlason (1906-1989)? Hur gick det till när Sturlason licensierade fotot med licensen CC-BY-SA-4.0? Går det att få licensen bekräftad på något sätt? English translation: Do you mean Svein A. Sturlason (1906-1989)? How did it came about that Sturlason licensed his photo under CC-BY-SA-4.0? Can the license be confirmed in some fashion? Thuresson (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose OP do not respond to relevant questions about this photo. Thuresson (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No explanation provided. Ankry (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Hcmute.svg

Request temporary undeletion so that I can download and post this file locally at the Vietnamese Wikipedia for the purposes of illustrating the vi:Trường Đại học Sư phạm Kỹ thuật Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh article at the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Cảm ơn.--Thienhau2003 (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Temporarily undeleted. --Yann (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Sep28 Woman of the Day.png

User:bjh21 informed on JuTa's talkpage for undeletion for it by the rationale Would you mind undeleting File:Sep28 Woman of the Day.png, which you speedily deleted for not having sources? I've been adding sources to files like it, and it would be good to get this one back and properly sourced before its day arrives. If you undelete it then I'll add the sources if no-one else gets there first.. I thought that this discussion should reach the correct space instead of a high-position user's talk-page. My opinion is that if the picture is inside commons project scope and users (including me) are interested in trying to retrieve its source, why can we temporarily undelete the image for like 3-5 days and try to do get it's source?

Warm Regards, Contributers2020Talk to me here 14:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Contributers2020: ✓ Done Yann (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Thank you. I've brought the sourcing and attribution up to what I think is an adequate standard. --bjh21 (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Sourcing done. --Yann (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Coat of Arms of the Republic of Cochinchina.svg

This image directly debunks the idea the cited West-German source "Neue und veränderte Staatswappen seit 1945 IIa, Die Wappen der Staaten Asiens" (1968), published in "Jahrbuch / Heraldischer Verein Zum Kleeblatt von 1888 zu Hannover" which states that French Cochinchina never had a coat of arms. Therefore overturning the original rationale that lead to the image's deletion.

I am currently doing research into this topic and can't find this file, I am quite sure that this is a fantasy, but I am not sure if this file is a contemporary misattribution or not. Anyhow if u deleted I would add "{{Disputed coat of arms}}" to it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Please specify what exactly do you request and why? Do you request for modifying the deleted description, reopening the DR or something else? Ankry (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: , just general undeletion, I plan on altering the description and tagging it as "disputed", but the reason given for deletion was one that isn't really an acceptable reason anymore. But I am planning on requesting on renaming it to "Alleged" or "fantasy". But I can't make a judgement without seeing the file. I suspect that it's the insignia of the Republican Guard, but again, I can't judge if I can't see the file. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
In order to override a DR decision we need a rationale that I do not see here. Ankry (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: , please always ping on this page, as I don't seem to get notifications for it in my e-mails. Regarding undeletion, the rationale for deletion was that the file was a fantasy, however, I suspect that it was merely misattributed, I am mostly requesting undeletion to see the file so I can work with it.
Furthermore, the claims by the original nominator merely States that heraldric source works claim that French Cochinchina never had a coat of arms, later discoveries could have been made and the file could as well have been the coat of arms of a body of the Cochinchinese Colonial Council, if I can't see the file I can't research it. Does the file look anything like this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
So I am  Neutral whether the COA is in scope or not. However I may  Weak support reopening the DR to take a decision there. Ankry (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment, regarding the original deletion, the cited source "Neue und veränderte Staatswappen seit 1945 IIa, Die Wappen der Staaten Asiens" (1968), published in "Jahrbuch / Heraldischer Verein Zum Kleeblatt von 1888 zu Hannover" is usually a reliable source for national coats of arms, but it's not infallible, the nominator at the time found a lot of coats of arms through this work and similar works, but they got the coat of arms of the Second (2nd) Republic of Vietnam wrong, recently a Vietnamese person made a YouTube presentation based on Vietnamese coats of arms on Wikipedia and the entire comment section was filled with users pointing out that the escutcheon of South Vietnam was missing 2 (two) dragons. Also that book didn't showcase the coat of arms of the French protectorate of Annam (something that was also uploaded by this very Sockmaster and later deleted upon request as being "likely a hoax" by the same person that started the DR), but a 1941 official government Vichy (German-Italian-Japanese collaboratist regime) French work showed these coats of arms to indeed be legitimate. I am not saying that the original image was legitimate, I am just saying that because I can't view it that I have no way if verifying it and misattributed coats of arms on Wikimedia Commons usually get tagged with "{{Disputed coat of arms}}" rather than outright deleted. Both the Sockmaster and the DR nominator have had a track record with mistakes in this field, both both the sockmaster and DR nominator are excellent intelligent people that know how to research these topics well. I just want the ability to conduct my own research into this file. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  I am an idiot, I just Ecosia searched (Ecosiad) in French rather than just in Vietnamese and I actually managed to find a contemporary French source showing a coat of arms of French Cochinchina among the first results. The internet is a very different place since the original Deletion Request was filed, but the whole reason the file was deleted was because the source consulted by the DR nominator stated that French Cochinchina never had any coat of arms. Now, the coat of arms I found in this image looks quite similar to the one the globally locked Sockmaster uploaded a few weeks ago with a more recent sockpuppet. I think that both the original DR nominator and globally locked Sockmaster in this care are very intelligent people with a strong dedication to research these things, and I am sure that either of them knows more about Vietnamese coats of arms than anyone here, but neither of them are infallible and the usually reliable West-German book on national coats of arms isn't infallible either. This image directly disproves the deletion rationale. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ankry: , out of curiosity (and because this is taking forever), could you please describe in words how this file looks like? What elements does it have like a large yellow stripe with three dark blue stripes in the middle. This way I can identify what it is and request it to be undeleted under its proper name if it's the insignia of another institution of the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina that is simply misattributed. Please always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Donald Trung: I have expressed my neutral opinion above, and nothing has changed. I do not think, that scope cases can be investigated here in details; at least I am not interested in such investigations. Unless they are obvious (eg. needed for an article, widely used in real world). That is why I suggested reopenning the DR. But I refuse to take a decision without a suporting opinion of another admin. If there is a consensus that the flags are in scope, we can go on. Ankry (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ankry: , also if I might add, the what I presumed was a fantasy flag from this very same Globally Locked Sockmaster that I requested undeletion for and was granted later turned out to be a legitimate flag. For years a lot of legitimate files have been deleted as "fantasies" because bad or incomplete sources. On this page (which also confirms what we all thought was a fantasy flag to be real) there is a badge, does the deleted file resemble this badge or an element of it? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. @Donald Trung: and @Ankry: , This request is now open since more then 3 months so I decided to close it. According to the DR, dating from 2013, A Coat of Arms of the Republic of Cochinchina did never exist, which is based on an independent source, athough indeed everything is fallable. Discussions about this fictional or real coat of arms could imho better take place between on the projects, with more experts on this subject and using more historic sources or results or recent research since 2013. It is noted that on the article currently a coat of arms is displayed, and there are more versions in Category:Coats of arms of French Cochinchina. Undeletion of this particular image does not facilitate the discussion about historic facts. Elly (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


  • @Ellywa: , the claim was that no coat of arms ever existed made by a user with a known track record of having historical images deleted as fantasies. This user also used a West German source to claim that the flag depicted here never existed. The claim that this coat of arms is a fantasy is controversial and even if it is a fantasy no consensus exists to blanket ban them. The original DR was faulty plus nobody can even research the authenticity of this coat of arms if nobody can see it. What baffles me is that throughout the entire three (3) months of this UnDR not a single admin gave a description of how this coat of arms looks, how can I even confirm if it's real or fake if I can't see it? He nominator claimed at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drapeau de la République Autonome de la Cochinchine.png" that the flag from the period was a fantasy, I later got it undeleted and it turned out to be a very real flag. Also, Hubert de Vries describes an insignia, defaulting to deletion here doesn't make sense, "Discussions about this fictional or real coat of arms could imho better take place between on the projects", discussions can't take place if there isn't a file to discuss, if nobody can see what they're discussing it's like asking a person whose born blind if they can confirm that a rainbow has red in it or not.

"Discussions about this fictional or real coat of arms could imho better take place between on the projects, with more experts on this subject and using more historic sources or results or recent research since 2013" this is arguing for de-centralized discussions on different wikiprojects where nobody could compare research, the Wikimedia Commonsshould be the website where its files are discussed, see for example these discussions, at any individual wiki this most likely wouldn't have resulted in anything other than users removing the image rather than replacing it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, you cannot research the authenticity of this coat of arms. But please stop asking for a description of a deleted image. Please focus on other sources then deleted images on Commons. Commons is not a source of information, it is only a database of images with descriptions. The original uploader has never commented to the discussion as far as I can see. Contact that person if you like. It is in the archive: User_talk:Shibo77/Arkivo#File:Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Republic_of_Cochinchina.svg Elly (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Torre Eifflel - panoramio.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ordinary lighting is not copyrightable per Yann in some UNDEL requests before. The particular court ruling refers to a specific lighting during the 90s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The lawsuit in question was about a specific lightshow and this image is far from ordinary lighting. In this image, the tower is illuminated in the French national colours blue white and red with the tower itself being white and red and a blueish beam emanating from the top of the structure. In my book that is creative enough for copyright. De728631 (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support as per my previous comments on this issue: light is not copyrightable. The court ruling refers to a light show with fireworks, etc. Yann (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. @JWilz12345: states ordinary lighting is not copyrightable, which seems obvious. This particular image does not show ordinary lighting as described by De728631. With COM:PRP in mind, it appears best to not undelete this photo. I always bear in mind that third parties may reuse material from Commons in a book or on a website, trusting they can use it within the licensing, but might run into severe trouble. Elly (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Parque Lezama - 297.JPG

Donated in 1910 by The Kingdom of Italy {{PD-ItalyGov}}. And copies made by Argentine Government, so {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} can be applied. --GM83 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Info Deleted after nomination, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parque Lezama - 297.JPG. Thuresson (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 Support per provided rationale. It makes the PCP based arguments from the DR void, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankry (talk • contribs) 13:18, 24 September 2021‎ (UTC)
 Support The sculpture in the deleted image is not the same one as the sculpture linked above. As a general rule, even faithful copies of paintings and sculpture have their own copyright. As Taivo pointed out in the DR, this was probably done in the 1930s by an unknown sculptor. Since this was almost certainly a gift from Mussolini, who died in 1945, it was first published before then. That satisfies {{PD-AR-Anonymous}}. It was probably sculpted in Italy, but never published there, so the interaction of the 70 year rule for anonymous works in Italy and the URAA is not a problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:UP.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/File:UP.jpg. If the image shows the public-domain Quezon Hall of UP Diliman, completed in 1950, then this can be restored. (Pre-December 15, 1972 architecture work) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Support The image is of University of the Philippines Diliman Quezon Hall. The restoration will take a little work, as at the moment the last two entries in the file are an unrelated redirect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: 1950 building -- no copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Jerí Ramón Ruffner, rectora de la UNMSM 2021.jpg

Mi nombre de usuario es JeremyCami12 

Pido encaecidamente no eliminar mi foto: File:Jerí Ramón Ruffner, rectora de la UNMSM 2021.jpg

Me siento profundamente triste al saber que una fotografia de mi propiedad la están eliminando arbitrariamente, pueden comprobar por ustedes mismos y en ningún lugar del internet lo encontrarán... Yo llevo años como editor de Wikipedia y me sorprende esta actitud, espero su respuesta.

Jeremy Loarte Jerecami12 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jerecami12: While the deletion nomination and deletion rationale are mistakenly wrong, please note, that only original photos made personally by the uploader can be uploaded as Own work. This one is low resolution (0.4 Mpx is far below resolution of any modern digital camera) and does not contain original metadata. If you are the photographer, please upload the original image or please explain why you do not to our VRT team following VRT process and convice them that you are indeed the photographer. Ankry (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Per above: VRT permission needed. Ankry (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Zlatko Krmpotic, fotografija sa dodele pehara.jpg

I would ask you to return the photo to my file so I can use it for my article. Thank you in advance.

Sunce07 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Will be undeleted when your message to OTRS has been properly processed by an OTRS volunteer. Thuresson (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Waiting for VRT/OTRS. Ankry (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Les sculptures de paille.JPG

Snowmen in Russia. A.Savin
Les sculptures de paille 1
Les sculptures de paille 2
Les sculptures de paille 3

The file was deleted with the following wording: "Work of contemporary art. Sadly, no Panorama Freedom in Belarus." (@A.Savin: )

However, for this object in Belarus there is a license {{PD-BY-exempt}}: "Works of folk art which authors are unknown."

Please restore this file under the {{PD-BY-exempt}} license. — Alexey Tourbaevsky, cheloVechek / talk 16:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose leaning to oppose as modern sculptures seem to be uneligible for "folk art" classification. If "folk art" it must subsume elements of "traditional music, tales, etc." (per AfBorchert at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monument to slaves in Zanzibar.jpg). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@François GOGLINS: : "We are serious? It is about a pile of straw bundles, installed by a farmer. The details of the mouth are marked with a spray of paint. If we consider this man of straw as a work of art, it will be necessary to delete all the snowmen." — Alexey Tourbaevsky, cheloVechek / talk 16:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I suspect Belorussian originality threshold might be lower than France's (maybe similar to Russia's?), so the comparison is flawed. (But it seems there is no COM:TOO Belarus entry). Anyway, images of Santa Claus statues from no FOP countries have been deleted, such as this (no FOP for temporal works in Germany) and this (no FOP in the Philippines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Where can you discuss when a decorated haystack is high art, when it is folk art, and when not? Please, write. — Alexey Tourbaevsky, cheloVechek / talk 17:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@CheloVechek: this and other copyright-related questions are best discussed at COM:Village pump/Copyright. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose This is certainly sculpture and does not qualify as "folk art". And, yes, snowmen are also sculpture; we should not keep images of them unless we have a free license from the creator or they qualify for FoP.

And, by the way, during the DR, User:CheloVechek removed the geotag and then attempted to have the image saved because we then did not know where it was from..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I could not remove the geotag because it was not there initially. I photographed the subject with an ordinary digital camera. I set the approximate coordinates of the place when I passed the border of Belarus and Russia. At that time, in 2014, there was no border, and it was a problem to remember this place using the same fields. — Alexey Tourbaevsky, cheloVechek / talk 17:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. This appears not traditional folk art. It clearly shows personal creativity of the maker, perhaps inspired by folk art but adding own design elements. Elly (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Howard_Fields.jpg

image is official profile picture, authorized by the person who the page is for. undelete DGranados0809 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. @DGranados0809: Not the person on the image should give permission, but the photographer should. Please follow the procedure on COM:VRT. If succesful, the image can be undeleted. Elly (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Jennifer Goodridge in 2018.jpg

Hi, I'm Jennifer Goodridge and I own the copyright to this photo. I'm not sure why it's been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godisdeadisdead (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done not an undeletion request. Ankry (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


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

File:"Bila_Mencintaimu"_Album_Artwork.jpg

Can someone please have a look onto this file? Per Ticket:2021092610003633 we a permission from the media company (Fusion Records MY Studio) which claims to hold the copyright. Please restore the file if the claim is plausible. --Mussklprozz (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Undeleted. @Mussklprozz: Please, continue the verification process. Ankry (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:M59.jpg

NOAO images are now available under CC-BY 4.0 as part of NOIRLab. [15] Source image and DR for reference. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The stated conditions do not conform to CC-BY 4.0. The requirement that "the credit should not be hidden or disassociated from the image" prevents use on WP, since credits there are never on the same page as the image, but always on the Commons or WP page that hosts the image. It also prevents use in print media where all the credits are collected in one place. That is unacceptable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

We already have many NOIRLab images on Commons. Does this mean they all have to be deleted? Ixfd64 (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Someone interested in the subject could reach out to NOIRLab and explain to them that their license terms prohibit the use of their images on Commons and Wikipedia. That would be the best solution. Otherwise, yes, we are violating the license every time one of their images is used on WP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
For reference: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-insist-on-the-exact-placement-of-the-attribution-credit clpo13(talk) 19:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. That points out that if they insist on exact placement of the credit, as the NOIRLab does, they can no longer call it a CC license. I have sent an email to Noirlab requesting that they change the license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Let's hold this for a few days -- the lab responded to my email very quickly, promising to change the license..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: NOIRLab has removed the offfending sentence and now conforms to the CC license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:JoilsonMelo.jpg

The resolution of the photo added here (3,859 × 5,781 pixels) on wikimedia and much higher than the photo in the highlighted link, we know that if you go up to pixel amount of a photo it will be distorted, so if someone copy the photo it was not wikipedia, the photo added on wikimedia is the original and not a copy, reported in the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathXplorr (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close -- the file has not been deleted and does not have either a speedy or a dr on it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Venafi_logo.svg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2021092710008485. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored by -Túrelio , closed by. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2021-09&oldid=594532525"