Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-12

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

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

File:Postal Logo.png

It consists solely of type face. Compare File:Postal 2 logo.png. Regards Matt (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Weak support as Running with Scissors is US-based but I would welcome other opinions. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Weak support from me too. If there are features separable from the basic shape of the letters, you can still have copyright, and this is pretty close -- though they are perhaps still constrained by having to still be recognizable as a letter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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

File:The Third Man (1949 British theatrical poster).jpg

This poster is public domain in the UK (and the US respectively). --Memorandum Nobilis (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Memorandum Nobilis: could you, please elaborate why is it PD in both countries? The uploader declared it copyvio, so we must be very caeful if overriding their decission. Ankry (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This poster is not self-copyvio, but it's under URAA in the US (for the film) and it's fine. Memorandum Nobilis (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Nothing is fine. (1) The poster is a devivative of the film. Is the film PD? (2) Every work uploaded to Commons should be PD in the country of origin and in the US. URAA is a part of US copyright system. If the poster is protected by URAA, we need either a written free license declaration from the copyright holder, or at least a declaration that they will not execute their copyright under US legal system in future. Ankry (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the poster remain copyright in the US (due to URAA) until 2045? Memorandum Nobilis (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

If the poster contains screenshots from the film, or drawings directly based on frames from the film, it would be derivative. Otherwise, it would be its own original work. If an artist or author was named or otherwise known, the term is their lifetime and 70 more years in the UK. If not, then 70 years from publication. And as mentioned, even if anonymous, the copyright would have been restored in the U.S. in 1996, and would be valid for 95 years from publication, so yes, until 2045. (If copyright had expired in the first place -- it was always possible to put a copyright notice on foreign publications, and file for renewal in the U.S., though it would be exceptionally rare for something like this.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Requestor here is sock of uploader, and both are LTA socks. No COM:EVID of any claims on offer. --Эlcobbola _talk 14:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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

File:USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg involved the deletion of an image of a notable airplane crash site which was within project scope. There were no copyright issues with the image. Privacy issues were raised, but I cannot find any policy-based reasons why this would have affected the image or justified its deletion. I contacted Rubin16, the deleting administrator who originally closed the discussion as "keep" but then reversed the closure to "delete". This reversal occurred after further petitioning by one of the discussants who most strongly advocated deletion. Rubin16 defended this reversal by saying that administrators are able to reverse their own decisions. I agree that administrators should be able to reverse their own decisions, but only if those reversals are still operating within policy. After asking what policy warranted this deletion I received no reply. I believe this deletion is not within policy.

Privacy issues on Commons are strongly based on protecting identifiable living people. The foundation for this on Commons is COM:IDENT. From my memory of the picture, there was a person far in the distance, but they were not identifiable. If the person was identifiable, a reasonable discussion could have occurred around whether the photograph was taken in a public or private place, but that was not the theme of the discussion. Instead, the issue was that the crash site was a private space which had been set aside by agreement of land owners and a group of crash victim families. The image is taken from a road and pictures some fields, trees and a fence.

Even if these images were taken in the course of the photographer trespassing (which I don't believe they were, given that they are taken from a named public road that is not gated), I am not aware of the Commons policy that justifies their deletion. If there is a policy I'm not aware of, fine. Right now though, I feel like this is crossing over into COM:NOTCENSORED territory. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The image was deleted on the photographer's request. If the author thinks that they did something inappropriate or that they are afraid of some consequences of their photographing activity, we genarally support such deletion requests. So

Weak oppose undeletion. Ankry (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a 5-point test at the proposed guideline of Commons:Courtesy deletions: 1. Is it new? No, as far as I can tell from the English Wikipedia article history, it had been uploaded for a significant period of time. 2. Is it unique on Commons or is there something we can easily replace it with? I am not aware of any usable replacements. 3. Is it of good quality? Yes, it was a good quality image. 4. Is the image in use? Yes, the image was being used on at least English Wikipedia and possibly elsewhere. 5. Was there consensus for its deletion? No. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@IronGargoyle I would love to have a guideline on courtesy deletions to guide cases like this. Unfortunately, the page you link to is poorly laid out, seems to be going nowhere, and to some extent is self-contradictory (the effects on the subject, author and uploader are not among the factors considered in courtesy deletions - this doesn't seem very courteous). Brianjd (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

To me, it depends on whether the photographer believes that they violated any law in taking that photo. If it's just a nice request from the property owner who doesn't want their image up, then we generally wouldn't grant the request. But if the photographer has a genuine fear of legal trouble, that takes precedence over having free content in our collection. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The statute of limitations for minor crimes and civil actions like trespassing is 2 years in Pennsylvania. That duration has passed (though again, I want to emphasize that there is good reason to think no crime was committed). Also, in the original deletion request, the uploader stated the desire to discourage others from visiting the site. No expression was made of personal fear that I saw. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I see a lot of discussion about the uploader, but no attempt to notify them. I have left a message on their talk page.

Also, the file was not deleted solely based on the uploader's request. The closing admin left this comment at the DR:

thanks to @Brianjd I have performed additional review. According to Google Street view there seem to be no fences or barrier to enter the road. Satellite view shows that the road seems to be free to visit too. But I have found some evidence that the land plot was acquired by the families of crash victims and they declared it a private zone. So, while the area is restricted to be visited, the image is to be deleted

I was not petitioning the closing admin for a deletion. I was questioning their claim that this image:

seems to be taken from a public road

They cited a source that basically says the opposite (map attributed to OpenStreetMap, which says that the road is private). I also question the idea that a road must be public if there is no barrier across it: this isn't how we treat other kinds of property. But I don't really have any evidence that the road is private, so I suppose I have to accept the conclusion that it is public.

Let's discuss all the relevant factors here. Brianjd (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Weak support If we accept that the road is public, then by my own arguments early in the DR, the file should be kept. I did vote later on to delete this file, but I have since changed my view. I would now argue that, in the absence of a clear rule requiring deletion, balancing privacy concerns against educational uses is an editorial decision, which Commons should not interfere in if the file is in use. The English Wikipedia specifically opposed the removal of this image. Brianjd (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The nominator has emphasised, both here and on the closing admin's talk page, that there was no policy justifying the deletion of this file. Here, they also cited COM:NOTCENSORED. That guideline and the policy COM:PS#CENSOR require Commons to reject deletion requests based solely on users' objections, but this should not extend to legitimate privacy concerns. Therefore, those pages are not relevant here. Brianjd (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

If it's a public road, and merely happens to depict private property, then yes we should retain an in-use image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Support undeletion if it's the family requesting deletion, Oppose undeletion if the uploader/photographer requested it - As noted above the road has a name and isn't blocked off in any way, shape or form so it would therefore be obvious to assume that this is a public road.

We should always respect families wishes but we should also try to remain neutral - we only had one image of this not a plethora of them and unfortunately whether the image is here or not people could still make their way to this location obviously unaware of the website.

As a way forward I believe it should be undeleted and if the photographer comes forward (with solid evidence) then fine but until then I don't really see a reason to have the image deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 15:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose as per rubin16 below - Honestly I don't know if it's a public or private road but either way understandably uploader has changed their mind and given the uncertainty it's probably best it stays deleted. I wouldn't fancy legal ramifications either tbh. –Davey2010^Talk 16:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@IronGargoyle sorry for not answering you in my talk page, I was sick last week. In this case I believe there is no obviously right or obviously wrong decision that would be directly supported by local policies. From my point, it was a weak delete decision: yes, there is no map information (except from “private” description on OSM but it is not the best reliable source as OSM is edited by volunteers like Wikimedia projects). When I first kept the image I assumed that as there are no signs on the map and nothing like that, the road and area are actually public, not private, so we can keep the image. But further investigation shows that there is some evidence that the area is private as land was purchased by the families of victims and are managed by a trust now. This information along with the lack of other photos of this area make me assume that the place is actually restricted, otherwise, we would see more photos in media and other sources. And as the uploader asked to delete the image that seems to be taken from the private restricted area, I decided to change my decision and finally delete it. But, I would repeat, that both options are possible here, depending on the attitude of the closing administrator rubin16 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done no consensus to undelete. Ankry (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Série des oiseaux par Yvan Daumas.jpg

As i said, i have the artiste agreement for publishing his work on wiki media. I don't understand what's the problem.. Also all is work is on free license on his website. --Zombifex (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Zombifex: Bonjour,

Il faut confirmer par email que vous êtes bien Yvan Daumas, et que cette image est publiée sous une licence libre. Voyez COM:VRT pour la procédure. Cordialement,

You need to confirm via email that you are Yvan Daumas, and that this image is published under a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Info Yvan Daumas died in April 2021. CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 at wordpress.com. Thuresson (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

In that case, heirs will have to provide the permission. Yann (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done, OP needs to go through VRT. Thuresson (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Menofsteelwilla8957.jpg

New Photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by R23wilson (talk • contribs) 17:35, 30 November 2021‎ (UTC)

Blatant copyvio. No reason provided. Yann (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Makary

Files from Polish Category:Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe (National Digital Archives), which collaborates with Wikimedia. These files were hastily deleted, despite I had explained, that they had been marked as public domain on NAC new website, and I had made an effort to correct descriptions and categorize most of them. At the moment I can't identify all deleted photographs by their names, but they positively came from the NAC and are all in public domain, and if they are undeleted, I can check and link to appropriate pages. Contrary to given reason of deletion, for example File:1925 Rally Poland - Ralf-Stetysz.jpg is [1], described clearly as "domena publiczna" (public domain), File:1925 Rally Poland - László Ede Almásy.jpg is [2] - the same, File:1925 Rally Poland - Stanisław Nowakowski.jpg is [3] - the same, etc. It would save some work, if they are undeleted, instead of reuploaded. Pibwl (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Support --Yann (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Question @Pibwl: The photos are likely PD in Poland due to the Polish copyright law exception described in {{PD-Poland}}. But the photos uploaded to Commons neends to be free also in US. Please explain why are they free in US. I see the following possibilities (a) they were published in Poland begore 1.3.1989, (b) they were published anywhere before 1.1.1926, (c) the photographer died before 1.1.1951, {d} the photographer was a US government employee, (e) the photographer or their heirs granted a free license for the photos, (f) the photos are below US ToO, (g) for some reason they do not need to be free in US, (h) did I miss any possibility? Which one applies and what is the evidence? Ankry (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

They were taken by Polish photographers for press concern Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny and were taken over along with all assets of the concern by Polish state, and now they are published as public domain by state archive. We are acting in a good faith, and have no premise, that they might be not free. The photographs from NAC archive are published in numerous books and magazines in Poland, and I haven't heard about one case, that someone would try to challenge the licence. Probably they were also published before the war, since they come from press concern. Pibwl (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pibwl: There is no doubt that they are PD in Poland. But why they are PD (of free otherwise) per US copyright law, which depends strongly on the publication date? (Per US law, unpublished anonymous works become PD 120 years after creation.) See COM:Hirtle chart for details. Berne convention requires to apply local copyright law of each country separately; copyright status in another country is irrelevant (unless the rule of shorter term applies; but this does not in US). Commons policy requires free status evidence (see COM:PRP) we cannot rely on good faith declarations, especially based on another country law. How can NAC warrant that the photographer heirs would not execute their copyright in a US court against commercial reusers some day? Maybe, the Commons policies are too restrictive, but here we are. Ankry (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not PD Poland in this case, but we have a reason to assume, that copyright belonged to IKC, and hence a succesor of its assets is Polish state. We have free status evidence, because the archive explicitly confirmed so. And in a good faith, we have not a slightest premise to challenge it. This way we should delete milions of valuable photographs from the Commons, inlcuding these provided officially by the NAC, Bundesarchiv or other libraries (for example, like this File:Bild_101I-618-3945-20.jpg or File:Op een Nederlands passagiersschip in dienst voor troepentransport. Reddingsoefen, Bestanddeelnr 935-3295.jpg) - because how do we know, that the archive has rights to release the photograph under cc-by-sa licence, and the real author won't execute their copyright in a US court? The archive is not an author. Or how do we know in case of mass Flickr downloading, that the people, who put them on their pages, are real authors?... Or the users, who upload photographs directly to the Commons, are their authors? We should not split hair and search for problems, where there aren't Pibwl (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment I do not oppose undeletion ot this photo. I just raised doubts concerning its US copyright status. IMO, the photo is not copyyrighted in Poland as made before 1994 and we have no evidence of copyright notice presence on the original photo (such notice was required by pre-1994 Polish copyright work for photos in order to be a copyrightable work and newer law did not change status of earlier photos). But feel free to correct me if I am wrong. NAC may have "first publication rights" for 25 years since the initial publication of a non-copyrighted photo, but these rights are irrelevant for determining the US copyright status (as not protected by Berne). Ankry (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

If the Polish government actually owns the copyrights, would seem that any license or public domain declaration they give should be fine (and make the URAA irrelevant). Tend to

Support undeletion, especially for a cooperation project. The publication question can be hairy, but if they were at least likely published, I'm not sure I would delete either -- COM:PRP is for significant doubts, not simply that there is a theoretical way that copyright could exist. Granted, pulling from a photographic archive does increase that chance. But if there is a reasonable argument that the Polish government owns the copyrights in the first place, I think all that is moot. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Done: as per Carl above. @Pibwl and Ankry: Please review the source and the license. --Yann (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I can do it - it was my idea. Pibwl (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Арон Атабек.jpg

Hello. I think you deleted this photo for nothing. Please, you can restore it. It is located only in the Kazakh Wikipedia. And used only for the design of the article. I do not think that using photos from the Kazakh site will damage the reputation. Madi Dos (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Madi Dos

@Madi Dos: As it was previously published elsewhere, we need a confirmation via email from the copyright holder that it is published under a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Samuray Kuba - Juli 2019.jpg

The deleted photo is copyrighted by our record company. We ask that it be restored again and not affect the image of the artist. 2A04:EE41:3:329E:C932:4CED:3E0D:651 21:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

For any content previously published elsewhere, we need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Sgsm.jpg

THe photo has been taken from the page of the Museum I work for.

--Kayosafe (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Info Re-uploaded as File:Esternisgsm.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kayosafe: If you copy an image from a webpage you need to provide evidence that there is a free license declaration on that webpage or ensure that the photo copyright holder has followed VRT procedure. It is irrelevant what do you do in real world. Ankry (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:縄文人(伊川津貝塚)及び、現代日本人に連なる民族の渡来ルート.png

縄文人(伊川津貝塚)及び、現代日本人に連なる民族の渡来ルート

削除された理由が分かりません。

Oppose Recent map without permission from the author. Yann (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Орден СПЦ 2021. године.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Орден СПЦ 2021. године.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The photo is mine and was sent to the person on photo (which is my aunt), and then she sent this photo to news agency for purposes of the article. Below the photo says FOTO: PRIVATNA ARHIVA, on English that means photo: private archive. Simicaleksandar (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Simicaleksandar: For any content previously published elsewhere, we need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lieutenganger

FAMILY OWNED PHOTOS!!!! how can you decide my own photos are not of my property?. I'm maintaining my grandfather biography, anyone couldn't take 2 minutos to check https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Tribuna????? the original ones was lost, you don't know what you do to my grandfather memory, hope someone with a little consideration reads this and do something in consecuence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieutenganger (talk • contribs) 12:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC) (UTC)

@Lieutenganger: At least File:Juan Tribuna2.jpg is not your picture. It seems to be a newspaper clipping. If you are not the photographer, we need a formal written confirmation about a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose @Lieutenganger: ownership is not equivalent to copyright. In usual cases copyright is held by the photographer, unless there is a copyright transfer between that photographer and you or someone from your family. Such document must be attached to the correspondence via COM:VRT process. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Info es:Juan Tribuna itself has a problem tag installed at the top, read as (in exact Google Translate wording): Possible primary source or original research. The content or wording suggests that it should be deleted. You can see the comments on the talk page. Please improve it by adding references from reliable and independent sources that allow you to verify the information included in it. If not, it could be expunged 30 days from the posting date of this notice. Do not withdraw it without solving the problem or agreeing on it previously in the discussion. You can also ask for help in the tutoring program or ask at the Café [Village Pump]. So another ground for opposing this UNDEL request. Nevertheless the strongest ground: doubtful if Lieutenganger is the photographer of the old photos; copyright remains with the photographer unless copyright is transferred via a formal document or contract which Lieutenganger must send to Volunteer Response Team via correspondence (email etc.) to process affirmation of VRTS permission. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: As JWilz12345 wrote, owning a copy of a photograph does not automatically make you own its copyright. Therefore we need either a proof that the copyright for all those images was transferred to you or a family member from whom you inherited this right, or we need a permission coming directly from the photographer's heirs. --De728631 (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:DraaismaElzinga.tif

File in question: photo of Dutch researcher Douwe Draaisma by photographer Sake Elzinga.
Reason: The file is available at https://douwedraaisma.nl/en/bio Accompanying text is: "These portraits are free of rights. Reproduction conditional on mentioning the name of the photographer." The license should thus be {{attribution}}. One of the other portraits on this page (same subject, same photographer) was recently "kept", see this comparable file (License review: passed, see here ). Best regards, Vysotsky (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: as per Vysotsky. --Yann (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:DraaismaBoxem.tif

File in question: photo of Dutch researcher Douwe Draaisma by photographer Reyer Boxem.
Reason: The file is available at https://douwedraaisma.nl/en/bio Accompanying text is: "These portraits are free of rights. Reproduction conditional on mentioning the name of the photographer." The license should thus be {{attribution}}. One of the other portraits on this page (same subject, other photographer) was recently "kept", see this comparable file (License review: passed, see here ). Best regards, Vysotsky (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: as per Vysotsky. --Yann (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Poriyaheidary2december2021.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Poriyaheidary2december2021.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: با عرض سلام و خسته نباشید این عکس متعلق به پویا حیدری اوره هست که من از ایشان اجازه ی کپی و استفاده از این عکس در ویکی را دارم.نام کامل این شخص پوریا حیدری اورخ هستش که تهیه کننده،کارگردان و نویسنده ی مطرح کشور هستش.سپاسگزارم. Sam.sh0131 (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

File has no license and IMDB was given as source. --Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Túrelio. --Yann (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Bruna-Guerin.jpg

This file can't be deleted because I have the copyright to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolalitta (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC) (UTC)

@Carolalitta: For any content previously published elsewhere, we need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Aerial Herzogenaurach Adidas Headquarters.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Sowjetische Ehrenmal im Treptower Park.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Aerial Herzogenaurach Adidas Headquarters.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Cited reason was that aerial photography does not fall under COM:FOP Germany. However, a recent court ruling at the regional court of Frankfurt am Main decided that images of copyrighted works taken from the airspace are permissible and can be used commercially, provided that the works are in public spaces themselves. Basis: https://mueller.legal/de/aktuelles/drohnen-fotografien-von-urheberrechtlich-geschuetzten-werken-fallen-unter-die-panoramafreiheit (recently added to FOP Germany page by me; see also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-12#File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 1.jpg). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Breakthrough Party Logo.png

Previously deleted for lack of license. Lower quality version appears to have been allowed under PD-logo, which should have been what the deleted file fell under (and as such it is suitable for Commons). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Logo can be seen here. Yann (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The TOO in UK is low. I have nominated the other version for deletion. Ankry (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Logo from UK, permission needed. --Yann (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Владимир Колбасов.jpg

Является личной фотографией, все права принадлежат непосредственно автору. В этом можно убедиться по личной странице художника: https://vk.com/kolbassov

Translated via Google: "Is a personal photograph, all rights belong directly to the author. This can be seen from the artist's personal page."

Oppose @ErAxY: When you uploaded this picture here, you wrote that it was your own work. However, I can't find any credits mentioning "ErAxY" on the website you linked above. Nor does there seem to be a Creative Commons licence for the image. In such cases we need a written permission by email coming directly from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:2021 AndreasGloge©MartinaGloge.png

The foto "2021 AndreasGloge©MartinaGloge.png" has been deleted for no valid reason. The foto is made by Martina Gloge, my wife, meaning the wife of the person the wikipedia-article is about. She owns all the copyrights and she is happy to share this foot on wikipedia. She also states that I can freely use this foto for any public matters. Therefore there are no reasons or copyright violations existent.

Andreas Gloge --Cliffordagain (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Per Taivo at Commons:Deletion requests/File:2021 AndreasGloge©MartinaGloge.png. Thuresson (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:SR1-300.jpgTwitterのDMにて撮影者様より許可を頂いて掲載しております。

ながなの@Naga_nano様からTwitterのDMにて許可を頂いていたため掲載しましたが、削除されてしまったため削除解除リクエストを致します。TwitterのDMでの会話をアップロードしても問題無いか確認出来ないためスクリーンショットは添付出来ません。--Yuku Mizu (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Yuku Mizu: We cannot accept forwarded permissions. The free license needs to be granted either in the public post on twitter where the photo was published, or via email as described in VRT. Ankry (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Church_of_the_Gesu_2019.jpg

Requesting undeletion for upload in the English Wikipedia for en:Church of the Gesù, Quezon City, since there is no explicit FOP in the Philippines.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Done @Hariboneagle927: Please let me know when you have transferred the image. De728631 (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

And redeleted after 2 day term expired. Ankry (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:SolaireResort&Casinojf0966_04.JPG

No FOP in the Philippines. For reuploading in the English Wiki main space for Solaire Resort & Casino Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Done @Hariboneagle927: Please let me know when you have transferred the image. De728631 (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

And redeleted after 2 day term expired. Ankry (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Lenka Helena Koenigsmark.jpg

Hello, we would like to undelete the photo of Lenka Helena Koenigsmark. We did confirmed copywrite ownership as it was recommended to us in this Undeletion requests section at 26 October 2021 . The photographer Michal Ures send an email to photosubmission@wikimedia.org with copyrights at 3. 11. 2021. Then we were acknowleadge here, that we should send it to another email, so the photographer done it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and received reply, that it is OK. It has been over a week. Can you now please undelete the photo?

It is this one photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lenka_Helena_Koenigsmark.jpg We use it for this site: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenka_Helena_Koenigsmark

Thank you.

--Lenka Koe (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lenka Koe: If no VRT volunteer responds here, you may need to ask for the permission review in COM:ON providing the permission ticket number. The information about panding permission request in ticket:2021081910005781 has been added on June 20 by a volunteer who, unfrtunately, died recently. But there is some discrepancy in dates, so maybe, this is not the ticket number you are talking about? Ankry (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it should be the same. Sorry to here that :(

We have the photo visible online and it was deleted and since that we are proving and trying to undelete and do not know what more we can do for that. It seems it is stucked somewhere interspace. Lenka Koe (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done VRT member action is needed in order to undelete. Ankry (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

[jasonpoon2020.jpg] to be undeleted

To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby affirm that I Jason POON, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of jasonpoon2020.jpg as shown here uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

My facebook fanspage is verified with a blue mark. I have added a phrase of freely licensed on the page https://www.facebook.com/JasonPoonHongKong/photos/a.104317527641909/385585466181779/

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

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

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

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

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

Jasonpoon8 (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Jason POON 2021.Dec 06

@Jasonpoon8: please send it via email or any form of correspondence to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, not here, as per COM:VRTS. There is nothing to do here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per JWilz12345. --Yann (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Incisione-del-1854-1855-di-luigi-litta-raffigurante-la-collegiata-nuova-di-san-vittore-terminata-ma-senza-cupola-con-di-fronte-il-campanile-quattrocentesco.jpg

La litografia è stata fatta nel 1855, i diritti fotografici sono scaduti dopo 70 anni.

Teoriva, 6 dicembre 2021

Support as {{PD-old}}. CC license declared by the uploader was inappropriate. Ankry (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: Restored by DMacks. --Yann (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Razib Khan.jpg Usage in commons approved by copyright holder.

Copyright holder approves of use.

Oppose Reuploaded after deletion, so redeleted. Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:A reach stacker - container handling equipment.jpg

Good morning,

As stated in my answer to the initial deletion warning, I own the rights for this photo. I have since added a Creative Common license note here: https://logisticselearning.com/Logistics%20glossary/reach-stacker/

Based on this I would like to request the Undeletion of this file. Regards,

--TrainLearnGrow (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Support "CC-BY-SA-4.0" at [4]. May be added to Category:Shipping container trucks. Thuresson (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Figure Bukkake

I'm working on an article about Figure Bukkake, and all the images I've used are mine, made by my own camera, figures and goods.

Greetings, I have been working hard on the past hours making an article about figure bukkake. It's almost finished, just need to add the images, yet the two and a gif I've added to illustrate the article have been deleted due to infraction of the copyright. Yet as I've stated when marking the check box, these are my own images.

It is a serious article in which I've added so much information to make it a good and informative one about this fetish/sexual activity: https://i.imgur.com/ui8xtto.jpg

I think it's important to note that all these figures and goods are Japanese, which Japan considers ineligible for copyright as utilitarian objects as stated on the Derivative Works page:

The question, then, is whether toys are to be treated as vehicles and furniture: exempt from copyright protection on the basis of being utilitarian objects. Indeed, some countries, such as Japan,[10] generally consider toys to be utilitarian objects and therefore ineligible for copyright.

In any case, the image I'm trying to use as the main article illustration is this one (before you open it, I must warn you it is a japanese figure covered in semen): https://i.imgur.com/ydlKP2k.jpg

Does the fact of transforming the figure in a different art piece by the fact of being part of figure bukkake, which many users enjoy because of the final aesthetic, plus being my own work, and the picture taken by myself not give it a new copyright to my person?

In case it does not, would crop the top to remove the entirety of the head, or blurring either the figure face or the totaly of the figure, from the body to the feet leavingt he cum visible make it elegible to upload and illustrate the article?

File:An Scathach figure covered in semen.jpg Japanese figure covered in semen.|Figure bukkake on Scathach figure.
File:Dva12.gif Male performing figure fucking and ejaculating on a figure.|Figure fucking example on Dva.
File:Oppai mousepad being used for sexual stimulation..jpg An oppai mousepad being used to stimulate a penis between the feet.|Oppai Mousepad featuring Kanojo from the manga Houkago Play being used for sexual stimulation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesubutabkk (talk • contribs) 09:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC) (UTC)

This request can be cancelled. Mesubutabkk (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Bernice Liu 20170104a.png

Please restore the following pages:

File:Bernice Liu 20170104a.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: youtube cc. Roy17 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: Any comment? Ankry (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: An error. License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Photos of Spoonbridge and Cherry

Per the decision to keep an image of the 1988 sculpture Spoonbridge and Cherry on a recent deletion request I initiated. IronGargoyle was convincingly able to demonstrate that although there is no freedom of panorama for public sculptures in the US, S&C was not registered with the US copyright office and tangible copies of the work were distributed (also without copyright notice). Thus, S&C has fallen into the public domain and previously deleted photos of it not prominently also featuring other works at the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden can be restored. Those files may include works previously deleted here including:

It's very possible that some of these may be duplicates of each other (as these files have been uploaded and deleted over the course of the past decade) in which case only one instance need be restored. Thank you! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

~~{{Support}} per nom and clear evidence that this sculpture is in the public domain per {{PD-US-1978-89}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)~~

Removing support per evidence of a take-down notice. It makes the public domain status of the works directly affected by the takedown notice irrelevant unless someone is willing to file a counter-notice. I maintain, however, that this statue is clearly in the public domain. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is not clear whether it was published without copyright notice; at least there is one, now. ~~{{Weak oppose}}~~ Ankry (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That plaque is from 2009 or later (note included death date). Even if it was contemporary, remember that the the exhibition of the work is not publication in this time period. It is the photograph. That is where the copyright notice would need to be. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Also note that (according to the Wayback Machine) a web page from the garden from 2006 (before the new post-2009 plaque you sent) included no such copyright notice (whereas the equivalent website today does). IronGargoyle (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@IronGargoyle: If exhibition of the sculpture is not considered publication, then which 1978-89 publication are we talking about? Ankry (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: The press photo also linked above. Also, maybe I'm wrong and a copyright notice on the work would be sufficient, but the plaque you linked is not part of the work. It was added decades later, after the work had already passed into the public domain. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The plaque was not considered an evidence, it was considered a doubt. I refrain from my oppose per above, but leaving a decission to another admin. Ankry (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - Publication occurs only when copies are distributed by or with the authority of the copyright owner. Where is evidence Oldenburg/van Bruggen granted such authority to this press photo? Press photographers are perfectly able to distribute photographs of a publicly-visible works, including under fair use, but that does not magically compel a change in copyright status of the subject work; such would be antithetical to the premise of copyright. Эlcobbola _talk 21:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: It's a press photo as in a press kit/press release photo. You can tell that because in the issue of the Minneapolis Star Tribune where the photo appears, there is no staff photographer credit on the physical photograph or below the reproduction in the newspaper. The Star Tribune distinctly and consistently credits staff photographers in this era. This photograph was necessarily taken before the official opening because it was published before the official opening. Claes Oldenburg is also known to have been personally taking photographs before the official opening. You can see a small selection of his other photos on his website. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

This is entirely unresponsive to my point. Эlcobbola _talk 01:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I am showing that the only plausible person who would send a publicity photo to the newspaper is Oldenburg or someone working on his behalf. We know Oldenburg was there taking photos. We know that it is not a newspaper staff photo because there is no photo credit. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. We know that how? Where is evidence? Why do you first claim this is the work of the Star Tribune, and now that it's the work of Oldenburg. Review COM:EVID. Эlcobbola _talk 02:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not a work of the Star Tribune (nor did I ever claim that). It is a press release photo that was reprinted by the Star Tribune in its September 9, 1988 issue (from before the installation opened to the public). How do I know that? Well, first of all there's a clipping of the newspaper article attached to the original press release photograph from the Ebay link. Second, I actually viewed the whole issue of that newspaper on Newspapers.com. You're welcome to request a free account on Wikipedia and check it out for yourself. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether this is a press photo ("It is a press release photo that was reprinted by the Star Tribune ") is not in issue. Where is evidence Oldenburg/van Bruggen granted authority for the publication of this press photo? Review COM:EVID. Эlcobbola _talk

I've removed my support because of the take-down notice, so this is moot, but I maintain that this work is in the public domain. A press release is prima face evidence that you want the press release published. You don't have to direct me to the same policy multiple times (COM:EVID). It's insulting and rude. I've read that policy before. I agree with the policy. I just don't agree that my evidence is bad. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Per COM:EVID: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain". You appear not to have read that, as you've provided no such evidence. "The press release exists, therefore it has the sculptor's permission," effectively your argument, is utter nonsense, and indeed contradicted by the take down notice. I don't consider requests that you follow policy and provide evidence for your positions to be "insulting and rude"; verily, those on the correct side of an argument seldom resort to (illusory) tone policing. Эlcobbola _talk 04:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. People get convicted of crimes on circumstantial evidence all the time. While you may reasonably disagree about the quality of the evidence, stop saying that I'm not presenting evidence or ignoring policy. I gave you the exact issue where the press release photo was reprinted and the characteristic of staff vs press release photos in that venue. Oldenburg's website does indeed have photos that show he was there taking pictures before it opened. It's all common sense. A take down notice doesn't contradict anything. I fully believe that Oldenburg thinks his work is still copyrighted. Not all take-down notices are valid, but we still need to honor them. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Elcobbola mentioned this was a work of Oldenburg (Claes Oldenburg). Regardless if the artwork from 1978–89 period is registered or not, it can be noted that Oldenburg sent a takedown notice to Wikimedia Foundation in 2012 over all images of certain public works designed by him (all images - all images during that time, excluding current images). Note that this artwork was included, to quote:

20. 4024
Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen
Spoonbridge and Cherry, 1988
Stainless steel and aluminum painted with polyurethane enamel
29 ft. 6 in. x 51 ft. 6 in. x 13 ft. 6 in. (9 x 15.7 x 4.1 m)
Collection Minneapolis Sculpture Garden, Walker Art Center, Minneapolis
Copyright 1988 Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Teaspoonbridge_with_Cherry-Minneapolis_Sculpture_Garden.jpg

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that one of the files requested by Bobamnertiopsis is part of the 2012 DMCA take down notice from the Oldenburg camp. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment If the consensus is reached that these files should stay deleted, the resulting decision should likely apply to the two files currently sitting in Category:Spoonbridge and Cherry as well. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis: likely, as the sculpture in both images is not "trivial" (U.S. de minimis is based on triviality than European concept of "incidental, accessory, or not the main subject" inclusion). Their fates will ultimately be decided through the conclusion of this UNDEL request. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Agreed. I believe this is a category that's previously been deleted but I feel it deserves to stay tagged with {{NoFoP-US}} as folks do upload images of S&C frequently enough that it's a useful tool for finding and deleting them (if indeed that's what we decide should happen here). Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: I doubt very much that any of us are prepared to file a counter notice and face Oldenberg in court. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:ZeldaHeraldry.jpg

The file was a simple crop of File:Dragon Con 2013 - Pat Loika (9703021618).jpg, with a focus on the heraldic attribute(s) on the shield. Please restore File:ZeldaHeraldry.jpg so that the heraldic categories can exist on the crop.

Aavindraa (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

What on the first file might count as de minimis, is the main part of your image. It wasn't only cropped, there's been a correction in perspective too. While hearts, a key and a lion are common charges in heraldry, the way they are displayed represents a copyrighted work of art. That's the problem. -- regards, 32X (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose I think that File:Dragon Con 2013 - Pat Loika (9703021618).jpg may well be a copyvio and this crop from it certainly is. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, I nominated that file for deletion. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: per discussion above. --De728631 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Twitter font awesome.svg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Twitter font awesome.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The twitter logo is apparently available under an Apache license now, per File:Twitter-logo.svg Pppery (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Support The file should be undeleted and the licence changed to {{Apache}}. De728631 (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Expo Chalandre HD 2021 MUSEE DE COSNE.jpg

Cette image est libre de droit, pourquoi la supprimer ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NICOB58 (talk • contribs)

It's a current exhibition-poster of a museum. Why do you think it's "libre de droit"? --Túrelio (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: At least three copyrights here (perhaps one or two expired). Uploader claims the poster is "own work" which it clearly is not. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:ZhuravlevPA.jpg

Добрый день. Изображение File:ZhuravlevPA.jpg был сфотографирован нашим фотографом. Все права на файл принадлежат нам. Файл не скопирован и авторские права не нарушены. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglenvr (talk • contribs)

Hi Eaglenvr,

metadata state "Copyright: SPRITNYUK_COM". --Túrelio (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

"Наш фотограф" sounds differently to Eaglenvr. Authorship and copyright holder's permission doubts need to be resolved by VRT. Ankry (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done per above. A free license permission needs to be sent by the copyright holder to VRT. Ankry (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Сергей Александрович Дягилев.jpg

Этот файл предоставлен сайту "Союза композиторов России" https://www.unioncomposers.ru/composer/view/?id=887 из моего личного архива. Я являюсь Дягилевым Сергеем Александровичем. Это изображение принадлежит мне лично!

Этот файл принадлежит мне, Дягилеву Сергею Александровичу, композитору и дирижеру и предоставлен Союзу Композиторов России из моего личного архива. Пожалуйста, восстановите эту фотографию немедленно! в статье

This file belongs to me, Sergei Alexandrovich Diaghilev, composer and conductor and is provided to the Union of Composers of Russia from my personal archive. Please restore this photo immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сергей ДЯГИЛЕВ МЛ (talk • contribs)

@Сергей ДЯГИЛЕВ МЛ: For any image that was already published elsewhere, we need either an evidence of free license in the initial publication or a free license decl;aration from the actual copyright holder via email as described in VRT. Please note, that initial copyright holder is the photographer, not a person having the photo ptint in a personal archive. If the copyright has been transferred, the actual copyright holder may need to provide an evidence of copyright transfer (eg. a copy of copyright transfer contract). Ankry (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Per Ankry -- needs VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:MariaAlarcon.jpg

MariaAlarcon.jpg Tengo los permisos para hacer uso de esta imagen --Isabela de los Ángeles (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ping @Didym: for any comments. Thuresson (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you say you have permission to use the image. In the case where the uploader is not the actual photographer, our policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. If and when the license is read and approved, the image will be automatically restored. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Jim. --De728631 (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Polina Petrova.png

Hello ! My picture of the character Polina Petrova from Call of Duty Vanguard, which i was using on my page consacred to her on Wikipedia has been deleted without any reason. It has been marked of copyright, but it isn't. It's a screenshot capture of the game, from myself on my own PlayStation 5 console. I can prove it if it's necessary, the file is always on my console. If you could restore it, it would be appreciated. Thank you by advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HURTYCANN (talk • contribs)

Are you the author of the PlayStation 5 game? If nt, then you need their permission, see COM:DW. Ankry (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:The Little Mermaid (1989 Film) Official Poster.png

Hi Why You Delete This File? I Found This File From English Wikipedia And I Uploaded With All Descriptions For Use In Other Wikipedias Because When I Use The Name Of The File In The English Wikipedia In Farsi Wikipedia Don't Work. Link: en:File:The_Little_Mermaid_(Official_1989_Film_Poster).png — Preceding unsigned comment added by تیرتاوافن (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC) (UTC)

@تیرتاوافن: This file is only accepted on the English Wikipedia under a fair use rationale, but Commons doesn't accept fair use. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: per Yann. Fair use never works here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:DiKoLAN – Digitale Kompetenzen für das Lehramt in den Naturwissenschaften.png

Die Datei stammt von der Webseite https://dikolan.de. Die Datei ist nun unter der Lizenz CC BY-SA 4.0 veröffentlicht (die Autoren haben die Lizenz auf der Webseite angepasst). (Zuvor war die Datei als CC BY-ND 3.0 lizenziert). Somit kann die Datei jetzt auf Wikimedia Commons veröffentlicht werden.

--Lars-Jochen Thoms (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The file comes from the website https://dikolan.de. The file is now published under the license CC BY-SA 4.0 (the authors have adapted the license on the website). (Previously the file was licensed as CC BY-ND 3.0). Thus, the file can now be published on Wikimedia Commons.

--Lars-Jochen Thoms (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Support As noted above. Will need {{Licensereview}} when restored. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: Undeleted per request. I have also reviewed the new licence. --De728631 (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Aditayadornkitikhun 2019.jpg

This picture do come have source, The Television Pool of Thailand is from NBT. --Thyj (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Info Originating from this video and deleted per this DR. Ankry (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Per Television Pool of Thailand, NBT cooperates with this broadcasting pool and also uses the TPT brand. So I don't a problem with them licensing this particular content. De728631 (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Torre de Manila (July 25, 2016).jpg

Requesting temporary undeletion. To be uploaded under fair use in the English wiki mainspace at Torre de Manila. There is no FOP in the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariboneagle927 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 30 October 2021‎ (UTC+8)

Info I've added a provisional/temporary image at the article's infobox, in a similar way as the article en:Capital Market Authority Tower that uses a de minimis image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: As the temporal image seems to work well, then

Weak oppose this UNDEL request. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Support temporary undeletion to transfer. Just because we think that the current replacement on English Wikipedia is adequate, does not mean that this is image should be kept away from that project. The file is free enough for English Wikipedia and we should not be letting our editorial preference decide which free-in-the-US FoP images they can use. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@IronGargoyle: enwiki is not supposed to mimic Commons as per w:WP:NOT#NOTREPOSITORY nothwithstanding of allowance of unfree buildings there by virtue of U.S. law and U.S. architectural FOP. In fact, Patrickroque01 who is the prolific contributor of images of unfree public works there was notified before (in 2015) about his numerous images of Philippine buildings (and was even suggested by NickW557 to reduce some of his files to fair use, which may trigger 7-day countdown to deletion if the files were left unused). As far as my searching on enwiki is concerned, there are only four images of Burj Khalifa, and a single yet heavily-used image of Burj Al Arab (from UAE that does not have FOP too for publicly-visible artworks). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@IronGargoyle: Please tell me when it is transfered. Yann (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: Done. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Redeleted. --Yann (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

September Woman of the Day banners

I have been working my way through the files under Category:Women in Red social media banners, adding sources and attribution to them. In my first pass, I have just reached mid-September where there's a run of deleted files, all of which were speedily deleted by JuTa, I think under CSD F5:

Since these were deleted for lacking sources, please could they be undeleted to that I can add sources to them? I've already done this for a couple of hundred other files in this category tree. There was a previous UDR for a file under this tree, at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-09#File:Sep28 Woman of the Day.png, which was granted. --bjh21 (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bjh21: Not providing links to the wikipedia article sources / their authors you violated CC-BY-SA 3.0 license terms. As I can read the license terms, once you violated them, the license has stopped to you. This means that you can no longer use the articles under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license; in order to use them, you need to receive another license from all their authors. This means that YOU cannot use this image (but someone else can). Please, let someone correct me, if I am wrong. Ankry (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. On the one hand, I think that Ankry is misapplying the terms of the CC license. If you interpret the license that way, then Commons could not use the image because it rested here for some time, without attribution, before it was deleted. I don't think the terms of the license are intended to prohibit our use of an image because a single uploader goofed.

On the other hand, I'm not sure any of these are in scope. They amount to an unreadable snippet of a WP:EN page -- we don't generally keep images of WP pages and the several that I looked at are all unused. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: To be clear, it wasn't me that uploaded these pictures, but Victuallers. I don't think I've ever used them either, since I created User:Bjh21/Woman of the Day gallery after they were deleted. So I don't think my licence to use the relevant Wikipedia articles can have terminated. CC BY-SA 3.0 explicitly says that for derived works, downstream users' licences aren't terminated, so would it work for me to re-upload the files (with proper attribution) myself?

@Jameslwoodward: As I understand it, the purpose of these pictures is to be used at a rate of one per day of the year to promote the "Women in Red" project on English Wikipedia, and much of this promotion happens off-wiki. So right now, today's image File:Dec9 Woman of the Day.png is used on en:User talk:Victuallers and en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. Victuallers may be able to talk more about off-wiki use. I think images for advertising a useful project on English Wikipedia are something that falls within Commons' scope, admittedly rather indirectly. --bjh21 (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, comment withdrawn. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: @Bjh21: Please add a source. --Yann (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Pinball-machine-6842580.jpg

The image is free to use and can be downloaded here: https://pixabay.com/de/photos/flipper-virtueller-flipper-6842580/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migel1985 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 December 2021‎ (UTC)

Ping @Herbythyme: for any comment. Thuresson (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes - I deleted it because it is almost exactly the same image as one I deleted yesterday (I think) as a copyright violation from digital-pinball.com/00/sharpin-king-pc-4k (File:Virtueller Flipper.jpg). The only difference is the logo on the side. It could be undeleted but I think some work would have to go into trying to find the "original" image and its licensing. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Aside from the question of the copyright for the photo, the art work on the machine certainly has a copyright for which we have no license. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Jim above. --Yann (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Padre_Ceschi.jpg

I request the restoration of this image in which the priest Ceschi appears, said photo was taken by the church of San Francisco Solano and is free of copyright in turn was used by various media does not mean that they belong to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Aristiqui (talk • contribs) 03:15, 7 December 2021‎ (UTC)

@Julian Aristiqui: How did it came about that you own the copyright of this photo? Why do you claim copyright on a photo that is "free of copyright"? Thuresson (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose It appears at https://www.unoentrerios.com.ar/confirmaron-que-el-padre-ceschi-esta-estable-pero-no-puede-hablar-n1414831.html with an explicit copyright notice. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done, per Jim. OP do not respond to relevant questions. Thuresson (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:USC13.png

s'ils vous plaît arrêtez de supprimer ou signaler tout mes travaux, je suis propriétaire de ces post et j'en assume l'entière responsabilité. Les images qui sont utilisées sont pour une présentation de notre Club de votre compréhension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElDado77 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC) (UTC)

@ElDado77: Comme pour tout contenu publié ailleurs auparavant, une confirmation pour une licence libre est nécessaire via email. Merci de suivre la procédure COM:VRT/fr. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: The actual copyrght holder must send a free license via VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Shezray.jpg

I would like to request the undeletion of my photo. This photo is indeed my own photo which I have all rights to. -Shezray Husain

--Mediascience2020 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Shezray Husain

Oppose This file can be found at Facebook and IMDb without a free rationale. As it is doubtlessly a professional portrait photograph and has been published before, our rules require that the actual copyright holder sends a permission by email. Please see COM:VRT for details. De728631 (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - Per both IMDB and the subject's instagram account, this is the work of Vish Kumar. You've just indicated yourself to be Shezray Husain. Kumar will need to provide evidence of permission using the process at COM:VRT. Эlcobbola _talk 15:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Needs a free license from the actual photographer. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Sep20 Woman of the Day.png

This is rather embarrassing. I missed one file in #September Woman of the Day banners above, namely File:Sep20 Woman of the Day.png. Please could it be undeleted as well? It was deleted for lacking sources, and I should be able to add sources as soon as it is undeleted. --bjh21 (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: as per above discussion. --Yann (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Cebu Taoist Temple

The temple building falls under {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}}, as per w:Cebu Taoist Temple it was completed in 1972 (highly likely middle part or 3rd quarter part of the year, or pre-December 15, 1972). If some images depict sculptural works, please do not undelete them yet. (Non-admins like me cannot see deleted images, so I just listed all deleted files here)

From COM:Deletion requests/File:Taoist Temple, Cebu.jpg

File:Taoist Temple, Cebu.jpg

From COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cebu Taoist Temple

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Support --Yann (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Коммунизм ИвСпК 2016-Выргород.jpg

This image was sourced from Discogs and did not require approval with permission from the original author, since it was posted by the copyright holder who voluntarily renounced copyright and accordingly falls under the definition of Public Domain, despite property rights in force on other web resources. The complained anonym, who noticed a violation in this, shared the links to one site where we can see that the disc is really legal and there is a detailed information about the product listed in the text. But among the scans, the album cover is not similar in quality to what I uploaded in the spring. RenesSans (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't read Russian, but I only see © 2021 Discogs®. Terms of service says LICENSE AND SITE ACCESS
We grant You a limited license to access and make personal use of the Service and not to download (other than page caching) or modify it, or any portion of it, except with Our express written consent. This license does not include any resale or commercial use of the Service, including its contents; any collection and use of any product listings, descriptions, or prices; any derivative use of the Service, including its contents; any downloading or copying of account information for the benefit of another merchant; or any use of data mining, robots, or similar data gathering and extraction tools. The Service, including the content therein, may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without Our express written consent. Yann (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That Discogs says the following:

LICENSING OF USER CONTENT

The Service consists of user-generated content. This catalogued content promotes the growth of information (i.e., music, literary, etc.) related to the sale of items through the marketplace, pursuant to Our mission. You may only contribute content which is in the public domain (i.e., expired copyright or public from inception) or otherwise available through a CC0 “No Rights Reserved” license, or content for which You are the rights holder. Certain content may also be contributed if it complies with applicable fair use or quotation standards and/or represents an item You are listing for sale in the marketplace (i.e., images, specific item information). If You have any questions about the public domain, license, or fair use or quotation status of content, please consult with a qualified legal expert before contributing that content. You grant a non-exclusive, non-revocable, transferable right to Us to use Your user-generated content, unrestricted in time and territory, for the purpose of rendering the Service. RenesSans (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - The Discogs quote above is discrediting all by itself ("Certain content may also be contributed if it complies with applicable fair use or quotation standards"), not to mention that sites with "user-generated content"--social media, IMDB, etc.--are generally nothing but COM:LL. That is, however, moot as this album cover is derivative of the "The Poet" by Cecil Collins, who died 1989. Given that the UK is pma +70, assuming a standard term, this will not be PD until 01.01.2060 (1989+70+1). Эlcobbola _talk 16:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: prove to me that it is certain content provided in accordance with applicable FU standards, and only then impose a self-discrediting stigma on the service. If you succeed, then the file must be issued a suitable license with export to the Russian Wikipedia. RenesSans (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@RenesSans: It doesn't work that way. It is up to the uploader to prove that a file is under a suitable license or in the public domain, not the opposite. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: how about Russell's teapot, or does this analogy work unilaterally? RenesSans (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Posting content at Discogs does not mean that you renounce your copyright. Neither is there any free licence at the source page. --De728631 (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:APPLI SNCF REGIO2N MENTON LES ARCS 1234.jpg

Il n'y a aucun problème avec des droits d'auteurs, puisque je suis l'auteur de la photo. Merci de bien vouloir arrêter de supprimer arbitrairement mes contributions, la réflexion me semble essentielle avant de prendre de pareilles décisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homère plus (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC) (UTC)

Oppose Derivative work (oeuvre dérivée). Yann (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

OpposeThere are two copyrights here -- one for the photo and one for the train shown in the photo. In order to keep this on Commons, we would need a license for that from SNCF. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Per discussion above. --De728631 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Gare de théoule 001IMGJPG.jpg.jpg

Il n'y a aucun problème avec des droits d'auteurs, puisque je suis l'auteur de la photo. Merci de bien vouloir arrêter de supprimer arbitrairement mes contributions, la réflexion me semble essentielle avant de prendre de pareilles décisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homère plus (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC) (UTC)

@Homère plus: Il n'y a pas de fichier supprimé à ce nom. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Voir File:Gare de théoule 001IMGJPG.jpg. Non encore supprimé. Yann (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Not yet deleted. Procedural closure. --Yann (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:宮崎俊一2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:宮崎俊一2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: It appears like there is valid permission from the copyright holder now (ticket:2021120710004831). I'm reasonably sure that the email is from the photographer and I have no reason to assume the copyright has been transferred to someone else, at least before seeing the deleted content. whym (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: @Whym: Please apply the VRT template. --De728631 (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Bandersonom.jpg

This photo is entirely my own work. I am Allan J. Cronin. My wiki name is Canticle. This issue has been encountered and resolved before some years ago. Please undelete this photo and put it back on the page to which I uploaded it. I uploaded it as a registered user which is verifiable by simply looking at my email address. This photo is published on my Flickr page under a creative commons license and I have uploaded it under that license as per wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canticle (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 December 2021‎ (UTC)

Support CC-BY-SA-2.0 at flickr.com. Thuresson (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That is my Flickr account and I have uploaded my own work as per policy. Please undelete. Canticle (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Support as per Thuresson Ankry (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Sprehod2.jpg

I made a photo and also the way. Jaz sem naredil foto in tudi pot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradraka (talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC) (UTC)

@Gradraka: This file is copied from Facebook. If it is your picture, could you upload the original with EXIF data please. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes from my facebok. I shot that photo

@Gradraka: Don't upload images from Facebook. Please sign your messages with ~~~~. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Procedural closure. Not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Mari Kalkun.jpg

Hello! The original author of the picture I´ve uploaded (Ruudu Rahumaru), has sent the necessary permission to Wikipedia by email (January 2020). Best wishes, Mari Kalkun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorumaamari (talk • contribs) 14:52, 12 December 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.
@Vorumaamari: We need to wait until the permission is verified and confirmed by a VRT volunteer. If you have questions concerning permission processing, you can ask in COM:ON providing the ticket# received in the automatic response to the email. Ankry (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: needs VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Mcdonalds 1961 - 1968 Original Logo.jpg

The logo can be viewed here, and is clearly not above US threshold of originality. Images are also not deleted simply for not being in use, and incorrect licenses can be fixed. Fry1989 ^eh? 13:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Support --Yann (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Support It's PD-ineligible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: per yann and carl. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Priestley_Voices_yellow.jpg

"Priestley_Voices_yellow.jpg" was deleted for "copyright violation". I request it be undelete because the copyright was not violated because I am the copyright holder. I painted this image, which became a film frame from my film Voices (1985). I photographed the painting. I uploaded the file and stated that I am the copyright holder when I uploaded the file.--Primopix (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The file named above has never existed on Commons. The word "Yellow" does not appear in any of the names of files you have uploaded.

I note that you have made substantial edits to Voices (1985 film). If, in fact, it is your film as you claim, that is a serious violation of Wikipedia rules. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: No response -- request for UnDR of nonexistant file. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Money of Poland - appeal

Files that are to be undeleted: see this discussion, and in general any złoty-related currency.

According to the current description, uploading files of currency <70 years is not allowed, full stop. This is a misconstrual of what the (allegedly) copyright holders actually say.

According to the National Bank of Poland's "good practices of banknote usages", it sets the following conditions for using the images, to which the National Bank of Poland asserts copyright:

The banknotes'/coins' image must not be modified if the modification suggests a different design from the one actually in circulation
The banknote must have "WZÓR" or "SPECIMEN" written over the banknote.
The banknote resolution must be <=72 dpi
The banknotes/coins may not be portrayed as being destroyed, used to promote addictive substances that may endanger one's life or health or in general portrayed for purposes not related to to their function as a means of payment (i.e. as a decoration or background). For other commercials, permission must be sought first.

In fact, we have a similar situation with Israeli currency, but for whatever reason Commons won't let upload images of Polish currencies. Moreover, these being the guidelines without actual basis in law, we should probably ask whether the assertion of copyright was sound in the first place and whether we are bound by the restrictions, which appears not to be the case: [5], [6], [7], [8]. The Polish government (represented by a senior official in the Ministry of Finances) wrote in 2011, responding to a request to "hand over the copyright to the banknotes to the National Bank of Poland" (suggesting that there was none in the first place) that the banknotes are not subject to copyright as government symbols, while acknowledging that the National Bank of Poland adopts a narrow interpretation of this, saying that it does want to restrict the exemption to the representations of banknotes in their function as a means of payment, while others (as pointed above) see no reason for such restriction (as does the Polish Business Insider, for example, see "Domena publiczna").

The description must thus be modified for the COM:Currency Poland, and the files restored back in their places. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment Often it's a subjective call whether a restriction that technically violates the four freedoms of Free Cultural Works should be allowed on Commons, via a provision such as COM:NCR. For example, we allow:

Photos depicting a copyrighted work incidentally, for which certain modifications are not allowed, namely cropping the image to focus on the copyrighted work (COM:DM);
Photos depicting a person, which does not allow use of that image for advertising purposes, since no model release was signed (COM:IDENT);
Photos depicting a building, but where constructing another building based on those photos is forbidden (COM:FOP);
Simple logos of corporations/products, even though selling a product with that logo on it is forbidden (COM:CB#TRADEM).

Basically, it comes down to: Suppose you violate these terms. If the National Bank of Poland will come after you based on anti-counterfeiting statutes, then it is probably OK; if the National Bank of Poland will come after you based on copyright law, then it is not OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Per the current version of COM:CUR Poland and Discussion that resulted in the deletion of Polish money images from Commons. Thuresson (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with such a vote is that while the discussion arguments back in 2011 still largely hold, the closure was inappropriate. For instance, the linked guidelines by NBP do not mention any written permissions for the banknote usages so long as the usage fulfils the above criteria. Please elaborate on the !vote.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose As noted above, the NBP asserts that all notes are copyrighted -- either its own copyright or that of the designer. It sets conditions for use which are incompatible with Commons -- limiting the resolution and use of images. It also does not say that the terms of use are irrevocable, which Commons requires. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per most of Jim's input, and oppose any modification to CUR Poland. The National Bank of Poland's terms of use in relation to copyright are against the definition of Free Cultural Works, two of which are (with added emphases): "The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work. For kinds of works where it is relevant, this freedom should include all derived uses ("related rights") such as performing or interpreting the work." and "The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, as part of a larger work, a collection, or independently. There must be no limit on the amount of information that can be copied. There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied." @Szmenderowski: While I agree to the introduction of low-resolution copies here, the red flag in the term you shared is "For other commercials, permission must be sought first." This means not all commercial uses are free. For a copyrighted work to be permitted on Commons, all types of unrestricted commercial reuses should be allowed, no exceptions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose For example "in general portrayed for purposes not related to to their function as a means of payment (i.e. as a decoration or background)" is really not making it a free license. Also, "image must not be modified if the modification suggests a different design from the one actually in circulation" is forbidding large part of derivative works, what makes it again unfree. Though if NBP is making this claims without basis in law then I would support ignoring them. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: per discussion -- While I think our advisory on Polish currency is correct, if it needs changing, this is not the place to do it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:First Wendy's.jpg

Is this image the same as en:File:First Wendy's.jpg at the English Wikipedia?

If so, then it is covered under {{CML no known copyright restrictions}} per this comment by Clindberg (talk · contribs) at the village pump. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: no, it's a different photo, showing an Ohio state historical marker with text that is probably well above COM:TOO in the US. No license or author for the photo, either. clpo13_(talk) 21:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the quick response.

I withdraw my nomination: deleted image is not the same as free image from Wikipedia. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:E-Governance and Internet Governance Foundation for Africa Logo.jpg

Kindly restore logo I'll be sending an OTRS to the owner for concern and approval to use for wikimedia event known us Ghana Histo Cita-thon 2.0

@Jwale2:

Done It was not deleted for copyright reasons, but for being out of scope as the logo of a non-notable organization. Putting it on Ghana Histo Cita-thon 2.0 would make it COM:INUSE and thus automatically in scope. Regarding copyright, it is probably below the threshold of originality in most countries, but if you want to be safe you can still send the OTRS permission so that it is freely licensed worldwide. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: Below ToO, and now in scope. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Yousef Elrashidy Wikipedia.jpg

File:Yousef Elrashidy Wikipedia.jpg I request this undeletion because its my own photo and its hold my all copyrights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasrkhalil (talk • contribs) 05:37, 14 December 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.

Procedural close. Please discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yousef Elrashidy Wikipedia.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Photos by Simon Dall'Aglio

Please restore

We have permission from the photographer per Ticket:2021120910011651. – thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment There is no evidence that any of these photos have been previously published (they were deleted solely on the basis of suspicion), so VRT is unnecessary here. I have restored these per the discussion above. It appears there are two batches of images: one batch from the 2019 Annecy International Animation Festival taken with a Samsung Galaxy A5 (SM-A510F), and another batch from the 2021 Annecy International Animation Festival taken with a Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 (ginkgo-user). The EXIF for the latter is weird, but it's weird in a consistent way that implies that it's from one device. The uncropped reuploads are also supporting evidence. I think it's enough to bring along the other images from the same event per COM:AGF even though they are lacking EXIF. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment @Boungawa: However, we do need VRT for any photos which were created by your friends, in order to have a legally binding (electronic) document from them saying that they agree to the terms of the Creative Commons license. The same is not the case for your own uploads since you agree to them as soon as you click on the "Upload" button, but you cannot agree to the terms on behalf of your friends. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment Anyway, I have added a permission tag to the 14 files mentioned in this section, in order to dissipate any doubt. --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: Undeleted. --De728631 (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:EVE 1 Original.jpg

Kindly undelete this picture as the person herself has asked me to upload this picture of her on her Wikipedia page. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Pascal (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 December 2021‎ (UTC)

Oppose This is a small, 333 × 333 pixels, photo that has appeared at various web sites at least since 2014. Please ask the photographer to follow the instructions at Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Note that since this is almost certainly not a selfie, the subject almost certainly does not own the copyright and cannot freely license it as required on Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Per discussion above. --De728631 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:"True Prosperity".jpg

ticket:2016052510034637

goes to en:Heather Eatman

Permission is there but the confirmation never connected to file. Please confirm ticket and restore. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

On hold Copied request to COM:VRTN since not all administrators are also trusted email handlers. De728631 (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: Jeff G. is now handling the rest of the VRT process. --De728631 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: :Permission accepted in that ticket. To ease future requests on this page, please identify yourself as a VRT Agent in such requests, as not all Admins have the MarkAdmins gadget enabled. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File: AleshJermarKarikatura.jpg ; File: AleshJermarSingle.jpg ; File: AleshJermarVELA.jpg ; File: Crossway_of_Dreams.jpg

I was preparing the my release statement while these files got deleted and I am requesting their undeletion for the following reasons:

I hereby affirm that I represent Etnah Jermar, Alesh Jermar’s widow, who, having inherited his estate, has the sole ownership of the all above listed images. There is no copyright on any of these. Mrs. Jermar is in agreement with releasing them to the Wikimedia Commons and has given me full authority in my capacity as a curator of Alesh Jermar's collected music and as a creator of this Wikipage to do so.

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

--BlissfulBlueLotus (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Marie H Kurfirtova Appointed representative of Etnah Jermar December 13th, 2021

Oppose First, "Mrs. Jermar is in agreement with releasing them to the Wikimedia Commons" is much more limited than a CC-BY-SA license. It is not clear that Mrs. Jermar knows that the CC-BY-SA license allows anyone to use her husband's art for any purpose. Second, we do not know who BlissfulBlueLotus is or what their relationship with the widow actually is. Unfortunately we regularly have dishonest people make claims similar to the one above in order to have images kept on Commons. Therefore policy requires that either (a) Mrs. Jermar must herself grant a free license using VRT or Ms. Kurfirtova must grant the license after providing appropriate written evidence that she has the right to do so, again, using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: See Jim's explanation. --De728631 (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Віталій Портников.jpg

I do not understand why this file was deleted. This photo was taken in 2011 by U.S. Embassy Kyiv Ukraine and was shared under free licence. Also this file is not the original, it is cropped version of file that was also deleted.--Renvoy (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Done along with its source file, File:Vitaliy Portnikov 2011.06.06.jpg, which was deleted at a time when COM:PDM was not allowed on Commons. (Note that even then, it should not have been deleted: back then, PDM required justification, and "US government work" was more than enough justification.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:I_AM_EVIL.png

this is an emoji than i made and i don't understand why the file is deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by PizzAs999 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 15 December 2021‎ (UTC)

Oppose Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:I AM EVIL.png. The file was deleted because it was not in the project scope of Commons. All files at Commons need to have an educational purpose, and this work of yours was found not to be educational. De728631 (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: out of scope. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Бабінчук Марія Степанівна.png

I want to set appropriate license for this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitemp4422 (talk • contribs)

Which license is appropriate and why? Ankry (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The image was deleted by someone, because it didn't have license. Most probably by my fault, I forgot to add license when I've been uploading this image. So, if it possible just add a Creative Commons license or any other license that allow free sharing of this image, whos owner I am. Thank you in advance. Wikitemp4422 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose This is a scan of a photograph or, possibly, a halftone from a book or periodical. Owning a physical copy of an image does not give you the right to freely license an image as required on Commons. That right almost always belongs to the photographer. In order for this image to be restore either (a) you must prove that it is in the Public Domain because its copyright has expired or for another valid reason or (b) the actual photographer must give a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done As per Jim: no free license evidence provided. Ankry (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Javierpalermoprincipal.jpg

Es una foto publica de la persona por quien estoy escribiendo esta entrada, quien, ademas, me la facilito para publicarla.

--Zeleandrop (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Procedural close, file is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Reopened -- it has been deleted as an out of scope personal image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Aside from the question of whether it is in scope, the uploader claimed in the file description that he was the photographer. Now he says that the image was given to him by the subject. Since it almost certainly not a selfie, the subject probably does not have the right to freely license it. In order to restore it either (a) the actual photographer must freely license it using VRT or (b) someone else must freely license it after proving to VRT that that person has the right to do so. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:riceonline.jpg

www.riceonline.ir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.210.239.206 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 17 December 2021‎ (UTC)

Info No file with this file name has been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Thuresson. Please log in, and provide a file name. --Yann (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Akulivikchuk- a nineteenth century Eskimo village on the Nushagak River, Alaska (IA akulivikchuknine60vans).pdf

This file was deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Internet Archive document akulivikchuknine60vans

Undeletion is requested, as prompted by comments in a different DR, another contributor suggested a review of files deleted with minimal rationale ( Namely in the instance of this file that it was incorrectly licensed as {{PD-US-Gov}}.)

A review of the file on IA and on BHL could find no "(C)" style notice. And subsequent checks of CCE volumes for 1970 and 1970 did not suggest that there was a entry for this work.

The license would therefore potentially be {{PD-US-no-notice}} (As a 1970 US publciation this would have had to have one.), and thus the file could potentially be hosted on Commons.

Related files (which should be taken as part of this DR.

Support The PDF is an entire book; the JPGs are images from it. The book does not have a copyright notice in the usual place so the book and its illustrations are, as noted above, PD No Notice. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: PD-US-no-notice. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

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

The university have changed the color of logo File:The Islamia University of Bahawalpur.png

Hello Editors,

Islamia University has changed the colour of the logo and asked me to update it on Wikipedia. Therefore I uploaded it with due permission etc. I cannot provide any document, but please refer to the official Facebook page of the varsity for proof of my above reference. Kindly restore it so it can be used on Wikipedia pages.

Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/iubwp

(Asim mz (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC))

@Asim mz: This logo is declared non-free. Why do you think that the one you uploaded is free? Unlike English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons cannot host unfree logos. Ankry (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done no evidence that the logo is free. Ankry (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:East Turkistan Government in Exile Emblem.png

Various variants of this logo are present om Commons. Source website: https://east-turkistan.net/ says all material is (now) CC-BY-SA4.0 (scroll to the bottom), so this image can be undeleted. Commons:Deletion requests/File:East Turkistan Government in Exile Emblem.png was the original DR. Ellywa (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Support The source page is freely licensed as noted above. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: as per Jim. License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Information is allowed as we are allowed to post photos of ourselves as well as our works with the webpage posted

This is my photo and the information about myself is correct The admin refused to respond back to me after abusing his power to delete my authorized works if you feel otherwise please provide the proof which will be hard as I am this person not yourself Community guidelines clearly state you may post photos of yourself as well as give information about yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Ryder (talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 December 2021‎ (UTC)

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

Oppose This unsigned rant is presumably in regard to Herby's deletion of User:Professor Ryder.

I suggest you read Commons:User pages. User pages and User images are for contributors, which, so far, you are not. They are not for people to post images and promotional material about themselves unless and until they have made meaningful contributions to Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Obviously not, as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:UMAMI COLA 250ml.jpg

私が撮影した作品です。--RAGNAROK MAN (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@RAGNAROK MAN: There are two copyrights here: copyright to the label and copyright to the photo. Are you the original author of both? Moreover, a free license EVIDENCE is required for any work that was published elsewhere under a non-free license. Is the label under cc-by-sa-4.0? Is there cc-by-sa-4.0 declaration on this page? See VRT for the appropriate procedure. Ankry (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Султан-Мут Эндиреевский.jpg

Hello! Why is my image being deleted([9]) referring to redrawing? Yes, the old image was taken as a basis, but it was absolutely changed a priori, the quality was improved, facial features were changed and much more, this is another image, already mine. - Akhmad Tarkovsky (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Akhmad Tarkovsky: The deletion reason was explained in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Султан-Мут Эндиреевский.jpg. See also COM:DW. Ankry (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done not an undeletion request; question responded. Ankry (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Antonio Attolini Murra.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2021120910008601. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: Done. Yann (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

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

This logo is my own design & work File:Department of Pharmaceutics, the Islamia University of Bahawalpur.jpg

Hello Editors,

I am also a professional designer, so I have designed this logo for my own department & it is also approved by the university. As there is no copyright issue with this one also it is not available elsewhere on the internet, so kindly restore it so the public can access it using google search. Thanks (Asim mz (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC))

@Asim mz: Unused logos are misleading and out of COM:SCOPE. For used logos we need evidence of free license declaration on the site using it, or a free license declaration via email from the actual copyright holder sent to VRT. There is no way to host a logo as Own work here. Ankry (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Dynamite BTS (musical group).svg File:BTS Dynamite.svg

I request the restoration of these files, since they only make up letters, the font is called MONOTON and it has no copyright https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Monoton#about --Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Info Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Covers of music albums of South Korea. Thuresson (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose It certainly does not have a copyright in the USA, but it would have a copyright in many countries, particularly the UK. Unless the uploader can show that Korean law is more similar to USA law than others, this cannot be kept. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:TriceratopsWisconsinDells1960s.JPG

Photo by deceased grandparent, I'm the heir. Late 1960s, so current US FOP laws regarding the model do not apply. (IMO nice illustration of tourism in Wisconsin in the late 1960s, I was just looking for it and found it was deleted.) I missed that this was deleted~~; as far as I can tell I was not notified of the deletion listing~~. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Info Uploader notified here. Thuresson (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)

Oppose I'm not sure what "so current US FOP laws regarding the model do not apply" means. There has never been any FoP for sculpture in the USA. The only FoP is for architecture and that was instituted at the same time that architecture came under copyright.

The sculpture may be PD-No-Notice, but it is up to the uploader to prove that. Without knowing that the sculpture does not have a copyright notice, we cannot keep its image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

OK. Withdrawing for now pending more info/research. Quick online search shows that the attraction was called "Prehistoric Land", the dinosaur figures were made by someone named "Dick Day" (who I've thus far been unable to find more info about) in the mid 1950s, and that the attraction had been demolished before 2000. While it seems very improbable that valid copyright notices were placed on the dinosaur park figures back in the 1950s, it is not impossible; as the figures themselves seem to no longer exist to inspect, a search of US copyright registrations might answer one way or another if valid registration was made at the time and subsequently renewed. I also see that several postcards of the attraction were published, some of which are now PD-US no notice, but they too would run into the DW problem in showing the original dinosaur figures. Thanks for the feedback, all! -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done Withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Max Verstappen on Red Bull F1 in Abu Dhabi Photo by Prof Dr Norman Ali Khalaf.jpg

I am the person who took the picture. I also have put the picture on twitter, Instagram and Facebook account. My Regards Prof. Dr. Norman Ali Khalaf — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaffaFalcon (talk • contribs) 09:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Mick Schumacher driving Haas F1 in Abu Dhabi Photo by Prof Dr Norman Ali Khalaf.jpg

I am the person who took the picture. I have published the same picture on twitter, Instagram and Facebook accounts. My Regards Prof. Dr. Norman Ali Khalaf — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaffaFalcon (talk • contribs) 09:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@JaffaFalcon: Please upload the original files. Do not copy images from social media. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Prima varianta.jpg

Hello,

Please reinstate the picture File:Prima varianta.jpgas it is my own creation and it is used for the article published by me for the Romanian actor Petrica Popa.

The same request is for File:Petrica Popa 2021.jpg.

Additionally please take a look on the errors displayed as everything was done properly and according to your website instructions.

Let me know if I can assist you with any additional information.

You can contact me directly via email on <email redacted>.

Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gapopa (talk • contribs) 12:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Petrica Popa 2021.jpg

Hello,

I reach you with undeletion request for File:Petrica Popa 2021.jpg , the picture was made using my personal phone and it is for the official wikipedia page of the Romanian actor Petrica Popa.

If you need any additional information you can contact me directly on [e-mail removed].

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gapopa (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Petrica Popa 2021.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gapopa: Please read COM:DW. We need the permission of the original photographer via email. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Agreed. The two images cited above appear to be identical. They infringe on the original photographer's copyright. The actual photographer must give a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Brisbane Jersey 2002.png

The image was created by myself. The image contained a small logo that is freely available from the following website: https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Brisbane_Broncos

--Spunkwinkle (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Spunkwinkle: Posting a logo on a Community content website doesn't remove its copyright. We need the formal written permission of the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Undelete 'File:1st corps unit (South Korea).svg' and over 20 files

About 20 files were deleted because one user requested deletion. Deleted files are images from My Wiki Page.

All of these files were created by myself. However, it was removed as a false report. (It seems that the complainant misunderstood that he had copied and uploaded another image.)

All images were created in vector(.svg) format, some uploaded as bitmap(.png) format.

I'm not good at English, so I don't know if the meaning was conveyed well. I'm sorry.--Pablin (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment While the requirement that anyone using these symbols is required to attribute you as the author was obviously inappropriate, at least some of them may be not copyrighted as {{PD-shape}}. Ankry (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Is making the military unit insignia mark against Wikipedia's copyright policy? Now Wikipedia has uploaded the military insignia of many countries around the world. Can't I make and raise the military unit insignia? Please, reply. Pablin (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pablin: First, Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia. Second, per policy, the copyright status we rely on is the copyright status in the country of origin and copyright law vary between countries. And third, it is up to the uploader to provide an evidence that the images are freee. Ankry (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I knew the answer. I will contact the Ministry of National Defense of the Korea. Thank you. --Pablin (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Per Pablin's last comment. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Un delete: File:Monument to lab mouse-1.JPG and other

Were deleted with the reason "No FOP in Russia for sculptures" after only two days five hours without further discussion.

--Methodios (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Methodios: : Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monument to lab mouse. Are there any reasons to permanently keep these photos? Thuresson (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. A picture was deleted from my user page in my home Wikipedia (German) - Diff.-Link. But that's not a problem for me. Greatings --Methodios (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The requester's "after only two days five hours" would be correct, except that the DR and its closure were a month and two days five hours apart. There is, in fact, no FOP in Russia for sculptures, so these images infringe on the sculptor's copyright and there is nothing to discuss. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Because there was no contribution, I thought, it still had to be discussed. I also mixed up the month. My eyes are not getting any younger. ;-) --Methodios (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether there is discussion or not is entirely up to the 25,000 Commons editors. In cases that are as clear as this one, there will generally be little or no discussion. Editors use there time to discuss interesting or controversial cases. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done No valid reason to undelete. Ankry (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Islamia College Peshawar (Historic Painting by Marguerite Tipping 1914, wife of 1st Principal Llewellyn Tipping).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Insignia of Islamia College Peshawar.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Insignia of Islamia College Peshawar (coloured).png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Islamia College Peshawar (Historic Painting by Marguerite Tipping 1914, wife of 1st Principal Llewellyn Tipping).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: because the under discussion image was created by me, not anybody else Zafarmaini (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zafarmaini: But who is the artist? Please read COM:DW. File:Islamia College Peshawar (Historic Painting by Marguerite Tipping 1914, wife of 1st Principal Llewellyn Tipping).jpg seems old, so it may be OK, but you need to provide all information about the artworks: author, date and place of first publication, source, etc. For the logos, we need a confirmation by email from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Un delete: LVG 150 - 18 x 23 - Water Color on Board - Signed.jpg

Please undelete: File:LVG 150 - 18 x 23 - Water Color on Board - Signed.jpg

This is a painting done by my grandfather and owned by me.

Thank you--7moxy7 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@7moxu7: . Although you are the owner of the watercolor, you are not the of owner of the copyright. That is your grandfather. Please follow the procedure of VRT to prove your identity and to bring clarity into the copyright situation, which depends on the personal situation of your family. Perhaps after that the image might be undeleted. Ellywa (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Aside from the copyright question -- with which I agree -- this is a work by an unnamed artist. We do not keep works of art from artists who are not notable. Without knowing the name of the artist and that he is noteworthy, we can not keep the painting on Commons. 17:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done per Ellywa and Jim. Both: the scope and copyright issues need to be resolved before undeletion. Ankry (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Josef Stolz.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: we now have the permission of the photographer. Flomiwo (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the photographer. Now you imply that it is someone else. Claiming "own work" when someone else is the photographer is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.

I'm not sure what you mean, "we now have the permission of the photographer." The only satisfactory permission is a free license sent by the actual photographer using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry for being not clear enough, as I don't write in English very much, so maybe there are some misunderstandings: "we" are two former students of Josef Stolz and part of his ensemble. When I created the page, I later asked Josef to send the approval of the photo of him we use on our homepage to VRT. VRT answered that he can't be the photographer (which is my colleague at the ensemble and the other part of the "we") and that they need his approval, but we missed that email. Now he sent me the declaration that the photo is free to use. I am sorry when I misunderstood the rules for the photo or was unclear in my wording. Flomiwo (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Again, in order for the image to be restored on Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I am a bit confused. So I don't need to request the undeletion but instead only send the free license agreement to VRT, even though the image is already deleted? Thanks in advance for a clarification. Flomiwo (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Flomiwo: If you are the copyright holder, then: yes. After the permission is verified and accepted by a VRT volunteer, they will undelete the image or request us to do so. Ankry (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Then this request is cleared of course and I will ask my colleague to send the permission to VRT. Flomiwo (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Needs a license via VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Front-view-of-the-resort.jpg

This a picture taken by me with my phone, it is not a picture from any other source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monghorsajek (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC) (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 Copied from Tripadvisor. Yann (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with Yann. It is an exact match of the Tripadvisor image -- the wisps of clouds are exactly the same.

If you are going to continue to contribute to Commons, you must not upload work from the Web and claim it as your own work as you did in the file description and, more blatantly, above. If you do so again, you will probably be blocked from editing on Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done as per Yann & Jim. Ankry (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Huawei GameCenter.png

This a picture taken by me with my Smartphone, it is not a picture from any other source. Please. Restore this image. Because this is the App Image. And we need the image to identify the App. Please, consider the Huawei Apps, not only the Google Apps. But also the Huawei Apps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johananrohtencarrasco (talk • contribs) 16:11, 19 December 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 There are many images that we would like to have, but cannot have because they are not freely licensed. This cannot be restored to Commons without a free license from Huawei. Also note that claiming "own work", as you did here, on an image that you got off the Web is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Sarah Evanega speaks at a communications training in Dhaka, Bangladesh.jpg and File:Sarah Evanega, with the “Modified” food truck.jpg

Hello,

I'm writing about the deletion of these two images on wikipedia commons:

File: Sarah Evanega speaks at a communications training in Dhaka, Bangladesh.jpg File:Sarah Evanega, with the “Modified” food truck.jpg

The media permission is Flickr Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike as requested, and this was confirmed via email by the permission commons. Please find screenshot of our email conversation attached. I write to kindly request that this be undeleted. If the media permission is still not me, kindly let me know what else i need to update as I own the copyright access to this work.

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you.

Modesta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modestannedi (talk • contribs) 23:23, 19 December 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.

Done Pinging Krd who handled the VRT request, Ytoyoda who reverted Krd's tag, and Yann who deleted it. I think File:Sarah Evanega, with the “Modified” food truck.jpg is just outright OK, as it was created by the Cornell Alliance for Science. It's a valid point to question whether the Alliance for Science was authorized to release File:Sarah Evanega speaks at a communications training in Dhaka, Bangladesh.jpg, but the proper procedure is not to remove a LicenseReview tag added by an admin/VRT agent and send it to the "no permission" queue; DR is the right way to go about it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware that there was a "license reviewed" tag. Indeed, if there is any issue, a DR should be created. Yann (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Modestannedi. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: It does not seem that any VRT ticket is related to these images. At least no such evidence in the file history. Ankry (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: I assume Krd chose not to tag it, as the VRT ticket itself did not provide adequate evidence of permission; the critical piece of evidence was the Flickr page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: Pending DR. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Vinheteiro, a Brazilian pianist and YouTuber in Dec 2017.png

As I've not been on Wikipedia for two months, I wanted to get the original image back, because the image I used for Vinheteiro's Wiki page was supposed to be available there under the Creative Commons license 3.0 Unported. Lord Vinheteiro, the owner of the video the image of Vinheteiro has the source from did allow the image to be used, but because others couldn't find any clear evidence for whom this image was owned by, they decided to have the image removed. I don't know what to do. Lil' Jimmy Da Crinja Ninja (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lil' Jimmy Da Crinja Ninja: Why do you think that your belief would help this photo reusers to win in a court when someone sues them for copyright violation as they do not like the way the photo is used? Wikimedia Commons content is intended for reusers and one of our goals is to protect them. That is why we require evidence, not belief. Ankry (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done per my comment and lack of free license evidence. Ankry (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Victor Itakusu Tadashi.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: for verification of VTRS Ticket#2021121810004311 ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: @Tiven2240: Done. --Yann (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

A lot of my files

Hello this page Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Boungawa a lot my own files has been deleted, it's quite decouraging, I took this pictures (or my friends) for Wikipedia and uploaded (sometimes years ago). So I don't understand why this pictures has been deleted and how can I resolve this. Thks --Boungawa (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I came to tell that this was my job and it was not sufficient... So now i can't see this pictures anymore to remember what were they in order to reupload this. Can you reupload this. Of course it's not totally original : i took this pictures, i upload them on my computer and i crop them with Photofiltre in order to erase undesired people and to fit the dimension. I really don't understand why i can't do that without seeing my work beeing deleted. --Boungawa (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

For example this file File:John_Musker_01.jpg is still where (why?) and it is the same (i do all my work the same way) : taking pictures (quality's best i can^^) cropped in Photofiltre and then uploaded. thanks! --Boungawa (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The pictures are the following :

@Boungawa: You should first import the original images with complete EXIF data, and then use CropTool. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: Thanks for your answer but why ? The other persons on the pictures maybe don't what to be on Wikipedia. Why can't I have an image with no EXIF data, or cropped image with EXIF data i had after? It the same i can modify EXIF Data if i want... I still don't understand. Also why this valable only for my recent job and my pictures in 2016-15-14 where I use the same process are still ok to be here? THks--Boungawa (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Small images of personalities without EXIF are usually copied from the Internet. Having the EXIF data if a proof that these images are yours. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes but the problem is I'm not sure to still have the original pictures because i deleted it after uploaded it here because i don't need and didn't think i will... But why can you just believe me? That's quite strange. So i have to add EXIF Data to all my pictures and then reupload them and that will be ok? I hope i will even find this pictures on my computer... I think i have concerved them thanksfully but not the original :/ ...

No, adding EXIF is not good -- in order to show that small images -- like these -- they should be uploaded with original camera EXIF. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - The nomination statement alone demonstrates the purported self authorship claims were untrue ("I took this pictures (or my friends)") (underline added). Evidence of permission from "[your] friends" will need to be provided using the process at COM:VRT. That notwithstanding, a number of these are obvious screen shots of videos. File:Chris Miller 2021.jpg is a good example, as even the name graphic remains visible in the lower left corner. Эlcobbola _talk 15:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: No my friends took the pictures for me for Wikipedia and you don't have to know that it's just to explain why the exif can be different but I have their permission. It's pictures of videos of remote interview (like zoom) shown during the Festival. If it's not authorized ok but this concern a few pictures and not all of them at all. So maybe can we reupload pictures in order to find the ones we can keep and the ones we can't. I can explain you pictures by pictures where and when did I took it. And you will see if it's ok or not. But all the pictures cannot be treated the same way. Thanks. - 17:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
If necessary I can provide the permission of my friend but I don't know how to do it (but it is ridiculous cause if I didn't tell that you will never know that's my friend took the picture for me and it will be the same as me... But ok ^^. The problem is I can't anymore see the picture and can be able to say which are my own own job Which are visio pictures and which are taken by my friends. So how do we do ? I think the deletion is permatured and may be report for a few days in order that I can do all needed to prove I have the right to post this pictures (or not) (permission of my friends, reimport exif or delete unauthorized file if there is). Thanks it will be very helpful for me and for Wikipedia! -Boungawa (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"There would be no problem if I'd just lied". On a project that relies on uploader assertions regarding licensing of intellectual properties, is that actually how you wish to represent your moral compass? That seems to me utterly shameless, and discrediting. Эlcobbola _talk 18:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Leaning towards

Oppose. @Boungawa: , physical ownership and ownership of copyright are both different things. Copyright in most cases remains with the person who took those photos, not the physical owner of the images. Copyright transfer is possible, but through formal documents. Copyright cannot be transferred just by blanket conversation between you and your friends. If documents or contracts between you and your friends exist, these must be forwarded to Wikimedia via COM:VRTS correspondence (e.g. via email). Otherwise (option number 2) — have your friends send correspondences (e.g. via emails) to Commons at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (instructions are found at COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. Or they may want to use the "Interactive Release Generator" feature (not requiring email but requires following of instructions), found just below the subheading at COM:VRTS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. They must state that they are willing to release their images under the Creative Commons license that you chose. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Ok no problem with that I can do that. But some of these pictures are mine taken by me so I'm the copyright owner and it has just been deleted. And also it's hard to remember which photo is coming from who with just red links. How can I do? Most of all for my own copyright owning? Thks. I also don't understand why you vote

Oppose if I can do all of what you are asking for. thks--Boungawa (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok I send a VRT email for pictures of my own work that I remembered just with the name. And I will ask my friends to do so. What about pictures of direct videoconferences for the Festival, is it ok or not ? Because I didn't ask for this pictures but if it's ok i have to. --Boungawa (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Please can I have just one week with the pictures visible in order to distribute to the good person the good pictures to make the VRT demands? Sometimes it's been years I uploaded this pictures and I can't remember what are they with only the name. It will be easier to fix all your demands... --Boungawa (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Boungawa just wait for VRTS administrators to act on your deleted files. They are the ones who are going to request undeletion of your files. For direct videoconferences, you must ask for license permission from the person/s who made those videoconferences. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: There is nothing more to be said here -- I, for one, woould not accept anything the uploader says, but we can leave those decisions to VRT which must sort out the own work from the friends' work from the Internet images from the images of videos. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok but there is no "Internet images". How can I make the demand to VRT futher than I have done for my own work ? --Boungawa (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Boungawa: You don't even have to go through VRT. For any images which are your own work, just re-upload them at full resolution with original EXIF metadata. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Ok I can do that for some of them but for others I don't have anymore the original file, so how can I do as it is still my own work I put it here freely and willingly to help Wikimedia and not to be coldly deleted ...--Boungawa (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Boungawa: Start with the ones where you do have the original files. If everything looks good, it'll enhance your credibility, perhaps enough for people to believe you in cases where there is no hard proof either way (i.e. you don't have the original file, but it's not available elsewhere on the Internet, and you claim that it is your own work). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Ok i have uploaded the original files that I have found on my mails or phone... Not so easy. I have found some others files I have taken on my Facebook page (I've published that here) but not the original file... It is still my own work but it seems that there's no more Exif DATA. What can I do with this pictures? The difference with the one I have uploaded here is that they are fullsized and not cropped, so maybe is it a proof of my propriety? Thank you... --Boungawa (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Boungawa: For your Facebook images, please set the permission to public and edit the FB description to indicate that they are licensed under the CC-BY-SA 4.0. Then make a list below with a link to the deleted Commons image and a link to the FB image for each image you want restored. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@King of Hearts Thanks I will do that when I have time. My own work File:Rémi Chayé 2021.jpg, which has just been reuploaded following my VRT and my fullsize upload has been one more time nominated for deletion by an IP for the reason "Facebook". But it is not at all on Facebook (by my fault by the way, maybe someone has been using it after I posted it I don't know). So is it possible to cancel this deletion demand? Thanks. Boungawa (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Boungawa: The most recent version you uploaded has metadata showing that it was downloaded from Facebook (see the FBMD at the bottom). To resolve all doubt, you can post a link to your Facebook profile and I'll give you instructions on how to proceed. If you don't want to post your Facebook publicly, let me know and we can also do it privately through COM:VRT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've never posted this picture on Facebook. But I didn't find the original file so I found the picture in a Messenger conversation where I send it to a friend after taken it. Maybe that's why there is Facebook marks. So what do I have to do? Boungawa (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain it. Personally I think it's fine, as you have uploaded other photos from the same festival with valid EXIF and your explanation of why it has FB metadata is believable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Partially done. @Boungawa: Please have your friends contact VRT if you wish to have the rest of the images restored. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Billboard at Seinäjoki.JPG

The file was deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Billboard at Seinäjoki.JPG) as

I believe the main focus of this image is the billboard. Not the car, not the sidewalk, it's the billboard. Better to be safe than sorry. (Missvain)

but

The billboard as a whole is not an artistic work, and any of the individual works are de minimis. In Finland even de minimis is not required, it is enough that the work is not the main motive of the photo. (LPfi)

So yes, the billboard is the focus, but the billboard is not a work. I believe nobody has designed the placemant of announcements (other than individual ones to give them as much focus as possible), much less in a way expressing themself, as is needed for copyright. The placement is probably more or less just functional.

–LPfi (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ The argument that images showing large collections of copyrighted works are not a problem because no one of the works is important to the image is often made here. We have regularly agreed the such images infringe on the copyright of all of the works shown. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Well, it's not so cut and dried. Grocery store displays of lots of products from many different manufacturers have long been held to be acceptable here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't be making that argument, unless there is also a selection-and-arrangement copyright on the entire set. I've seen plenty of "keeps" on that kind of thing, as well. We do not delete city skyline photos in non-FoP countries even though every building might have an individual copyright. It's certainly possible for every individual item to be de minimis (or otherwise non-derivative), in which case nobody's copyright is infringed. The google cache on this one is still around, so looking at it... the focus is certainly on the wall, and none of the other elements. And the wall is entirely made up of smaller advertisements, many of them copied several times. Somewhat like walls seen in many cities, and in Alamy photos here, here, here, or here, although the photo isn't fully straight-on and at somewhat of an angle. I guess the question to me, is if the photo is trading off the actual expression in any of the posters -- i.e. were any of the individual posters intentionally included to make use of the expression in them to enhance the photo. It doesn't seem like that to me, though I can no longer see the full-resolution version, and maybe that makes a difference. There might be some effect generated by the random placement and colors involved, but since there would be no selection-and-arrangement copyright on that sort of thing, I don't think that amounts to making the photo derivative of any of them. I kind of get the unease, since most or all of the individual posters would have a copyright, but to me the photo is about the overall feel of the arrangement of all those posters -- which is the result of many different advertisers cramming in their posters where available, and not anyone's particular work. So, lean

Support. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Per Carl, I withdraw my objection. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: as per Carl above. --Yann (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:RwandaBurundiP5-100Francs-600915-donatedth f.jpg

This file has not been issued in Rwanda but before independence under Belgian legislation in the former territory Ruanda-Urundi. In my opinion the rules for Belgian banknotes should apply and we should keep the file. --Diorit (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose This is a note issued in 1960. Generally it is the current law in the location that applies, but the question is moot. As noted at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Belgium/en#Currency, Belgian currency is copyrighted and not free to use. It is barely possible that the designer died more than 70 years ago, but that would have to be proven. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Jim above. --Yann (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Ted_Stamm_Bike_Ride.jpg

Please undelete the Ted_Stamm_Bike_Ride.jpg file. Is it sourced properly and the author is Ted Stamm. The Ted Stamm Estate gave permission for it to be used and provided proof of authorship. Reference: Ticket#2021120910009761 {{unsigned3|11:48, 21 December 2021‎| 185.229.154.221]]

Oppose ”If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here.” Thuresson (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose It can be restored when and if that permission has been read and approved by a member of VRT. However, I note that unless it is a selfie -- which appears unlikely -- Ted Stamm is not the author and therefore his estate cannot freely license the image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Thuresson and Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Evelyn M. Simpson.jpg

Hello! Please find attached permission granted by Mary Fleay to Chanita Goodblatt for this image. File:Simpson.Copyright Permission.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by KECS99 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 December 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 First, claiming that you were the photographer when it is obvious that you were not is not a good way to start on Commons. We generally Assume Good Faith as a matter of policy, but people who make false claims do not get that consideration.

Second, we have no way here of knowing that you are Chanita Goodblatt as named in the attached file.

Third, and most important, the attached file purports to give permission to publish "Pictures of myself and my parents". A license to publish a copyrighted work does not give the right to freely license the work to others. I say "purports" because the subject of a photograph (or the subject's daughter) generally has no right to license the photograph for any purpose. That right almost always belongs to the photographer.

Unless you can (a) prove that the photograph is in the public domain for some reason -- perhaps its age -- or (b) get the actual photographer to provide a free license using VRT, the image cannot be restored. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Statue of Chief Engineer Jin Hen.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

File:Statue of Chief Engineer Jin Hen.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Guang Pi Ba Biao.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Taiwan's freedom of panorama allows 3D artworks like sculptures. A1Cafel (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

agree to undelete. There is FOP in Taiwan See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Statue of Chief Engineer Jin Hen.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guang Pi Ba Biao.jpg where it was said there was no FOP. Perhaps that was true that time? Ellywa (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Restored, Ellywa (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:1995-1997 Nissan Patrol (GQ II) RX wagon 01.jpg

File was deleted as as 'Content created as advertisement (G10)' but it is not advertising, so very confusing.

This is the image - it can be seen in Google still: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22File%3A1995-1997+Nissan+Patrol+(GQ+II)+RX+wagon+01.jpg%22

The photo a corresponding rear view that was not deleted: File:1995-1997 Nissan Patrol (GQ II) RX wagon 02.jpg.

Please have a look into this and report back. 180.181.184.144 10:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Ping @4nn1l2: Thuresson (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Restored. Most probably a mistake caused by VisualFileChange getting a redirect or such. I also fixed most of Wikipedia (and sister projects) articles undoing User:CommonsDelinker edits. Apologies. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Hola soy Kaly Cordova porque razon boran mis fotos que se publica en wiki pedia estoy cansados de tan Tantos abusos porque no se comunican conmigo para saber quien soy att kaly cordova actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.242.83 (talk • contribs)

The file File:Example.jpg is not deleted. Which image are you talking about? Ankry (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: No filename provided. Please log in, and provide a filename. --Yann (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Reconquest wet.png

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: I listed six files that should not be deleted on the discussion, but the administrator removed three of the six files. The administrator did not follow the request correctly, and the three files are actually the originally complete artworks— only the ones without backgrounds are kept instead. Here I request the undeletion of those three files. 🐱💬 16:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Unused personal artworks, out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators should respect the consensus, and deleting the original files but keeping their trimmed ones cannot be understood. 🐱💬 16:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Support for these three, as they were deleted by a different admin Infrogmation, even though the original closing admin Missvain had decided to keep them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Aside from the scope question, on which I agree with Yann, the file description on all three has

"Author=Artwork designed by [[User:Meow|Meow]] and drawn by [https://www.furaffinity.net/user/link2004 Link2004]"

In order to keep them on Commons, don't we need a license from the artist who actually drew them?

Also, I don't understand King of Hearts comment. As far as I can see, Missvain closed the DR as a Delete and deleted the files.

Finally, Meow's claim about consensus is incorrect. There was one independent Keep comment, while the Nominator and the closing Admin both were in favor of deletion. Even if you you count the uploader, Meow, the result is a tie. And, of course, Admins are not bound by consensus. The rules explicitly require them to follow policy even if a majority of the users expressing opinions want them to do otherwise.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: What I mean is that Missvain closed the DR as delete, but did not in fact delete the 6 images listed in the upper section; I assume that was intentional since she didn't even delete the most obvious one in the title. And deleting them for lacking permission is incorrect from a procedural point of view, as that issue was never brought up during the DR. These image don't fall under COM:CSD#F1, so we always give at least a 1-week grace period from when the uploader is informed of the requirement to when the images might be deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Aha. Thank you, King of Hearts, for the explanation. I'm not sure I agree with your closing comment. Since the file description names a creator other than the uploader, it seems to me that they are copyvios and therefore {{Speedy}} applies. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with that broad interpretation of F1; otherwise, what purpose does {{No permission since}} serve? To me, {{No permission since}} is for when the file description names a creator other than the uploader. Basically, if a file was passed along through private means from the creator to the uploader, it is ineligible for speedy deletion. {{Copyvio}} is only for when it was lifted from the Internet or the file itself, metadata, or description indicates a creator who obviously would not agree to a free license (e.g. Getty Images, Google Maps, notable published work like an album cover, etc.). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If VRT is required, I will let the artist send emails since he agreed that the license has been CC-BY-SA-4.0 from the beginning and I determined everything for the artwork. 🐱💬 02:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Meow: The permission should list all versions of this drawing, including these not mentioned here. Yann (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yet what should I do when the files have been deleted? I don’t think the VRT can verify when files don’t exist. 🐱💬 09:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Meow: Yes, it will be ok even if there are deleted. They will be undeleted when the permission is validated. Just list the file names with the permission. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. I am contacting the artist for further steps and the progression may require days. 🐱💬 14:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Needs a free license from the artist via VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Arabi Podcast Avatar.png

File:Arabi Podcast Avatar to undelete.png I am the owner of the original artwork, you can find it also here; https://anchor.fm/arabmedicalcenter and in variation here; https://soundcloud.com/user-971736387 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoaket (talk • contribs)

Problem is, it's a collage of at 6 photographies. Also, the 1st link (anchor) yields a 404. --Túrelio (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The first cited source comes up as a 404 and then redirects to a site with the subject image and an explicit copyright notice. The second comes up on a site that does not have any free license. The image has seven copyrights -- six photographs and the design surrounding them. It is unlikely that the creator of the images has the right to freely license all of the copyrights contained in it. If the creator actually has all such licenses, it must be proven using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

I request not to delete the images — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armiiran (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 December 2021‎ (UTC)

@Armiiran: If this is about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Armiiran you need to provide arguments why they should be undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: We do not know what image the poster wants restored or why. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Container art work.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

File:Container art work.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Creation of the World by YuYu Yang 20130601.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Artistic works, no matter in 2D or 3D form, are covered by FOP in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Support for both, per above. Ankry (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Support Agreed. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Done per above. Ankry (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Dom Ettore Dotti, CSF.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferson.zucao (talk • contribs) 18:39, 23 December 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.

Support This was deleted by Túrelio because there was a copyright tag on the source, https://diocesedenavirai.org.br/diocese/governo/bispo/. It now shows CC-BY-SA 4.0 International. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Blacked-out images

Per input by Kai Burghardt at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP in France. No copyright concerns on blacked-out versions of images. To quote their input: To qualify as a derivative work, you need to create a work. A solid black shape is not a work. There is hardly any creative/artistic process involved in creating that. Even if you claim it was a work, to be derived there still must be recognizable features, discernible clues of the original work present. Without any copyrightable traces of the source work, no violation..

In terms of scope, as these come from no-FOP countries, these are excellent illustrations on one of the effects of having no FOP in a country: censorship just to respect artists' / architects' copyrights.

From the Philippines

I excluded those whose mother files are suspected copyvios, and those whose buildings are from pre-1972 era. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.)

From UAE

File:Burj Khalifa (no freedom of panorama uae blacked-out).png

From Luxembourg

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Plenty of photos to illustrate this subject at Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP. There is no real reason to add another 10 photos, 100 photos or 10 million photos of a black cube. Thuresson (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Thuresson: but there is nothing specific to the Philippines. All come from other countries. We need demonstrations about the disadvantage of having no FOP in our country. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. But I do not think all 13 are needed for them. Do you intend to use all of them? Ankry (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: yep. Off-wiki on social media (of course, complying with attribution conditions). I support not restoring the UAE and Luxembourg ones. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Plus I may use several of the Philippine-related images on Tagalog Wikipedia to illustrate the lack of freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Please add File:Hand of epigyny 2 Blacked Out.jpg to undeletion request. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: And when files are undeleted, will you add the category of countries without freedom of panorama to User:JWilz12345/FoP? Ox1997cow (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: my userspace subpage is intended to illustrate those from countries with FOP, excluding those without FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I am not convinced that you need the whole bunch for social media for educational purposes. Ankry (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: yet there is no such image specific to the Philippines. All of the existing ones are of other countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Yep. And I would support 2-3, but not 14. For educational purpose this should be enough. Not supporting more per COM:NOTHOST. Ankry (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: I chose ~~five~~ six instead:

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: I chose six files because there are six files at Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP in Belgium, so I think it is best to follow the quantity at there (instead of my original proposal for 13 files). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

While I disagree with Jim's doubts concerning scope, I think that his doubts concerning silhouette copyright need to be considered. So I leave the decision here to another admin. Or, maybe, you wish to upload images not showing sculpture shapes so exactly? Ankry (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Aside from thinking these are out of scope, I Oppose restoration on copyright grounds. In of the cases above that I examined, the silhouette of the work is distinctive and almost certainly infringes on the creator's copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: but users who commented at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP in France think of otherwise (@Ralf Roletschek, Kai Burghardt, and Romaine: ). No distinctive features like style of windows, sculptural details, and façade details seen. Blacked-out representations of copyrighted works from no-FOP countries are also extensively used on comparison graphs like File:Tallest towers in the world.svg (containing Iran's Millad Tower) and File:Tallest Buildings in the World 2020.png (containing Burj Khalifa and Saudi Arabia's Abraj al-Bait Building), including Ox1997cow's derivatives File:Tallest towers in the world whether or not FoP.svg and File:Tallest Buildings in the World 2020 whether or not FoP.png. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Why not mention Lotte World Tower? Obviously, I marked that Lotte World Tower does not have freedom of panorama. (because there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea.) Ox1997cow (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per Thuresson and Jim. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Open for 2 months, no consensus to restore. --Yann (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Dino Galvani1.jpg

The deletion argument was that while the PD magazine did not attribute a photographer for the uploaded image, the uploader should have done research outside of the magazine to find a primary source that names the photographer. We don't require that, however in some jurisdictions if an anonymous photographer is later revealed through research, the PD status can be clawed back., and we will honor that. See an example of the magazine here. --RAN (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC) The following images were deleted based on the same rationale, that a named photographer may exist somewhere outside of our PD magazine, and we can't host until that information is discovered and we wait till 70 years after their death: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Film Star Who's Who "

Also

File:Marguerite Churchill.jpg, it isn't clear if this image came from the PD Film Star Who's Who, but the rational is the same, I want to see what magazine it is sourced to. --RAN (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The magazine was published in the UK sometime in the 1930s, so UK law applies. The chart at File:UK non-Crown copyright flowchart.pdf helps with this. These are photographs taken and published before June 1, 1957. Therefore copyright expired 70 years after publication, sometime in the 2000s. That's past the URAA date, so they are still under US copyright.

The file description for File:Marguerite Churchill.jpg gives

"Source = Image from Film Star Who's Who on the screen 1938. UK magazine."

which means that the same reasoning applies. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done Undelete in 2034 unless an earlier than 1938 publication is found. Ankry (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:DANA-WEB-IMAGES.png

File is from https://sa.alp.org.au/election-campaign/. The site is licensed as CC4.0 at https://sa.alp.org.au/contact-us/ for the convenience of Wikipedia editors like me to be able to illustrate articles where no other free alternative exists. The pictures are not great, but they are a start. Alex Sims (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

PS. This is part of a larger deletion of files from the same site at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_DavidGriffiths94

Eventually I'ld like to fill out all the SA politician pages. This at least fills a gap for ALP current politicians. Alex Sims (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well it is unclear to me what the information Note: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. applies to: web design only? everything in this site? Who should be attributed? Neutral. Ankry (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose While I think that the statement on the cited page probably intends to freely license everything, I doubt very much that the party actually has the right to do so. The images all look like professional portraits. Professional portrait photographers rarely allow their subject to freely license their work. I think this needs to be settled for all the images on the page by a query from VRT to the webmaster. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Yar_Mohammad_Khan.jpg

This is the picture of Yar Mohammad Khan, who was elected MLA on a United Front coalition ticket in 1954. Yar Mohammad Khan is also my Grand Father. I declare this picture is free and no copyright claim on it. https://historica.fandom.com/wiki/Yar_Mohammad_Khan --Rambunctious.man (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rambunctious.man: Image copyright status is independent on copyright claim, and we cannot host Fair Use images (we need evidence of PD status or a free license). As the image is not deleted, you can still start a DR discussion about its copyright status, where you can explain where did Mohammad Tawhid grant the declared license. Ankry (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: This Mohammad Tawhid caused me too much trouble. If you check this link: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/783204191417045508/ you will find that Trouble Maker Mohammad Tawhid uploaded a wrong picture of my grand father. In fact the picture he uploaded is a closed friend of Yar Mohammad Khan. Please check the one comment on Mohammad Tawhid's link. 10 weeks ago I knocked him for his phone number or email address but he didn't respond me yet. Dear Ankry Brother, If you can assist me by providing his Cell No/Email then I will act ASAP.

--Rambunctious.man (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done procedural close: image not deleted. Ankry (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yar Mohammad Khan.jpg . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File: Jack Ninte 2021.jpg

This picture is free and no copyright claim on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recprod (talk • contribs)

As copyright is established by operation of law and not by anybody's claim, how did you find this image not copyrighted?
If the image is not copyrighted, why did you find yourself authorised to grant a license on it and to require any reuser to attribute you as its author?

Ankry (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Image appears at https://genius.com/artists/Jack-ninte with '© 2021 Genius Media Group Inc." Cannot be restored here without a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Anu (Anurag) Gupta.jpg

Please undelete this file in order to generate a URL within Wikimedia Commons so the copyright holder can share an email to get this photo reinstated with the article. Skycross December 24 2021 -- Skycross2021 (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Skycross2021: Just give the file name in the permission. Then the file will be undeleted when the permission is validated. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Done undeleted by a VRT user. Ankry (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Please Undeletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imjaikijaiswal (talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Imjaikijaiswal: Hi,

Please sign with ~~~~.

You have no deleted files on Commons. What do you want undeleted, and why? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Edmond GROS en 1900.jpg

The uploader has said the images come from his family archive and their is no author disclosure on the photo. If the image was taken in 1900 and a copy was given to the family in 1900, it is published (distributed to the public) in 1900. It would be "PD-EU no disclosure". --RAN (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Support Sounds like either {{PD-anon-expired}} or {{PD-old-assumed}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
{{Temporarily undeleted}} for discussion and fixing. The uploader copyright claim seems inappropriate. The painter died in 1933, so his works presented should be {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-1996}}. Ankry (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Support as per Carl above. Yann (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Why temporary? If it is "PD-EU-no author disclosure" or another PD license, we don't need an OTRS, an OTRS is required when an image is under active copyright, and the active copyright holder, or their heir, is releasing it from copyright. --RAN (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Just to ensure if there is no problem with US copyright to the painting. Ankry (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:楊鈴君先生近影.jpg

This picture is my own work, definitely. Would you please restore this?--W-s.t-opp (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@W-s.t-opp: Only original, unpublished photos can be licensed as {{Own}}. This one is not: it is preprocessed. If the origibal photo was not published anywhere, you can upload it as an evidence of your authorship. Or you need to provide a free license cia emaill to VRT together with an evidence of your authorsip. Ankry (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done per my comment above. Ankry (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Geetanjalisingh.jpg

This is my Own Work.Please undelete this file in order to generate a URL within Wikimedia Commons so theI ,copyright holder can share an email to get this photo reinstated with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.96.216.124 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 26 December 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 Copyrighted by Amy Dubey. This can be undeleted when the permission is received. Just give the file name with the permission. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Note also that claiming "Own work" when someone else was actually the photographer is a violation of Commons rules. Don't do it again or you may be blocked from editing here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done as per Yann and Jim. Ankry (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg I own the media

It's my project, and I have given permission to let the film's poster be used on wiki, as has the distributor, Gravitas Ventures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.42.212.25 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 December 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.

You need to log in and name the file you want restored. Also note that "I have given permission to let the film's poster be used on wiki" is not sufficient -- images on Commons and WP must be free for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: No file name provided. Please log in, and give a file name. --Yann (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Jean-Georges Massart (1987. Brugge, Aspecten '87).jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2021121410008234. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Done, can you please add the permission ticket, which is in French. Ellywa (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Done by Ellywa. Ankry (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Ecsenyi Áron.jpg

This piacture has been made by Ecsenyi Áron. He is a libertarian politician in Hungary, and the only reason why his photo has been deleted is that his libertarian views are very devisive, so his political opponents try to attack him in every platform. Please undelete this pic about him, what he has been made about himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidafrei (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 December 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.

@Tidafrei: Hi,

We don't care about his political views, only about the image copyright. We need a mention of a free license at the source, or a confirmation via email. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Oppose First, the comment above is nonsense. Commons is almost completely non-political. The file was deleted because the uploader falsely claimed that the uploader was the photographer and because the actual source, https://la75.hu/csapat/, has an explicit copyright notice, "© 2019-2022 Le az Adók 75%-ával Párt § Minden jog fenntartva!".

Also note that claiming "OWN WORK" when you are not, in fact, the actual photographer, is a serious violation of Commons rules. You have done it twice. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per Jim and I. --Yann (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Template:PhotoOfTheDay

I had used this template on a huge number of categories for individual days, and it will be a vast amount of work to replace it with Template:Wikidata Infobox on all of them. However, I have no objection to the replacement; it's just that for the moment the photos are no longer visible on the categories. Gildir (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Support if it's still in use. If there is a replacement mechanism, that should be done on all files before deletion (and really, for view historical versions of pages, not sure it should ever be completely deleted). Rather, undelete and mark as deprecated with replacement instructions, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Liuxinyu970226, and Missvain: It is used in 3000+ categories. Do you plan performing the replacement soon? Ankry (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm totally fine if people want it undeleted. It was listed for almost one month at deletion requests and very little engagement. I will defer to @Pigsonthewing(hi!!) and @Liuxinyu970226 regarding their plans for the template. Missvain (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Namibian Gazetted Acts

The concerning files are listed below:

The files are nominated for deletion, as Namibian Acts are copyrighted for 50 years after publication (also see this and this deletion requests). For some reason, nobody answered my request to transfer these files to English Wikisource, in which they're allowed to be kept there.

I would therefore request temporary undeletion to facilitate the transferal, and to preserve the corresponding indices on there, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: {{Temporarily undeleted}} for transfer (max. 2 days). Please notify when done. Ankry (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Support Missvain, I think the DR was closed incorrectly. The Namibian copyright law says,

"15) (8) No copyright shall subsist in-

(a) the official text of any work of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or an official translation thereof;"

These are official publications of laws and appear to be covered by the exception. I therefore think these should be restored permanently here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. But it seems that we are missing an appropriate PD template. Ankry (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward and Ankry: My fault for nominating a file that is allowable on Commons. Perhaps we can amend {{PD-Namibia}} to cover the case of official text? I'll also prepare to transfer some other Namibian Acts to Wikimedia Commons once the copyright template is finished, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Added corresponding NOP section in COM:Namibia for reference.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep and close ~~I've created PD-Namibia-exempt for files that'll fall under the exemption under section 15(8) of the Namibian copyright law, and~~ this undeletion request should be OK now to be closed. Thanks you for all of your reminder and participation, and I will exercise more caution on lesser-known jurisdictions.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Just found {{PD-NamibiaGov}} for these files, so the I originally created will be SDed. This shouldn't affect the expected result of this discussion though.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Done license fixed and LR-ed. Ankry (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Michel-Auguste Colle.jpg

I own this painting personally. --Musicartgeek (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Musicartgeek: Owning a painting doesn't give you its copyright. However the painter is dead for more than 70 years, and the painting is from the 1910s, so it should be in the public domain is USA. Now this is also a picture of the painter, which may not have been published until recently. Do you have any information about that? Yann (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a picture of one of his paintings, from 1905 - a location near Nancy, France. Does that help? Musicartgeek (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think, the question is whether (and when) it was reproduced in a printed publication or presented to the public where the visitors were free to make its photos. If neither of these did happen before 2003, then standard 70pma term applies also per US copyright law. Ankry (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

If it was published before 1937, it is {{PD-France}} and {{PD-US-expired}} (until 1927) or {{PD-1996}}. That's a reasonable assumption. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

There are two copyrights here -- the painting and the photograph of the painter and his painting. I think the painting is PD -- Michel-Auguste Colle died in 1949, so the painting was PD in France on 1/1/2020. As a pre-1927 work, it is PD-USA also. However, we have no information on the photograph except that it is from before 1949. He was 77 when he died, and doesn't look that old in the photo. It's tempting to say that it was taken when the painting was created, but color photos were very rare then. In order for the photograph to pass the URAA test, it would have to be pre-1927. Based on Colle's appearance in the photo, I'd say that's 50/50, hence I

Oppose. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about the photograph copyright (which may have been colorized later). There is little doubt that the photograph was taken when the painting was made. The issue is the date of publication. Regarding URAA, it is OK if it was published before 1937 = 1996 - (50 + 8 years for war extension). Yann (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Colorization is certainly possible, although it seems a little odd for a painting to be colorized. However, colorization creates a new copyright which belongs to the person that did the work -- since we don't know when they died or when the colorization was done, we have two more uncertainties here. I don;t see how we can restore it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It may be actually easier to do colorization in this case, based of the painting. But I agree about the copyright issues. Yann (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Uncertain copyright status. --Yann (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:DAImage.jpg

Hi,

I am a promotions representative for Diane Arkenstone at DPG Worldwide. I uploaded this photo to the Commons several months ago ON BEHALF of Diane Arkenstone. She owns 100% of the rights to the image and has personally asked and granted me permission to upload the photo for use on her Wikipedia page. If we can please have the deletion of this file reversed so that we can change her profile image be changed to the image I had uploaded, that would be great. Please let me know what other information/verification I can provide so that we can honor Diane's requests. Thank you.

Oppose In such cases we require a copy of the written transfer of copyright from the original photographer to Diane Arkenstone which needs to be emailed as explained in COM:VRT. Please note also that a permission for use on Wikipedia only is insufficient. All uploads here at Commons need to be free for anyone for any purpose including commercial reuse. De728631 (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-12

File:SR1-300.jpgTwitterのDMにて撮影者様より許可を頂いて掲載しております。

[jasonpoon2020.jpg] to be undeleted

File:Razib Khan.jpg Usage in commons approved by copyright holder.

Figure Bukkake

Photos of Spoonbridge and Cherry

September Woman of the Day banners

Cebu Taoist Temple

Money of Poland - appeal

Photos by Simon Dall'Aglio

File: AleshJermarKarikatura.jpg ; File: AleshJermarSingle.jpg ; File: AleshJermarVELA.jpg ; File: Crossway_of_Dreams.jpg

The university have changed the color of logo File:The Islamia University of Bahawalpur.png

Information is allowed as we are allowed to post photos of ourselves as well as our works with the webpage posted

This logo is my own design & work File:Department of Pharmaceutics, the Islamia University of Bahawalpur.jpg

Undelete 'File:1st corps unit (South Korea).svg' and over 20 files

Un delete: File:Monument to lab mouse-1.JPG and other

Un delete: LVG 150 - 18 x 23 - Water Color on Board - Signed.jpg

File:Sarah Evanega speaks at a communications training in Dhaka, Bangladesh.jpg and File:Sarah Evanega, with the “Modified” food truck.jpg

A lot of my files

Blacked-out images

File:Example.jpg I own the media

Namibian Gazetted Acts

Navigation menu

Search