Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-01

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

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

File:林健男、林聖爵、王文淵、張麗善、謝淑亞、張清良與鎮東國小學童.jpg

User:Shizhao cited the old-fashioned copyright declaration of Yunlin County Government to claim that the deleted file is not free. However, according to the e-mail User:S099001 received, the YCG has promised that it would delete the webpage. As for now, the page has been deleted. Therefore, the original reason to delete the page has disappeared. For more information about the change of copyright declaration on almost all websites of Taiwanese government, please read this document (in Chinese) publicized by Taiwanese National Development Council. Also, the related pictures (cropped from the deleted one) should be recovered, too.--Tyq2016 (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tyq2016: The source of this file is [1] and it is unclear to me how this document applies to an image published in www.yunlin.gov.tw in 2019? Ankry (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC) A license to be verified through website information needs to be present at the website together with the image itself at the time when the image is downloaded. Any further explanation, needs to go through VRT (in my opinion) unless based directly on copyright law. Ankry (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done no explanation. Ankry (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Niamt.png

This is LOGO of National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology,Ranchi.There is no need to delete this logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdiRaj988753 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 28 December 2021‎ (UTC)

 Info Re-uploaded as File:NIAMT.png. Also, File:NIFFT LOGO.svg is very similar. Thuresson (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
As a copyrighted logo, we need a license from the copyright holder communicated via the Commons:VRT mechanism using emails. That is policy per Commons:Licensing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Permission via COM:VRT needed. --Yann (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


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

File:190623 TCC 아트센터 팬사인회 효정 (3).jpg

Nominator overlooked the license. The license can be found towards the bottom right-hand side of the page. Please read User:-revi/Tistory. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:190623 TCC 아트센터 팬사인회 효정 (3).jpg, the nominator stated that "I can find no licence at https://ohmysh-ing.tistory.com/149 which is the stated source", however the license which I assumed (given that I can't view the deleted the file/page) is "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" is actually there by clicking the icon which is located after the last photo of the website which when clicked will open up Creative Commons page.
I believe this is a collective upload together with File:190623 TCC 아트센터 팬사인회 효정 (1).jpg, File:190623 TCC 아트센터 팬사인회 효정 (2).jpg, File:190623 TCC 아트센터 팬사인회 효정 (4).jpg, File:190623 TCC 아트센터 팬사인회 효정 (5).jpg, File:190623 TCC 아트센터 팬사인회 효정 (6).jpg, and File:190623 TCC 아트센터 팬사인회 효정 (7).jpg which are also from the same website with same source as well hence why is the 3rd photo of the collection deleted? — Paper9oll 05:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per clear evidence of CC-license link below the image set. @Timtrent and Missvain: please, be more careful. Ankry (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

c:file:Traktat_brzeski_1918.jpg

I believe this file was deleted by mistake. There was a redirect from c:File:Brest-Litovsk-eko Itunaren lehen bi orrialdeak.jpg which was tagged for deletion. However the image meets the requirements to be hosted in Commons. --Jarash (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Support Obvious mistake, IMO. But pinging @EugeneZelenko: if they wish to comment. Ankry (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Obvious mistake. Ankry (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Steve Davis at a snooker exhibition in Commodore Hotel (2018).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Public Domain Mark image, which was deleted before a discussion, that deemed them to be appropriate. After undeletion {{PDMark-owner}} should be added to the description of the page. Regards, User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 11:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Museum_Kurhaus_Kleve_PM17-01_Lee_Eun_Young.jpg

Was it not a mistake to delete these 3 files .. 17-02, ..17-03 for which ticket Ticket:2021122010009221 was sent on di 21 dec. 2021 at 16:34 CET? Peli (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I added a note to the ticket and undeleted the 3 files. @Krd: can you finalize this? Ellywa (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Done: - We are now waiting for final answer on the mail from VRT. Ellywa (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


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

Foildking142's uploads

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please bring back those uploads? Cause Fry1989 suggested the admins to delete them on purpose 167.71.199.22 00:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Hoaxmaster. --Yann (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Na Gyi.jpg

This is a copy-right-free file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Grate (talk • contribs) 03:48, 30 December 2021‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This is a 2021 photo and the uploader claimed to own the copyright. Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Na Gyi.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Troll - Kobold 1.jpg

Das Foto wurde auf Flickr hochgeladen und darf von Wikimedia commons übernommen werden. The photo was uploaded to Flickr and may be taken from Wikimedia commons.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/193490838@N08/51300751236/in/dateposted-public/

Sciencia58 (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

per COM:Toys designs like this are protected by copyright. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Troll - Kobold 1.jpg. Deletion was justified imho Ellywa (talk)
 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Troll - Kobold 1.jpg. We need free license permission from the toy designer. Ankry (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Clearly violates the copyright for the toy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:sabriya.png

This poster was specially made for Wikimedia commons by the filmmakers of Sabriya. It is even not used in IMDb. I request you to restore the file as it is serving for the well-stand of the article. The picture is not breaking and will not break any rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film contributor (talk • contribs) 20:18, 30 December 2021‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In such cases we need a permission by email coming from directly from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for instructions. Please note also that permissions like "for use at Wikipedia" are insufficient. All uploads here at Commons need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose including commercial reuse and modifications of the original poster. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per De728631. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Juan Battle's CUNY Grad Center Faculty Pic, 2014.jpg

I uploaded the image provided by the subject. I had not seen the message requesting confirmation of permissions from quite a while back on WikiMedia Commons. "Thanks for uploading File:Juan Battle's CUNY Grad Center Faculty Pic, 2014.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license."

The image belongs to Juan Battle, the subject and owner of the copyright. I have already contacted Battle who is willing complete the Interactive Release Generator in order to release the rights to the file once it has been undelete. If he should do this before, just let me know and I'll have him do so. --SheridanFord (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose This should be done through Commons:VRT. Any correspondance should expain how copyright was transferred from photographer Paula Vlodkowsky to subject Battle. Thuresson (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license via VRT from the actual copyright holder. If that is not the actual photographer, it must also include written evidence of the transfer of the copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Stewart Kellerman.jpg

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2021123010006732). — Coffee // have a cup // 17:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Coffee: Please complete the missing information. --Yann (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Edgar Allan Poe, en litteraturhistorisk studie (IA edgarallanpoegun00bjurrich).pdf

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edgar Allan Poe, en litteraturhistorisk studie (IA edgarallanpoegun00bjurrich).pdf

Copyright in respect of the author listed in the DR, may now have expired. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Procedural close, this file was undeleted before the request was made. Thuresson (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:De dierlijke vijanden der koffiecultuur op Java (IA dedierlijkevijan01koni).pdf

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:De_dierlijke_vijanden_der_koffiecultuur_op_Java_(IA_dedierlijkevijan01koni).pdf

Copyright mentioned in original DR may now have expired. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Procedural close, this file was undeleted before the request was made. Thuresson (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ćamil Silajdžić 1939.jpg

I believe this image is PD-Yugoslavia, and autographed publicity image from 1939. If it was distributed, it is published for copyright purposes. --RAN (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Support seems reasonable. {{Temporarily undeleted}} for discussion.` Ankry (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. @KeremDzukljan and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Could you please correct the date, author, source, etc. --Yann (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:20200523 Pigrimage to Cologne 27.jpg

This image has disappeared without any understandable reason.--Ulamm (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. @Missvain: as admin involved. --Yann (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Request by Ulamm

Most of these photos are exposed in a way that the walls are better visible than the windows.--Ulamm (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. @Missvain: as admin involved. Yann (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
All of these show copyrighted stained glass windows while there is no fop in Germany inside churches. Some of these images could be cropped to remove those parts. One has been undeleted to allow for discussion in a new DR. You may add comments there perhaps. Commons:Deletion requests/File:20200523 Pigrimage to Cologne 27.jpg. Ellywa (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 Support most images as the windiows are either low resolution and/or overexposed. COM:DM, IMO. Maybe except File:Keulen - Kirche St. Gereon 2.jpg & File:Köln St Gereon2.JPG. Ankry (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Even in these 2 cases, the stained glass windows design is very secondary, and not much not visible. Yann (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Home Automation India.jpg

File:Home Automation India.jpg Smart Home Automation App based control

There was informative images for the Home Automation articles on wiki. I uploaded the image which I find relevant to the topic

Copyvio from [2]. Thuresson (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. The source, cited above, has "© Surmount Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd 2010-2022 Providers of Green Building Consulting" We can't keep the image on Commons without a free license from the copyright holder via VRT..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Bivalyok.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bivalyok.jpg

Sculptor died in 1946. 1906 work. Abzeronow (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

 Support pew above. Ankry (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:MerajulKhulna.jpg

Sir my legal pic don't delete please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merajul Islam bd (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Not done: Account blocked for socking. Also already blocked indef. in 2 other projects. Reupload of deleted personal image by non contributor. --Yann (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:La Tour Eiffel s'illumine au crépuscule.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: if the lighting is ordinary, this is fine. The court rulling specifically applied to a particular light show before. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Support --Yann (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per JWilz12345. --Yann (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:The Arcturus adventure - an account of the New York Zoological Society's first oceanographic expedition (IA arcturusadventur00beeb).pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Reason: Copyright has now potentially expired (Also affected are the images listed at :- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Arcturus adventure

New license {{PD-US-expired}} ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done by Yann. Ankry (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Category:The natural history of plants, their forms, growth, reproduction, and distribution (1902)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The natural history of plants, their forms, growth, reproduction, and distribution (1902)

Copyright has now potentially expired in respect of the author mentioned in the original DR. (New license PD-old-70?) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @ShakespeareFan00: You don't need list files which are already in Category:Undelete in 2022. --Yann (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Internet Archive document cytologywithspec00agar 0

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Internet Archive document cytologywithspec00agar 0

Copyright has now potentially expired in respect of the listed author. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @ShakespeareFan00: You don't need list files which are already in Category:Undelete in 2022. --Yann (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Category:Historical Portraits (1909)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Historical Portraits (1909)

Copyright has now potentially expired in respect of the author listed in the DR. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

See also - File:Historical portraits ... the lives of C.R.L. Fletcher .. (IA historicalportra02walk).pdf

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @ShakespeareFan00: You don't need list files which are already in Category:Undelete in 2022. --Yann (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

I do not believe that this piece of material is harmful because it can be used for educational purposes and that the creator may have not had the intent of creating any pornographic content so that's why I'm requesting the file not to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamkglarensia (talk • contribs)

Closed, File:Example.jpg does not need undeleting as it is not deleted. (@Iamkglarensia: I see no deleted images in your user history.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Nelly Bodenheim - silhouette of a fall.jpg

The creator Nelly Bodenheim died in 1951 (Wikidata), thus this year the file is in the public domain. --Leserättin (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Mfa logo.png

THIS IS COMPLETEELY MY WORK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakib2501 (talk • contribs)

Really? 31. August 2021, NOVEMBER 4, 2021. --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done obvious copyvio. VRT permission from the actual logo copyright holder is needed. Ankry (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Niet Molotoff.ogg

The audiofile File:Niet Molotoff.ogg should be undeleted now, because the author of this song, Tatu Pekkarinen, died in 1951 and 70 years since his death have passed (this file was deleted back in 2019). --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done per above and per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Niet Molotoff.ogg. Ankry (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Health Affairs Journal Logo.png

Previously deleted on the debatable grounds of "Unused trivial logo of questionable notability". Unless I am mistaken, this logo is that of Health Affairs (source, static .png), which has had an article on English Wikipedia since 2009, and accurately presenting a simple text logo of a notable publication is 100% in line with COM:SCOPE, contrary to arguments raised in the one-person/one-closer deletion "discussion". --Animalparty (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Unused logos are out of scope. As the article is in enwiki since 2009, was the logo used in the article? Will it be used there if undeleted? Undeleted and still unused logo will be redeleted soon and we do not want ping-pong deletion/undeletion. Notifying @Yann: . Ankry (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
No objection if there is a use for this file. --Yann (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ankry: I disagree that unused logos are out of scope. I maintain that logos of notable organizations, whether currently in use or not, are in scope per COM:EDUSE, as "realistically useful for an educational purpose", broadly construed as "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". Logos can change over time, and hosting current as well as historic ones is educational, (e.g. A and B). I don't know whether this logo was used in any articles previously, but if the narrower COM:INUSE is to be the criterion over COM:EDUSE, it is simple to add it to Wikidata at a bare minimum, even if there were no Wikipedia articles at all. Note that the journal also has a Commons Category at Health Affairs. --Animalparty (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
This is not convincing me. I would not support undeletion unless I see a real example of educational use of this particular logo in such case. But, maybe, another admin has a diffrent opinion. Potential educational use should not be accepted as the hosting reason for logos due to suspected misuse for advertising. However, we can host old, outdated logos under this rationale. But this is not the case. Ankry (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 Info The uploader first added the image to the article, then removed it a few days later. Thuresson (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Support This is the logo of an important, influential, journal. It is not in use because the editors at WP:EN have chosen to use a blurred front page of the journal where the logo might go. That does not render the logo out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Martainville-Épreville PM 63247.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Martainville-Épreville PM 63247.jpg

"Author died in 1946" Abzeronow (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Nelly Bodenheim - silhouette of pulling on a boot.jpg

The creator Nelly Bodenheim died in 1951 (Wikidata), thus this year the file is in the public domain. --Leserättin (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done already by colleague Ankry. --Túrelio (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Nelly Bodenheim - silhouette with family.jpg

The creator Nelly Bodenheim died in 1951 (Wikidata), thus this year the file is in the public domain. --Leserättin (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done already by colleague Ankry. --Túrelio (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Nelly Bodenheim - silhouette.png

The creator Nelly Bodenheim died in 1951 (Wikidata), thus this year the file is in the public domain. --Leserättin (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done already by colleague Ankry. --Túrelio (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Kvinnlig serimpi--dansare på Java. Akvarell med accentuering av gouache. 02.jpg

The creator Tyra Kleen died in 1951 (en.WP), thus this year the file is in the public domain. --Leserättin (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that somebody undeleted already. So this is obsolete. --Leserättin (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Anything that is in Category:Undelete in 2022 (like this was) is slated to be restored in the next few days anyway. --Rosenzweig τ 19:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Laika ac Lille (6290032194).jpg

HI, IMO, this is too simple to have a copyright. The communist symbol doesn't have a copyright, and the rest is de minimis or accessory. Pinging @Jameslwoodward: , as deleting admin. If necessary, the bottom can be cropped. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Support I agree with Yann. The bottom part falls under COM:DM, IMO. Ankry (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 Neutral I agree that it's a close call, so I defer to Yann and Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Film maker.jpg

--SarojiniMathiyalagan (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Why? --Túrelio (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Mikalaj Packajeu.jpg

An VRT permission has been provided – ticket:2022010310002092.

As VRT agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate VRT template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2022010310002092|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. - — Coffee // have a cup // 14:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Coffee: . --Yann (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:David Kinley Portrait.jpg

Requesting to undelete this file as it has entered the public domain on January 1, 2022. This was recommended at its deletion request. Thanks. Thrakkx (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It appears that someone else has already requested undeletion or undeleted it themselves. Never mind. Thrakkx (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Procedural close, undeleted on January 2, 2022. Thuresson (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:SOLO E GROUP, LLC (LOGO).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Free licensed image per copyright disclaimer on their website. Stang★ 12:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done per above; fixed license info and LR'ed. Ankry (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:EgliseStChristopheJavel Paris.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:EgliseStChristopheJavel Paris.jpg

"architect died in 1946". Should be free from copyrights in both France and the US. Abzeronow (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per discussion. --Эlcobbola talk 17:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Suren-Pahlav Clan Signet Ring.jpg

The file has been deleted based on a wrong deletion request in which no one has participated!

Since when do we have to provide a reference for a photo to be in Commons?!In fact 20:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Excerpt from Commons:Licensing:

Specifically, the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not:
  • The License that applies to the material. This must be done using a copyright tag.
  • The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided.
  • The Author/Creator of the image or media file. (Italics are in the original, bold added.)

In this case, we do not know who the photographer was or anything about the ring. There are two copyrights -- one for the photograph and one for the ring itself. Either or both may have expired and the photographer may have been the original contributor to WP:EN, but none of that has been proven.

As for the DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suren-Pahlav Clan Signet Ring.jpg had two participants -- the Nominator and the Deleting Admin. While the Nominator has not done much on Commons, the Admin is highly experienced. It was open for more than a month. DRs that are completely obvious do not usually draw much discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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

(File:18. Kreuz-mit-Reliquiar.jpg)

Die Bilddatei wurde folgender Website entnommen: https://www.peterundpaul-marburg.de/marburgpeterpaul/Pfarrei/UnsereKirchen/StPeterundPaul/StPeterundPaul1.php Helmut1954, 04.01.2022

Die Bilddatei wurde gelöscht, weil sie nicht unter einer für Commons geeigneten freien Lizenz steht. Auf der angegebenen Website finde ich auch keine freie Lizenz, sondern vielmehr einen pauschalen Vermerk "© St. Peter und Paul, Marburg" am Ende der Seite. Wir bräuchten also eine Freigabe für die Fotografie, siehe hier. Zu berücksichtigen wäre dabei neben dem Fotografen auch noch, wer die Rechte am gezeigten (modern wirkenden) Objekt selber hat und ob dafür eine Freigabe möglich ist. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 OpposeAgreed. Aside from the copyright for the photograph, both of the objects shown appear to be modern and therefore under copyright. We cannot restore the image without a free license from the photographer and free licenses from the two objects or evidence that their creators died more than 70 years ago, all using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Womeninart portada.png

Request to replace the file File: Womeninart portada.png since it is a logo made by myself. Thanks --Womeninart (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)--Womeninart (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears all over the web. In order to restore it, we will need credible evidence that you are the original creator of the image, via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Anton Brehme.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is public domain, as stated here https://www.berlin-recycling-volleys.de/media-2/medienservice. Additionally, I talked to the PR office of the volleyball club and they said I can use their pictures for Wikipedia. Beatboxxx49 (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Beatboxxx49: use on Wikipedia is not enough. Per COM:Licensing, images must be freely-licensed so that unrestricted commercial reuses are also allowed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose "This file is public domain, as stated here" is completely incorrect. Both the source page and the page cited above have explicit copyright notices. The image cannot be restored without a free license from the actual photographer using VRT or a free license from the volleyball club together with written evidence that the club has the right to freely license the image, also using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
In fairness to the requestor, the site actually does say the official team photo as well as the portrait photos of the team are available "without rights" ("Das offizielle Mannschaftsfoto sowie die Potraitfotos des Teams sind rechtefrei verfügbar.") The problem with "rechtefrei" is that it is not necessarily to be interpreted literally. This can be understandably confusing to both German and English speakers, as rechtefrei (English speakers no doubt see the cognate: rights-free) seems self-explanatory. "Rechtefrei," however, often means only "freely available" (not the same as public domain, Gemeinfreiheit), which is why one often sees it in the form of "freely available for x". This random site is a good example: "Diese Fotos können rechtefrei für Presseartikel, Blogbeiträge, Lesungsankündigungen oder ähnliches genutzt werden. [...] Keine private Nutzung gestattet." ("These photos can be used without rights for press articles, blog posts, reading announcements or similar. [...] No private use permitted.") This statement would, of course, be nonsensical and self-contradictory if "rechtefrei" actually meant "public domain." Note also that even selecting the "native" English language option at the requestor's site (i.e., not running it through Google translator--although perhaps that's all it's doing through an API) renders "rechtefrei" as "freely available," not "public domain." Thus also an  Oppose from me as not sufficiently specific (required by COM:L) and per COM:PRP. A COM:VRT ticket seems best here, in no small part because the requestor themselves claimed this to be {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} (very much not PD) at upload. Эlcobbola talk 15:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you, elcobbola. We actually have much the same problem in English -- everything on the Web is "freely available" but little is actually freely available for any use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Jason Ballard with Secretary of the Air Force.jpg

This file belongs to me and I wish to have it uploaded on Wikimedia --Ballardjg (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's a valid reason for the deletion request it received. The file belongs to me. Thank you--Ballardjg (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ballardjg. --Túrelio (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ballardjg: Did you read the deletion request? "Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright." We need the formal written permission from the photographer. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose

First: As pointed out in the DR and the discussion above, owning a physical or digital copy of a photo does not give one the right to freely license it.
Second, these are personal images of a non-contributor and therefore are out of scope. Commons is not Facebook.
Either of these is a reason not to restore these images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Pinkie Pie.png

Hi. I am requesting undeletion of the picture that I have last night. It was using Creative Commons, and it was came from Fandom which uses CC-BY-SA 3.0. I don't know why it's deleted but I did just right.

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Hi, I am an Iranian actor and this photo is mine, please do not delete it, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ped1144 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 6 January 2022‎ (UTC)

Procedural close, file is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Hello, I am Pedram Faizi, I am an Iranian actor. This photo is mine. Please do not delete it. Thank you--Ped1144 (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Procedural close, file is not deleted. @Ped1144: Please do not make any requests concerning "File:Example.jpg" on this page. Thuresson (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:WinkmagazineIssue2.png

Per request, thanks. Stang★ 10:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC) ✓ Done. Ellywa (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Portrait de Jean-Georges Massart.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2021122810003454. --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC) ✓ Done. Ellywa (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Luisa porritt london 2019.jpg

Per request, thanks. Stang★ 14:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Ellywa (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Far Cry Logo.png

Text based logo, compare Category:Far Cry logos. Regards Matt (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This is the logo of Far Cry (film) which is only indirectly related to the video games cited above. It is a German film and therefore German law applies, not Canadian law as applied to the video games. This is probably creative enough to have copyright protection in Germany. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Cecilia Koranteng-Addow.jpg

I would like to reques that this image be undeleted. The image belongs to my family and we would like it to be associated with Cecilia Koranteng-Addow's wikipedia page. I think it was deleted due to a misunderstanding about the date of the photo. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Layalliverpool (talk • contribs) 11:07, 5 January 2022‎ (UTC)

 Info Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cecilia Koranteng-Addow.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The uploader claimed to be the photographer of this 1970s image, but given the comment above, that seems unlikely. Owning a physical or digital copy of a photograph does not give one the right to freely license it -- that right almost always belongs to the photographer and in most countries lasts for 70 years after their death. This cannot be restored with a free license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Oppose Copyright by default belongs to the photographer and we need their free license permission. Ownership of a photo print or even a negative doea not grant you the right to license the photo. Fair Use is not accepted in Wikimedia Commons. And scope issues (to be associated with Cecilia Koranteng-Addow's wikipedia page) are secondary here; copyright issues need to be resolved frst. Ankry (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Matt Birkbeck.jpg

I am the owner of this photo (File:Matt Birkbeck.jpg)and give permission to use it. --Bluephone5 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - At the time of upload, you gave the source as "Website Mattbirkbeck.com". Why would you need to source the image from Mattbirkbeck.com if it was yours? The image, further, is merely a crop of this image. Per COM:VRT, additional evidence of permission is needed for previously published images. Эlcobbola talk 17:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Missie-berteotti-golf-cart.jpg

Photo was taken by myself - Chad Warren and was added to the official website at the time of design / development.

  •  Oppose - This was an out-of-process recreation of an image (by same uploader) deleted in 2014. At that time it was deleted for being found here. Although that link has now died, it matters not as a much larger version of the image was here in 2012. Previously published images require COM:VRT evidence of permission. Эlcobbola talk 21:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Website at https://missieberteotti.com/ is listed as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License Aeboi80 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
COM:L is linked no less than 5 times (!!!) on your talk page, and explicitly says, in multiple places, that non-commercial licenses are not acceptable, and includes CC-BY-NC-SA explicitly. Copyright, further, initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject; a license provided on the subject's (Missie Berteotti) webpage (missieberteotti.com) would be unacceptable and license laundering absent evidence of a written transfer. Эlcobbola talk 22:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Kashmir_avengers.png

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonygrizmen1 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Football club logo. There is no evidence of a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not without a permission. --Yann (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Leoplán 115.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leoplán 115.jpg

@Ezarate: I'm not that familiar with Argentine law as far as collective works but this was from a 1939 magazine in Argentina. Argentina was 50 pma in 1996 when it signed the URAA treaty and it looks anonymous works are still Publication + 50, so I'm trying to figure out if this is public domain in Argentina (and the US) or not. Abzeronow (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I can't yet find a death death for Valencia. If I can't find one, should we consider an undeletion date of 2060 (120 year rule)? Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
It looks like he died 2008, so 2018 + 70 + 1 = 01.01.2089 (with pma + 70 per COM:ARGENTINA). Эlcobbola talk 18:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like this file will have to wait until 2079 for restoration (2008 + 70 + 1=2079). Abzeronow (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, 2079--sorry, the 2018 typo carried through my math. Эlcobbola talk 18:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Art 34 is "Para las obras fotográficas". This is not a photograph. Эlcobbola talk 17:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Category:Number 654 on aircraft

No longer empty. Such categories should really not be deleted, when it is clear that it is just a matter of time before they will be filled out. They often help with navigation, etc. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Support This reasoning is correct for any reasonable category up tp 999. Thuresson (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 Support The speedy deletion of empty categories was policy at the time, but for categories like this (which will likely be filled in again in the future) that policy was changed shortly thereafter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: Could you please double check. I believe only one out of three has been restored. Thanks in advance. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done --Yann (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Church-Marzahn.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

"Hans Perathoner died in 1946" Copyright for the depicted work expired in 2017. Abzeronow (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

In US also? What is the publication date? Ankry (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I was only talking about Germany as I didn't have the US info yesterday. Did a little research and the sculpture is from 1930. Abzeronow (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Undelete in 2026? Ankry (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
If necessary, that could be the undeletion date. Abzeronow (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Undelete in 2026. --Yann (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Zhou An.jpg

Request temporary undeletion

Hi. I am investigating a long-term covert advertising group (en:WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/123Aristotle and m:Steward_requests/Checkuser#Stella_Phang.40zh.wikipedia). Following the activities of identified sockpuppets accounts, I find some suspicious articles created by some accounts with abnormal activities[3][4][5]. I would like to request a temporary undeletion for this file, which seems to be related to such an account, to check the content. Thanks!--虹易 (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@虹易: Temporarily undeleted, will be deleted again in 48 hours. Thuresson (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Redeleted. --Yann (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Fréset, Portrait.jpg

Hello. I don't understand why this picture has been deleted (Fréset, Portrait.jpg). It is a family photo, which we have, and which represents my great grandfather. I would like to put it on his page. Thank you very much. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namalric86 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 January 2022‎ (UTC)

Wow. This image had been deleted nearly 3 years ago! You had claimed it as own work and from 2019; likely both is wrong. There was a ticket, but the volunteer, who worked on it, regrettably has passed away in between: {{OTRS received|id=2019032010003374|year=2019|month=March|day=29|reason=processing|user=Ronhjones}}. --Túrelio (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Owning a physical of digital copy of an image does not give one the right to freely license it as required here. That right almost always belongs to the actual photographer. The subject's dates are 1894-1975, so this image was almost certainly taken far too recently for us to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years.
Unless the VRT email has definitive evidence that either (a) the person sending it has a written license from the actual photographer giving him the right to freely license the image or (b) the actual photographer has been dead for 70 years, it cannot be restored.
Also note that claiming "Own Work" when you are not the actual photographer is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you are likely to be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Either a free license permission from the photographer / photographer heirs needs to be sent to VRT or an evidence of significanly old (pre-1927) anonymous publication needs te be provided. Ankry (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:MinkaP.jpg

Hello! I am the site administrator dgu.com.ua and have uploaded my own photographic work to the site and to wikipedia. I have this file in RAW format. I am attaching the original image created from the RAW format. Please restore the file on Wikipedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MinkaPY.jpg

Also

Hello! The site http://www.euroosvita.net/index.php/?category=1&id=734 took advantage of my work from the site dgu.com.ua. I am the site administrator dgu.com.ua and have uploaded my own photographic work to the site and to wikipedia. I have this file in RAW format. I am attaching the original image created from the RAW format. Please restore the file on Wikipedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DGUhome.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snd1972 (talk • contribs)

@Snd1972: Please, follow VRT instructions as required for already published and low resolution images. Ankry (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per above: a free license permission sent to VRT is needed. Ankry (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Fengtimo600.jpg

per request, thanks. Stang★ 14:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a selfie of an unknown person with absolutely no information in the file description. It seems to me that it is out of scope as a personal image from a non-contributor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems not out-of-scope for me. Stang★ 16:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I tagged this image as copyvio. This appears to be a photo of zh:冯提莫 which, if the VRT permission is valid, may be undeleted. —Wcam (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done per VRT request. @Stang: FYI. Ankry (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Name of the file to undelete.jpg Julian Lloyd Webber rehearsing with Sir Arthur Bliss in September 1972

This photo is my copyright and was taken by a family member. GHOUSE68

please ask your family member to closely follow the procedure described on COM:VRT. Ellywa (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Please, provide a link to the file you wish to undelete: you have no deleted contribution. Ankry (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate. --Yann (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Kievfunicular.jpeg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: pre-revolutionary (PD-RusEmpire) postcard [6] Чорний Кіт (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn’t see that there is a better quality file-scan File:Фунікулер 1905.jpg--Чорний Кіт (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Withdraw by requestor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

私はこの画像をアイコンとしているYouTuberから掲載の許可を貰い、アップロードしている。著作権侵害などはしていない。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomotatu (talk • contribs) 12:35, 7 January 2022‎ (UTC)

 Info Google translate: "I have received permission from YouTuber, which uses this image as an icon, to upload it. There is no copyright infringement.".
@Tomotatu: Please add the file name of the file you wish to have undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
File:DornEX5 YouTube.jpg Tomotatu (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
And where we can find and verify the permission? We need to verify that (1) this is an accepted free license permission, (2) the permission was indeed granted by the author. If it is non-public, see VRT. Ankry (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Not done, probably out of scope anyway since this youtube account only has 5,000 followers. Thuresson (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Logo_of_R.P.jpg

Không nên xoá — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionoHuy1 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 7 January 2022‎ (UTC)

 Info Google translate: "Should not be deleted". Thuresson (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose No reason given. Google translation of the file information gives us a description of the image but no information about who RP is or why the logo is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason has been presented why the file should be undeleted. --De728631 (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:変態ドルン1.png

このスクリーンショットは私が所属するグループのトーク履歴である。そのトークグループのリーダーにも許可を貰ってるし、画像に写っている人達にも許可を貰っている。著作権は私たちグループにあるので、著作権侵害で削除されるのはおかしい。— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomotatu (talk • contribs) 03:52, 8 January 2022‎ (UTC)

google translate: This screenshot is the talk history of the group I belong to. The leader of the talk group has also given permission, and the people in the image have also given permission. Since the copyright belongs to our group, it is strange that it will be deleted due to copyright infringement. Ellywa (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose screenshot of chat with copyrighted images of avatars. Ellywa (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Also out of scope as a personal image from a non-contributor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Not done, per above plus I do not understand why this is potentially useful for any Wikimedia project. Thuresson (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Philip Glass with Julian Lloyd Webber

GHOUSE68 is my (Julian Lloyd Webber's Wikipedia account.) I am the copyright holder of this photo which was taken by a family member. If in any doubt please contact me on (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHOUSE68 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2022‎ (UTC)

@GHOUSE68: Please add the exact file name of the file you wish to have undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This cannot be done here. If the image was taken by a family member as claimed above, then either (a) the family member must give a free license using VRT or GHOUSE68 must give a free license including a copy of the written license from the family member allowing GHOUSE68 to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@GHOUSE68: Please define which file do you wish to undelete and do not open multiple requests for the same file. Ankry (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Not done, this probably concerns a photo uploaded by Cocolinmichaela who is a very problematic contributor, for example by licensing photos of Julian Lloyd Webber by "unknown author" with a CC-BY-SA license. All photos from GHOUSE68 and Cocolinmichaela should go through VRT/OTRS for now. Thuresson (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2022 (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

This Photo Taken By Me For Yousef Elrashidy

Thanks

-NouranKhalil (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Question @NouranKhalil: Which Wikipedia article is it related to? Ankry (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@NouranKhalil: The file was deleted because Yousef Elrashidy was considered not notable. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yousef Elrashidy Wikipedia.jpg. Can you show more information about this person, for instance an article on Wikipedia? Regards, Ellywa (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%AF%D9%85:NouranKhalil/%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%81_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A_(%D9%81%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86_%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1%D9%8A) NouranKhalil (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 Support With this article the photo seems to be in scope now. On that note, I deleted File: Yousef Elrashidy.jpg which was reuploaded out of process. @NouranKhalil: You should not have uploaded the photo again while this discussion is still running because it was a breach of our rules. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The link in ar.wikipedia is a user page. I propose to wait in order to see if it is maintained in the aarticle namespace. Ellywa (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done as per Ellywa: please, request again after the Wikipedia article is accepted to be published in the main namespace. Ankry (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Henk_Peeters_voor_zijn_eigen_werk_bij_de_opening_van_het_Stedelijk_Museum_in_2012.jpg

Please undelete this photo as it is made by the subject's (Henk Peeters) son, Mark, Henk Peeters' legal successor. I (Mark's wife) uploaded this photo, there is no copyright involved. It is free to use and to publish. Despite my expressed objections, the photo has been removed. This picture adds good information about Henk Peeters and it is free to use. It should therefore be undeleted.

 Oppose Copyright is generated automatically once a photo is made. Therefore we need a permission by email coming directly from the original photographer. Please see COM:VRT for instructions. Once our volunteer team has processed the permission, the file may be undeleted with a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} licence. De728631 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose As discussed in the DR, there are two copyrights here -- one for the work of art and the other for the photograph. Since the photographer is apparently also the artist's son and sole heir, one license will suffice but it must clearly state that he is licensing both the photograph in his capacity as photographer and the art work in his capacity as heir of the creator. Also note that "Mark, who gave permission to publish it on his fathers Wikipedia page" (quote from the DR) does not give sufficient permission. Commons and WP both require licenses that are free for any use by anybody anywhere and cannot be limited to a single WP page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim & De728631: VRT permission is needed here. Ankry (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Faith Chepngetich Kipyegon, Laura Muir und weitere 1500-Meter-Läuferinnen bei den IAAF Leichtathletik-Weltmeisterschaften 2017 in London (35638401273).jpg

Why this file was deleted? It is freely-licensed:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/149561324@N03/35638401273/
and also I do not see reasons in the deletion policy and the project scope policy.

So the question is can it be undeleted? Or maybe I can reupload this? Lorem333Ipsum (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The deletion rationale was "Uploaded files of a blocked user. To prevent harm from new tenant." The uploader Wuestenigel is in fact blocked indefinitely for copyvios but I think this file can be restored. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 Support Agreed. It is cc-by-2 on Flickr. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 Support Flickr user is established pro account since 2017, consistent, from all I see legitimately free licensed by photographer/copyright holder. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Undeleted per consensus. Ellywa (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Files by User:Bookowr

Please undelete

We have permission per Ticket:2022010710007928. – Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

IS - File:Logo Official World Record.jpg - IS 4 LOGOS IS GOOD PACK? Bookowr (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This one does not need permission since it does not exceed Threshold of originality. See file description. --Mussklprozz (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:The works of Plato, vol 2 (Dacier, 1701).pdf

I previously requested the deletion of this file as I had thought that it was a duplicate of the [of Plato, vol. 1 (Dacier,1701).pdf], however I was mistaken and wish for it to be undeleted

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Kindly undelete this image for me as I cannot tell which image is that.

 Not done: No file name provided. --Yann (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:許賢.jpg

The file was uploaded on the official Facebook page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoymus (talk • contribs) 16:50 UTC, 9 January 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, as the file description says, it came from Facebook. Everything on Facebook is copyrighted and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the actual photographer. It is certainly not {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} as you claimed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Wcam and Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Verdun14.18-mémorial-05.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Verdun14.18-mémorial-05.jpg

"Alexandre Descatoire is dead in 1949." French copyright expired in 2020. @Jameslwoodward: Abzeronow (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The question is whether this French postcard is also out of copyright in the United States. The original file description only states "before 1935" as a date but that may have resulted in a URAA copyright. De728631 (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 Info According to Alexandre Descatoire this monument is from 1932. Other photos of this monument at Category:Memorial Soldat du Droit. Thuresson (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Thuresson. At least we've narrowed down the potential dates on the postcard. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose since there is no commercial FOP in France (which would have shielded it from U.S. compliance through {{Not-free-US-FOP}}), this is still unfree for Commons. Undelete in 2028 (1932+95+1 years, using U.S. copyright). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. Under copyright in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Super Mario Bros World 1-1 2021-12-26.gif

I made this GIF animation file from scratch using MS PowerPoint so it is not a screenshot of the game. Each moving symbol is made of some small basic shapes of PowerPoint and hardly represents original's characteristic features, and others are originally mere simple figures (flat rectangle or ellipse). This animation is only a rough description of one of possible movements and relations of objects in the game without any copyright infringement, I suppose. -- Asanagi (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Support Deleted for being similar to Super Mario Bros. But Nintendo does not have a copyright on the concept of platform games. Thuresson (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree that there is no copyvio here, but I question what educational purpose it serves? We do not keep personal art. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: With two admins agreeing that there is no copyvio, the original reason for speedy deletion no longer applies. A DR has been opened: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Super Mario Bros World 1-1 2021-12-26.gif. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Previewfile 1647712363.jpg

--96.93.92.185 16:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)kylerzeman--01/10/22

 Not done: No file by that name. Please log in, and provide a file name. --Yann (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Фото книги IMG 20211021 095319.jpg

VRTS permission received. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done per VRT member request. @Tohaomg: Please, provide the ticket No. in future. Ankry (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Undelete File:United Buddy Bears in Rio de Janeiro-1.JPG| Rio de Janeiro, Copacabana 2014

Dear all, we are owners of the pictures and the Buddy Bear Brand. We would like to have the picture on Wikipedia again. It does not violate copyrights and does not contain offensive content. These are images for an art exhibition on tolerance and international understanding.

Several Files were deleted and we would like to "undelete" them all.

What do you need for this?

Dr. Klaus Herlitz

Founder / Managing Director

Buddy Bear Berlin GmbH Geisbergstrasse 29 10777 Berlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy Bear Berlin (talk • contribs) 15:36, 11 January 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done Procedural close: file is not deleted. Ankry (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Лурін і патон.jpg

Этот файл был надан собственником. С его почты было отправлено разрешение на его публикацию дополнительно. Как нам восстановить его? Shalimov.pr (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shalimov.pr: The file can be undeleted after a free license permission is verified by VRT. Ankry (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Bell214a irgc airforce call isfahan1.jpg

Clear c.c. by 4 https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1398/11/16/2196662/%DA%AF%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B4-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D9%86%DB%8C%D9%85-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%DB%8C%DA%A9-%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AF-%D8%AC%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4%DA%A9%DB%8C-%D9%87%D9%84%D9%81%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%B5%D9%87-%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%82%D9%87-%D8%AA%D9%86%DA%AF-%D8%AA%D8%B1-%D9%85%DB%8C-%DA%A9%D9%86%D8%AF

 Oppose It is true that the tasnim news site shows "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." However, it is not at all clear that this image was actually created by a tasnim photographer. The caption implies otherwise and the image appears in many places on the web. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done I agree with Jim. Eg. this publication is one day older than the tasnimnews one. Ankry (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Kincsem-a csodalo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kincsem-a csodalo.jpg

"Sculptor died in 1946." Hungarian copyright expired in 2017. Abzeronow (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Since 2017 is long after the URAA date, the US copyright will expire no earlier than 2041. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim. Category:Undelete in 2047. Ankry (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:La Boule du CEMES-CNRS.jpg

Dear, I don't understand why the file:La Boule du CEMES-CNRS.jpg has been deleted. This image belongs to our public research lab (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Materials_Elaboration_and_Structural_Studies) and has been used (taken fron our website www.cemes.fr) by the website https://www.unidivers.fr/event/fete-science-centre-delaboration-de-materiaux-et-detudes-structurales-cemes-cnrs-2021-09-21/ to promote visits organized by our lab on late October 8. I thank you in advance for considering my request for undelation. Best regards, Guy Guy BSP (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Guy BSP: The image is neither original nor unpublished so it cannot be licensed on-wiki. Providing an evidence of free license is required by policy. If it doea not origibate from a freely licensed site, VRT is the right way. Fair use or limitted licenses are not accepted in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the actual creator via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Chucky TV Series Look (2021).jpg

This is an official promotional picture of the character from SYFY for the television series that is protected under fair use on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshySlashy (talk • contribs) 09:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@AshySlashy: Hi,
Please sign with ~~~~.
Commons doesn't accept fair use. Here we need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose @AshySlashy: per COM:Licensing#Forbidden licenses, fair use license is perpetually not allowed. Media files here must be freely licensed, and can be reused even for commercial purposes. Local uploading on Wikipedia might help, see w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Unambiguously unacceptable per COM:FU. --Эlcobbola talk 22:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:HOPE'87 - Hundreds of Original Projects for Employment.jpg

Dear Dir/ Madam,

I would like to request to undelete the file stated above as the deletion is unjustified - the logo pertains to HOPE'87.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HOPE87 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright question and question of whether this is in scope are both unresolved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:HOPE'87 logo 2008 ohne Text.jpg

Please restore the file linked above. The deletion was unjustified as the logo pertains to HOPE'87. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HOPE87 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright question and question of whether this is in scope are both unresolved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Carole Forget chez elle.jpg

Selfie réalisé par la poétesse et transmise par elle par courriel avec sa permission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentin6377 (talk • contribs)

Then why did you claim "own work" (of yours)? Anyway, if it's really her own work (some doubts), then she needs to send a confirmation for her authorship and of the choosen free license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (VRTS). --Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Do not claim Own Work when you are not the actual photographer. If you do it again you may be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:The House by the Railroad by Edward Hopper 1925.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings by Edward Hopper This was a painting published in 1925. The whole DR should be revisited since it was closed before some works could have been properly researched to keep them. Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Racconish and Clindberg: Ankry (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I investigated the publication history of Edward Hopper's House by the Railroad (1925) back when the DR was originally opened. The earliest evidence of publication I could find was in the following two exhibition catalogs:
So this artwork is definitely published no later than 1933. It has been PD for years if it lost protection due to failure to renew. But if the first publication I found was renewed, but I just couldn't locate the renewal, it will be PD on 1 January 2026 (or possibly before if there was an even earlier publication). —RP88 (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The "undelete" date in that PR is nonsensical, because it's based on the life date of the author, whereas U.S. copyright terms were based on publication (and renewal). That date would only make sense if the paintings were unpublished through 2003, which is rather unlikely. So, there should really be a series of undelete dates in there, though those can be hard to determine. Much of the time, we do assume publication of works not long after they were made. But I think most of the paintings in that DR were retained by the author, and donated to a museum upon the death of his wife -- which in turn means there was a very real possibility they remained unpublished until that point. The museum, not surprisingly, claims control of the copyright but that is far from clear if it exists, or if they would have the rights even if it did. The particular painting here is not part of that donation; it is owned by the Museum of Modern Art today and was likely purchased in the 1920s. But we may prefer better evidence of publication than a pure assumption, in these cases. The 1925 date on the nominated work was date of creation, not necessarily date of publication -- most of that DR was trying to find some evidence of publication, which would start the copyright clock, and then evidence of renewals after that point. If you have further information on publication, then that very well could change things. Also, at the time of the DR, 1923 was the 95 year line, and that line has now moved to 1927, so any possible publications in 1923 through 1926 would now make them definitely PD.
On the DR, User:RP88 did find this painting was in a 1930 catalog in which there was no copyright notice, so not sure why it was deleted. It was also published in a 1933 catalog, which was renewed, so if the first catalog was somehow not considered general publication, at the very latest it would be PD in 2029, so the DR should have had an undelete for that. But I'd probably  Support undeletion of this one, on the basis of that 1930 catalog -- it would have seemed to become PD upon publication of that catalog, which itself states had 2250 copes in the "first edition". The other paintings in the DR are murkier. On balance, there is a good chance copyright has expired on them (or there are no heirs left to file lawsuits), but there may still be some significant doubts, and there are multiple museums which claim copyright control over the paintings they own, so we may want to have actual evidence for any tags we use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • IMO the 1930 catalog has indeed lost its copyright protection, but this loss only applies to this black and white reproduction, not to another later color reproduction of the original painting. — Racconish 💬 12:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment We are investigating copyright status of the original painting, not copyright status of any particular reproduction. If the painting is PD, any its 2D reproduction would be PD, regarless of technology and colouring. And I do not think that the painting may ever have "limitted PD" status that applies only to some of its attributes. Ankry (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • BTW, maybe the 1930 catalog is worth uploading to Commons? Ankry (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with you, we are investigating the copyright status of Hopper's painting, not of its reproduction by the MOMA. But I am concerned we might be evaluating the copyright status of the painting on the basis of the copyright status of the derivative work, the reproduction in the MOMA's 1930 catalog. The later work, the catalog, is based on an earlier work, the painting, but the copyrights status remain separate as long as they have not been published by the same entity: the catalog includes a reproduction of the painting with the permission of its owner, Stephen Clarke, but it seems the copyright aspect has been dispensed with, which cannot be taken to imply the reproduction in the MOMA's catalog has been published by the copyright owner, Hopper. We have similar issues with films: some are PD, yet they incorporate non PD prior works whose copyright protection have to be acknowledged, and some PD films have been republished with additional elements, e.g. soundtrack, which have a separate copyright. Yes, it is a confusing situation, but we need to find a rationale if we are trying to establish the copyright status of Hopper's painting based on the copyright status of the reproduction by the MOMA who was not the copyright owner. In very simple terms: does a painter lose his copyright because a museum which does not even own a painting publishes a reproduction of the painting without even saying they have the painter's permission? If so why? At this point, I do not see such a rationale and consider the PCP should apply to the copyright status of the painting. — Racconish 💬 10:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Racconish: 2D reproduction of a 2D work is not a derivative work as it is not a separate work. At least in US. Ankry (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's a given that Hopper still owned copyright -- MOMA claims copyright today, right? Was there a documented sale of the copyright later? Particularly if we are claiming it was unpublished; at that point the sale of an unpublished work still subject to common-law copyright, can imply the sale of the copyright as well, as that would be subject to common law (which can differ by state). Museums typically claim copyright ownership for transferred objects in that era. The rule did not become ironclad until 1978 with the new law; before that cases went both ways. So for any paintings he sold, Hopper is not necessarily the copyright owner, and there is all sorts of gray area over what would be an authorized publication. There is one case mentioned in summary here where a photo used in a collage, and the collage being published in a magazine, and with a poster being made with it, did nothing to protect their rights until years later, qualified as injecting the photo into the public domain anyways. Was Hopper unaware of the exhibition at the MoMA and the catalog? If the museum did not stop photography, the display in the museum itself could also be publication at some point. The color question is rather interesting though; the black and white version certainly seems to be published to me, but some of the expression (the color) might not have been. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
      • A little clarification : the 1930 MOMA catalog was likely published before the end of the related exhibition, on January 12, 1930. At that time, the painting was owned by Clark. He donated it to the MOMA in May 1930 [7]. This was something quite new for them at the time : as the Museum puts it they were "entering relatively uncharted territory" [8] and it is very likely they were doing mistakes such as not caring for copyright to the extent of forgetting the copyright notice. — Racconish 💬 23:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
      • The year of Clark's gift to the MOMA is maybe not 1930 but 1931. A few sources (e.g. [9]) mention it was made to coincide with Nelson Rockfeller's nomination as president of the Booard of trustees in 1931 and subsequent new orientation of the museum. — Racconish 💬 09:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Interesting, thanks. But either Clark owned the copyright (which was then gifted to the museum), meaning the 1930 catalog was with permission, or Hopper still owned it (meaning the museum would not even today), and he would have had to renew it at some point (definitely following the publication in the 1933 catalog I would think). If the museum did not own the copyright, don't think their renewal of the 1933 catalog would serve to renew the painting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion, mainly per Carl. Ankry (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Afarin tv logo.png

Hello Dear Wikimedia commons, I tried to upload a logo (File:Afarin tv logo.png) but you deleted it due to a Copyright violation, https://www.facebook.com/AfarinKidsTV/photos/a.190590851547422/850701498869684), but it's my own work, I am CEO of Afarin TV, (https://www.facebook.com/AfarinKidsTV)!

how you can help me to undeletion the logo!

thanks Shahrwzi, CEO of afarin tv kids — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahrwzi (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

@Shahrwzi: Hi,
Please sign with ~~~~.
We need a formal written permission for a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done as per Yann: VRT permission needed. Ankry (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Victoriaedwards

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: COM:FOP Canada covers also "works of artistic craftsmanship", and stained glass windows, in my opinion, are not graphic works but works of artistic craftsmanship as the designers were also craftsmen (as opposed to designers of murals who were just only regular artists). Canadian FOP closely follows British freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. COM:FOP UK specifically mentions stained glass as OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Orlando Productions logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: If it’s the same as w: File:Orlando Productions logo.png it’s probably below COM:TOO US. Jonteemil (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Notifying @EugeneZelenko: as the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. If needed, a regular DR can be created. --Yann (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Tracy Tutor Red Carpet MDLLA.png

Not sure why this was deleted. Found it on a free imaging site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sf123456 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 11 January 2022‎ (UTC)

@Sf123456: So why did you claim that this is your own work and you own the copyright?
 Oppose Getty Images: "LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - NOVEMBER 06: Tracy Tutor attends the 10th Annual LACMA ART+FILM GALA presented by Gucci at Los Angeles County Museum of Art on November 06, 2021 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Frazer Harrison/FilmMagic)" Thuresson (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. From his comment above, User:Sf123456 is clearly not Frazer Harrison, so this cannot stay on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Adminpedia-image.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This has been deleted out of procedure. A full DR should be held and closing admin should be someone other than the nominating user. As a side note, a mass DR is currently underway: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jefftemp#Files in Category:Jefftemp (Adminpedia files). 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't see the point to have this file here, except for annoying people. --Yann (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Harassment / OOS is a valid reason for speedy deletion. In order to undelete, you need to explain why the image is in COM:SCOPE? I found no evidence that it was used. Ankry (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with harassment, but intelligent criticism. A similar image has formerly been subject to DR and has survived that ordeal (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adminpedia-image.png) unanimously. This per se shows that speedy deletion does not hold water. Anything that a reasonable user opposes its deletion needs to go through a full DR, not to be decided by a single admin. I find it ironic that an admin has speedied a file whose whole message is asking admins not to be deletionist. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Just see how many times a similar image has been used on Commons as well as German Wikipedia: File:Adminpedia.png. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Well, if the image was used for criticism, it would be OK. But was is used? Will it be used in Wikimedia? Is the criticism "educational"? I may also support undeletion if the decision in this DR is keep. But at this point, it is, IMO, OOS. Ankry (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Out-of-process speedy deletion, bundled into batch DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:HOPE'87 - Hundreds of Original Projects for Employment.jpg, 2

Herewith I request you again to restore the Wikipedia entry of HOPE’87 (file linked above). HOPE’87 is a charity organization, which is based on the UN resolution 40/16 "Opportunities for Youth" adopted by the General Assembly on the occasion of the International Youth Year of the UN (1985). Since spring 1991, the international initiative of HOPE´87 is affiliated with the United Nations through a "Memorandum of Understanding" between the Republic of Austria on behalf of HOPE´87 and the United Nations regarding common strategies to fight youth unemployment. HOPE’87 provides international development cooperation to vulnerable people in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe and has helped thousands of people in need and saved a lot of lives within the last 35 years. Having explained that, I cannot comprehend why HOPE’87 should not be a useful member for Wikimedia projects – or do you regard development cooperation as not useful? The HOPE’87 logo in question was designed at the beginning of our history by the staff of HOPE’87, which the current Secretary General Robert Ottitsch guarantees. This logo is the property of HOPE’87 and is used since the foundation of the organisation in 1987. Here is the link to our latest Activity Report: http://www.hope87.at/sites/default/files/Activity%20Report%202020-2021_0.pdf Our Webpage: http://www.hope87.at; https://hope87.org; http://hope87bd.org/about-us Our organisation is also listed in a range of other websites and documents, which can find following these links: https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/list_ngos_official_partners_unesco.pdf; https://www.developmentaid.org/#!/organizations/view/2180/hope87; https://www.devex.com/organizations/hope-87-70652; https://reporting.unhcr.org/document/1292 I therefore request you again to undelete our Wikipedia entry as we think that HOPE’87 is indeed very useful for the international community and we guarantee that the logo is the property of HOPE’87! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HOPE87 (talk • contribs)

@HOPE87: Wikimedia projects do not have "members", only contributors. Only notable organizations can have an article on Wikipedia, and therefore files with no potential use on Wikimedia projects and no educational use are out of scope. Do not repost the same request. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done already rejected request with no new information concerning scope. Also, Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia. Ankry (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


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

yunus şanlı

File:YuNusşanlı.jpg--Yunussanli (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Ade Bajomo.jpg

I am unaware as to why the file without the consent of the owner


--Timone13 (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)--Timone13 (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)1/13/2022

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Top secret.png

Request temporary undeletion This file has been in use on Dutch Wiktionary for over 5 years. Somehow this request was not picked up by the Community Tech bot, so as you can see here we weren't notified. Dutch Wiktionary uses many thousands of files on Commons, so we have to rely on the notifications of this bot. It is really difficult to discuss the arguments for deletion after the file page is no longer visible. It is quite possible we can agree with the deletion, but in that case to find a replacement is helpful if we know what the original looked like. --MarcoSwart (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Temporarily undeleted. --Yann (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ariane 5 va247.jpg

Request temporary undeletion This file has been in use on Dutch Wiktionary for nearly 2 years. Somehow this request was not picked up by the Community Tech bot, so as you can see here we weren't notified. Dutch Wiktionary uses many thousands of files on Commons, so we have to rely on the notifications of this bot. It is really difficult to discuss the arguments for deletion after the file page is no longer visible. It is quite possible we can agree with the deletion, but in that case to find a replacement is helpful if we know what the original looked like. --MarcoSwart (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Temporarily undeleted. --Yann (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ortigas Building.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: now OK per final cutoff date of pre-December 1972 for public domain status of Philippine buildings. According to KMC Savills site, the building was built in 1970 (exactly). {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, if ever, restore the category Category:Ortigas Building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:White Horse in pen.jpg

This file should be undeleted because it does not break any rules, and is a good picture of a horse. It is also the user's own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopperPeachesCoconut2022 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This user has recently received a warning for vandalism. Thuresson (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
But I haven't vandalized Wikimedia Commons ever since. PopperPeachesCoconut2022 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Out of focus, tilted camera, generally poor quality image. We have several hundred photos of white horses better than this one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Schweinfurt - Stadtgalerie innen.JPG

no real grounds stated. One may publish interiors in Germany, generally speaking. --Mateus2019 (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly true. Deletion was based on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Building interiors in Germany and happened in 2014. Has anything changed since then? --Túrelio (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 Comment It would be OK if the top is cropped, but then is the image still useful? Yann (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, would be great. I personally assure, that I will mask any copyrighted material (photographs, decorations) same day. --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Cropped. --Yann (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Strafjustizzentrum des LG München I - 2. OG - Mitte.JPG

no real grounds stated. One may publish interiors in Germany, generally speaking. --Mateus2019 (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly true. Deletion was based on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Building interiors in Germany and happened in 2014. Has anything changed since then? --Túrelio (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 Support While building interiors may be under a copyright, there isn't anything original here. Seeing the quality and the lack of any feature, I even wonder about the image potential use. Yann (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 Support I agree with Yann that the architectural content is beloww COM:TOO. Ankry (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Peter August Böckstiegel "Der Schmerz".jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

Artist died in 1951 and so is public domain in country of origin. These works are from the 1910s and so clearly public domain in the United States. Abzeronow (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted per request. --De728631 (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Nanthida Rakwong speaking at a rally in Trafalgar Square London.jpg

Please restore this file File:Nanthida Rakwong speaking at a rally in Trafalgar Square London.jpg

Copyright holder (Marcos Ortiz) is attempting to use VRT release generator, but it appears that the file needs to be undeleted first. He will also send an email according to the template

ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: When and if the email using VRT is read and approved the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Professeur François Chenet.jpg

Deleted because not in use, yet he has an entry in Wikidata and a draft article. If we deleted every unused image, we would have to delete >10,000 cat images. --RAN (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Uncropped version of File:Professeur François Chenet - Cours Sorbonne.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, it may be in scope as the source of the cropped verion,  Neutral, however. Ankry (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Weak  Support. --Yann (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Needed for attribution purposes, and croped version is in use. No harm keeping it. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Pata Pirosmani.jpg

Доброго дня! Прошу восстановить данное изображение, поскольку наличие копирайта обусловлено устным договором с автором фотографии, Алексеем Лерером. Кроме того с фотографом заключен сублицензионный договор на исключительное право на произведение - фотографию - ее распространение и воспроизведение Good day! I ask you to restore this image, since the copyright is due to an oral agreement with the author of the photo, Alexey Lehrer. In addition, a sublicense agreement has been concluded with the photographer for the exclusive right to the work - the photograph - its distribution and reproduction --Goldpizzaman (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Goldpizzaman: Copyright-related agreements require written form. In order to undelete the image Aleksey Lerer needs to send a free license permission to VRT. A permission that allows only distribution and reproduction is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons, see COM:L. Ankry (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, we sent the author of the photo a request for a written agreement specifically for Wikimedia Commons, but I also ask you to pay attention that the image in the sculpture photo belongs directly to the sculptor, as well as his portrait, for which the photo was used. Thus, in addition to the agreement on the transfer of exclusive rights to the photo, the work falls under the FAL.
The response to the request will be received by Tuesday morning (January 18), please do not close the discussion until the author responds. But I also want it to be taken into account that the sublicense agreement signed by us and the author implies the following: 2.2.1. The use of the work regardless of whether the relevant actions are performed for profit or without such purpose, in particular:
1. reproduction of a work, that is, the production of one or more copies of a work or part of it in any material form, the production in three dimensions of one or more copies of a two-dimensional work. At the same time, the recording of a work on an electronic medium is also considered reproduction, except in the case when such a recording is temporary and forms an integral and essential part of a technological process with the sole purpose of lawful use of the recording or lawful communication of the work to the public;
2. distribution of the work by sale or other alienation of its original or copies;
3. public display of the work, that is, any demonstration of the original or a copy of the work directly or on the screen with the help of film, slide, television frame or other technical means, directly or by technical means in a place open to the public, or in a place where there is a significant number of persons who do not belong to the usual family circle, regardless of whether the work is perceived at the place of its demonstration or in another place simultaneously with the demonstration of the work;
4. export of the original or copies of the work for distribution purposes;
5. a broadcast message, that is, a message (display) of a work for public information on television (including by retransmission), with the exception of a cable message. At the same time, a message is understood as any action by which a work becomes accessible to visual perception, regardless of its actual perception by the public. When broadcasting works via satellite, broadcasting means the reception of signals from a ground station to a satellite and the transmission of signals from a satellite, through which the work can be brought to the public regardless of its actual reception by the public. A message of encoded signals is recognized as an on-air message if the decoding means are provided to an unlimited number of persons by an on-air broadcasting organization or with its consent;
6. communication by cable, that is, the communication (display) of a work for public information on television using cable, wire, optical fiber or similar means (including by retransmission). A message of encoded signals is recognized as a cable message if the decoding means are provided to an unlimited number of persons by a cable broadcasting organization or with its consent;
7. processing of the work. At the same time, the processing of a work is understood as the creation of a derivative work (processing and the like);
8. making the work available to the public (display) in such a way that any person can access the work from any place and at any time of their own choice (making it available to the public). Goldpizzaman (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a written license from the photographer and one from the sculptor, both using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:FirstCrusade.jpg

What happened to my uploaded pic? Where can I see it now?

2015-05-31T11:00:10 Krd talk contribs deleted page File:FirstCrusade.jpg (Broken redirect)

Sincerely, --Mateus2019 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mateus2019: File name changed to File:Execution of Hebrews by Pagans.jpg.
Renamed almost seven years ago, redirect deleted almost seven years ago, and this was an upload by another user. Ankry (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Thuresson (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Huda Abdelmonem.jpg

I invite you to retrieve this file (File:Huda Abdelmonem.jpg), which does not contain any copyright infringement. --المستخدم مستخدم (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: In fact, the logo in the upper right was imperfectly cloned over and is still faintly visible. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:AhmadFahmy.jpg

This file is originally on Wikimedia Commons under the name (File:Ahmed_Fahmy.jpeg) "Fair use", I just developed, improved and re-uploaded it. --المستخدم مستخدم (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair use is allowed at some Wikipedias, but not here at Commons. All uploads at Wikimedia Commons need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
It is just a modified image that has only been improved. The person who added it on the Wikipedia Arabic website stated that it's "a picture from the advertising campaign to nominate the member (in the picture) for elections and therefore free for use". المستخدم مستخدم (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
And there seems to be the error. In most countries, photographs are automatically copyrighted once they are created and anybody else is not allowed to upload the original or any modified version without permission from the photographer. Please see COM:DW for clarification. So, to undelete the image, we need to know the country where the photo was first published, and we need to know if there is in fact an exemption from copyright for material used in election campaigns. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The user who posted the photo on Wikipedia Arabic talks about the 2012 Shura Council elections in Egypt for the former Egyptian Shura Council Chairman Ahmed Fahmy, and this information is mentioned on this page (File:Ahmed_Fahmy.jpeg) . المستخدم مستخدم (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Egypt, there is no copyright exemption for election campaigns, so I'm afraid we cannot restore the photo. De728631 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
But on Wikipedia Arabic, Is verbally stated that the image is free and in "fair use". المستخدم مستخدم (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, as I wrote above, fair use may be claimed for local uploads at some select Wikipedias, but we do not accept it here at Commons. This is because Commons serves all Wikimedia projects including those countries where there is no fair use concept in copyright. Fair use means that you are allowed to take a copyrighted image that is usually non-free and use it under some few and very strict exceptions. At Commons though, all uploads must be free for all purposes and all users. So fair use images may not be transferred to Commons. De728631 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
So I withdraw the request and Thank you. المستخدم مستخدم (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Israa AbdelFattah.jpg

This file is original and valid to use and does not infringe any copyrights. --المستخدم مستخدم (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Special-effects-blood-use-vikings-of-middle-england.jpg

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2022011310006159 regarding File:Special-effects-blood-use-vikings-of-middle-england.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganímedes: . --Yann (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

No londer empty categories of photographs by date

It took me a while to write the SQL that wouldn't time-out on quary. Fortunately there aren't many:

Category:Photographs_taken_on_1904-05-01
Category:Photographs_taken_on_1962-12-07
Category:Photographs_taken_on_1946-01-19
Category:Photographs_taken_on_1948-03-14
Category:Photographs_taken_on_1949-02-17
Category:Photographs_taken_on_1995-11-30
Category:Photographs_taken_on_1997-01-07
Category:Photographs_taken_on_1991-02-08
Category:Photographs_taken_on_1987-03-29
Category:Photographs_taken_on_1863-01-01
Category:Bangladesh_photographs_taken_on_2007-05-21
Category:Bangladesh_photographs_taken_on_2007-02-18
Category:Bangladesh_photographs_taken_on_2015-04-30
Category:Bangladesh_photographs_taken_on_2019-02-07
Category:Bangladesh_photographs_taken_on_2014-07-26
Category:Bangladesh_photographs_taken_on_2020-08-31
Category:Bangladesh_photographs_taken_on_2016-09-12
Category:Bangladesh_photographs_taken_on_2018-11-02
Category:Bangladesh_photographs_taken_on_2009-12-04
Category:Finland_photographs_taken_on_2021-01-13
Category:Republic_of_Ireland_photographs_taken_on_2019-09-30
Category:Spain_photographs_taken_on_2019-02-06

Thank you in advance. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No action required here. These can be recreated by any editor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Repeated recreation of deleted content is grounds for blocking the account. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, Commons:Blocking policy speaks only of repeated uploading of copyrighted content. Recreation of a category that was deleted because it was empty is perfectly valid. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Superresolution Microscopy.svg

Hello, the original upload contained copyrighted material. The last version would be fine to restore because it is far away form the original file. Could you please do so? Biggerj1 (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  •  Support I have temporarily restored it for discussion. I think the new version no longer contains any copyrightable aspects of the original, and derives merely from the information of the original (like a Wikipedia article paraphrasing a copyrighted news article). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment I have no problem on copyright grounds, but I don't think the image properly shows the technique. The whole point is that the items being imaged don't move between steps yet here we see a square grid in the center on the left and in the center a random pattern with only five items from the grid in the same place as on the left. Also, the size of the donut in the middle does not match the red itemss -- all those in the white area should be red since they have not been switched off by the orange beam.

Since this was not the reason for the deletion of the file, this probably should be closed as Done and a DR opened. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Biggerj1: Can you redo your version with an evenly spaced square grid? That part is obviously not copyrightable and there is no problem with keeping it from the original as long as you change the colors, design, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mrmw: created the svgs :) as far as I understand the principle you could easily remove the grid completely and replace it by some transparent circles which represent the switching on and off areas. Then the image is even further away from the original :) Biggerj1 (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, the circles or dots in all three places should be the same pattern. Presumably that should be random, not a grid. The image on the right should have all the circles that were inside the donut in the middle colored as those are the items that were not turned off by the donut shaped beam. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, that's my understanding too :) Biggerj1 (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Mrmw restored the file under File:Superresolution Microscopy 02.svg without copyrighted history. In my mind the undelete request is now obsolete. The new file can still be improved in the future, right? Biggerj1 (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. Replaced with File:Superresolution Microscopy 02.svg. Thuresson (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Republic of Korçë (1917-1918) flag.gif

According to the closing admin, this was deleted because it was a copyrighted image by Jaume Ollé at FOTW, but Jaume Ollé actually has specifically allowed his FOTW images to be uploaded to Commons. One version of this release is at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:ALE!/Flaggen . I think there's also an English and/or Spanish language version out there, but I can't find it right now... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Permissions for post-2007 uploads originating from non-freely-licensed sites need to go through VRT. Only pre-2007 uploads can be grandfathered due to permissions granted in another way, see COM:GOF. Note also, that GFDL-only permissions are already not accepted. Ankry (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:University of Cambridge coat of arms official version.svg

This coat of arms is public domain, but the exemption of copyright (but oldest), which had adopted in 1583. Note: In case this is a derivation of File:University of Cambridge coat of arms.svg under Creative Commons license. --Aesthetic Writer (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Coats of arms. The SVG code is complicated enough to be copyrighted. Thuresson (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Just like I told you, this current design is still out of copyright, which similar to Harvard University shield (File:Harvard University shield.png). Aesthetic Writer (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there any external source showing that this is old enough? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No response. An evidence of PD status needed, if PD. Ankry (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Akureyri Cathedral windows

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Akureyri Cathedral windows

The building itself is now public domain in Iceland. I've tried to get more info on these stained glass windows, but essentially it seems that some of the windows have a vaguely English origin (there was a debunked story about the cathedral having Victorian windows from old Coventry cathedral). Perhaps these Icelandic ones are more modern than 1940. I'd definitely like to try to get more information about when these windows can be restored to Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at the WP:EN article on the cathedral, the windows were made by Wippel Mowbray in Exeter, Devon, UK. The first and fourth images have visible signatures. In the first image, the date 1973 is visible. In the fourth, I make it "197...". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have skimmed over that. 1970s definitely puts restoration at least 20 years away, and it's within the realm of possibility that the artist is still living. At least that gives me some leads I can persue in my own time. Abzeronow (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Affiche van uitgeverij Hermann Seemann Nachfolger, RP-P-2015-26-2114.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Affiche van uitgeverij Hermann Seemann Nachfolger, RP-P-2015-26-2114.jpg

Tiemann died in 1951 so this would be public domain in the EU. Hermann Seemann Nachfolger was a short lived publishing company in Leipzig existing for less than 10 years starting in 1900 so odds are this is public domain in the US https://imslp.org/wiki/Hermann_Seemann_Nachfolger Abzeronow (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Support PD in the EU. It's dated 1900 (see lower right corner) so it is also PD in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:GrageraBarrera.png

{{Information |Description=Ignacio Gragera alcalde de Badajoz |Source=Propia |Date= |Author=Ricardo Recio |Permission={{CC0}} |other_versions= }}

I took the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riredi (talk • contribs) 08:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

@Riredi: Hi,
Please sign with ~~~~.
Do not recreate the (empty) page.
 Oppose You said yourself that the picture comes from [10]. A formal written permission from the copyright holder is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, --Yann (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Kunstnik Maria Välja.jpg

Hello

I am requesting an undeletion of this file, because the initial problem with the permission of the copyright holder has been solved. THe copyright holder Triin Orav has sent an e-mail with her approval.

Thank you for your help Maria Välja

--Metsaservast (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose When and if the email has been read and approved, the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission received. --Yann (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Photos of Gino Vanelli by Patti Battista

Please restore

We have permission per Ticket:2021111810005875.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Seifeddine makhlouf, 3 septembre 2019.jpg

Does not infringe copyright --المستخدم مستخدم (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Peace and Friendship stadium 2014.JPG

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Peace and Friendship Stadium; this had valid fair uses on various Wikipedia pages (as the depiction of an object which was directly discussed in the relevant articles); and the closer of that discussion did not react to my request to spare this bureaucracy, so there you have it. This should be restored and moved to relevant Wiki as appropriate; I assume that one can trace back from which pages on other encyclopedias than the English one this was removed (where it also was likely fair use), likely via the edits of the Commons bot. RandomCanadian (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose @RandomCanadian: Commons does not accept Fair Use, see COM:L. Ankry (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: This is not a request to undelete this for use on Commons. This is a request to restore it in a temporary fashion so it can be moved to Wikipedia where fair use is accepted. RandomCanadian (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 Support temporary undeletion. But @RandomCanadian: , enwiki no longer applies fair use for images of unfree buildings from no FOP countries. Enwiki applies U.S. freedom of panorama for such buildings, thus w:Template:FoP-USonly. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Restored temporarily -- please advise when this has been moved. Please do not close this UnDR without deleting the file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I see there are other Wikis where this image is also used. I've restored a copy on english WP under a slightly different title ("File:Peace and Friendship stadium 02 03 2014.JPG"). Noting the others for the record in case the other wikis also want to use it:
RandomCanadian (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Additional note: mind doing the same treatment for File:Faliro_Sport_Pavillion.jpg and File:OAKA_Olympic_Velodrome.jpg (found via the history of w:Venues of the 2004 Summer Olympics)? Same considerations apply. RandomCanadian (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: ensure that all of them must be used. The fact that enwiki has accepted original-resolution images of unfree international buildings from no-FOP countries does not mean enwiki is an indefinite host for all images of unfree buildings, as it is not a media repository. Thus there are only four Burj Khalifa images there and a single image of Burj Al Arab. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: These all seem to be related to buildings and venues from the 2004 Olympics ([14] shows the Faliro pavillion being removed from multiple pages, including the page about the venue itself; [15] idem for the velodrome). RandomCanadian (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: in such case, then I  Support undeletions of the two other files. Be sure to tag them with en:Template:FoP-USonly once they are transferred at enwiki. German Wikipedia also does seem to allow unfree buildings of no-FOP countries, but I cannot remember what is their relevant tag of it. Unsure about other Wikipedias though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Uploaded to enwiki October 12, 2021 as en:File:Peace and Friendship stadium 02 03 2014.JPG. No admin has done any action regarding the other two files in three months time. Thuresson (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File: ミス東スポグランプリ記者発表にて.jpg

先日「File:ミス東スポグランプリ記者発表にて.jpg」の名前でアップロードした画像を、管理者Túrelio氏に「削除されたコンテンツの再作成」を理由に削除されました。これは同じ名前では2度目の削除で、同じ画像はそれ以前にも「ミス東スポグランプリ発表会にて.jpg」の名前で「著作権侵害」を理由に削除されています。 これは被写体本人がTwitterにアップロードしているものと同じですが、私自身が撮影してご本人に提供したものです。以前の削除時は私以外の人物がアップロードしておりましたが、他の方ではライセンスの問題があるとのことでしたので今回は私自身がアップロードしております。 著作権侵害にはあたらないと考えてるので復帰をお願いしたいです。宜しくお願い致します。

又、野々のんさん本人のInstagramの投稿に Author: User:和田しょう(Wikimedia Commons) License:cc-by-sa-4.0 と掲載して下さってます。著作権者名とライセンスがDMではなく公開の場で確認できてる ためそちらも確認して下さると幸いです。 https://www.instagram.com/nononon_0818/p/CYmDCS_L1Z1/?utm_medium=copy_link

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Verhagen2.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Verhagen.jpg

Artist died in 1951 so these would be public domain in the Netherlands. 1900 is given as a date but this seems dubious as the artist was born in 1885. The 2nd file is an ex libris, and I have found dates for various ones from 1919 to 1939 so I'd like both files to be temporarily undeleted so I can better ascertain dates for them since they may or may not have URAA issues. Abzeronow (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 Info @Abzeronow: Temporarily undeleted. I don't speak Dutch but the first one may be from 1915 (more info) and the second one may be earlier than 1926 (more info). Thuresson (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 Support The first one is dated 1915 at Thuresson's first link. The second one comes up with 1919 if you Google "E. André de la Porte-Strumphler", the name shown as the book's owner on this ex libris drawing. That would make both of them PD in the USA and, given the artist's death in 1951, PD in the Netherlands as of this year. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I've found a link for the first one that says "circa 1913" here http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/2012/08/22/more-from-the-decadent-dutch/ and links to a much higher quality version. Should I overwrite and have it renamed or should I upload the higher quality version separately using a better name? (it's an illustration by Verhagen for Psyche, a work by Louis Couperus (1863-1923)) Abzeronow (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
You can overwrite with a better image here. I created the category and Creator template, and fixed the license. Yann (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Rohit Gurunath Sharma.jpg

File should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaggaDaaku (talk • contribs) 17:50, 15 January 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose From subject's Instagram page, August 23, 2021, here. Thuresson (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thuresson I credited corrected my mistake before you could delete the file. Please reconsider the deletion. JaggaDaaku (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Bertha Wegmann, En lille pige, der leger under et juletræ, 1846 - 1926, Kks9379, Statens Museum for Kunst.tif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bertha Wegmann, En lille pige, der leger under et juletræ, 1846 - 1926, Kks9379, Statens Museum for Kunst.tif

"Henrik Bornemann died 1951". Now public domain in the EU. This link gives a production range of 1846-1926. https://open.smk.dk/en/artwork/image/KKS9379?q=pattern&page=0&filters=public_domain%3Atrue%7Chas_image%3Atrue&modal=true I think it's likely public domain in the United States. Abzeronow (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Parthsiddhpura.jpg

I am requesting wikimedia team to add undeleteion request for my image as I accept that I did any mistake & you have to give me chance...

--PGS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooldude7011 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 16 January 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose: This image has been deleted already 3 times! The last time based on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Parthsiddhpura. --Túrelio (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Vesper Boat Club Coxed Pair, Lucerne International Rowing Regatta.pdf

This is the original file upload for the wiki page. VikingShieldWall (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Was it any different than File:Lucerne Vesper Coxed Pair.pdf (which it has been redirected to)? It was deleted as an exact duplicate -- did you accidentally upload the file twice 6+ years ago, or were they slightly different? Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
These were not technical duplicates of each other, but the merged file is deemed unnecessary to be kept. It was an uncroped A4-scan of the image on a white background (i.e. used a photo copier). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Not done, the "original" file has been submitted with a very lossy compression and the second file, who is not an exact duplicate, is of slightly better quality. Please do not upload photos as PDF. Thuresson (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Capa bons actores.jpg

the cover or cover is my author is part of the cover of my artist's song that will be released is already linked in previous sites before wikipedeia cover rights belong to us

a capa ou capa é meu autor faz parte da capa da música do meu artista que será lançada já está linkado em sites anteriores antes da wikipedeia direitos da capa nos pertencere

LINKS ONDE A CAPA JA FORAM VINCULADOS ANTERIORMENTE :https://www.instagram.com/cavaentertainment/

LINKS ONDE A CAPA JA FORAM VINCULADOS ANTERIORMENTE : https://www.instagram.com/jaisybell/


A "capa bons Actores "pertence nós faz parte da nossa autoria já temos vinculados em sites anteriores antes de ser colocados no wikipedia não existe nenhuma violação dos direitos do Autor por isso viemos por este meio fazer um pedido de restauro a capa ou imagem .

LINK : https://www.instagram.com/cavaentertainment/ LINK : https://www.instagram.com/jaisybell/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaisybell (talk • contribs)

@Jaisybell: There is no legal construction that grants you a "right" to publish in Wikimedia Commons that is a third-party service for you. Wikimedia Commons "right to publish" is regulated by policies that you violated. Using the Own work-style licensing is accepted here ONLY for original, unpublished works made 100% personally by the uploader. In any other case you are required to provide an EVIDENCE that the claimed free license has already been granted. This one image is neither an original photo with complete camera info, nor an unpublished one. In order to restore the image the actual copyright holder needs to follow VRT. Or you need to provide an evidence that the album cover has been initially published under the declared cc-by-sa-4.0 license (I seriously doubt it has). Ankry (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:زليخات يوسف للكاتب علي السباعي.jpg

امتلك كامل حقوق الملف — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed zaman (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 January 2022‎ (UTC)

 InfoGoogle translate: "I own all rights to the file". Thuresson (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose This file was published before without a free licence. In such cases our require that the copyright holder sends a permission by email. Please see COM:VRT for details. De728631 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per De728631. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Logo SMKN 1 Seputih Surabaya.svg

Ini adalah logo sekolah saya yang seharusnya tidak ada copyright sama sekali.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldrin Fahrul Hidayat (talk • contribs) 03:31, 17 January 2022‎ (UTC)

 Info Google translate: "This is my school logo which should have no copyright at all." Thuresson (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Complex logo with a copyright. We can't accept this file without a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Lopshorn02.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lopshorn02.jpg

"Painter died in 1951 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Schwarz". Now public domain in Germany. Work seems to be over 100 years old so likely public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Support Hmm. The Alfred Schwarz cited above was born in 1867, so an 1880 painting seems unlikely. Google turns up another Alfred Schwarz, born 1833, which seems more likely for an 1880 work. In either case, the work is early enough to be PD US and the death is more than 70 years ago. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Category and Creator template created, license fixed. --Yann (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:LogoEHCVisp.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022011710003547. --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:RRcricket.jpg , File:Rohit.jpg, File:Rohit raj.jpg,File:ROHIT RAJ.jpg

Hey, This is my pic. Don't delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragya0329 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 18 January 2022‎ (UTC)

 Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pragya0329. @Pragya0329: Please sign your posts using 4 tildes Gbawden (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose These were deleted as being out of scope, personal images from a non-contributor. No reason is given why they should be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason given. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:La Fontantaine (Tilney edition) frontispiece.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

"Frederick Colin Tilney died in 1951". UK copyright has expired. 1st edition was published in 1913 and Tilney version of Fables is on Project Gutenberg https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15946/15946-h/15946-h.htm so this seems public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Mohd Kaifi - Editor at Qaifiyat World.png

File:Mohd Kaifi - Editor at Qaifiyat World.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohd Kaifi Warsi (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 January 2022‎ (UTC)

Procedural close, no reason given for undeletion. Thuresson (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Nanthida Rakwong speaking at a rally in Trafalgar Square London.jpg

Permission has been received via VRT. Ticket:2022011310005491. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. As requested. Ellywa (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Matt Birkbeck.jpg

The author is attempting to upload this photo. He owns it. Please undelete immediately.--Tbonebob (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Matt Birkbeck 01/18/22

 Oppose The actual copyright holder needs to send a free license permission to VRT as requested on 3 December 2021. This is required by policy for any image that was initially published elsewhere without evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done as a duplicate of already rejected request. VRT path is still open. Ankry (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Fahri Korutürk 1.jpg

This image is the official portrait taken for every president of Turkey. It has a low resolution enough to describe the subject of the picture and not to harm the rights of the copyright holder. It is impossible to create a free licensed image because the person is no longer alive. The picture is not used in conjunction with the content in the article in question to vilify the person or to insult him. It is not possible to produce copies of the entire work using only this low resolution copy. --OutsiderKK (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@OutsiderKK: Hi,
What you say is a fair use rationale, but fair use is not allowed on Commons. Yann (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Fair use not allowed on Commons. --Yann (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File: 10886(1).jpg

Dear editor,

I am writing to request an undeletion of the file 10886(1).jpg. It is a photo of Ukrainian politician, Lada Bulakh. I work as a helper of her communication manager. Lada wants to have her photo on her Wikipedia page https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%96%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0 . She gave a permission to use this photo in Wikimedia.

Thank you. Best regards, Olena — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎OlenaMarchuk (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

@OlenaMarchuk: Hi,
Please sign with ~~~~.
Your only deleted file is File:Lada Bulakh.jpg, which is a copy from social media without a license and a permission. We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, not the subject. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, --Yann (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: needs a free license via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Spektred

Per request, thanks. Stang★ 19:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Stang: Please update the file page and respond to the email, thanks!. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Arnold Schönberg Variationen für Orchester op. 31 excerpt.mp3

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arnold Schönberg Variationen für Orchester op. 31 excerpt.mp3

"undelete in 2022, composer died in 1951". Composition is now PD in the EU. Abzeronow (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done per rationale in original DR by Gnom from 2020. --Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. What about URAA? It's a 1931 performance, so it will be 2026 before it is PD in the USA. The work itself was first performed in 1928, so it's not PD in the USA either. see Variations for Orchestra (Schoenberg). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I've notified Gnom, who is the uploader and a lawyer, about this issue. --Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
As far as the sound recording, there appears to be a possible VRTS ticket that might make it acceptable for Commons. Gnom said on his talk page that the ticket was 2020111210010443.
In that discussion De728631 said that ticket did not include a release for this recording (possibly because the EU copyright to the musical composition had not yet expired) and suggested someone might try contacting HR Sinfonieorchester for permission. —RP88 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
As to the composition, that was first published in 1929 in Vienna. https://imslp.org/wiki/Variations_for_Orchestra%2C_Op.31_(Schoenberg%2C_Arnold) Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I think performance counts for publication, hence my comment above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Ugh, I'm not a US copyright law expert, is there one around? --Gnom (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
With regards to the US copyright to the musical composition, the URAA is not involved, since all US copyright formalities were observed. Variation for orchestra; op. 31 by Arnold Schoenberg was published in 1929 with notice, registered with the US Copyright Office on 4 June 1929 (EF6852) by Universal Edition, and renewed on 28 February 1957 (R190148) by Gertrud Schönberg. The US copyright for the musical composition will expire 95 years after publication, on 1 January 2025. If we do not have a free license to the 1931 sound recording, and the sound recording was published in 1931, the US copyright to the sound recording will expire 100 years after publication, on 1 January 2032 (per 17 USC § 1401 (a)(2)(B)(ii)). I think we have to delete this. We can undelete it in 2032 (or earlier, in 2025, if permission for the sound recording can be obtained). —RP88 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, we would then have to host the file locally on dewiki in the meantime. --Gnom (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:1937-02-21 London, England Robert S. Bassler and son Robert C. Bassler.jpg

Also:File:1937-02-21 London Robert C. Bassler with Grandfather Ray S. Bassler.jpg

I believe this image would be PD underTemplate:PD-UK-unknown. --RAN (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose In both cases, the file description calls out "Author = Mrs. Robert S. Bassler" That is inconsistent with {{PD-UK-unknown}}. If the file description is correct, then Mrs. Bassler or, more likely, her heir, must grant a free license using VRT. Also note that while the photos were taken in London, the subjects were American and it is very unlikely that these family photos were first published in the UK. In fact, the uploading here may be their first publication.      Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Jim. This could be previously unpublished. Photographer who have needed to have died before 1952 for it to be hosted on Commons if this was the first publication. Abzeronow (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Not done, per Jim. Joan Covey Bassler passed away in 2002. Thuresson (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:André arbus, mobilio per il padiglione della SAD all'espozione internazionale del 1937, 01.jpg

I was not notifed for the deletion of these 2 files of mine. So the deletion request is invalid, and therefore these 2 images will likely fall under Commons:UA, because pieces of furniture. Affected files:

I tag User:Túrelio for the unfinished procedure and User:Jameslwoodward for the questionable deletion. --Sailko (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sailko: OK, but if there are no other doubts concerning the DR, there is no reason to undelete. Ankry (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
As I said, the two images portray just a piece of furniture, so the fall under Commons:UA and they should not be deleted. --Sailko (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
These objects are not "just furniture". Imho these are carefully designed objects, and on the photos you made displayed as works of art. Ellywa (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree that the first image (01) could be debated. However it shows both the paintings on the backrests of the two chairs and the gold wall decoration, all of which have copyrights. The second image focuses on a single chair and the painting on its backrest is both central to the image and clearly copyrighted. Also note that the copyright exception for utilitarian objects is much narrower in Europe than in the USA. Distinctive furniture, such as this, has a copyright in many European countries. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Medaillon dans la tombe de Henri Gauquie.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Medaillon dans la tombe de Henri Gauquie.jpg

"Pierre-Victor Dautel died in 1951." Copyright has now expired in France. Abzeronow (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. We're long past the URAA date, so in order for this to be PD-USA it would have to have been installed before 1927. Henri Gauquie died in 1927, so that is unlikely. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that 1927 is the likely publication date. Abzeronow (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion: need to wait at least till the next year. Ankry (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Tractatus first page 1922 Harcourt.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tractatus first page 1922 Harcourt.png

"Wittgenstein died 1951." 1922 publication makes it public domain in the US. The only wrinkle that might give this some trouble is that Charles Kay Ogden died in 1957. It's possible that the Harcourt edition was published within 30 days of the London version but web searches are not giving me definite answers one way or another. Abzeronow (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File: Carlos Simpson (Author, Musician, Designer).jpg

And also: File:Carlos Simpson (Author, Musician, Designer).jpg File:Carlos Simpson Fashion.jpg File:Carlos Simpson.png File:Carlos Simpson.jpg

I didn't intend to write my user profile with self-promotion direction instead I thought that the user profile was something completely different than the pages, that's why I didn't even try to write a page because I know that that was wrong, and I agree with that.

But please I don't understand why to delete the images can you please explain what's wrong with them?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos Simpson‎ (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 January 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close -- the images have not been deleted -- yet. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Carlos Simpson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Logotipo de Televisa (1981-1990).png

The closer deleted this because they thought "the combination of ellips and circle with striking lines as an original creation." As pointed out in my keep vote there are many logos made during the 80s when this created that have extremely similar designs. Including ones with suns that are circles (every image of the sun is a circle) and "striking lines" (whatever that means). So there is nothing original about this logo. If anyone wants examples of how generic this logo is, do a Google image search for "80s sun logos." Most of the results have extremely similar designs to this one. Hell, images of chopped up suns are almost an 80s new wave style trope at this point. To the point that no one looking at the image in isolation would no it's from Televisa and not just a generic image from the 80s. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at COM:TOO Mexico the Mexican ToO is quite low, allowing only letters, digits or isolated colors to appear without copyright. There was an extended discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logotipo de Televisa (1981-1990).png which concluded that this was above the ToO. I agree. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done This was discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logotipo de Televisa (1981-1990).png and OP:s arguments are the same now as then. Thuresson (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:The Golden Buddy Bears in Vienna.jpg

Dear all, we are owners of the pictures and the Buddy Bear Brand. We would like to have the picture on Wikipedia again. It does not violate copyrights and does not contain offensive content. These are images for an art exhibition on tolerance and international understanding.

Several Files were deleted and we would like to "undelete" them all.

What do you need for this?

Dr. Klaus Herlitz (Buddy Bear Berlin (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC))

Founder / Managing Director

Buddy Bear Berlin GmbH Geisbergstrasse 29 10777 Berlin

 Oppose There are two copyrights here -- one for the image and one for the sculptures. The uploader claims that they were the photographer, and we Assume Good Faith, so that is OK. However, in order to keep the image on Commons, we will need evidence that the creator of the bears has given a free license allowing their use anywhere, by anybody, for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. Such a license would allow others to replicate the bears and sell them. Do you really want that? If so, please provide that evidence using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jim, Thanks for your response and your thoughts. We are owners of the pictures and the 3D form of the bear. If I understand you correctly: by displaying our Buddy Bears Berlin on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Comms we are allowing anyone to use the picture and produce the bears. I checked out brands like Porsche or Rolex - which also have product pictures on their Wikipedia Page. Theoretically, anyone could construct these products as well? Sorry for these questions - I just want to make sure that I got this right. We are having challenges with fakes being sold. Thanks, Ivonne (Buddy Bear Berlin) Buddy Bear Berlin (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I disagree with Jim here. A free license for this picture would not allow others to replicate the bears and sell them. It would only allow to sell this picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
When you CC-BY license a sculpture, you are not licensing a particular photograph of the sculpture -- you are licensing the copyright for the sculpture itself. However, even taking Yann's more limited view, it's an interesting question. The CC-BY license is not entirely clear:
"Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a)(4) never produces Adapted Material."
It is true that sculpture is a different medium than a photograph, but the paragraph above is very broad, allowing the licensee to use any format he wants. It seems to me that that includes copying a sculpture..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I would say: you can reproduce the parts of sculpture that are visible on the photo. But in this case nothing is really hidden. Ankry (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As for the question posed by Ivonne above, both Rolex and Porsche are utilitarian goods and therefore do not have copyrights, so images of them do not need licenses for the products, only for the photos themselves. However, non-utilitarian consumer goods -- toys, for example -- do require licenses. The reason we have few images of modern toys is that manufacturers are reluctant to give such a license for exactly this reason. Although my work here has made me very familiar with copyright law, I am not a lawyer. You certainly should seek advice before you give the required license. You may be able to protect them on trademark grounds, but trademark does not concern us here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Issue raised on COM:VPC#Copyright of 3D objects in free license pictures to have wider opinion. Yann (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The sculptures designer can send a permission. This file would be undeleted when the permission is validated. --Yann (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:2008-05-12 United Buddy Bears, Warsaw Old Town.jpg

Dear all, we are owners of the pictures and the Buddy Bear Brand. We would like to have the picture on Wikipedia again. It does not violate copyrights and does not contain offensive content. These are images for an art exhibition on tolerance and international understanding.

Several Files were deleted and we would like to "undelete" them all.

What do you need for this?

Dr. Klaus Herlitz

Founder / Managing Director

Buddy Bear Berlin GmbH Geisbergstrasse 29 10777 Berlin

Buddy Bear Berlin (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buddy Bear Berlin: All we need ~to undelete the images is a free license permission from the bears copyright holder, compatible with the photo licenses, send to VRT. Ankry (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This has been discussed several times, on my talk page also (this link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ellywa/2021#Removed_The_Golden_Buddy_Bears_in_Vienna.jpg) with Julia Havefjord. I do not understand why our tip, to follow closely the procedure outlined in VRT, does not seem to lead to action. Ellywa (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 Comment See related discussion at COM:VPC#Copyright of 3D objects in free license pictures. Yann (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The sculptures designer can send a permission. This file would be undeleted when the permission is validated. --Yann (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Radiant-Historia.jpg

This image -a video game cover- will be used in the Arabic Wikipedia page of Radiant Historia, it's already been used in the English page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghassen El Feidi (talk • contribs) 11:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose It is on WP:EN as Fair Use. Fair Use is not acceptable on Commons. It cannot be kept here without a free license from Nintendo. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Julia_Csergo.jpg

julia_Csergo.jpg

Hi,

I request the undeletion of the file Julia_Csergo.jpg.

I've been doing back and forth with the permission team and i don't have any news of any sort at this point, even if i send all the requested form etc. As far as im concern, wikipedia have now all the right it needs for the file.

See ticket #2021123010000523 and #2022010810005919.

Thank you,

Ariane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariane S. Picard (talk • contribs) 15:49, 20 January 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done waiting for confirmation from VRT that the permission has been verivied. Ankry (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:2017年10月15日在北京锦都艺术中心举办“BZ艺术状态·张芳邨艺术展”.jpg

{{Cc-by-4.0 |[[:File:2017年10月15日在北京锦都艺术中心举办“BZ艺术状态·张芳邨艺术展”.jpg]]}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by BZ art (talk • contribs)

Procedural close, no reason given for undeletion. Thuresson (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Emblem of Difai Party.svg

The related logo meets the PD-75 values. --Jelican9 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jelican9: If you declare expired copyright, due to age, you need to provide a source that is old enough. If you declare that CC0 license has been granted by copyright holder, you also need to provide evidence of this. Ankry (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ankry, you can find in Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti Ensiklopediyası: I cild (ISBN: 9952-417-14-2) (page 325) Jelican9 (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Where do you see CC0 license declaration for this Encyclopaedia? Ankry (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
No CC license declaration. However, the logo first appeared in 1906. This meets the PD-75 values. Jelican9 (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jelican9: Please, provide a 1906 source then. The encyclopaedia is from 2004. We need to verify whether the 1906 logo you mention is the same or similar only. Ankry (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done we need an evidence of an old source in order to consider copyright expired. Ankry (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:1576 Wonder van Woerden glas-in-loodraam.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:1576 Wonder van Woerden glas-in-loodraam.jpg

This is a request in which I might need a little more information. The first part of the objection to this file "The stained-glass artist who made this glass, Hubertus Nicolaas van Reenen, died in 1951" has had its circumstances changed since now the artists works would be public domain in the Netherlands. " This glass was placed into a church not into the public domain, there is no freedom of panorma" I don't know which church this glass was placed in so if @Gouwenaar: or @Natuur12: could help enlighten me, I could search for a death date of the architect of the church unless they meant that the church wasn't covered under Dutch FoP? Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The creator of the artwork died in 1951. Images of it have been free of copyright since January 1, 2022. Its location is no longer relevant. FoP-Netherlands refers to artists who died on or after 1 January 1952 or who are still alive.Gouwenaar (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. Glass window is now in PD. The photo of the glass window does not show parts of the church interior - which is too old to be copyrighted anyway, per nl:Petruskerk (Woerden). Ellywa (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Логотип Международного Мемориала.svg

Clear {{PD-textlogo}}: a word in plain font with highly simplified geometric stylized flame above "M". --M5 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The ToO in Russia is extremely low -- paintings consisting of a plain black square had a copyright until they expired, see Category:Black Square (Malevich) See here for discussion.. This would probably be PD in the USA, but it's a close call. It certainly would be copyrightable in the UK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Same opinion as Jim. Ruthven (msg) 11:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:AB 202198686.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: For verification of Ticket:2022012010009526 ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 18:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose We need to wait for a VRT volunteer action. Ankry (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Tiven2240: is a VRT volunteer. --Yann (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:4matic.jpg

Bonjour Madame Monsieur,

L'image constructeur issue du livre que je possède a été supprimé, alors qu'il servait a détailler l'article que j'ai créer sur le système 4Matic. Si il n'est pas rétabli ou que l'on ne m'explique précisément pas pourquoi on ne peut se servir de document ou d'image fournis par le constructeur ne peuvent être utilisé. (ses document sont paru dans différents ouvrages, publicités, revue technique etc...) De plus les images que j'ai utilisé on été modifiées avec le logiciel GIMP. Je serais alors obligé de supprimé ou d'arrêter la rédaction d'article car sans schéma ou image pour appuyer ma rédaction, je vois ça inutile. Car toutes rédaction mérite d'être appuyer par des schémas ou images afin que chacun puisse comprendre et visualiser le fonctionnement...

Merci par avance Cordialement

Victor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totor61 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 January 2022‎ (UTC)

@Totor61: Bonjour,
 Oppose Posséder le livre ne vous donne pas les droits d'auteur sur son contenu. Ce type de documents ne peut être accepté ici sans une autorisation écrite formelle de l'auteur. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: While there are many works that it would be good to have here, the law forbids our taking copyrighted material from books or magazines. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:María Eva Duarte de Perón.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: "Painting by Numa Ayrinhac (1881-1951), " Obviously if it duplicates files like File:Eva peron official state portrait 3.jpg or File:Flickr - bastique - Eva Peron autobiography.jpg, I wouldn't want restoration. Painting now public domain in Argentina. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Info It is a photo of a white gown and in the background is the painting of File:Museo del Bicentenario - "Retrato de Juan Domingo Perón y Eva Duarte", Numa Ayrinhac.jpg. Looks like the same gown as Eva Peron is wearing in the painting. Image size is very small, 420 × 627, I don't see any real use for this low quality photo. Thuresson (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I guess we don't need to restore this file then. Abzeronow (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Request withdrawn. --De728631 (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File: Indian_Army_New_combat_uniform.jpg

Don't delete this file

Procedural close, file is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Sir Albert Levy.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir Albert Levy.jpg

Painter died in 1951, so the UK copyright for this has expired. Abzeronow (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 Info artuk.org dates this to "c. 1932". Thuresson (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose A 1932 work that became PD in the UK after the URAA date will be under copyright in the USA until 1/1/2027. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
On 1/1/2028. Ankry (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Lt John Wilson.jpg

Thank you for considering this.

  1. No consensus was reached; rather a user deleted the image without responding to the points I made on the deletion request page;
  2. The image is from WWI, so sometime 1914-18;
  3. Images published (anywhere) before 1927 are public domain in the USA (as I read the WM abbreviated version of US PD definition);
  4. WM however also requires that the image is PD in the country of origin;
  5. Images created in the UK in period in question were copyright of the person whose image was taken; See UK Guidance: "Prior to 1 August 1989 though, the copyright in photographs, portraits and engravings (and only those types of work) which were created as a result of a commission were owned by the commissioner and NOT the creator. Therefore at that time, if you commissioned someone to take photographs for you (for instance of your wedding party), then you would be the owner of the copyright in those photographs."
  6. Thus the image had a copyright of 50 years, which would have expired before 1970.
  7. While Copyright could possibly in certain cases, where the image might be in copyright in 1995, somewhere in the EU, this seems very unlikely to be the case.
  8. Even if this were the case, there is no reason to suppose the studio and photographer or descendents would be aware or concerned about this photograph.
  9. Thus there is no reason to suppose the image is in copyright in the UK.

Thank you, --JimKillock (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • In 1996, the UK retroactively restored the copyright of photographs to 70 years from the author's death. The copyright may be owned by someone else, due to the commissioning clause you mention, but that is now the term of the copyright. If the author is anonymous, then it was 70 years from publication. That is pretty much all photographs, and it had nothing to do with a request -- it happened automatically. The copyright owner may well not care, but it's not the same thing as public domain. The only real exceptions are UK government photos. Additionally, the U.S. copyright would have been restored to 95 years from publication -- so lack of U.S. renewal becomes irrelevant for a foreign work. It was likely PD for a long time in both the UK and the US, but on January 1, 1996, it would have become re-copyrighted in both, most likely. I can't see the photo, so no idea how old it is. If it was anonymous, and published before 1927, it should be OK. But 1927 or later, it's still under U.S. copyright at the very least, if it's a UK work. If it's a government portrait, it would be fine, and if before 1927 with an anonymous author, it would be fine, but anything else and it becomes very unlikely. But, as you say it's from WWI era, it should be OK in the U.S. Was there an author mentioned? Or a studio where the human author was obvious? If not, and it's anonymous, it should be {{PD-anon-expired}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks - it is anonymous; a studio portrait; and clearly taken of John Wilson in uniform during WWI, so at latest 1918 or thereabouts. PS you can view the image here JimKillock (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    I am not sure how relevant the retroactive recopyrighting is btw; it seems to apply only when authors assert it, for one thing (Dax: "The 1995 Regulations allowed for the copyright in some old photographs to be "revived" if they were in copyright somewhere in the European Economic Area (EEA) as of 1 July 1995.") This does not seem likely to apply; even if it is possible the UK position seems to be that copyright holders have to assert their copyright. That seems highly, highly unlikely here. --JimKillock (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    The EU copyright restorations were automatic. They applied to any work which was under copyright in some EEA country in July 1995, which realistically means all of them. No assertion is necessary for the copyright to be restored -- this was true across Europe; the law mentions nothing further required. Obviously, if someone violates the copyright, it is up to a copyright owner to "assert" their right to prevent that use. While much of the time they would not, and we would get away with it, that is not our policy -- we wait until copyright expires. The only hesitation I would have on this, is if the studio credit was removed on the internet copy, i.e. it may not have been anonymous originally. It's clearly a studio portrait though. But a corporate credit (as opposed to an individual) is also anonymous. I'd probably keep it; there are some theoretical doubts but I'm not sure I see significant doubts. So,  Support. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 Support While we don't any definitive proof, this is likely or very likely in the public domain, both in UK an USA. IMO this is where the significant criteria comes into play. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl and my comment above. --Yann (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Monument de la Fondation Dunkerque.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monument de la Fondation Dunkerque.jpg

"The sculptor, Maurice Ringot, die in 1951" Copyright has expired in France. If it's Monument de la Fondation, à Rosendaël then that was built in 1910 and thusly public domain in the US. https://www.pop.culture.gouv.fr/notice/merimee/PA59000001 Abzeronow (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. The sculpture is now out of copyright in the US and the country of origin. --De728631 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Hôtel des postes du Touquet-Paris-Plage. Le clocheton..JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monuments historiques in Le Touquet-Paris-Plage

"Jean Boissel, died in 1951" Copyright has expired in France. Boissel was an architect, if this file depicts architecture, then that would have no issue with US copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I cannot see the first file but I can tell you that the building is a post office and it was built in 1927. Abzeronow (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 Support the second,  Oppose the first. As Ankry says, it looks like blacksmith work, which is what the file name says. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
However if it is a blacksmith work it is unlikely a work of Jean Boissel. It may be anonymous, may be 70+ years old (or not) it may be not copyrighted in US for some reason. But these are not this UDR rationale. Ankry (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
It might or might not have been Boisel's design. Many architects design windows and other details for their work. However, the building was built in 1927, so the window cannot be PD in the US since no matter who did the design for the window it was not free in France on the URAA date and is just past the PD date in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
If it was Boissel's design, the window probably would become public domain in the US next year. By itself if it was anonymous, could it not possibly be an anonymous work and thus possibly free from URAA? (since 1927 was before 1938 since France was 50 PMA + wartime extensions on Jan. 1, 1996). If in your judgement, you believe the window should wait until next year, then I'm fine with it. Abzeronow (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

One ✓ Done and one withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Fairy Tales for Worker's Children.djvu

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fairy Tales for Worker's Children.djvu

"Work by a Austrian author who died in 1951". Now public domain in country of origin. Was published in 1925 and so entered US public domain last year. Abzeronow (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Support English Wikisource has an ongoing transcription project with a locally uploaded version of this file, see wikisource:en:File:Fairy Tales for Worker's Children.djvu. Thuresson (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD now. Borken file. Sould probably be reuploaded. Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Reportesd in phab:T298417 Ankry (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Female genitalia of Diptychophora galvani, Diptychophora diasticta and Diptychophora planaltina.jpg

The URL given in the request for deletion, https://www.gbif.org/fr/species/11183119/treatments, is not the original source of the image and the "© Landry, Bernard;Becker, Vitor O." is the default copyright citation used by the platform which pays little attention to the original licence under which the images were first published. The images were taken from the scientific article "A taxonomic review of the genus Diptychophora Zeller (Lepidoptera, Pyralidae sensu lato, Crambinae) in Brazil, with descriptions of three new species" which is published in an Open Access journal. BioOne only uses an "OpenAccess" icon, which doesn't make clear what licence is to be used, but on Zenodo the journal clearly states it is under the following one: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.
@Ymblanter: the original source of these images was mentioned in the file description page. Why would you consider as credible the "copyright information" provided by a secondary use of a file? Many images are re-used on internet with nonsense copyright information, why would we bother considering them? :) Let me know if it was not clear enough, but please be more cautious. Best regards, Totodu74 (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I went to the article the images were taken from and found that wherever it is open access it is not in fact released under a free license. It stated the material is copyrighted. Their terms of use seem to confirm this. I do not know about Zenobo. Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Ymblanter. The publisher is not BioOne but the journal. BioOne is a sharing platform and shares material under any type of licence, just as Zenodo. Zenodo is simply more explicit about the licensing. Totodu74 (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The publisher is actually the city of Geneva, this is the homepage. I do not see any mention that it is CC-BY-SA, also not in the instructions to the authors (where I would normally expect it to be mentioned). I am afraid we need additional investigation. Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Мариинская улица (Петрозаводск).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A postcard with a view of Petrozavodsk. French text on a postcards was used only before 1917, and also government building has two-headed eagle on it, that was good to publish only before 1917. Making a postcard is a type of publication, and publication of this after 1917 could have very bad consequences for a publicator, so IMO deletion was illegitimate. Красный wanna talk? 19:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The postcard is titled "La rue Marieinskaja..." (i.e. Marieinskaya Street). This name was used until the October Revolution of 1917. Then the street was renamed "Karl Marx Prospekt" and the old name was banned.Avsolov (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Undelete, the file is PD which is proven above. --ssr (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    •  Oppose So far, the postcard is only PD in the United States because it was published before 1927 or even 1917. What is more important though is the copyright status in the country of origin. We need to know where this was first published (Russia or France) and if the photographer is known. Both Russian and French copyright would now have expired for an anonymous work, but we don't know if the photographer was credited on the backside. De728631 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
      No, you are wrong. This postcard was not published neither in France nor in Russia. It was published in Russian Empire (see {{PD-RusEmpire}}). Here you can see back side of this postcard. Although the year of publication is not indicated there, a similar postcard from the same series dates from 1901-1904. Avsolov (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 Support undeletion per above as {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Ankry (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Nawab Najaf ali Khan with sister - Sahebzadi Farhat begum.jpg

can we not HAVE PHOTOS on wiki commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.212.152 (talk • contribs)

Deletion was based on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nawab Najaf ali Khan with sister - Sahebzadi Farhat begum.jpg and happened in 2020! --Túrelio (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose The user who contributed this photo is known for using incorrect dates and licenses for his/her uploads. "CC-BY-SA" is not an abbreviation for "this is a jolly good photo I want to see on Wikipedia". Thuresson (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose If you want the image restored, upload it at full camera resolution with EXIF. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson and Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:GHS-IMR logo.png Undeletion request

Dear Team, I had uploaded an image of our official logo but unfortunately, it was deleted by the team due to some issue. I request you to please undelete the image File:GHS-IMR logo.png This image is the official logo of our page Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania Institute of Management and Research and we are the copyright owner of this file. [1]

if you need any information, please let us know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghsimr1995 (talk • contribs)

  1. ↑ GHS-IMR Logo.
 Oppose @Ghsimr1995: You claimed that you are personally the author and copyright holder of the GHS-IMR Logo but, unfortunately, you failed to provide information how anybody can verify this basing on information from GHS-IMR website. If the information is not public, an authorized representative of GHS-IMR needs to follow VRT procedure in order to confirm this or provide a free license permission. Ankry (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Locadina corto Blood Brotherhood.jpg

Buongiorno, per caricare il seguente file ho avuto il permesso dall'autore del film e dell'immagine, Marcus Marcelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greta DiBi (talk • contribs)

  1. The permission needs to be send following VRT instructions as volunteers need to verify if this is a free license permission from the actual copyright holder as required by COM:L.
  2. Why did you clain that you are the author and the actual copyright holder of the posted while per above comment you are not? This is against policy. Ankry (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Renate Meinhof (2020).jpg

The photographer Monika Ritterhaus sent this Mail to Wikimedia (she did not name the file in her mail, but she sent the same photograph - Renate Meinhof (2020) - in the attachment):

01/23/2022 08:45 - Rittershaus Monika wrote:


I hereby affirm that I, Monika Rittershaus, am the creator and/or sole owner of

the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

content attached to this email

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons

Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a

commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs,

provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable

laws.

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

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.


Monika Rittershaus

2022-01-23


Von: Photo Submissions <photosubmission@wikimedia.org> Datum: 23. Januar 2022 um 11:49:17 MEZ An: Rittershaus Monika <redacted> Betreff: Aw: [Ticket#2022012310001859] release of content attached to this email

Dear Rittershaus Monika,

Thank you for your permission to use media file(s) on Wikimedia Commons.

For us to process your contribution(s), we need to know the specific name or URL of the page(s) on Wikimedia Commons to which you have uploaded them, or the user name used to upload.

If you have not yet uploaded, please continue to upload the file(s) and let us know when done. When you reach the second page of Upload Wizard, you should select "This file is not my own work" (even if it is your own work) and put {{Permission pending}} in the Source field to mark the file as awaiting processing.

If the file(s) were deleted, please do not attempt to re-upload them; they will be automatically restored by an administrator upon successful confirmation of permission.

Sincerely, Alfred Neumann

So, I send you this mail to help Monika Ritterhaus to restore the photograph. Stampista (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Stampista: We need to wait for an action of a VRT voluteer here. They will either undelete the file themselves or request here to do so after the permission is verified. Please, wait few days. Ankry (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Please note also that photosubmission@ is not the right address to send permissions for already uploaded images, see VRT. Ankry (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:PostPrimeロゴ.png

Hi. I created [ File：PostPrimeロゴ.png ] file. Could you let me know how do I upload to WIKIMEDIA COMMONS? Thank you.

--AEOPM (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC) AEOPM January 26, 2022

 Oppose Previously published at Google Appstore here. Thuresson (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:JULIA-STOSCHEK-900x1201 -.jpg

Dear Sir or Madame, Dear Fitindia, Please see the proof of [CC BY-NC-ND] licensing by the author here: https://www.jsc.art/press/ (Please scroll down the page to finde the downloadable file Best, LB

 Oppose That license is not acceptable to Commons. Commercial use and derivatives must both be allowed for a file to be hosted on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done License incompatible with Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Female_genitalia_of_Diptychophora_galvani,_Diptychophora_diasticta_and_Diptychophora_planaltina.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022012610006321. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:2005 0226NationalMuseum20102n0054.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2005 0226NationalMuseum20102n0054.JPG " Dirga Man Chitrakar died in 1951" This is now public domain in Nepal. I cannot find an exact date but even Alamy says it's a public domain image: https://www.alamy.com/english-painting-of-bhimsen-thapa-in-national-museum-of-nepal-19-december-2011-dirgha-man-citrakar-bhimsen-thapa-painting-cropped-image184914656.html so I'd guess before 1923 which would make it public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Les porteurs de bennes

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Les porteurs de bennes

"Pierre-Alexandre Morlon died in 1951" Now public domain in France. This sculpture is apparently from 1923 http://tonyshaw3.blogspot.com/2021/08/statue-of-grape-pickers-in-la-place-de.html and also http://www.numismatique-en-maconnais.fr/tag/porteurs-de-benne/ so it would be public domain in the US. I also request that Category:Les porteurs de bennes be restored as well. Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Ellywa (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Melania dalla costa fotografia frontale.png

An user keep removing this file that is copyright free. I talked to Melania Dalla Costa (subject of the photo) and she told me that the file was copyright free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vind Grizzly (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Certainly not free of copyright. We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Do not reupload the file, or you will be blocked. And sign with ~~~~. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose We now have a permission message at VRT per Ticket:2022012610009337. I am in doubt, however, that it really comes from the copyright holder. --Mussklprozz (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 Info The image looks like a movie screenshot clip. Ankry (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It obviously has a copyright. The uploader claimed that he was the photographer, which he implies above that he was not, and the subject plainly doesn't understand copyright, so we can't restore it without a free license from someone who convinces VRT that they are the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Firstlight Logo 300ppi - logotype - baseline.png

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2022012510008751. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Already done. --Yann (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Seal Narathiwat.png

According to Commons:Deletion requests/Thai provincial seals, seals published prior to 1943 are PD. According to w:File:Seal Narathiwat.png, this image was published in 1940. Could an admin please verify if this is the case for the deleted image and/or it is the same as the enwp copy? Thanks, FASTILY 03:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: No opposition. @Fastily: Please fix the source, author, and license. --Yann (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:1kress03 500.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1kress03 500.jpg

1901 photograph from Austria, old enough for PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-old-assumed. --Yann (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:ROS, USSR, and LL Flags.jpg

It is not a Minecraft screenshot, it is on willard.fun/minekhan and is similar.--SpaceSoldier123 (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose It doesn't matter -- unless you drew the flags, it's still a copyright violation. Even if you did, it is also out of scope because it has not educational value. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Gilyoshir.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gilyoshir.jpg

"Designed by Achille Ouvré (died 1951) and engraved by Gaston Gandon (still active in 1939) " Gandon died in 1941 https://stampengravers.blogspot.com/2018/03/biography-gaston-gandon.html and with Ouvré's death being in 1951, this 1936 stamp is now public domain in France. I don't believe URAA applies here because this is a postal stamp that is pre-1978 (pre-1978 stamps in the US are not copyrighted). Abzeronow (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I disagree with the URAA status. US Stamps were not copyrighted earlier because they were works of the Federal Government. That fact does not apply elsewhere -- if it did then all government works everywhere in the world would be PD in the US, which is not the case. Therefore this will be free on 1/1/2032 -- 95 years after first publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I looked into some information in order to rebut you, but I found something interesting. A possible error in Commons:Stamps. http://dearrichblog.blogspot.com/2021/01/are-postage-stamps-public-domain.html

According to the Copyright Office, U.S. postage stamps issued before 1971 are definitely in the public domain. In 1971, the U.S. Post Office (a federal agency) became the U.S. Postal Service (an independent agency of the executive branch). The new agency's status permitted it to register copyright in stamp images. Or did it? There is some confusion surrounding the copyright status of postage stamps issued between January 1, 1971(when the USPS was created) and January 1, 1978 (the year the revised copyright law was enacted). Wikipedia, for example, states that U.S. stamps are "public domain if issued before 31 December 1977." Because we are unable to verify the public domain status of stamps issued during this seven-year period (1971-1978), the prudent course would be to assume these stamps are protected by copyright. The USPS has a system established for granting rights and permissions for the reproduction of stamps.

And so that send me down a rabbit hole looking at the Post Office and copyright. https://copyrightalliance.org/stamps-copyright/

Before there was a USPS, there was the United States Post Office Department (USPOD), a cabinet-level department within the executive branch, headed by the Postmaster General. In 1938, Congress passed legislation which stated that “copyright may be secured by the Postmaster General on behalf of the United States in the whole or any part of the publication authorized by this section,” including stamps. This was important because, prior to the passage of that 1938 legislation, the Copyright Act of 1909 held that “no copyright shall subsist…in any publication of the United States Government,” and as a cabinet-level department, stamps published by the USPOD clearly fell within these parameters, and outside of the scope of copyright protection. The 1909 Act was eventually amended to include the language from the 1938 legislation.

. Very interesting stuff. I still wonder about the practicality of enforcing U.S. copyright on French stamps whose copyright has expired in France. @Clindberg: Abzeronow (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 Support Yes, I too wonder what the point of applying URAA here. --Yann (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Again, as I said above, a 1936 US Stamp is free of copyright only because it was a work of the Federal Government. After the formation of the Postal Service in 1971, that was no longer the case. And yes, there is an ambiguity regarding stamps from the 1971-1978 period, but that is irrelevant here. You can't apply the fact that a 1936 US stamp is free of copyright to works in other countries because in most other countries, including France, works of the government are not automatically PD.
And yes, applying the URAA seems a little silly -- I can't image that the French government would try to enforce its US copyright on this stamp, but the Precautionary Principle explicitly forbids that line of reasoning as a way to keep an image. We cannot restore this unless we choose to ignore the Precautionary Principle -- and that is a slippery slope I don't want to start down. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes, we have to take into account the silliness of (some) copyright laws, and use common sense. This is one of these cases. Yann (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, wasn't aware the postage stamp exemption predated the USPS. I wonder if PD-US-no-notice would still apply though. Obviously though, U.S. stamps were only (potentially) PD because they were works of the U.S. government. That would not help with any foreign works. If there is any area I think we should ignore the URAA, it would be for foreign government works -- not exactly what copyright was there to protect, to me. And you could make an argument that putting an expiration date on their own works (since they write the law) is an odd form of PD-author. But, thus far, I think we've waited for declarative statements from a government that expiration in their country applies worldwide, and we don't have one from France. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a government filing a copyright lawsuit in a foreign country at any point, let alone for when it has expired in their own country, so it is already in pretty highly theoretical ground without getting the URAA into it. With stamps, there might be some other exotic arguments -- if the stamp was used on a letter to the United States within 30 days, or sold on ocean liners that visited the United States, could you argue simultaneous publication? If it was used on a letter to, or seized by, the Alien Property Custodian, would that exception count? By the letter of the law though, the French government may have a copyright claim still in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: This is a case where applying URAA is quite nonsense, and it is not even sure that URAA apply here, as per Carl above. --Yann (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Basilica of Our Lady of Peace (12).JPG

And all these: [16]

Because: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ivory Coast#Freedom of panorama "The author can not prohibit ... reproduction by audiovisual means and public communication by cable or by any other means, of works of graphic or plastic art, photographic works, and works of architecture placed permanently in a public place and including the inclusion in the audiovisual work, where such reproduction is only accessory or incidental to the main subject.[2016-555 Article 27]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haster2 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 28 January 2022  (UTC+8)

  • Leaning towards  Oppose. @Haster2: , unless the image/s is/are specified, there is no valid reason to restore these as Ivorian FOP is just unacceptable here. Look at the condition "where such reproduction is only accessory or incidental to the main subject." If the basilica is the only subject of interest in any one of the images, the images cannot be restored unless we got commercial license permission from Pierre Fakhoury. Or, wait until the time of our grandchildren comes, as Côte d'Ivoire's posthumous copyright term is unreasonably long. We are not sure if the country will amend their laws to remove "where such reproduction is only accessory or incidental to the main subject" condition. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It's a wonderful photo, but it clearly infringes on the architect's copyright and the Ivorian FoP does not allow commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Bufotes luristanicus-2019.jpg to undelete

Vor dem upload des o.g. Bildes auf den Commons wurde die Zustimmung des Autors Parham Beyhagi (CENSORED) schriftlich eingeholt. Der Bildautor hat der Veröffentlichung im Rahmen der deutschen Ausgabe der Wikipedia ausdrücklich zugestimmt, s. Auszüge aus dem e-mail Verkehr:

Before uploading the above image to the Commons, written consent was obtained from the author Parham Beyhagi (CENSORED). The author of the picture has expressly agreed' to the publication in the German edition of Wikipedia, see excerpts from the e-mail traffic:


On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 11:46 PM CENSORED@t-online.de <CENSORED> wrote: Hello Parham, I have just insert your pretty picture as header in the german Wikipedia article Bufotes luristanicus : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorestan-Kr%C3%B6te After onclick of the photo, you´ll find the author and the reference, please click for further details the blue box right side: "Weitere Einzelheiten") than you´ll find three short descriptions with the location in german, english and also in persian. Please have a look if the persian is correct. After downscrolling you`ll get an overview of the license conditions:

CC BY-SA 4.0 Thanks again, have a good time! Best Wishes, Michael 

-----Original-Nachricht-----

Betreff: Re: Bufotes luristanicus, Photo

Datum: 2021-12-22T21:25:55+0100

Von: "Parham Beyhaghi" <CENSORED>

An: "CENSORED@t-online.de" <CENSORED>

Please send me a link of my picture, I will glad to see it on your article 🙏🙏🙏

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 11:50 PM CENSORED@t-online.de <CENSORED> wrote: ...thanks for Your quick and positive feedback. I think, the image resolution is sufficient. A higher ist not needed. Tomorow I will insert Your picture into the article.

With kind regards and happy, healthy New Year 2022!

Michael 

-----Original-Nachricht-----

Betreff: Re: Bufotes luristanicus, Photo

Datum: 2021-12-22T15:05:02+0100

Von: "Parham Beyhaghi" <CENSORED>

An: "CENSORED@t-online.de" <CENSORED> Sure, here it is.

Hi, yes if you need I can send you the original photo with my logo.

With best regards

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 4:49 PM CENSORED@t-online.de <CENSOREDe> wrote:

Hello Parham, may I use your extraordinary photo of the rare Bufotes luristanicus https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/22721316 for the followig website of German Wikipedia.de

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorestan-Kr%C3%B6te

Photo will be published under the terms of the Cc-by-sa-4.0 license. Your name as the author is always mentioned.

Thanks, Best wishes!

Michael Linnenbach

--Michael Linnenbach (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi,
this needs to be send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (VRTS). And please don't publish other people's email addresses. --Túrelio (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Also note that permission to use it on the German WP is insufficient. Images here (and at WP:DE) must be free for any use anywhere by anybody. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Need a free license from the photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Borderline By Shabri Prasad Singh.png

This is an authorised book by Shabri Prasad Singh, Shabri's Wikipage is already published but we are unable to add the book cover as it is marked for deletion. Kindly review it again. Below are the book references:

The cover, which had been deleted in 2021, is clearly above COM:TOO and thereby considered to be copyrighted. So, what is needed is a permission by the creator(s) of the cover-artwork and its elements, which has to be send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (VRTS). --Túrelio (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the cover designer and photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


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

File:لبه‌انباشته.jpg

با سلام توضیحاتی که در تصویر اورده شده که در تصویر نبوده، حال این تصویر را لطفا پاک نکنید چون خودم آنرا ایجاد کردم. با تشکر Arshi alz (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose per © 1999 - 2021 TUNGALOY CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED at [17]. Ankry (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2022-01&oldid=626107732"