This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
My reason is that I think it would help those that need to deal with electric vehicle emergencies.
I do not see how to determine why it was rejected.
Could instructions be sent to me at electrpow@aol.com explaining how to get to the reasons for why it was rejected and perhaps to tell me how I can get it accepted?
Oppose Wikipedia does not use PDFs and we do not keep such PDFs here. If you want to write an article on Wikipedia, do it in Wikipedia markup, but be warned, Wikipedia does not accept original research, so your article will almost certainly be rejected. Please do not raise this issue again. If you do, you may be blocked from editing on Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose This permission is not equal to CC-BY-SA-4.0: "you may distribute it by sharing, embedding or referring to it, but for non-commercial purposes only." Thuresson (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Not done: The previous versionof this file was deleted a year ago. The current version does not have a DR or speedy tag, so there is no immediate reason to believe that it will be deleted. There is nothing to be done here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not done As per Jim. VRT permission from the photographer (with an evidence that they are the photographer) is needed. Ankry (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reopened -- the file was deleted as a personal photo at 16:00 September 29.
Oppose It's also probably a copyvio. The names of the uploader, the author and the subject are the same, and it does not appear to be a selfie, so in order to restore it we will (1) need to be convinced that it is not out of scope as a peersonal photo and (2) have a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Support The logo is simply the name in Chinese and Latin characters. The company is based in San Francisco, so only US law applies. Simple three word logos have no copyright in the US. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
A great deal has been made on Undeletion requests over the copyright status of photographs taken by third parties working for NASA time, time, and time again. However, here's a unique case I want to bring to the table; photographs by non-NASA astronauts working aboard NASA vehicles during NASA missions. These two images (and one cropped version) were deleted on the basis that they were taken by Thomas Pesquet, a European Space Agency astronaut, and therefore aren't NASA images. For context, Pesquet is a crewmember of Expedition 65, a joint NASA–Roscosmos human spaceflight mission. As part of the mission, he lives and works NASA's United States Orbital Segment of the International Space Station.
The original source for the two photographs uploaded were the Flickr page for NASA's Johnson Space Center (Photo 1, Photo 2). There is no other original source for these images, and they do not even appear on the European Space Agency's website. NASA's media usage policy states that "NASA content generally are not subject to copyright in the United States." Curiously, it also states that "If copyright is indicated on any NASA materials, permission should be obtained from the indicated copyright owner prior to use." Johnson does in fact publish images on Flickr under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license incompatible with COM:L, but as others have pointed out, 17 U.S.C.§ 101 and § 105 outlines that copyright protection is "not available" for "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". Pesquet took these photographs using NASA's Nikon D5 cameras while assisting in upgrading NASA's Integrated Truss Structure during an EVA on 12 September 2021 managed by NASA from a control center at Johnson. A touched-up variant of the first photograph, published on Thomas Pesquet's Flickr page days afterward, is even credited as "ESA/NASA–T. Pesquet", explicitly recognizing NASA as a creator. The person(s) managing Johnson's Flickr page were performing work for NASA, and one could make an argument here that, for at the very least the duration of the EVA, Pesquet was performing work specifically for NASA, too. Thoughts? – The Unsinkable Molly Brown (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose It is well established that in order for {{PD-USGov}} to apply, the photographer must be an employee of the Federal government whose duties as an employee include photography. We regularly delete images made by people who are working for the Federal government in capacities other than employees, including consultants, contractors, and commissioned artists. Such people regularly retain copyright to their works. There is no evidence that Pesquet was ever an employee of the Federal government. In fact, there is no evidence that he was ever paid by by the Federal government -- he is an employee of and paid by ESA. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment ESA is a partner, so the ISS is not only a NASA–Roscosmos program. Pesquet is not employed by NASA, but by the ESA. I don't see how these could be works by NASA, even if taken with NASA equipment. Maybe we could ask the license on Flickr to be changed, but otherwise I don't see how we could host them. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. This request may be based on a misunderstanding of the dynamics of the International Space Station. It is international, not merely a joint NASA-Roscosmos venture. It includes partner countries from all over the world, and individual astronauts are bound by the laws and rules of their home countries and agencies. Just like NASA cannot remove copyright from an image simply by posting it to their website (which is something far too many people assume), a non-NASA astronaut working with NASA equipment does not lose their rights. Like Hubble Telescope is a joint NASA/ESA venture, but photographs released by ESA are not released from copyright (and credits are in that ESA/NASA format), photographs by an ESA employee that have been touched by NASA personnel also do not lose their copyright. — Huntster (t@c)20:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Yikes. Hm. Obviously, any contracts between ESA and NASA regarding Pesquet's participation would rule, if they said anything about copyright. Without knowing that, we'd just have to guess. Photos taken on their own time with their own cameras would be the astronaut's own personal copyright, of course. I doubt that anything done on an EVA would qualify for that. If the U.S. government was simply using a run-of-the-mill contractor instead of an employee, then usually that would amount to a work for hire, and also be PD-USGov. But for specialized expertise that employees don't have, such as artists (and I presume astronauts), that does not hold. If NASA asked him to take photos at that time (i.e. that was part of his assigned duties), and it was under NASA's direction, and they were taken with NASA-owned equipment, there could be an argument of work for hire -- but it would rely on agency law definition of "employee", and that's probably a tenuous argument here. It's still much fuzzier than ESA Hubble stuff, where ESA provides the direction and the Hubble is just the tool, and ESA obviously owns copyright. If such images only show up on NASA sites with a NASA credit, I'd probably allow them. I'm not really as confident in these though, which showed up on Pesquet's own page, and do have a clear ESA credit (which is not the same thing as claiming ownership, as they are often just a list of the entities which contributed, sometimes including the equipment manufacturers, who would not own any part of a copyright).
In general, U.S. copyright law defines a work for hire as that of an employee in the course of their duties, and for contractors only if mutually agreed and only for certain types of work. So, the only automatic way is for an "employee". In Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, the Supreme Court said that general common law of agency must be used to decide on the difference between employee and contractor, and I think Restatement of the Law of Agency, Third is the current version of that. Under that law, the distinction is more about who is controlling the work and providing supplies -- there is a definition of an employee is an agent whose principal controls or has the right to control the manner and means of the agent's performance of work. (A bit more info at User talk:Clindberg/archives 7#Local_California_officials_and_copyright.) They note an independent contractor is harder to define, and thus best avoided in contract language, but one older definition was a person who contracts with another to do something for him but who is not controlled by the other nor subject to the other's right to control with respect to his physical conduct in the performance of the undertaking. It would probably be only via that logic arguing, for that EVA at least, Pesquet amounted to a NASA employee, and thus it was a work for hire. Not impossible, but not something I'd want to stand on either. Agency law in that area is more about who has liability if that person does some damage -- if you are controlling someone's work, and they do something which creates damage, then you are liable. In an abnormal situation like the ISS, that is far less certain to apply.
There is a NASA-ESA Agreement regarding the respective responsibilities regarding the ISS. I don't see anything in there specifically about copyright, but it does say that NASA will be financially responsible for all compensation, medical expenses, subsistence costs on Earth, and training for Space Station crew which it provides. ESA will be financially responsible for all compensation, medical expenses, subsistence costs on Earth, and training for Space Station crew which it provides. This is not on Earth, but presumably the ESA is still paying the salary. There is also a Public Information section, which says that Within the Public Affairs Plan guidelines, both NASA and ESA will retain the right to release public information on their respective portions of the program. I can't find the Public Affairs Plan, but it seems more likely that any work product done as part of the mission is cross-licensed such that both NASA and ESA has rights to publish it, but that falls short of actually placing things in the public domain or transferring copyright. I did run across a Space Act Agreements Guide, which is I guess is a general guide for agreements NASA makes with other parties. In general the focus is on as wide dissemination as possible, but it does note that The clauses do not alter the ability of the partner to assert copyright in its works of authorship created under the SAA, but the partner is required to grant NASA a license in the copyrighted material to reproduce, distribute, and prepare derivative works for any purpose. There are suggested contract clauses, but again they fall short of public domain -- NASA likely has the ability to do whatever it wants with the work, and authorize others to use it on NASA's behalf, which is wide-ranging license but not the same thing as PD-USGov. Most likely to me, it's an ESA work that NASA has pretty free reign over. Lots of gray area, and one of those that probably would not ever cause a problem. But not sure I would claim PD status without checking with ESA, so probably lean Oppose. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
This image has been hosted on Commons for over a decade, and was deleted after a crusade of nominations based on "It's not a real proposal!", an argument that has been pointed out several times as faulty, and "It's a hoax", a similar logic that I have pointed out as incorrect within this context. Furthermore, the rationale used by the closing admin is faulty, in that whether or not an image is in use does not change whether a series of deletion nominations is considered "repetitive" or not. Nominating an image multiple times with the same or similar rationale is in and of itself repetitive. The image qualifies to be on Commons as a proposed flag of Iraq because there was a genuine period of time where the national flag of Iraq was debated and opened to proposals, it isn't something someone just pulled out of a hat for their own amusement with no "real world" context. That makes the image inherently in scope. Fry1989eh?15:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Support Scope is inherently subjective, and the closing admin should not arbitrarily decide against the consensus of the participants. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠21:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Support Scope is inherently subjective, and the closing admin should not arbitrarily decide against the consensus of the participants. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠02:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
It does not show either of the two structures particularly well.
Most important, the image is not at all sharp -- we might keep it if it were the only image we have of an important object, but that's clearly not the case here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Gerçekler: In order to consider some work not copyrighted, you need to provide the appropriate copyright law exception that applies to it (both: in local and US copyright law). Ankry (talk) 09:59, 30 September 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.
@Gerçekler: Content of archives mey still be copyrighted. And being available is irrelevant for Commons as we do not accept Fair Use. In order to verify its public domain status you need to provide appropriate copyright law exception or an evidence of copyright expiration. Ankry (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
1942 anonymous works may be indeed public domain, but we need some evidence of this as their status depends on publication country (eg. some 1942 anonymous publications from Germany may be copyrighted in US till 2038 per URAA). We need evidence of publication date, and evidence that the brochure is anonymous. Also, the AH image used copyright status needs to be resolved (it is unlikely that the image was not published earlier). Ankry (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Agreed. There are three images on the brochure. In order to restore it, it will have to be proven that all three are PD. That would be true only if all three are anonymous or if their author died before 1951. None of that has been proven here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
This picture comes from Turkish government archives and publication. In turkish wikipedia also I add citation from this publication. There is no copyright law for this picture also this picture was taken in 1913 so it is not in copyrights law.(Gerçekler (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC))
Comment The image has not yet been deleted, but it probably should be. 1913 is too recent to assume that the author has been dead for 70 years and there is no evidence that it was published before 1951. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
In the original request I noted "In chief are the arms of the Republic: Or, a pale Azure charged with two pallets Argent." (while asking admins for a description), well, that is exactly how this file looks. Hubert de Vries is a trusted name in heraldry and on his website he shows a picture of this exact coat of arms in the insignia of the Republican Guard. This is literally what I argued in the first (1st) request and got ignored. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The claim "that is exactly how this file looks" is a misrepresentation of " the shape is quite the same, and the 2 central stripes are white instead of yellow" ([2]), which means nothing like "exactly how this file looks. The previous request ended with an admonishment to stop making this same request … GPinkerton (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
In reference to the file Ellywa linked below, which is the coat of arms alleged by Ethnia, I have e-mailed Ethnia for a source but haven't heard anything back. It looks exactly what is claimed by Hubert de Vries, the website that is also quoted as the source for "File:Imperial Seal of the Mughal Empire.svg", of course if you wish to misrepresent this you are free to do so, but this coat of arms is based on "File:Flag of Republic of Cochinchina (variant).svg", a flag falsely deleted as "a fantasy" several times but later turned out to be the correct flag. "The previous request ended with an admonishment to stop making this same request …" also a misrepresentation, the previous request ended with a note by the closing sysop saying that she will not give a description of how it looks, which is kind of suspicious since I gave a description that turned out to be exactly how it looks, meaning that if she described it she would find out that it's the same as an external source I quoted. This is only the second (2nd) time I've made this request and it is based on different information. The initial request was to restore it and tag it as a fantasy (in case I cannot confirm its authenticity, now I know that it's the coat of arms mentioned by Hubert de Vries, a trusted name in heraldry that also consulted the source "Neue und veränderte Staatswappen seit 1945 IIa, Die Wappen der Staaten Asiens. In: Jahrbuch / Heraldischer Verein Zum Kleeblatt von 1888 zu Hannover". 1968. P. 67. note 148." and came to different conclusions to user "Antemister", note that also a number of sources claim that the flag linked before was a later made fantasy, but this was also debunked). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
So? I had no idea how the deleted coat of arms looked like (as you continuously kept saying that you refuse to give me anyminor descriptions of it), so if the deleted file resembled it I could not have known how it looked, if it vaguely looks similar or the same one can't say that I could have known at the time of uploading. I can't confirm that it's the actual coat of arms but it has been alleged by one external source which is known for collecting coats of arms and is sometimes accurate and sometimes not. It included a lot of Vietnamese coats of arms that I later found out to be accurate, but also a number of odd choices (like using military insignias as "emblems" and "symbols" of a territory). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Elly and User:Jamzze, I can't remember the ins and outs of it but I think I uploaded over 1-3 thousand if not more files all in one go and I can only assume I either believed at that time these wouldn't be used OR I didn't know what categories these could go under as had so many to upload and categorise,
Reason: speedily deleted because "Media missing permission as of 9 April 2011." But there is a Wikivoyage copy, wikivoyage:File:Rabaul Harbor.jpeg, which appears to be having verified license (claimed to come from Wikitravel). Thus the "Media missing permission as of 9 April 2011" claim is invalid. FOP issue is irrelevant because greeneries and volcanoes are not copyrighted (it is plain stupid to claim a volcano as a copyrighted object). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)04:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose WV and WT are not valid sources. We need to know where the image actually came from, not its movement within Wikis. The license review on WT is questioned there.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I shouldn't have transferred this file back in 2012. I recall that it was a hectic time, as Wikivoyage was replete with broken images and there was a need to work under pressure, so inevitably mistakes were made. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
(If you prefer to answer is German, feel free. I am a German native speaker)
(Wenn Sie mir lieber auf Deutsch antworten möchten, sehr gerne.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariejuli (talk • contribs) 13:19, 1 October 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.
@Mariejuli: For previously published images we need a free license permission from the image actual copyright holder; either at the initial publication, or via email as described in VRT. Note, that permission just "to use" does not satisfy Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements and if the copyright holder is not the photorapher, we also need an evidence of copyright transfer in order to accept a permission. Ankry (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Contrary to the assertion above, the file is not freely licensed on the source web site, which says "The firm of Haimer GmbH allows the viewing and downloading of the contents of this website only for private, non-commercial purposes." NC licenses are not acceptable on Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: This means only that the first issue raised in the DR is not valid. What about the other two? The permission must still come from the copyright holder and be a free license permission. Pinging @Frode Inge Helland: the original nowiki uploader who may help to resolve the issues. Ankry (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The fact that it might be a {{Grandfathered old file}} is irrelevant. The file description reads "Picture given, by Robert "Bud" Larsen, to be publishet on my website about the Helland Fiddle maker family. Frode Inge Helland". That is not a free license and is not acceptable on Commons. Note that I was the Admin who deleted it six years ago. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Fremdman: This was not deleted for permission/copyright reasons, but project scope. Basically, Ojo Olamide Enoch is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, so photos of him are not considered sufficiently useful for an educational purpose to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Looking at your other uploads, I see that File:Citation ojo olamide enoch.png refers to Citation, a notable film, but Olamide's role seems too minor to be realistically useful for illustrating an article on the film as he doesn't even appear on the credits of the film poster. Could you provide an example of a Wikimedia page where a photo of him might be used? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠04:51, 3 October 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 The watermark is irrelevant. What is important is that we have
DescriptionUndeletion requests/Archive/2021-10
English: District Commander Hizb
Date
Source
Viral Picture of Hizbul Mujahideen Commander
Author
Not Known
and a CC-BY-SA license. Obviously an unknown author did not issue a CC license. Just because a photo is "viral" doesn't mean that it does not have a copyright. This cannot be kept on Commons without evidence that the actual photographer has freely licensed it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Per Jim. We need a licence from the actual photographer or a compelling reason why this is not copyrightable. --De728631 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Procedural close: The file is not yet deleted. @SantoFilms: I have left a note on your talk page regarding how you can confirm the permission via email. Please make sure to send the email within 7 days, or the image may be deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠21:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The photo entitled jason_sherman_public.jpg was a photo that I took as a photographer when the person in question had hired me to take his photograph. He asked me to upload the photo to wikimedia commons under public domain, so therefore it should not be deleted.
There has never been a file with that name on Commons. Your only action on Commons is posting this UnDR, so you cannot have uploaded the file, I suggest you post either the name you used to upload the file or the correct file name. Note that capitalization counts in file names. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 2 October 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.
Aside from the fact that the requester has not give us a reason, we have a completely blank file description.
No information, description, or license. Useless. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe there is fair and rational grounds to allow one copy of this photo to be used on the biographical page of the late Mr Tom Hooson on the same grounds as this photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hywel_Francis_MP.jpg
Oppose Commons does not allow fair use. All uploads here need to be free for anyone for any type of use. You may want to upload the image directly at the English Wikipedia though with a fair use rationale. De728631 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@116.48.227.228: for any of the aforementioned images to be restored, the artwork must satisfy two conditions at COM:FOP Taiwan - these must be in "outdoor places open to the public" and their presence or display is "on a long-term basis" (in short permanence). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)05:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
as these show an outdoor sculpture that I assume is still present there. Ping Mk2010 (one of the files' uploaders as seen in the upload log) and 廣九直通車 to verify if the Buddha statue still exists today. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)01:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Support 8 files JWilz... mentioned, Oppose the rest, those which I support are clearly permantly located outdoor, some may even not be 2D but 3D works. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The copyright category status of the picture was unclear earlier due to which the picture was deleted.
But now a CC-0 category seems to be most appropriate for the file, so undeletion and placement of file in cc-0 is requested now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMSalman (talk • contribs) 08:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
File deleted by user, similar issue to the 56a Infoshop picture deletion. Would be great to undelete it for the page's gallery. Jamzze (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi De728631 and Jamzze, I can't remember the ins and outs of it but I think I uploaded over 1-3 thousand if not more files all in one go and I can only assume I either believed at that time these wouldn't be used OR I didn't know what categories these could go under as had so many to upload and categorise,
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.
You need to provide evidence of free license or an authorized representative of the logo copyright holder needs to follow VRT process. Ankry (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Solicito a restauração do arquivo "Gruta de Santo Expedito em Itatira.jpg". A Página no facebook que, supostamente teve os direitos autorais feridos me pertence e a foto, nomeada como "Gruta de Santo Expedito em Itatira.jpg", é de minha autoria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valberto Silva (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we cannot verify this. For published images, you need to provide an evidence of free license at the initial pubvlication site or the photographer should follow VRT process. Ankry (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose We need verifiable evidence of your authorship. Please send a permission by email as explained in COM:VRT, or provide a free licence for the image at your Facebook page. De728631 (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
This is my scan of a sheet of U.S. postage stamps. It is the work of the U.S. government and so is not copyrighted. Bubba73 (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Withdraw request. Sorry, I didn't know that US stamps after 1/1/78 (or whatever) were copyrighted. I thought none were. Bubba73 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Google translate: "I used my mobile phone to shoot, and I can't provide the relevant records of the digital camera. I don't understand the reason why it was deleted, and I asked for an explanation or restoration of the deletion.". Thuresson (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
רפאל ויסמן במרכז עם חברי סניף גורדוניה בפודבולוצ'סקה.jpg
this photo from about 1930 is my private property. I found it in my late father family album.
It show my father and his friends of the Gordonia Zionizt youth movement in the town Podwołoczyska,now in Ukrane.
the name of the photographer is of course unknown to us.
thank you for your cooperation
Ruchka43 (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The problem here is that owning the copy of a photo does not make you own its copyright. Copyright is held by the original photographer or their heirs. Unfortunately anonymous works from Ukraine are also protected for a term of 70 years from their first publication, so if this has been resting in your family's photo albums, the copyright term would now become effective when you publish it here. To sum it up, I don't think we can restore this file. De728631 (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done Copyright did not expire, yet. Free license permission from the copyright holder is needed. But they need to be identified, first. Ankry (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi, I made a mistake when posting copyright protected images without putting the source. Yesterday I posted a photo that had been deleted by copyright, but this time I did it correctly. However, the photo was deleted because it had already been posted the day before. Therefore, I would like you to approve the image, as I have posted the source and it can now remain on Wikimedia.--RafaelArccanjo (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 license requires that the author is credited. Who should be credited for this photo?
Previously published at facebook.com without a free license
Conditions of use from ajuda.sapo.pt: "Do not make available, send, use or share any content or material that you do not have the right or authorization to use or make available under any law, particularly when this violates MEO's or third parties' intellectual property rights" Original: Não disponibilize, envie, utilize ou partilhe qualquer conteúdo ou material que não tenha o direito ou a autorização para utilizar ou disponibilizar ao abrigo de qualquer lei, nomeadamente quando isso viole direitos de propriedade intelectual da MEO ou de terceiros
Oppose re-creation. Just a hoax; its only use was on a highly problematic page which is a magnet for self-created flags by self-appointed vexillologists. BTW @Mdaniels5757: your link to the Village Pump doesn't work, it seems to lead back to this page. GPinkerton (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Reason: The file was removed because it was uploaded to Commons the same day it was uploaded to Flickr. I really don't think that's a rational reason to delete a file. I would appreciate if you could review it. Sargen220 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
See COM:Flickrwashing: we have serious doubts whether the Flickr account belongs to the photographer and so whether the declared license is legally valid. This can be resolved if the copyright holder contacts VRT and provides appropriate evidence. Ankry (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The picture was a screenshot from a video that was originally uploaded on YouTube under a CC license. The licensing originally did not reflect that but was updated to reflect it after the picture was marked for deletion.
Oppose These were all taken from the same video. Forgive me if I am missing something here, but at the end of the video I see a clear and explicit copyright notice for Ideastream Public Media. I do not see a free license anywhere. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose As a general rule, each image in a collage must be uploaded separately to Commons with appropriate description and license. Since this has no description at all except for the name of the city and no categories, it is essentially useless. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm 50/50 on it - I like the mountain with the sun behind it and I feel the file has some use to it however as Gbawden states it is fairly dark, IMHO the file would be better suited to Category:Sunlight which hosts 600 odd images of the sun (some good, some worse than this image) but anyway I wanted to leave this here and see what others think, Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk12:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I stand by what I said when I deleted it. Its a low quality image and too dark to be usable. We have hundreds of sunset photos you can use if thats what you want it for Gbawden (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
---
Not done - Thanks Jameslwoodward for your comments. As I said I was 50/50 on this and sort of did and didn't see some potential in it. Meh it's always good to get different opinions on things, Anyway thanks again James. –Davey2010Talk12:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nominated by myself and deleted by Minorax, but the file was in fact COM:INUSE on the uploader's user page, in the sense of "The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project"; at the time, I had not seen that this was the case. Therefore I think its admissibility should be reviewed. GPinkerton (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of process deletions by INeverCry (Uploads by 南文會館)
INeverCry has / had the nasty habit of nuking any socks they came across, often deleting valuable free images in doing so, not only is this against policy, it actively harms the scope of Wikimedia Commons as its scope is hosting free educational images, not just free educational images as long as they're uploaded by "the right users", while inspecting some Musée Annam socks I came across this:
This user uploaded a number of Vietnamese flags of differing value, judging from the titles I can find a large number of fantasies ("Flags of the XXX Dynasty") and also a number of legitimate titles. The problem is that an INC sock nuked them, preferably I would like for all of these files to be undeleted, upon undeletion I would categorise all fantasy flags as being fantasy flags and request renaming of them as fantasy flags, for example "Flag of the X Dynasty" would become "Fantasy flag of the X Dynasty" (note that these circulate widely online and in nationalistic re-writes of Vietnamese history, so they do have an educational value, I just believe that they should be properly marked as hoaxes and then explain in the description their origins and perhaps note that flag culture as we know it today didn't exist). Note that in a number of cases such "dynastic flags" were actually based on Imperial Standards or Military Standards (such as the one of Quang Trung, also on Wikimedia Commons in the past uploaded by a Musée Annam sock, but I haven't been able to find it, this one actually has historical documentation, but wasn't a national flag like some Vietnamese nationalists like to claim). The other flags are those of political parties or small Vietnamese polities. The deletion rationale constantly seems to be "vi.wiki sockpuppet uploads" (for example here), which isn't one grounded in any actual policy, note that the deleting admin later bragged about their number of admin actions, so this might have been an ego trip to bloat those numbers. Note that upon undeletion I will immediately mark the fantasies and remove them from any categories that would falsely give them legitimacy. Please always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: This is not a venue to discuss user problems. If you need some images to be undeleted, please, list them here and provide a common reason for their undeletion that applies to all of them. If there are various reasons for deletion/undeletion among the images, then the image undeletion should be requested in separate sections. Ankry (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
If the uploader is a suckpuppet, the deletions were not out of process. Some actions of this admin were valid, some were abusive. If this one was abusive, an evidence is needed (the account is still marked as a sockpuppet), but this is not the right venue to discuss this.
We generally do not want to support sockpuppets as Wikimedia contributors
If the images are needed in Wikimedia and not the sockpuppet operator's own works, it is preferred to reupload them by a valid user
If the undeletion is still needed, we need an explanation why the images are needed in Wikimedia on per image basis
Massive undeletion tools require direct list of image links here. The permanent list is also needed for archiving purposes.
(Edit conflict because another section was edited, how is this page useful?) Wasn't pinged, please always ping on this page as this page notifies users about all changes not just the ones relevant to them (it seems almost by design that undeletions are difficult while deletions are easy), please point to the policy where sock uploads are prohibited? The community rejected this several times already. As for having to list every file individually, that just seems unnecessarily tedious for the sake of bureaucracy, there are deletion requests that are titled "All files uploaded by User:XXX", but somehow it is bad to file the exact same thing for undeletions. My argument is that these flags are in scope. As for fantasy flags, that should be decided on a case-by-case basis, some fantasy flags have been attributed or commonly mistaken in many (otherwise) trustworthy educational sources, being able to document which flags are real and fantasy is a part of a mission to educate, not spreading new fantasies. Also, the other non-fantasy flags are legitimate. "If the images are needed in Wikimedia and not the sockpuppet operator's own works, it is preferred to reupload them by a valid user" This makes no sense, how can I (re-)upload files I can't see? Also if the sockpuppeteer vectorised them or created them, wouldn't it be a copyright violation for another user to claim for it to be "their" works?
Regarding that discussion, I wasn't aware of that, I generally don't follow Administrators' Noticeboards as I am "too busy for such drama", I don't even get why policy issues are discussed there. But unless that discussion ends with claiming all fantasy flags to be out of scope I don't think that it would be bad to undelete the fantasy flags of this sock, but still, it contains plenty of non-fantasies. Filing an individual request for them would simply be too tedious. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment, reading through that AN discussion, it isn't really relevant here, those are user generated fantasy flags, these are based on fantasies from Vietnamese nationalist revisionist history publications (often, and unfortunately, with scholarly and government backing to sell nationalism through history, but that's another discussion). Some of these sources were cited on Wikipedia before being removed, the sockmaster created free versions of the fantasy flags from those publications. Several others of his work haven't been deleted and are properly tagged as either fantasy or reliable. I don't see the value for people to delete free educational content. If "a valid user" is needed to stand behind these uploads then I am willing to do that. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Support - I still maintain to this very day that sock images should under no circumstance be allowed here .... however unfortunately they are and as such INC's sock deletions aren't valid and should be overturned. If I can't have sock images deleted then I don't see why anyone else can, might seem petty but shouldn't be one rule for one and one rule for another. –Davey2010Talk13:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the reason for deleting many sock images is that ordinarily we Assume Good Faith. With socks, that must not be the case, so the rule becomes "If there is any doubt, delete". In the case of INC's deletions, there may be good images among many not so good, so they must be dealt with on a case by case basis, not in bulk, as proposed here. There is nothing more to do here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: , it would be horribly tedious to nominate every individual flag from this user for undeletion, in most cases I would have to re-use of one two arguments (1) this fantasy lag was seriously proposed by a number of Vietnamese historians and history scholars, and (2) it's an in scope free image of a historical Vietnamese organisation. All these images apply to either of these. I don't see why I should waste several hours filing undeletion requests for each one individually to wait a month for them to be u deleted. If deletion requests worked like this we would have a lot more copyright violations. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Donald Trung, the title of this UnDR calls out all of INC's deletions of sock puppet uploads, hence my comment above. I have no problem at all if you want to request undeletion of a specified list of closely related items. Making that list may be tedious, but you are the only one who knows what you think belongs on it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
For context, these fantasy Vietnamese flags are all (unfortunately) on display at the Military History Museum of Vietnam (Bảo tàng Lịch sử Quân sự Việt Nam), it is not as if I wish for some random proposals for historical flags to be restored by some random user(s), these flags are actually used by an educational institution to spread misinformation and not having them on Wikimedia Commons to explain their context actually prevents people from educating others about their historical inaccuracies. In some cases these were imperial standards misreported as "national flags" (something that only became a concept in Vietnam in the 19th (nineteenth) century). They are fully within scope, I just think that they should be properly labeled before we have another good faith contributor add them or find some educator doing research thinking that they have "a scoop Wikipedia doesn't have". Personally I prefer to add them in a list article and explain their context as misreported flags of Vietnamese dynasties and why they're illegitimate, that has more of an educational value than denying their existence altogether regardless of why they were deleted. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
FYI, the article where I want to add those fantasy flags has a "misattributed flags" section and since those fantasy flags are widely circulating online it might be wise to point out that they're fake. The educational value of the fantasy flags is thus to warn people about the fact that such fantasies exist. Adding them to another Wikimedia website should automatically make them in scope, so I don't see why these files shouldn't be undeleted. Please always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Where the flags can / will be used
Comment, at "List of flags of Vietnam" I can add all of these flags (after additional research), the elemental flags are cultural flags and will be listed as such and were used during the Nguyễn Dynasty period and sources that mention them are already in the article, furthermore the flag proposals were some of the 50+ (fifty plus) proposals that all failed during the First Republic of Vietnam (as the yellow flag with three (3) red stripes was perceived as being a remnant of the old Monarchist order), as these are "large proposals" their exclusion is actively doing the readers a disservice. The fantasy flags already have a section at "Misattributed flags", I am planning on making a whole section on the supposed flags of the Đại Việt quốc (大越國) and how these fantasies came to be (as they are heavily circulated on the web as they are actually based on historical Chinese / Vietnamese flags). So none of these flags are actively "Out of scope". Another page where the proposals can be used is "List of national flag proposals". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The Drapeaux des cinq elements will be used in an article I an now writing about religious flags in Vietnam, these images are not out of scope and their current exclusion is doing the potential educational content that can be created with them a major disservice. One small note is that "Drapeaux" is plural --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: , excuse me for calling you out specifically, but as you raised the biggest concerns to this UnDR two (2) months ago and I have actually found a use case for each of the above files, have your feelings changed towards this UnDR? The specific files have been listed above and they are all in scope as the discussion didn't call for a blanket ban on fantasy flags (in fact there was consensus against it) and I specifically wish to use these images to fight misinformation by explaining their contexts on Wikipedia. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear above. My objection was solely that the UnDR calls out all of INC's sock deletions. I specifically said that if there was a specific list of UnDRs with good rationale, I would not oppose their restoration. That seems to have been satisfied with the lists above. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: , I will clean them up and re-categorise after undeletion, just ping me when done so I can make sure that they are in the correct categories and I will add sources if missing. (For example the Five (5) Elements flags were mentioned in a number of French books, but if only listed as "Own work" I will add a book 📙 or link as content verification. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe that the closing admin Jameslwoodward made a bit of a supervote here. Disregarding Joe Roe's non-policy-based !vote, there was unanimous consensus that File:The Origin of Races, map 13 (IA B-001-001-289).jpg (temporarily restored so non-admins can see the context) is still in copyright. However, while Fæ was the only one arguing that File:Carleton Coon races after Pleistocene.PNG and File:Carleton Coon races Pleistocene.png made substantial use of the copyrightable elements of the previous work, three of us (DarwIn, Dunkleosteus77, and me) argued that it used only the ideas, not expression, of the original work. Ultimately, it comes down to a COM:TOO case: do the two derived maps contain enough aspects from the original to be copyrightable? If the author drew a map and colored the Americas one color and the rest of the world another, the coloring scheme would obviously be below TOO. If the author drew up 100 countries not based on any existing borders on the world map, then that would obviously be above TOO even if redrawn. The present case is a tougher one; these tough cases are a matter of subjective opinion, and the closing admin should generally follow the consensus rather than elevating one viewpoint over another.
King of Hearts claims there was unanimous consent for keeping this -- that ignores the nominator, Fæ and me. In fact the discussion was three to two, with one of the three relatively inexperienced -- about 1,000 edits on Commons. Admins are expected to use their judgement and in this three to two case I did just that.
In both cases KoH cites above, the images were drawn from data, not other images. In this case, the subject image claims to be Coon's map. As I said, and KoH quoted correctly, one way or the other it can't be kept. Either it is a copyvio or it does not adequately represent the map that it supposed to represent. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I never claimed that "there was unanimous consent for keeping this" - please reread my comments. Also, as the closing admin you shouldn't be counting your own opinion as a !vote. Maslow's hierarchy was in fact based on an image from a book, which I distinctly remember seeing, though it is no longer available in the Amazon preview. Whether or not it adequately represents what it's supposed to represent is not the job of the DR participants to determine, so long as it is COM:INUSE. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠19:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I too disagree with the closing comment reiterated above. If the derivative maps could have been drawn from a minimally specific verbal description of Coon’s—as I believe they could—then they can adequately communicate the author’s ideas without any of the copyrighted creative expression in the originals (such as it is). This is no different in principle to the “summarize in your own words” dictum for conveying ideas found in a copyrighted textual source. Certainly the middle way between copyvio on the one hand, and OR on the other, is sometimes quite narrow, but to deny that any can exist in general seems to me an extreme position.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Can these files possibly be undeleted? I completely understand the user's concerns, but IMHO, it is not the job of admins to respond to threats of harm, rather the job of WMF office staff; there is the emergency@wikimedia.org email list if an image poses a threat to those depicted off-wiki, and WMFOffice may decide to delete files if they believe that it is in the interest of the public. I do see there is a line in the deletion policy that images that are used in a way that violate their personality rights (like by doxxing them) can be deleted by admins, but I do not know otherwise. If needed, the deletion discussions can be reopened so Commons users can address those concerns. Aasim05:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Support undeletion. I agree with Thureson about deletion procedures and I see no reason why we should not keep the photos here while they are still available in a DoD Flickr service. Oppose any massive action basing on their provided deletion rationale. Noting that UDR discussion is not just a vote, the above comment provides no arguments and the pointed out discussion is inconclusive. Ankry (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose According to this DR. the first of these was deleted at the request of the author.
SupportThe others were all deleted because they do not have a valid OTRS/VRT ticket which allows their use. The template cited above is usable only if we have explicit permission to use it. That may be by listing files that it should be applied to or by a declaration that it applies to all such files, but in these cases we have neither. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Commenting as the involved VRTS-agent: true for the image linked in the header, but for the other six this seems to be a mistake by the uploader. I created the mentioned template for the VTRS-permission 23 days after the upload date and gave a go to Hansmuller for all uploads from AvanAchterberg: these six files he seemed to have forgotten to change from the {{OTRS pending}} to the {{AvanAchterberg}}. I Support restoring these six files. Ciell (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, indeed i forgot that the first file was deleted at my own request, so i retract my UDR for File:ASC Leiden - van Achterberg Collection - 1 - 120 etc. above. Please undelete the remaining other six files, thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
This is very irresponsible on your part to delete my client's picture. If you had done some research you would know that Mr. Sarkar is a well-known public figure. If you are on Google.com(Available in Bangla*), start typing his name, Google will ask you if you are looking for him, if you are on Google.com(Available in English), you are gonna get the same result with his nickname, because he is known as Sayem Sarkar, worldwide.
Oppose Search on English Google yields no first or second page hits that are not self-promotion. That is not a notable person for our purposes. Also, I note "my client's picture". Paid editing without disclosure is a serious violation of the rules on most Wiki projects. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose There are two questions here. The first is whether it is out of scope, violating COM:ADVERT. The second is copyright. The subject claims to be the photographer. It does not look like a selfie, so in order to restore it, we would need a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Copyright usually rests with the original photographer and not the subject depicted in the photo. Also, since this was published before without a free licence here, our rules require that we need a permission by email from the actual copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for more instructions. De728631 (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
This was not a duplicate. Both categories were linked to two different Wikidata items (Q2576193, Q106257879). One being the square "Wilhelmplatz" and one being the street "Wilhelmplatz" going along that square. They are not the same thing. For example, the street was named "Am Wilhelmplatz" ("at Wilhelmplatz") for about ten years, while this is obviously not true for the square. CC: @Billinghurst: @Snoopy1964: -- Discostu (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The Medium page on which the image first appeared has since been updated with the caption "Photo by Author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." --Ayers10 (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The picture is not against the policy, Pøbels work has been done in a public place, on a public street, so anyone is free to take a picture for non-commercial purposes according to the Norwegian law. The picture is needed for the article about Pøbel and his work on Wikipedia, and we can not upload it again because of previous deleted same picture. --Minadelic99 (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Mina Delić, 08.10.2021.
Hello. Please restore all files deleted in this deletion request. It does not matter when these cartographers died, because it is a work for hire (for Risopatron). Besides, anyway, their copyright had already expired by 1994 (they were most likely dead by 1964 and the 1970 copyright law, amended in 1993, protected works only for 30 years). As a work for hire, its copyright expired 30 years after Risopatron's death. These works are in the public domain both in Chile and anywhere. Bedivere (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
According to Boloña Daniño's marriage certificate available here he was 38 in 1903, and so was born around 1865. Luis Ossandon Cresoy was born around 1867 according to his marriage certificate. Even if they were the copyright holders (which they weren't) they were most likely dead by 1964. --Bedivere (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The 30 October 1930 La Nación issue published an obituary for Luis Ossandón Cressy (p. 6). The Revista chilena de historia y geografía states that Nicanor Boloña died in Santiago in 1936. [7]. PD status confirmed. Please restore.
Decreto Ley 345 protected works for 20 years after author's death. In collective works, 20 years after death of the last author. So, 1950 or, at worst case, 1956. Lin linao¿dime?03:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
You know, do we know that these maps were works for hire? I am not really opposed to undeletion but I don't know anything about their production process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The reasoning of the closing admin is faulty in two ways. Firstly, we do in fact host many fantasy flags, such as those from Lord of the Rings and The Wheel of Time. Secondly, once an image has been submitted to a well-published contest, that takes it out of the realm of fantasy entirely. Fry1989eh?14:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The arguments raised by GPinkerton are quite convincing. I don't believe in any argument such as "This file is used at Wikipedia X so it cannot be deleted through a deletion request". Thuresson (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The "It's in use so it is automatically in scope" argument has been used many times (not by myself), as an easy way to evade properly discussing the validity of images hosted on Commons. I don't think it should be, because it has been used in DRs in the past to keep files that were deliberately uploaded with the sole purpose of vandalising wiki-projects. But that is entirely beyond the points being raised here. The fact remains that fantasy flags are in fact hosted here, and public contests such as that held by a prominent newspaper or government authority takes these images out of the realm of fantasy. The reasoning by the closing admin, not the "It's in use..." argument, is invalid. Fry1989eh?16:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The examples given of fantasy flags that we host -- Lord of the Rings and The Wheel of Time -- are irrelevant. They are flags from well know fiction, in most cases actually described in the book. These are flags that are, by the creator's own admission, flags that come out of his imagination. They are personal art from a non-notable artist, which we do not keep. Further, they cause confusion. Recently I deleted a similar flag that was in use on a Wiki page in one of the eastern European languages -- I forget which. It was, incorrectly, in the infobox for the country which it purported to represent. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
They aren't (or not all of them) simply fantasy. As I pointed out, File:St Patrick Northern Ireland Flag.png was submitted to the Belfast Telegraph flag contest. That makes it relevant. GPinkerton had the arrogance to say that simply because it didn't show up in a curated list of 77 images, it is somehow non-notable, even though they admit it appeared elsewhere as well, as well as using the argument that the design was "non-serious". Let's take, for comparison, Kiwi laser flag. You would be hard pressed to argue that that is a legitimately "serious" proposal, nor was it included in a curated final list of proposals that went to referendum. Nonetheless, it was submitted to the NZ flag contest and that makes it noteable in and of itself. Furthermore, it has its own page on the NZ History website, and its own article on English Wikipedia, not because of its seriousness as a proposal but because of its peculiarity. If it were not for the copyrightable nature of the design, it would be here on Commons instead of on Wikipedia. We are an image repository, not a museum of selected exhibits. If an image was submitted to a public contest, it belongs here, no matter how far up the ladder it made it. Fry1989eh?17:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
So, all that an otherwise completely non noteworthy artist has to do to get his work on Commons is to submit it to a contest? Not win the contest, not place in the contest, not even make the first cut, behind 77 others? Perhaps, rather than defending our keeping a far back in the pack also ran, you might actually seek out the winners of the contest.
Then there's your Kiwi laser flag argument. As discussed more fully at Laser Kiwi flag, that flag became a popular phenomena -- widely discussed in New Zealand. The subject flag, on the other hand, has probably had more words written about it on Commons that anywhere else.
You say we are "not a museum of selected exhibits." Actually, we are exactly that. Among the things we do not select are works of art by people who are not notable artists. Works like this one. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
"All they have to do is submit it to a contest?" Yes, that's exactly right. No, we are not a museum of curated, narrowly selected exhibits. That is what Wikipedia is for, they are selective and we are not. We host tonnes of images that have no articles of their own nor are in use anywhere, but are considered in scope regardless for any number of reasons. An image being submitted to a well-publicised contest is certainly one of those reasons, no matter how far in the process it got. And I have had this bizarre "personal works" argument with users before who seem to believe that persons outside the project can submit their own proposals to a flag contest and we will host that image, but if that person were to also have a Wikimedia account, they then must be excluded. That holds no water whatsover. If it is relevant because it was in a contest, which is the deciding factor of an image's scope in this example, it stays relevant no matter the designer's Wikimedia status. Fry1989eh?14:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Support undeletion if there is no copyright doubts and the images are in use. We host personal works that are used in Wikimedia projects. I think, suggesting that they are uploaded locally to the project using it (which refusal to host them in Commons effectively mean) is not justified. Ankry (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose There is no evidence that these doodles are worthwhile, or even existed at all before their upload here. If any was ever in use, that use could just as easily be filled with some other made-up image, or better yet, removed altogether. (See similar requests and faulty arguments expressed in the following: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) The filer has repeatedly claimed various fantasy flags are real-world things, but has never once been able to produce any evidence of this, despite repeated and direct requests to do so or stop making the claims. This seems like more of the same. GPinkerton (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Support Good catch. See Atomium for a full discussion of the copyright issue. This image was posted and deleted before the FoP exception was added to Belgian copyright law in 2016. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Also File:Doraemon 2007 poster on CTS Kuang-fu Building.jpg seems to be an indoor photo. Few others may need to be verified by Chinese-speaking users as they may refer to some temporary events. Also content of bilboards unlikely can be considered permanent. I suggest temporary undeletion of the images for discussion. Ankry (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Support for temporary undeletions. Since I'm from the Philippines, I hope Wikipedians from Taiwan (and perhaps from PRC) to conduct thorough individual reviews on each of the files indicated. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)15:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@A1Cafel: All images are deleted, then I can't see what the problem is in this situation. If you need to discuss further, please restore these images as they are vital to the discussion. By the way, I have patiently and calmly discussed this issue with Reke many times, but the result was 'no consensus'.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
If you ping me about the FOP-Taiwan part, I hope you'll consider my situation seriously. Because I was told by reke that I'm an annoying person and accused me of doing a destroy user pictures using DR (see: special:diff/514139241). In fact, he previously said that you (Kai) have Asperger's syndrome, and he also stressed that any disputes between me and someone else could be a problem for the disease. My plight in talk or communication with is similar to that of most users at Commons. It's very difficult to avoid disputes with users, and everyone should understand. I think...don't let them (including me) go away from Commons by the stigma of being labeled “Asperger.” I know it is hard not to become frustrated and the frustration just made it worse, but can't bear the stigma of choosing such a notoriously mental illness or psychiatric disorde. I impacted by the stigma of being labeled “Asperger,”so please don't ping me about COM:FOP Taiwan.--Kai3952 (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Support Temporary undeletion per Kai3952, unless I can see what they were, I'm not sure if they are photographed indoorly or outdoorly. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I stand by JWilz12345. Some files in the list may not displayed on a long-term basis on there. However, some other files can't be decided, because we can't make sure what they are by their file names.--Reke (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Note also that natural destruction of medium is generally not considered an argument against permanence. Not permanent = intended to be removed or replaced after some period of time. Not because of natural destrution of medium (eg. paper) due to weather conditions. Ankry (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
JWilz12345, I told you guys before that I'm not going to speak about the FOP-Taiwan part because Reke claims that he is more familiar with the policy than I am. You can look at his edits to see how 'claim' he is.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
"勞工是..." is an outdoor political sticker on Section 3, Xinsheng South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City. --Solomon203 (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
So we can assume it is intended to be shown during an election campain or another temporary action, not permanently. Am I right? Ankry (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
File:Hsinchu City - panoramio.jpg is a advertising board, which was placed temporary in common sense, thus we can presume it is not meet "long-term basis" FOP requirement.
@SCP-2000: Nothing is late while the case is open. However, I think that we need some clarification of your comments.
(Ad. 1) Why visited to school sometimes is relevant? Do you mean that the car decoration is dedicated per visit (or per few visits) or that Taiwanese FOP does not apply to art placed on vehicles per general? While I doubt the first, I have no opinion about the latter.
(Ad. 2) Being an advertisement does not contradict being permanent (cf. signboards); that is why I asked for help here: is there any element in the content of the advertisement qualifying it as temporary? The board does not seem to be a displayboard for rent. Note, that removal of an art due to its weather-related destruction or even vandalism, does not contradict permanence. BTW, the copyright notice may mean that COM:CHARACTER applies here.
(Ad. 3) Why we need an evidence that the art is still present? Do you mean that FoP did not apply at the time when the photo was taken, or something else? Note that permanence is not based on measured time that something was displayed, but on the intention. Even if the wall was destroyed in an accident few minutes after creation, it still can be considered permanent. Ankry (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
ReasonL In my view the file contained no copyright elements from the source file; which was the original 2004 Luas Poster (See earlier versions of File:Luaswelcom.jpg). Additional discussion: Per what may considered inappropriate overwrite of per discussion of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luaswelcom.jpg the creation of File:Luaswelcome20042021.jpg was suggested by Ww2censor. However this was still deleted F3. Per the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spencer Dock Luas stop.jpg (Which has a derived file with similar considerations), M.nelson has suggested I might consider an appeal if I felt no copyright elements remained visible in the image. I raised question on the deleting admin's talk page over 48h ago, I appreciate people have RL so have so I have raised to the next stage here. An intermediate censored/blurred may have helped, if that is so willing to know. To be clear I have become infatuated/involved this the Free LUAS campaign (doesnt mean I support it) so consider I have a COI. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Support I have temporarily restored File:Luaswelcom.jpg. The new version no longer has any copyright issues (but note that the final product must be licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0 rather than PD). We might question whether a fake poster is within COM:SCOPE, but per COM:INUSE it is not our prerogative to judge. It may be re-nominated for deletion if stably removed from all Wikimedia projects. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠20:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Thankyou for that temp restore which may help others. That image will re-appear on the Japanese and one (zh) Chinese Wikipedia and its unclear if it should be removed from there. To a degree I have conceded the use of the later versions of File:Luaswelcom.jpg are inappropriate and have offered G7 on those ... it is File:Luaswelcome20042021.jpg which is more the subject of the appeal, as much for general consideration as otherwise, but the difference is merely about one pixel column on the edge. The other file potentially influenced by this decision is File:Spencer Dock Luas stop Free Luas.jpg. Welcome consideration with regards to COM:SCOPE but also consider if a suitably licensed image for the campaign existed (I did check) I would not have transferred to commmons. Regardless of the outcome here I am minded similar images could potentially be published elsewhere as CC-BY-SA providing appropriate CC-BY-SA of the source files could be met. Please note I wish very much in the case of all images to get the licensing correct. unfortunately I may sometime fail, and in collages the risk of that is higher for everybody. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I note that with the (temp) undeletion Filedelinkerbot re-inserted the Luaswelcom.jpg thumb to the Luas Article on the English Wiki at 17:00, 9 September 2021 & Bungle reverted it at 17:20 with the comment "no longer relevant to this article". bungle did great anti-vandalism work on the Luas article on or about 7/8 August and 21 August. However with respect to King of Hearts's also I'd like to cover the relevance of the made up image, I'll call it as Luaswelcome20042021.jpg to be clearer. Luaswelcome20042021.jpg respects the basics original layout of the original poster when the Luas is introduced in 2004. It uses an adaptation of the original wording, a suitable image of a Luas tram train, and a Shamrock in place of the orginal map. These changes were prompted by the availability of suitable licensed images for the collage. The LUAS was actually free in 2004 for a few days when introduced (per associated text related to the article) and the modified image plays respect to that. It also links that free to the viral #FreeLUAS memes of 2021 by virtue of 2004-2021 under the Shamrock and use of the #FreeLUAS hashtab. And it is to a degree a "bit of craic" in the spirit of the campaign. It may be the only image of the campaign to link to the 2004 days of the free Luas. This the sort of stuff art students might I to right essays about I guess. Anyway I'd suggest "no longer relevant to this article" is a little overly dismissive without deep thought. It is possible the caption could do with a suitable update. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Djm-leighpark: The variant of the image is now untrue, a fictitious version of the real thing as it was in 2004. The caption read[s]: "Sign welcoming Luas to South Dublin in 2004". The variant you uploaded is not from 2004 - it's not from any date, as it isn't real. It's entirely not credible to promote a fictitious image as an actual one and i'd go a step further and question why either the original or the self-created variant enhance the article. I am also perplexed why you opted to include a hashtag "#freeluas" (the statement itself I won't get into, though surprised you opted for that, given our AV work recently), when twitter itself wasn't formed until 2006. There is so much wrong with this and pointless to the point that if the original image is a copyvio, then just delete it and pretend it never existed. The article is no worse off without it, but is misleading, at best, with it. Bungle(talk • contribs)16:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bungle. Yes we did good AV work on the night of 7/8 August. During and since the clearing of the bareURLs related to the matter I began to become interested/involved in the campaign to the point I have needed to declare a COI on the matter. I disagree with your analysis and we are unlikely to agree; these are different viewpoints on the matter. If I had seen an image such as this one appropriately licensed I would likely have pulled it to commons. In the end it it reasonable, even for someone with a COI, to raise the matter whether the image should be placed on the Luas article, and the resultant decision would be via consensus. In practice I am waiting the result of the discussion and arguments here before determining any further publishing of a tweaked version, which on say en:WP for me would have to be via discussion or request edit. I am however very interested in rightful licensing and attribution matters. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep I think the thumbnails are a-okay as long as the uploader also owns the rights to the work that appears in the thumbnails. A similar case where the result is kept:
For context, YouTube Creative Commons page already explictly stated YouTube allows creators to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license. Custom thumbnails are not part of the videos hence they are licensed under YouTube Standard licensing rather than Creative Commons licensing even though auto-generated ones are as they are taken from the video itself which isn't in this instance. Paper9oll (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Thumbnails are the first thing you see after clicking a link where they appear on YouTube's video player. The CC BY license can be applied to originally created content, which is true in this case as the photo in the thumbnails is created by the uploader themself. I do realize, however, that the debate between us is about what really belongs to the video. In my opinion, however, video thumbnails are like book covers, they don't appear "anywhere inside", but they are still part of the book or video respectively. Of course this is just my personal opinion, and it does not apply to videos with thumbnails that are not originally created content. The admins have the final say, however. In any cases, I look forward to decisions, no matter what the final result is. LX | Talk18:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@Lệ Xuân Pretty sure, you didn't it correctly or decided not to or only read certain parts while ignoring every other part. Before originally created content, the preceding sentence is You can only mark your uploaded video with a Creative Commons license if it's all content that you can license under the CC BY license. Some examples of such licensable content are: As mentioned in earlier reply, custom thumbnails are licensed under YouTube Standard licensing as suppose to Creative Commons licensing even if you are able to mark your own video with Creative Commons licensing as the custom thumbnails are not compiled/embed/joined/combined/fused into the video. You as the content creator is able to change the custom thumbnails whenever you want to, and the video will still remain the same with all the comments, views counts, like/dislike counts, etc, all intact.
If the custom thumbnails is compiled/embed/joined/combined/fused into the video, then it is considered as part of the video, in which auto-generated thumbnails are considered as part of the video because those are scene from the video itself, hence auto-generated thumbnails are licensed under Creative Commons licensing (of course stating the obvious is only true if the video itself is marked as licensed under Creative Commons. For clarity, this is referring to auto-generated thumbnails). However, this is clearly not the case for custom thumbnails which the now deleted image (100% replica of the same image deleted previously) is a custom thumbnails. —Paper9oll01:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Adding on, the deleted image which has been deleted twice, is 100% exact copy of the radio show official instagram post. Missing blue tick = not official??? See Seoul Broadcasting System radio show website, scroll down to 인스타그램 section (the one with red background), click any image, it will open up Instagram, click the profile name (1077power). Repeat the same with the first link (this), click the profile name (1077power), and you will get the same profile with the same url. —Paper9oll02:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
These pictures were nominated and deleted within a very short amount of time giving me no time to respond. As i cannot see the pictures, i have no way of responding nor do i know why they were deleted. --Trade (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The first two images were deleted as derivative works of non-free images. I.e. you photographed two advertisements which are themselves copyrighted. Since there is no clear freedom of panorama for this type of work in Sweden, we cannot restore the images. As to File:20210508 Ahus restaurang Ahusfinest 0553 (51168679253).jpg, the deletion request calls it spam, and it is in fact an advertisement for a restaurant. Again, their logo is copyrightable, so we cannot undelete the derivative photo. De728631 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The admins specifically did not mentioned copyright as the deletion reason if you look at the DR's and the deletion log. So why are you saying that they were deleted as derivative works of non-free images when this is clearly not the case? I'm just asking for some transparency here @De728631: --Trade (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment It would be preferable without watermark but not a valid reason for deletion nonetheless. Unless you are suggestion i'm somehow owner of the website shown --Trade (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Support It is a photo of the opening hours of an IKEA branch. It is almost certainly below COM:TOO (in terms of IKEA's copyrights), and while one might question the COM:SCOPE, I would say that the fact that it was uploaded to Flickr by a news organization means that this photo could be plausibly useful for a Wikinews article on IKEA at least. In any case, COM:CSD#G10 is clearly wrong and there is no valid reason for speedy deletion here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠22:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The first two are photos of copyrighted billboards. While the speedy deletion was technically out of process (COM:CSD#F3 excludes COM:FOP cases), they would have almost certainly have been deleted at COM:DR. The third one is an edge case that requires further discussion so I've re-opened the DR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠22:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Could you post the Flickr link to the two first photos so i can see what the pictures depicted with my own eyes? I assume it's something you can access @King of Hearts: --Trade (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Undeleted. However, if it is not used in reasonable time period, it may be redeleted as OoS. Educational value is negligible, so only usefulness in wiki may be scope rationale. Ankry (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
A few hours after the category was undeleted (see discussion above) it was deleted again, this time by @Túrelio: It would be nice if admins could find an agreement instead of having an edit war :-) -- Discostu (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
First, I must ask the question -- given that the street runs down one side of the square of the same name, wouldn't we be better off with only one category? There are only 59 images and 8 sub categories in Category:Wilhelmplatz (Kiel) so it may be better to have to look in only one place for related images. That's particularly true since any building on the street that's on one side of the square might be categorized in either one or both.
However, if others insist that we need two, then we probably should use:
There are two reasons why I think the separate category makes sense:
I think that generally each Wikidata item should have its own Commons category
The buildings are on the side of the street that is opposite to the square. There are also two rows of trees separating the square from the street. So it doesn't really feel like the buildings belong to the square. It is no accident that the buildings at the streets on the northern and southern side of the square are also not in this Category. --Discostu (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@M73r: If you are the author of the original document as you claim, please follow COM:VRT and provide evidence of your authorship. Ownership of physical document and/or making photocopy of it does not grant any copyright. Ankry (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Requires evidence via VRT that M73r is the actual author of this document -- or an agreement transferring copyright from the actual author to M73r. The ownership of the physical document is irrelevant. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Oppose 0.5 Mpx is to small to be original resolution of a 2008 camera, no camera metadata also you claimed in the DR that this is not your work. So who is the author and where did they grant the free license? Ankry (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
It has been deleted because it has been found elsewhere on the web before it was uploaded here. In order to restore it you can: 1) Find a place where you have distributed it first, and post with the same credentials that you intend to make it available under a specific free licence, or 2) Contact COM:OTRS and once they verify that you are the original author, the file will be restored. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 17:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Aside from the copyright question, you must also tell us why this file is useful. There is no description, so we have no idea who Rufet Sekil is or why we need a photo of him on Commons. It has no categories, so no one will be able to find it, lost among or 77+ million files. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Reason: fictitious flag used in another media previously (rendition of an artwork by Canadian artist Steve St. Pierre), design not created by the uploader Carnby (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
As the design is of a contemporary artist, the image can not be undeleted, as the copyright lies with this artist. Without permission it cannot be published on Commons with a free license. Elly (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
You can see everything there is to see there; the file is not deleted or hidden but is protected against alteration, because its widespread use makes it a target for vandals. The place to request reduction or removal of protection is COM:ANB, but in this case I very much doubt that would succeed.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose First, it is personal art, which we do not keep. Second, it will never be used because it violates the rule of tincture with the metals gold (yellow) and silver (white) touching. I also find it strange that it has a black field. Surely if such a flag were adopted, it would continue with the blue field in the present Union Flag rather than the black of the Welsh.
On hold@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: I have now undeleted the file, but I am missing the Ukrainian trident and the text in the graphic. All I can see are stripes of black, blue and grey (as opposed to white in the newsfeed). Are you sure you want this one permanently undeleted? De728631 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Done: Per original uploader's request. Come to think of it, the black and grey flag is actually the monochrome version of the Ukrainian flag (blue over yellow). --De728631 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Apologies. Around noon today, I spent well over an hour deleting over 1,500 files in 12 categories and two user pages at the request of SpinnerLaserzthe2nd -- see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SpinnerLaserzthe2nd. For the most part they were standard national flags with file names such as File:Flag of Puerto Rico (2018 Winter Olympics).svg. I couldn't see any reason why we needed a separate file for the PR flag for the 2018 Winter Olympics and well over a thousand like it. The subject flag was one of eight exceptions on a user page with 81 files. Mea Culpa -- I deleted it by mistake. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd. you might just have dropped a note on my talk page instead of wasting other people's time here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Reason: The copyright situation of the images now looks clear enough - in the emails the uploader claimed they took the photographs and there was no prior publication of the images outside of Wikimedia Commons and I have no reason to refute that. Assuming they were deleted only for procedural reasons (I forgot to attend to the emails for 30+ days, my apologies), I would like to ask for undeletion. whym (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something, but IMO both the deletion and the reasoning are clearly wrong.
a) USA have full FoP for modern buildings, see {{FoP-US}}.
b) All non-architectural elements in the picture are significantly obscured by tree branches and far from being prominently depicted, so COM:De minimis should apply.
c) In any event, speedy deletion of this one was out of process. We have long-term praxis that any FoP-related deletions are subject to regular RfD, also for documentation or future undeletions. I don't see File:Prudential Plaza, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 02.jpg being listed on any DR, and the deletion rationale "Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing" is poor.
Support I don't think the subject matter and FoP had anything to do with the deletion -- I think perhaps Ellin was confused by the fact that the uploader uses two names on Commons -- User:Diego Delso and User:Poco a poco -- and the file description looks like the uploader was not the author and therefore there seemed to be no permission for the image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I also Support per my comment in my user page. I am also confused about the reasoning. (Jameslwoodward), I use nowhere the username "Diego Delso" (which is my real name), it is just a redirection to avoid that somebody usurps it (I have a long story as admin in es.wp and back then it was an issue). In fact, in the description page of my images you will see my name but the link does go directly to User:Poco a poco. I cannot imagine why this could be an issue by any means, best, Poco a poco (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Poco a poco, I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Of course I know you as a long time Admin -- no problem. My confusion and, I think, Ellin's, comes from the fact that on this image at least, you show the uploader as Poco a poco, "own work", and the author as Diego Delso. Unless the reader knows that the two names both belong to the same person, it looks like a "no permission" upload.
I suggest modifying Template:User:Poco a poco/credit to something like this:
"I, Diego Delso, (Commons Username Poco a poco) have published ..."
I am requesting that the file File:Sitelen sitelen contract.jpg be undeleted. I believe the deletion occurred because of a licensing restriction on the website which is now changed to (Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)) here: https://jonathangabel.com/license/
Oppose That is no reason to keep this version. I also note that it doesn't have the yellow stripes right -- in a proper Union Jack, the white is wider on the upper side of the diagonal on the left and on the lower side on the right. This reflects the fact that there are two different reasons for the white diagonals. They are both the white cross of St. Andrew and fimbriation to separate the red cross of St. Patrick from the blue field. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Commons has more than 75 million files. My best guess is that at least 1% of those -- 750,000 ---, and probably more, would be deleted if anyone paid attention to them. However, it is all that the active Admins can do to stay ahead of the DRs. So other stuff exists is never a reason to assume that your file will be kept. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tassilo Kempski: when you originally uploaded this, you said the author was "Manito BB, Romain Michel" and that "The owner copyright holder sent me the photos in order to enable me to create a Wikipedia webpage". As a result, permission from the copyright holder needs to be sent to COM:VRT to verify the license before the photo can be undeleted. clpo13(talk)17:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose political party logos are copyrighted in Poland as logos od other organizations. We need a free license permission from the logo copyright holder (the logo author or an official representative of the party, depending of the logo copyright status) via email as described in VRT. Ankry (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The logo is essentially Fraktur font and a Roman number II in it. I stumbled upon accidentally. There was no discussion or even notification. I would like to have all the logos I uploaded here and deleted by User:EugeneZelenko restored and discussed. Not just this one. Matt (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Support restoring this particular logo, as it only consists of letters in an ornate, but generic typeface of a style created many hundred years ago. I wouldn't say it's Fraktur and would argue that it's rather Textura (note the shape of the letter S), but that doesn't really matter. At least I would say a regular deletion request should be used, as it can very well be argued that there's nothing unique and copyrightable in that logo (the only thing I can think of is possibly the particular arrangement with the Roman number II). Gestumblindi (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. Eugene usually has a pretty good eye for problems. His DRs rarely show up here. Perhaps the person making up the DR should use a little judgement rather than simply take them all. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I see a couple I'd be uncomfortable keeping at DR, but nothing that I would consider eligible for speedy deletion. I don't think a single admin should gatekeep what gets and doesn't get a hearing, and it's better to just discuss them all. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠00:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@User4edits: You need the formal permission of the Banaras Hindu University to upload such file here. It can be uploaded into the English Wikipedia under a fair use rationale. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Support Agreed. We have gone overboard with deletions of the Eiffel Tower at night -- only a very few images showing special lighting should be deleted. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Reason: To be moved to the English Wikipedia main space under fair use. No FOP in the Philippines for depictions of the subject to be uploaded in Commons. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Boa tarde quero pedir o restauro do arquivo pelo qual foi eliminado por razão da licença do arquivo no período foi mau colocado e quero nesse pedido de restauro a oportunidade de colocar um licenciamento de acordo com o arquivo, peço desculpas e cumprirei as normas do Commons.
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.
I (the uploader) work for Laser Technology Inc. and have been tasked with uploading images to be used as a part of the company's Wikipedia page (which is currently under construction). All images are being uploaded from Laser Technology Inc.'s internal library--Tphart88 (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Also note, first, that the images must be freely licensed for any use (including commercial use) by anybody, anywhere, not just for Wikipedia and, second, that the writer must prove that the company has the right to freely license the images. Licenses from most commercial photographers allow the client to use the images in its advertising but do not allow the client to freely license them as required here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done: As noted above, we need a permission sent by email from the actual copyright holder, which is usually the original photographer. --De728631 (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
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.
Thank You Gbawden for your comments. I kindly request that you consider keeping and not deleting this photo. Also, my photo from 2016 as a teacher in The Beutler Institute seems not to be available on Wikipedia. Please advise. Best - Marius Sudol (marius.sudol@gmail.com). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marius.sudol (talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Reason: if the lighting display is ordinary and fails French TOO, then this must be OK as per recent inputs by Yann et. al. on public light shows in France. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)05:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The recent restorations of night images of the Eiffel Tower, which I support, are all very plain lighting. This is quite elaborate lighting on a church. It is clear from the Eiffel Tower decision that French law (or at least one French judge) supports copyright for elaborate lighting. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. To be transferred to the English Wikipedia mainspace. Hopefully this file is indeed the St. Vincent Ferrer Statue facing in the front. I previously requested the wrong file to be temporarily restored (inferior photo, of the statue's back).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "very poor" -- it's a big image, very sharp and clear, but there is absolutely nothing but black on the front side of the statue -- a pure silhouette. Even so, I think it is probably the best image we have. The image requested above is from the left side and doesn't give any feeling for the look of the front side of the statue.
Dear all,
Gyrostat [18] made a deletion request for my second file on Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paul Bensussan à l'Assemblée Nationale - 5 avril 2006.jpg) arguing that I made a screenshot from TV. I am quite surprised because a screenshot (flipped image) didn't seem problematic to me. Have a look at Anne Sinclair's wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Sinclair), they also took a screenshot from a TV interview. There is no problem for me if that file is deleted, provided that P. Bensussan would prefer a page without any photos. Otherwise, I would like to keep it. --Giglio2 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
This user has send us several tickets, looking at the revision history of the deleted images these belong to ticket:2020031110007018. They have never confirmed the copyright questions raised, therefore deletion was justified imho. @Ellywa: Ciell (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
To clarify this, source=internet as you wrote is insufficient. Please provide a link to the website where you found this so we can verify the attribution to Quarenghi. De728631 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
This concerns several photos of packaged food and beverages. Instead of deleting the files because there may be a copyright issue, why don't we find out? I propose the following: I contact the companies and ask whether there is a copyright on these packages at all, and whether they would agree with the photos being posted on Commons. If the outcome is positive, they could send a permission to OTRS and the files can be kept. Otherwise, they would be deleted. Does it sound reasonable?
Not having any experience with OTRS, I am not sure whether undeletion is necessary for the process. I was not allowed any discussion on the original page. --JiriMatejicek (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@JiriMatejicek: the burden of contacting companies lies in the uploaders and those arguing to retain the files, as per COM:EVIDENCE. Also, the OTRS, or now called COM:VRT, permission should be made first before requesting restoration (the VRT admins will be the ones to request undeletion if proper permission has been received, not the uploaders). So there is nothing to do here as the moment. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)17:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I looked at several of the images, all of which certainly have copyrights. It is unlikely that the manufacturers will freely license them. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The issue is not the copyright for the photo, but the copyright for the pumpkin sculpture. The sculpture appears to be plastic, which would mean that the copyright belongs to the manufacturer and that your image infringes on the copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This WEBM VIDEO file was deleted in my opinion without any reason; it merely shows a nude male subject dancing in a beautiful field, against a blue sky. THERE IS NO SEXUAL CONTENT WHATSOEVER ONLY A SUPPLE NUDE BODY! It therefore has some intrinsic artistic value as an art piece; it is not sexualised and not pornographic! This is a creative movement study of human form! The nude in art has been represented for generations, and in this way it allows people to study and view movement in an idealistic way and manner. PLEASE RESTORE THIS FILE ! BY DELETING THE WHOLE CASH OF FILES THERE WAS FAILUTRE TO CONSIDER EVERY SINGLE FILES contents. This video dance piece was not considered properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greymanby (talk • contribs) 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose We do not keep personal artworks by artists who are not themselves notable. That's true of stills and there is no reason why it should be different for movies. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This image was deleted (see discussion) because there is no FoP for 3D artworks in France and that there was no indication that the statue is old enough to be in public domain. However, COM:DM France states that there is an exception if the copyrighted object is not the main subject of a photograph.
From what I see on the Wayback Machine, the statue is on the side and no more prominent than the Louvre Pyramid in the main courtyard of the Louvre Palace. Yet the law also states that the artwork's presence in the picture must be unavoidable. You can't exactly avoid the pyramid as it's smack dab in the center of the courtyard. But the same probably can't be said for the statue in this picture. All the photographer had to do was simply take a few steps to the side.
That being the case, I think this image can be restored if we can prove the statue was not intentionally included as an element in this photo. Is this something that can be determined? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I find it very hard to imagine how, without laughing, anyone can, without laughing, argue that the statue is not the main subject of this image. It occupies almost half the image and the rest of the image is a long landscape view with a building in the distance. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Best info I've found so far is that it was unveiled on September 5, 1964. Which would put the statue outside of PD-anon-70 too, if indeed it was never documented, though that seems unlikely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, right -- on Google Books, but it's a snippet view so I can't see the full text. And it may be U.S. users only who can see that much. But the heading of the article is Congres des Societes Savantes de la Province de Savoie et Erection de la Statue de M. L'abbé Chanoux au Petit - Saint - Bernard, 5 et 6 Septembre 1964 (I changed the all caps to lower case). The book is Mémoires de l'Académie des sciences, belles-lettres et arts de Savoie. It has a date of 1961, but Google Books sometime dates stuff for the first volume, even for later volumes, so I presume that is what happened here given the date in the actual text. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination due to evidence from Clindberg that the statue is too new to be in public domain and that attempts to identify a copyright holder have been unsuccessful. Which is unfortunate because this was a featured picture. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 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.
@さかなだお: per COM:L we cannot host images without a free license. And the license can be granted only by the photographer or by a person the photographer has transferred copyright to (eg. in e contract). Ankry (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
"{{PD-Japan}}", According to articles 51, 52, 53 and 57 of the copyright laws of Japan, under the jurisdiction of the Government of Japan works enter the public domain 50 years after the death of the creator (there being multiple creators, the creator who dies last) or 50 years after publication for anonymous or pseudonymous authors or for works whose copyright holder is an organisation. Assuming that the image captured within this file was published in 1945 meant that it ascended into the public domain in 1995.
Thank you very much Donald Trung 『徵國單』 for the support. My aim was always to cherish the past and only load images from my private archive collection. All documents are over 50-100 years old and are obsolete. I find it very puzzling that others find these "offensive" enough and use all methods to remove them. It's only for public usage and enjoying them online. Thanks again Huddyhuddy (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung and Huddyhuddy: (likely an unrelated input from me) though in the eyes of some users like @Patrickroque01: , copyright enforcement is a form of "censorship" from authors, architects etc. and restricts freedom of information and expression. I mentioned architects because there is also the copyright vis-à-vis freedom of panorama. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)11:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
"Works created by or on behalf of either the government, the former national Fascist Party, an academy, or private legal entities of a non-profit-making character of Italy, have 20 years of duration of the rights (Artt. 11, 29). Therefore, the theory that a 70 year rule applies to works of the Italian government is unproven and has been disputed."
File:Sugihara visa - image taken by me from my own private WW2 collection of documents.jpg was not "published" in 1945. Passport's contents are never routinely published. I think that publication -- in the copyright sense -- did not happen until the upload here. Since 1945+50 beats the URAA date by only a year, even publication in 1947 would be too late for us to keep it.
Huddyhuddy, you say "All documents are over 50-100 years old". In copyright terms, 50 years is young and 100 years is middle aged. At the very least, in most countries today, a copyright lasts at least 70 years after creation -- and that only if the creator died shortly after creation. For a work created when the author was young, if he or she lives a long time, the copyright could easily be in force for more than 150 years after creation. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Per {{PD-Libya}} anonymous or pseudonymous works are copyrighted 25 years since the date of their publication. 1955+25+1=1981 < 1996 I relied on this. Concerning passport content, I do not think that individual passport pages with stamps have separate copyright: we have only passport booklet (published when issued fist time to the people) and passport visa stamps (published when started to be used in passports). We should not consider that each single stamp in each single passport has a separate copyright. Moreover, please note, that I did not close this case so the discussion is still open. Concerning "published": the visa stamps were available to anybody who took appropriate effort to cross the border. I do not see much difference between this and the effort needed to buy something (a book, a magazine or a product with written instructions) or visit a specific art gallery in a strictly defined period of time (when a painting or a sculpture was presented). Ankry (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
US Copyright law at 17USC101:
"“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or..."
The Berne Convention, Article 3
"(3) The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public citation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication." --- emphasis added
In the ordinary course of its use, a passport is not "published". The only persons to whom it is shown are government officials of one sort or another, or in some places, hotelkeepers, etc. And, yes, every page in a passport has a copyright, just as every page in a book has one as part of the book. If a passport stamp is above the ToO in the issuing country, it will have a copyright. Few of mine reach that level, but Isla Del Coco, Eritrea, and Gibraltar entry stamps and the Thai visa probably do. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I don't think any of the stamps here has a copyright. At best, there is only a date and a few words on each of them. The Japanese stamp has a symbol, but this is not original enough to have a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Before applying US copyright or Berne, we need an evidence that the passport pages were copyrighted in the country of origin in 1996. None of them is a US work. Ankry (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
REASONS FOR UNDELETION REQUEST:
1) This is part of an image. This part belongs to me and nobody else.
2) There are no evidenence of not being a public domain.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC) (UTC)
Hi Γεώργιος Τερζής 2. It looks like you took a picture of a picture. Is that right? Were you at the basketball game?
@Γεώργιος Τερζής 2: Unfortunately, we cannot understand what you are saying. Can you please repeat in Greek what you were trying to say? (Google Translate: Δυστυχώς, δεν μπορούμε να καταλάβουμε τι λέτε. Μπορείτε παρακαλώ να επαναλάβετε στα ελληνικά αυτό που προσπαθούσατε να πείτε;) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠20:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I won't write in Greek. There were two questions.
FIRST : It looks like you took a picture of a picture. Is that right? ANSWER : Yes, I took a part of a whole image.
SECOND : Were you at the basketball game?
ANSWER : I wasn't there.
The rest is my difficulty with this {{}} thinks, it is the first time I was asked to use. User:Γεώργιος Τερζής 2, 20:53, 19th October 2021, (UTC).
Oppose@Γεώργιος Τερζής 2: Making a copy of a photo does not grant you any authorship or copyright to it: the copyright still belongs to the photographer or to the person whom the photographer has transferred copyright to. And we need their free license permission in order to host the photo in Commons. Ankry (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree with the opinion you expresed in the beginning of your answer. My lawyer provided me with a decision of a court in Athens, Greece concerning these things. And the decision was against these "copyright rights" of photographers you mentioned. If you know theory, I know the practice. Shall I here an unknown person (you) or my lawyer and decisions of Greek justice. I'm not a kid...
FINALLY, did I ask to be included in commons? The answer is NO as I am not interested for this.
Check this out (if possible as it is in Greek). [19]Γεώργιος Τερζής 2, 21:48, 20 October 2021, (UTC)
Yes, you asked for this to be included in Wikimedia Commons. You are on Wikimedia Commons asking for it to be undeleted. If you wanted it on Greek Wikipedia, you're in the wrong place.
I'm definetely in the wrong place. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2, 14:14, 21 October 2021, (UTC)
Not done per Ankry. I can't help notice that the OP claims to own the copyright of this photo (CC-BY-SA-4.0), then apparently claims that photographers can not own copyright. Thuresson (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
If the file was uploaded elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons, you can do one of the following: 1) Go to the place it was uploaded to, and leave the comment or a note mentioning that it is released under a free licence. 2) Contact COM:OTRS and provide them proof that you are the copyright holder and are willing o contribute the work under a free licence. The second approach is much much longer and will require more work of volunteers. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 07:46, 21 October 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.
English: The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago hereby grants permission to reproduce written materials in which the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago owns the copyright, provided that reproduction is not for the purpose of private and/or commercial gain and the materials are appropriately credited to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Other Fed Reserve Bank Presidents have their pictures within Wikimedia, Charles Evans' photo which is available for non-profit use, should be here as well.Leesjy2k (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a photo taken by the MSU-DOE Plant Research Laboratory and uploaded by them. The reason for deletion was "no license." The license is Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). --Headleyka (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose "The owner is my employer and asked me to include these on our Wikipedia page" -- that is far from what is required here. Images on Commons and Wikipedia must be freely licensed for any use by anyone anywhere, not just on a WP page. In order for the image to be restored, an authorized official of the University must send a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a photo taken by the MSU-DOE Plant Research Laboratory and uploaded by them. The reason for deletion was "Copyright violation," yet we (the company) own and uploaded the photo. The license is Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). --Headleyka (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose "The owner is my employer and asked me to include these on our Wikipedia page" -- that is far from what is required here. Images on Commons and Wikipedia must be freely licensed for any use by anyone anywhere, not just on a WP page. In order for the image to be restored, an authorized official of the University must send a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a photo taken by the MSU-DOE Plant Research Laboratory and uploaded by them. The reason for deletion was "Copyright violation," yet we (the company) own and uploaded the photo. The license is Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). --Headleyka (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose This appears to be a professional studio portrait. It is certainly not a casual snapshot. In order for this image to be restored to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT, or (b) an authorized official of the University must send a free license together with an explanation of how it is that they have the right to freely license the image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Since this has been published before without a free licence and we cannot verify your affiliation with PFL through your Wikimedia account, we need a permission by email from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for more information. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Reasons:
First file - Photo was taken c. 1911 (110 years ago)
Second file - Photo was taken c. 1925 (96 years ago). It also did not/does not exist outside of wikipedia, I've checked on reverse image search for it.
Alin2808 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Alin2808: This does not mean that the photographers died more than 70 years ago nor that they were published anonymously more than 70 years ago. Also, the {{PD-old-assumed}} does not apply to them, yet. So please, elaborate what is their counrty of origin and why they are PD there? And why they were PD there in 1996? Ankry (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: Both photographs are from Romania. As I understand it from here {{PD-Romania}} if the work "is a photographic work and 70 years have passed since the year of its publication" then it's copyright free. Both of these photos have been taken well over 70 years ago and the authors are unknown. Alin2808 (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
But photos are not necessarily published immediately on being taken. If they’re from contemporary journals or similar, then fine, but if they’re from an unpublished collection or archive the above provision may not apply. Also, the URAA date mentioned by Ankry pertains to the US copyright, which lengthened the term of any Romanian rights that had not already expired by the end of 1995, so the date of publication can be no later than the end of 1925.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479 and Alin2808: No later than the end of 1945: Romania had 50-year copyright protection on 1.1.1996 and later copyright extension is irrelevant for URAA. But we still need to know the publication place and date. Ankry (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479 and Ankry: Alright so, as said before, the authors of the photos are unknown and searching for them online leads to nowhere... But, I did manage to find one source for the two photos, don't know if it's the oldest one though. Both appeared in a book: "Romanian Aeronautical Constructions 1905-1974" (albeit, the first photo is part of a larger one and the second photo has a higher quality in the book). This book was published in 1974, and according to {{PD-RO-1956}} - "the encyclopedias, dictionaries and corpora achieved between 1956 and 1996 benefit from intellectual property protection during a limited term, as follows: 20 years since issuance for the author(s) of encyclopedias, dictionaries and corpora". Also the book was published online as well, here [20] and there it is mentioned that it is in the Public Domain. Alin2808 (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Done undeleted and fixed source / license info. @Alin2808: Maybe, it is worth to replace the photos with better versions from the 1974 source that you mentioned? Ankry (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thank you! I will definitely replace them with the higher quality versions once I finish writing the article about Protopopescu. Alin2808 (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I didn't really understand on which rationale did User:Jameslwoodward delete the file. As per the deletion request, the nominator just wanted to rename the file and I have made the request to do it, but it got deleted. Request to undelete it and if possible rename it to Statue of Rajput Samrat Mihibhoj Mahan in Bharat Upvan of Akshardham Mandir New Delhi under the criterion three. Thanks, Contributers2020Talk to me here14:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
You don't understand a lot of things here do you. It was deleted because the file was scanned from a printed source and it was believed it wasn't released under a CC licence. Not that hard to understand. –Davey2010Talk14:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment This file has a long upload and edit history. The first version is a 396 × 392 copy from Akshardhams magzine, and had a permission ticket:2010101810009091, validated by Jcb. It is not even clear if it is a painting or a picture. There is a copy available on FB. There are some political issues with this file. See [21], [22], [23], and also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sohitsingh678. I am not even sure this image is authentic. It could be a montage. I couldn't find ANY other picture of this statue at that place. See [24]. Yann (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Contributers2020, perhaps my closing comment was too much Commons shorthand for you. To repeat, the named source for the image whttp://ashokharsana.proboards.com/ has on Terms of Service page:
"The Website, or any portion of the Website, may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, modified, sold, resold, distributed, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without the express written consent of ProBoards."
That is an NC (non-commercial) license, which is not permitted on Commons. It is also certainly not the CC-BY-SA license which you put on the page without any justification whatever. If you continue incorrectly licensing non-free works, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose as per the information I wrote above. I wonder what permission is in the VRT ticket. I don't have access any more. Yann (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010 Was it needed to give it in a criticism style?@Jameslwoodward The consent https://www.proboards.com/tos is talking about, was submitted in the form of OTRS to the VRT team, with the ticket no. 2010101810009091. So, maybe, a exception was made by the proboards thing to license it to CC-BY-SA-3.0? And why did you warn me? I neither upload it nor change any license nor the VRT ticket. I'm just asking here and there shouldn't be a problem. Contributers2020Talk to me here03:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
TICKET:2010101610008031 and TICKET:2010101810009091 seems to belong together and as I understand the tickets they confirm that the uploader is the photographer and that the license is cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL. Seems the photographer first released the photos on ashokharsana.proboards.com and then later on wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment While we might not accept such a claim today without proof, I think for 2010 it is reasonable to assume that the person on the other end is the owner of the forum account if there are no red flags. So the question becomes: assuming we do in fact have a permission statement from the forum user, are they the exclusive copyright holder of the image? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠23:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I cannot see the file's revision history, but as far as I can remember, this file was licenced under the Template:GODL-India. In fact, Yann undeleted it for that very reason: [25]. So, why was it deleted under F5? Note that the involved admin (Hedwig in Washington) has not edited at Commons for the last three months. So I didn't raise the issue on their talk page. Also, note that this file was used as an infobox pic at Arjan Singh. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The pib.nic.in redirects to pib.gov.in, which contains the "Archive" tab, which in turn has a link to the following page containing all archives from 1947 onwards: [27]. If the above pic was published in or after 2003, then we also have an "Advance Search" option: [28]. In short, if we know the pic's exact date of upload to the pib.nic.in, we have a chance to find it. Otherwise, we probably won't be able to find it, as the Indian government uploads a lot of files on a daily basis and its sites aren't that user-friendly. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose While it did not have the pronounced 3D effects as this version, the logo in question was also using the green and white shading which made it look three-dimensional. So there may be sufficient creativity for copyright. Please note also that Open Source does not always mean free use or public domain. Instead the game's developers like to stress that "Our code is open-source, our content isn’t. We love the open-source movement, but because we’re trying to make money off of the project, we need legal protection against someone else selling it (or freely giving it away) when doing so would really hurt us."[29]De728631 (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
As the logo is not simple enough for public domain licensing, I re-uploaded under the open content license. Somehow, the logo is not exempt from it, despite the developers having commercial ambitions. Matt (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Procedural close: not deleted and no need to undelete. While the image was reuploaded out-of-process, the licensing info provided by reuploader seems to be reasonable. Ankry (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file was deleted by User:EugeneZelenko without notification. In my judgement, it is text base with only basic geometric elements. You can prove me otherwise, but I want at least a discussion about it. Matt (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The texture of the letters is complex, therefore a permission from the copyright holder is needed. Yann (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Das Urheberrecht liegt normalerweise beim Fotografen und nicht bei der Person die in einem Foto abgebildet ist. Auch wenn Herr Neupert alle Rechte zur Lizensierung an Dritte besitzen sollten, benötigen wir darüber einen Nachweis per E-Mail. Ansonsten brauchen wir die Freigabe direkt durch den Fotografen. Siehe COM:VRT. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This was deleted with the reasoning that the website that sourced this file supposedly stated that the display of OpenBSD logos is only allowed to be in a positive light, which is not really the case in my opinion.
The statement on the OpenBSD website verbatim:
Most images provided here are copyright by OpenBSD, by Theo de Raadt, or by other members or developers of the OpenBSD group. However, it is our intent that anyone be able to use these images to represent OpenBSD in a positive light. So enjoy them and let the world see them, if that is your wish.[1]
It explicitly reads that: "However, it is our intent that anyone be able to use these images to represent OpenBSD in a positive light". Personally, I can't really see how that rules out the use of this logo in Wikipedia Commons, as "be able" (and the rest of the sentence really) is not strictly forbidding the neutral approach of Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpaglamas (talk • contribs) 15:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose In order to be kept on Commons, images must be usable anywhere, by anyone, for any purpose. That would include, for example, a web page complaining that the logo's owner was a terrible place to work or anything else along those lines. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Carn: No. A VRT member processing the ticket should request undeletion here if they are not admin here. Please, add information that you are VRT member to your userpage. Ankry (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This is another in the series of User:EugeneZelenko deleting logos I uploaded without notification or discussion. I think in this case (again) the judgement was poor as there are solely text elements in the logo. Otherwise, I wouldn't have uploaded it here. Matt (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The font itself may not be copyrightable, but the brushed metal effect as seen here should be sufficient for the entire logotype to be above the threshold of originality. Anyhow, I agree that this should not have been deleted without a proper discussion. De728631 (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Although Rare is a subsidiary of Microsoft, it is a British company, so the UK's law applies. The UK has a specific copyright for typography and also a low ToO so this almost certainly has a copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
User:EugeneZelenko deleted this logo without notification or discussion. This is such a clear case of a text base logo, it is even from an Open Source project, so it could be licensed otherwise as well if that is required. I now assume bad faith and demand User:EugeneZelenko's rights to be revoked. He should still be able to make deletion requests, but not be judge and executioner in one person. Matt (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Support The logo in question can be seen here. Although Wikipedia claims that the game is licensed under GPL and CC-by-SA-3.0, I could not find any evidence for such licenses. The logo, however, seems to be below the threshold of originality in the US, so we may undelete it. Deleting this speedily instead of opening a deletion discussion may have been bad judgement by Eugene Zelenko, but bad faith is something entirely else, and this is not the place either to raise a request for desysop. De728631 (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Support I agree that this appears to be an error on Eugene's part as pure text logos do not have copyrights in the USA and this is a US company. However, I see no reason whatever to suspect bad faith. Please remember that Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day. Around 1,500 or them must be deleted for one reason or another and a handful of active Administrators do must of that work, so we work very fast and occasionally make mistakes. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Bonjour, je suis Christian Eludut, l'auteur du livre "Le monde animal dans l'art décoratif des années 30 Paul Jouve , Gaston Suisse " ISBN978-2-9529802-0-3. Tous les documents publiés sur les pages wikipédia par moi (chautard) "gaston suisse" et Paul Jouve proviennent de l'ayant droits de ces 2 artistes Monsieur Dominique Suisse fils de Gaston Suisse. Concernant les photos du studio Harcourt elles furent réalisées avant 1950. Bien cordialement
Oppose That may be, but we have no way here of knowing who User:Chautard actually is. Also, the fact that the heirs have licensed the paintings for use in a book does not mean that they have given you a license that allows you to freely license the images for use by anybody anywhere for any purpose. Licenses for use in a book are almost always limited to just that. Therefore, in order for these to be restored, either the heirs must freely license them using VRT or you must prove to a VRT volunteer that you have the right to freely license them. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Good Morning, There is a page with name of Huma Anwar in Urdu language, this is the related pic there. Please don't delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najman (talk • contribs) 06:16, 25 October 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.
Good Morning, There is a page with name of Altaf Fatima in Urdu and English language, this is the related pic there. Please don't delete it. I never mentioned that it is my work. So how can it be the violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najman (talk • contribs) 06:17, 25 October 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.
The initial upload contains information that you declared this to be your own work. If the photo is not your work, then you are not authorized to grant a license. An attempt to grant a license while not being authorized to do so is just copyright violation. And you are required to provide a free license evidence in such cases. Ankry (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, because I took it from her (Altaf Fatima's) personal archives, it's a free content. I misunderstood by "who owns the work" thing and mentioned it's my work, thinking that I've got it. But it's a free content being used on her published books also, very few of her pictures are available, so I request you not to delete it, please. Najman (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Copyright to a photo by default is owned by the photographer. Unless transferred explicitely in a written contract or due to operation of law. If copyright transfer appeared, we need an evidence of it. Owning a photo print does not grant any right to license it. Ankry (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Reason: The picture is of Makale CAMARA president of the political party FAN. I am Mac Amara Bangoura, in charge of International Relations of the party. The picture is part of a photo shoot done by the party in preparation of the October 18 2020 Guinean Presidential Election of which Mrs. Camara was a contending candidate. So it's normal that the picture was used by https://guineevote.org/team_members/makale-camara/ since she was a candidate. However, that does not mean that the website owns the picture. On the contrary the website freely used pictures that were posted on the party's Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/lepartifan/photos/a.120400996382579/172294701193208/?type=3
So please undelete it.
@AmorozoB: Wa cannot verify your identity on-wiki and, per policy, {{Own}} cannot be used for photos that were (a) already published, or (b) not uploaded by the photographers themselves. Please ask the photo copyright holder (or their official representative) to send free license permission to VRT. Please, note also that if the copyright holder is not the photographer, we may need also an evidence of copyright transfer . Ankry (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: I am a little confused because I am the one who took this picture and there is no copyright associated with the photo. I went to the website were the picture has been published and i don't see any claim from them that they own the photo (because they don't) and there is no copyright associated with it there. Or was it previously uploaded on Wikipedia? Or is it just because they have published it on their website? I just want to know where that copyright you claim exist is so i can contest and correct it since i took the photo and represent the party. Plus there is no licence on that photo.--AmorozoB (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
In most jurisdictions, copyright is automatically granted to the photographer once they release the camera to make a photo. So as you are the photographer and the file has been used elsewhere without a free licence, we need a permission from you by email to verify your authorship. Please see COM:VRT for instructions. De728631 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I am sure this file is no need to be deleted. We just need to rename it with the correct spelling. Please let this jpg be renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 117.18.230.70 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose We need evidence that it is in fact in the public domain because the depiction of the caduceus is not trivial and may be copyrighted. The fact that it is widely used may also result from the design being frequently sold to veterinarians in North America. De728631 (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose@Great Jesselton: In order to host the logo in Wikimedia Commons it must freely licensed by the logo copyright holder (assuming: the party). And the uploader is required to provide an evidence of free license. If Malay Wikipedia community accepts Fair Use logos, it is up to them; but Fair Use images cannot be hosted in Commons. Ankry (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
There are two paths: receive a free license permission from the logo copyright holder and ask them to follow VRT process or convince Malay Wikipedia community to implement a Fair Use policy. Ankry (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I have added this Logo on behalf of Round Table International (round-table.org). It has a copyright on it, but I have the right to use it for Wikipedia. Is there a way to undelete it?
The monument is in public domain here (Philippines) as a monument whose copyright had expired, by virtue of Act 3134 (30 years protection from registration), with no evidence of Tolentino's renewal.
Hmm. First, note that there are two images in the history on the first of these. The older one is by 14macgirl and the newer one is by Patrick Roland De Guzman. Both of the 14macgirl images appear to be something other than the Andrés Bonifacio Monument -- the monument shown in the WP:EN article and in the Guzman image has a tall pillar in the center. The 14macgirl images show a monument with no central pillar or, perhaps, a much shorter one. Without knowing what the subject of the 14macgirl images is, we can't tell its copyright status. Also see Category:Bonifacio Monument (Caloocan). . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: in that case I'm requesting a temporary undeletion of 14macgirl images so that I can check the subject/s (the upload by Roland De Guzman must remain deleted as it is an outright copyvio). If the monument/s shown is other than the monumemt in Caloocan (or a monument that does not date to pre-WWII era), I will immediately request re-deletion. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
since it was taken on my PC on Windows 11, and I wanted a high res image that shows Paint as the official images are poor quality. I am one of the only French Wikipedia users to have Windows 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotterie 123 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi there
recently an image from the page for Jenny & the Eddies ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_%26_the_Eddies ) article was deleted. I ask for it to be undeleted because permissions had been given following a long series of emails with the writer of the book and the person who actually took the photo. See below for the last one.
Please let me know what else I can do to get the photo put back up again.
Re: [Ticket#2021071910003678}Jenny and the Eddies Wki
Dear Sharron,
thanks for your permission and the attached photo. I loaded it over the previous version on Wikimedia, since the resolution is way better. Your permission has been added to the file page. Please check that the file description contains the correct author attribution you desire. If you have any concerns, please respond to this email.
Thank you for your contribution to Wikimedia Commons.
>Yes, it was me who took the photo of Dr Clinghan - I have copied and
pasted, changing Rich's name for mine, the following ... but have also
attached the photograph (overkill? never mind you are free to use it
:))
I hereby affirm that I am Sharron Jackman the creator of the media work as shown here (attached and below link)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose I looked through the history and what is above up to the headline File:Jenny and Eddies Cover Photo.jpg is all one request. If I read it correctly, Sharron Jackman took the photograph of the subject book's author, Richard Clinghan. That's fine, but entirely irrelevant to the question of restoration of the subject file, which is the cover of a children's book. In order to restore the image of the book cover, we will need a free license from the actual copyright holder, which will usually be the book's publisher but might be the illustrator who created the cover. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure what is non-trivial about this. Single-color, only text, and the shadow effect is just an underlay in black. Matt (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose If this were a US game, then it would clearly be PD, since simple text, even with complex special purpose fonts, does not have a copyright in the US. However, it is a Virgin Interactive release. Virgin Interactive is a UK company and the UK has a special copyright on typography which applies here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, we would like to undelete the photo of Lenka Helena Koenigsmark. We did confirmed copywrite ownership as it was recommended to us. And the magazine, which took a photo of Lenka Helena Koenigsmark send email with confirmation of copywrite too. So we do not know, why it was deleted. We communicated and do what you need. Please can you put the photo back? Or advice us, what more should we do? Thank you.
Oppose The e-mail which was sent to VRT (#2021081910005781)was apparently insufficient. I am sorry to say that User:JGHowes who was handling the VRT case died last month, so it might be best if the actual copyright holder sent another email with a free license. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - The VRT ticket was sent by the subject, not the author (photographer). Copyright initially vests in the latter and does not transfer but through written agreement, so either a copy of that document or direct (not forwarded) correspondence from Michal Ureš (the photographer credited at the time of upload) is needed. Эlcobbolatalk19:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Rubin16 kept this file contradicting consensus at the original DR (7 in support of deletion, 1 opposed), citing COM:SIG and stating "I don't think it should be deleted on copyright basis". I don't believe copyright was any of the original participants' primary reasons for advocating deletion. From my assessment, most advocated for deletion on privacy grounds and out of respect for a good faith request from the subject. It is not used on her EN article per consensus that there is no educational value for including it. My reading of COM:SIG is that it merely describes when signatures do or do not fall into PD. It does not require that Commons host a copy of a person's signature, even if it falls into PD, and especially not in the face of a good faith request for removal from the subject. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Support overturning the decision. I think courtesy is always a valid COM:IAR basis for a local consensus to delete, and if a supermajority vote for it at DR, we should go with that even if not directly addressed in Commons policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠06:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Full agreement with Axem Titanium's nomination above. I don't see how a signature is encyclopedic information, unless perhaps (a) the signator is known for signing baseballs, plaster-casts or even books, or (b) the signature (or the forgery thereof) has been at all widely discussed. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I suppose here we nominate undeleting files; if you have other arguments for deletion, you can nominate it once again. rubin16 (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The last DR took nearly 11 months to close and it doesn't appear that Commons has an outcome agnostic version of Deletion Review, hence bringing it up here. Seems a miscarriage of process to ask Ms. Saldaña to wait another 11 months when her preferred outcome already has consensus, no? Axem Titanium (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Support overturn, support deletion. When they have a good faith request, let's be as responsive as possible to the people we serve. Binksternet (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The arguments above are good, but it is out of process to be discussing them here. In order to delete the file in process, someone must open a DR and it must stay open for seven days. After seven days, if the nominator asks me or King of ♥ to close the DR as deleted, one of us probably will unless some good reason not to comes up in the DR. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment this seems to be a wrong venue for such. This UNDEL request is for restoration/undeletion of files, not for requesting a file to be deleted anew. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)15:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Reason: The reason behind the removal of your pictures is that the Flicker account has zero followers, zero following and no viewers thus creating the notion that it may be a fake account. this time people are viewing the account and following about 140 profiles.it isn't a fake account. it is genuine and no misrepresentation is involved. Hence i kindly request for the undeletion of this image. Nagenya (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done: The fact that a Flickrwashing account has followers does not prove that it is not license laundering. I think there is sufficient uncertainty here to require that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reason: The reason behind the removal of your pictures is that the Flicker account has zero followers, zero following and no viewers thus creating the notion that it may be a fake account. this time people are viewing the account and following about 140 profiles.it isn't a fake account. it is genuine and no misrepresentation is involved. Hence i kindly request for the undeletion of this image. Nagenya (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done: The fact that a Flickrwashing account has followers does not prove that it is not license laundering. I think there is sufficient uncertainty here to require that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
@YT0: the flag version used in the Wikidata iten and in a Wikipedia article have the same problem: the flag used there is completely unsourced: the Wikidata item has no references at all and no reference in the article provide information about this flag. Why do you think that the flag is not just a hoax by user:Gherlan L. Aires who claims to be the flag original designer? Ankry (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@YT0: The question is what real used flag is it based on. If there is no its usage as a flag in real world, it is out of scope. And unsourced flags should not be used also in Wikipedia. Ankry (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The writer came to attend a cultural function in our Organisation named Hayatnagar Subhas Samity. He was honoured by us with Netaji Subhas Sammanana on 23rd January.it was published as a post in the organization's site. Thanks
Lakshmikanta Manna (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The image appeared on a site with "Copyright -- All Rights Reserved" so policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. I also note that the site is an advertisement for men's suits. Unless Google Translate is making a serious mistake, that is inconsistent with your description above. Finally, your description suggests that you are the subject of the photo. It does not appear to be a selfie, so that actual photographer must give the license. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose For any image published previously without evidence of free license, we need a free license permission from the actual copyright holder via email as described in VRT. Ankry (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Montana state works
@Adamant1 in this DR posted some interesting information from Harvard Library that works of Montana state could be considered free. I want to attract some additional attention and discussion, probably, we can restore some:
@Rubin16: This page is not the right venue to discuss whether community accepts some images or not. This is to request undeletion of particular images basing on established policies. I think, you should go to COM:VPC. Ankry (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Also note that the Montana law gives every citizen the right to examine - read - most state documents. That is very different from the right to copy and sell copies, make tee shirts, and all the other things allowed by a free license. I can examine any book in a public library, but that does not give me a free license to do anything but read it.
@Ankry: A sentence in that page says "A policy statement provided by the Montana State Library, which is no longer available directly through their website, advised users that some state agencies may assert copyright." So it's not just about the right to examine a book at a library or whatever. It also has to do with copyright. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Wrong venue. Please establish a consensus first that Montana government works are free of any copyright. As Ankry noted, this may be done at COM:VPC. --De728631 (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The picture is an iconic one for the biggest athlete of Greece and the team he represented! I used to work as a graphic designer at ARIS B.C so I also create content about. I retouched this old photo from the files of team, and uploaded to wikipedia for the community. ARIS B.C is the owner of this photo and I am the editor. Thank you!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Babis Karagiannidis (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg_and_File:091205-N-4021H-004_(4161307030).jpg){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Oppose Wikipedia does not use PDFs and we do not keep such PDFs here. If you want to write an article on Wikipedia, do it in Wikipedia markup, but be warned, Wikipedia does not accept original research, so your article will almost certainly be rejected. Please do not raise this issue again. If you do, you may be blocked from editing on Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Not done: as per Jim above. --Yann (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Support The logo is simply the name in Chinese and Latin characters. The company is based in San Francisco, so only US law applies. Simple three word logos have no copyright in the US. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Comment ESA is a partner, so the ISS is not only a NASA–Roscosmos program. Pesquet is not employed by NASA, but by the ESA. I don't see how these could be works by NASA, even if taken with NASA equipment. Maybe we could ask the license on Flickr to be changed, but otherwise I don't see how we could host them. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
See also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-09#File:Coat of Arms of the Republic of Cochinchina.svg. 
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Info A different user name uploaded the now deleted file File:Jason Sherman Public Photo.jpg. That photo is available at [3]. Thuresson (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Unsure the deletion requestor here claims "prominent designs on these post boxes are copyright to the Taiwanese post office" JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Weak support, but I want admins to verify this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC).jpg){kind=link}
,_Changhua_City_(Taiwan).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(13694713845).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(13695028614).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Question Do you mean this file? Ankry (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit){kind=link}
.svg&diff=0){kind=link}
.svg&action=history){kind=link}
.svg&action=watch){kind=link}
.svg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=purge){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.svg&action=delete){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit){kind=link}
.svg&diff=0){kind=link}
.svg&action=history){kind=link}
.svg&action=watch){kind=link}
.svg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=purge){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.svg&action=delete){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg_and_File:091205-N-4021H-004_(4161307030).jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AAflagforIraq.svg&type=revision&diff=58670896&oldid=58613244){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:AflagforIraq.svg&diff=next&oldid=58670896){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AAflagforIraq.svg&type=revision&diff=572717126&oldid=572705038){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AAflagforIraq.svg&type=revision&diff=580499347&oldid=580445844){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AAflagforIraq.svg&type=revision&diff=572717316&oldid=572717126){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Weak oppose for files like File:COVID-19 Pandemic Prevention Notice of a Cram School in Hsinchu.jpg and File:COVID-19 Epidemic Prevention Information Board at Campus Bus Stop in National Tsing Hua University.jpg. By the file names these depict COVID-19 information boards which IMO may not fulfill the requirement at COM:FOP Taiwan ("Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means..."). Are COVID-19 information boards/announcements for long-term basis? I doubt they would. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep I think the thumbnails are a-okay as long as the uploader also owns the rights to the work that appears in the thumbnails. A similar case where the result is kept:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I withdraw my nomination. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg&action=edit){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg&diff=0){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg&action=history){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg&action=watch){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg&action=purge){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg&action=delete){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg){kind=link}
_and_Northern_Ireland.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
On hold @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: I have now undeleted the file, but I am missing the Ukrainian trident and the text in the graphic. All I can see are stripes of black, blue and grey (as opposed to white in the newsfeed). Are you sure you want this one permanently undeleted? De728631 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://i2.wp.com/www.pravakta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/mihir_bhoj.png){kind=link}
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MOIAF_Arjan_Singh.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://defencedirecteducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EzAHHU6VIAEk2bB.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
