This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Reason: The author, Linda Kearns MacWhinney, died in 1951 so this is now public domain in Ireland. Book was published in 1922 and is public domain in the United States. Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The text of the book is now PD, but we know nothing about the cover design or cover photograph. The copyright for the cover is independent of the copyright for the book's contents. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This Image belongs to my profile. i saw many contributors uploaded his image in their user main page. i starts contributing on wikipedia. i alse contributed in two articles . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mepremanand (talk • contribs)
Unclosed. Ellywa, those of us who spend time here have an informal rule that we wait 24 hours before closing discussions unless they are completely obvious, which this one is not.
Oppose While the work is PD in Romania, it was not on the URAA date. In order for it to be free in the USA, it must have been first published before 1927. Since the artist was born in 1876, that is perfectly possible. However, he could have painted it after 1926 or, since creation is not publication, even if it were painted earlier, it could have been published much later. Without a date for the painting's first publication, we cannot keep it on Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a possibility that this wasn't published until the painting was uploaded on Commons and would thereby be free in the USA. Abzeronow (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunely there is scant info out there on this painting. The Romanian wikipedia page (which only has that painting as a example of paintings, the rest are sculptures) says "Pictura în ulei cu titlul Tușnad (semnat, stînga jos, în roșu, nedatat)." which tells us that it's an oil painting, the title, and that was signed and undated. The only other thing I've found is this. http://www.anunturidinbuzau.ro/anunturi/diverse/pictura-ion-mateescu-a34-86357.html which says "Vand lucrare de Ion Mateescu Pictura în ulei cu titlul Tușnad semnat, stînga jos, în roșu.Lucrarea este foarte veche.Cei care sunt interesati ma gasiti la nr afisat." which is extremely vague. "Very old" is not helpful here. Based on the history of w:Băile Tușnad, I'd put 1920 as the earliest possible date of creation since it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary before then. I'd probably say it was created in the interwar period so anywhere between 1920 and 1940 is possible as far as when it was created. Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The policy does say that "A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion.". We normally have to show that it was indeed restored by the URAA, i.e. the burden of proof shifts somewhat to the person who wants it deleted. They need to show that it was in fact copyrighted in the source country on the URAA date (and the URAA applied to it). That can get "interesting" in Romania's case since their copyright law has never been retroactive, despite joining the EU, so some of the older laws may still come into play. Such as dying with no children means the copyright was 15pma and not 50/70pma, and stuff like that. {{PD-Romania}} has a list, though I can't find references for all the claims there. Part of the reason for the URAA policy was people were deleting French works etc. without realizing the terms on the URAA date were different, so we really need to do some pretty in-depth analysis to see all the possibilities, and which ones we can rule out. And lack of creation or publication date means we don't know the URAA applied at all, and definitely not for how long. In the end, the question is if that what remains after a thorough investigation is a theoretical doubt, or a significant doubt -- we don't delete just because URAA restoration is possible.Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Question Are you sure that you've uploaded the image? It appears that this was deleted due to the file page being created without any media file being uploaded there. I see that you've posted this without having logged in, keep in mind that unfortunately it is not possible to contribute media without having logged in. If you wanted to upload the file via chunked upload it is in fact sometimes beneficial to created a file page, and then upload, but you can also just enter the information about the file in the description field and it will be applied to the page, when the page does not yet exist. I am also unsure what is the policy of recreating a file page which has been deleted for a reason such as this. But if you intend to upload the file, I would Support undeletion of the information about it. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 13:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Support I am sure that I have uploaded the image and I am the owner of this image. Regarding the opposing comment by Jameslwoodward - I am also the owner of the website. Feel free to check it out...
Support The picture is my own work, last year I misclicked and said that it wasn't.
Because accounts here are essentially anonymous, and we get a *lot* of copying off the web, for works previously published on the internet we generally require that either the website be changed to show the license (which shows ownership of the website) or the procedures at COM:VRT be followed (which involve verification emails). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Aside from the copyright question, which Carl has explained, there is the question of whether the subject is sufficintly notable for it to be in scope. The WP:EN draft article on the subject cited above has been rejected on scope grounds. As a general rule, if the subject doesn't have a place on WP, then he will not have a place here.
Also, as the person requesting a restoration, it is obvious that you support the restoration and therefore you should not use Support even once, much less twice.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
File deleted by User:Missvain - the user does not appear to have engaged with any of the arguments proposed on the talk page - both of which recommended "retain".Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Weak support I do not think the drawing is a DW of the photo as all attributes making the photo copyrightable seem to be removed. I do not think that making a view of a 3D geometric shape from a specific angle can be considered copyrightable. The photo can be rather considered a source of information about the architectural work in this case. Ankry (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
If the version I see on Google cache is correct, which is more of a line drawing of the photograph, I'm not exactly sure which copyrightable aspects are removed. The building is no longer copyrighted, I presume, so removing detail of the architectural work does not help nor hurt the copyrightability or derivative work aspect. In a photograph, it is elements under control of the author which are copyrightable, such as the angle and framing. Some aspects might have been removed, such as lighting or exposure, but both of those former aspects still seem to be present. As one example, the Barack Obama "Hope" poster was on its way to being ruled derivative of a particular photograph (and not another similar one, since the angle of the first was copied) before the parties settled (and was ruled to not be fair use prior to that). It would have to be an unoriginal angle, such as maybe dead center, normally. You can usually find differences between two photographs even if taken at nearly the same spot, so if you can identify the source of a drawing as one of those particular photographs, it is likely derivative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Done: It's a bit stretching to call this a derivative. All copyrighted elements in the picture were removed. --Yann (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The first one is a 1944 document. "the author was actually Philippe Pétain, who died in France in 1951; therefore -- unless I've misunderstood the rules of copyright as pertaining to documents produced by the government of Vichy France -- it will not be PD until 2022.".
The second is a typewritten 1917 letter. These would both now be free in France. The 1917 letter was likely published before 1927 so that would be public domain in the US. I am unsure if URAA applies for the 1944 document. Abzeronow (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
File:Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General George S. Brown.jpg
request undeletion because I have permission and licensed to upload the file
If I input the permission or licensed in a wrong way please gave me the instruction so I could re-upload and put the licensed in a correct way — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilleyNgentot (talk • contribs)
Opposeapimages.com: "U.S. Seretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, right, chats with Gen. George Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, prior to beginning their testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in Washington, D.C., Jan. 28, 1976. They appeared before the panel on funding for the Department of Defense. (AP Photo)"
"Use Information This content is intended for editorial use only. For other uses, additional clearances may be required." (emphasis added). Thuresson (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
File:Dancer Maddie Ziegler, Paris Fashion Week, October 2021.jpg
File:Dancer Maddie Ziegler, Paris Fashion Week, October 2021, 2nd shot.jpg
File:Dancer Maddie Ziegler, Paris Fashion Week, October 2021, 3rd shot.jpg
Reason: hi, i m newbie and i don t understand why did you delete my pics of maddie. it s my own work which i uploaded also on imgur. i just want to make the article better. what s the problem? --Pansvalnac (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Done; though I haven't removed the copyvio-tags, which you need to remove if the obtained permission trumps it. --Túrelio (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Support However, noting that the date you (@LN9267: ) provided (2006-04-09) seems to be different to the date watermarked (which one is correct?). Also pinging @Minorax: if there are any other doubts. Ankry (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose The image appears in many places on the Web without a free license. In order to restore it on Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Support This file name has had several bogus images, but this one appears to be OK. The Flickr page cited above has a CC-BY-SA license and full EXIF which calls out the page owner as the photographer. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Navarra Archivos images
Hello.
Recently, some images I have uploaded from this website have been deleted arguing "Copyright violation", although they are released with CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 Creative Commons license, as stated on the information given during the upload process and the webpage itself.
Taking this into account, I would like to request the undeletion of the images concerned:
This file was provided and made by this person himself. License is granted by the respective right holder.
All rights and permissions provided for free use. Please restore this file.
The permission needs to be verified by VRT team if not granted on a public, official website. See VRT for procedure and note, that the permission must come directly from the copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
File:HASEOKJIN.jpg
Please cancel the deletion.
This file is a capture of a scene where Korean actor HASEOKJIN introduces his profile picture on his own YouTube channel.
Isn't the file that captures this scene a copyright infringement, as he himself has uploaded it in his video?
The YouTube video is here. please check. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=26Hef1s_OaQ
Please cancel the deletion.
--Tama501ss (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)2022-2-2
@Tama501ss: Where did you find the CC-BY-SA license for this video on YouTube? The standard YouTube license is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons licenseeng requirements. Ankry (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Apologize for the cofusion, but I was granted permission for using this photo for using it from the author. Could you undelete this picture and I'll add the written permission of the author.
We need to receive a free license permission, not a permission "for using" the photo
We need a permission from the actual photo author (photographer), or an evidence that copyright has been transferred (copyright transfer contract, employment evidence, etc.)
The permission needs to be verifiable: either on a public, official website of the author / copyright holder or through the procedure described in VRT.
Support This copyright was a nonsense (how is it possible that something so much public and simple can have a copyright?). Good to know that it doesn't exist anymore. Yann (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The law hasn’t changed (threshold of originality) and is still strict, it’s just a change of copyright ownership but the Government hasn’t specified if this will be a PD-Gov (AU) or covered by legislation that releases it under a PD like licence. Bidgee (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Unsure which license this would go under. It only states that they have acquired the copyright (and since the state is public, the work is publicly owned, or some blaha like that), not that they have released it under a license or into the public domain. The only PD-tag for Australia that might come close is {{PD-AustrianGov}} but that only applies for part of a law, ordinance or official decree. The Australian gov. can hold copyright to works, and unless an explicit license or release is made, I'm leaning to say that we need to wait. Unless we wish to start a discussion on TOO, but since the Australian government has already weigh in on that aspect, it seems like a no-go. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
TOO in Australia hasn’t changed. Just the ownership of the flag, so I think TOO needs to change to explain that but it doesn’t mean that TOO in Australia has been relaxed.
To ensure the flags themselves are of the highest quality and continue to be manufactured in Australia, Carroll and Richardson Flagworld will remain the exclusive licensed manufacturer and provider of Aboriginal Flags and bunting. While this ongoing arrangement covers commercial production, Flagworld is not restricting individuals from making their own flag for personal use.
This sounds like while the copyright to the design of the flag will almost, but not quite, be freely licensed for any use (as the Australian government will apparently continue to exclusively license the design to a single manufacturer of flags with the license royalties they collect from the manufacturer going to NAIDOC). Using the copyright license to prohibit only a single type of commercial use is largely free, but I don't think it meets COM:L's requirement to be free for any use. —RP88 (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose according to official press release, commercial use is still restricted. Also, tagged the svg file for speedy delete. --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
SupportThe prime minister said the flag could now be used on sports jerseys, shirts, websites, paintings, reproduced on sporting grounds and used “in any other medium without having to ask for permission or pay a fee”.[1] its clear there is now no issues in Commons hosting images under {{PD-AustrianGov}}{{PD-AustralianGov}}, moral rights always exist under Australian copyright laws and cant be extinguished. All CC licenses since CC 3.0 specifically state that the copyright holder agrees to not enforce/exercise moral rights over the image. Gnangarra05:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I guess you meant "the other" Austria as in {{PD-AustralianGov}}. That, however, is not a free licence because it was granted by the copyright holder, but it refers to Crown Copyright having expired due to old age. That is not the case here. De728631 (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Austria is not Australia. {{PD-AustraliaGov}} is a separate tag and requires 50 years from creation, typically. But not sure that would automatically apply for assigned or purchased private copyrights like this -- there is some talk about royalties being given to somewhere else, so some licensing must still exist, and thus copyright. Not sure it's really public domain, but... it has some sort of license now; unsure how "free" exactly. Kind of a gray area. Of course, normally we'd consider it PD-ineligible without much thought, but there is a court case about it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
fixed, the talk of "royalities" is part of the compensation agreement to release the flag from any emcumbrances. Gnangarra06:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
That would be nice, but I see references that there is only one official manufacturer of the flag? How is that enforced... via copyright, or some other right? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Sadly we need further clarification from the Australian Government as to the license the flag will be used under publicly. I was excited to hear about it yesterday but remained reserved until I knew more, I know a little more but still isn’t clear. Bidgee (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Please remember that it is entirely possible for a government to purchase and own a copyright without it being licensed in the same way as most of that government's works. Some US coins are a good example of this.
"To ensure the flags themselves are of the highest quality and continue to be manufactured in Australia, Carroll and Richardson Flagworld will remain the exclusive licensed manufacturer and provider of Aboriginal Flags and bunting." is not consistent with a free license. For the license to be acceptable to Commons, it must allow an Australian (or anyone else) to buy and display a flag made anywhere by anybody. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose without an official statement granting more than the press release. That one says they'll still be collecting royalties, and allows Australians to freely use the unaltered flag. I thought they could basically do that anyway, only publishing copies was an issue. It allows Australians to make their own flags for personal use. Plenty of countries have restrictions on how their flags can be used, which are treated in Commons as non-copyright restrictions, but in this case, they appear to want to exploit the copyright too. --ghouston (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment It seems like we've never really decided what kind of copyright restrictions on reproduction / derivative works are allowed in a "freely licensed" work. Per precedent, the answer is not "none": we allow images of outdoor sculptures in Germany despite restrictions on reproductions of the 3D object without the sculptor's permission, and images of US skylines containing copyrighted billboards despite restrictions on cropping. We'll have to get more clarity from the Australian government on what exactly is restricted, but if it narrowly targets the making of physical cloth flags, I fail to see the difference from FoP-Germany. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠01:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I assume that at least German FoP applies to anybody under German law, not just Germans. According to that press release, I don't get any permissions since I'm not Australian (I've just lived in Australia for nearly 15 years). --ghouston (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Support At this point (less than 2 days since being announced), where there has not yet been a 100% clear, no doubt, undeniable formal announcement for the minutiae legal changes affecting the transfer of the flag's copyright, I believe the flag is suitable for hosting on the Commons on the basis that its license is now effectively free enough to comply with policy, so long as the individual waiver tags (specifically {{Insignia}} with written clarification) are included.
The current most reliable official source explicitly states[1]:
All Australians can now put the Aboriginal Flag on apparel such as sports jerseys and shirts, it can be painted on sports grounds, included on websites, in paintings and other artworks, used digitally and in any other medium without having to ask for permission or pay a fee.
Which, while not quite public domain, is very close to all of the creative commons licenses accepted. Maybe it might be significant enough of a change that it requires its own new license template, as the only explicit restriction is commercial mass manufacturing on bunting and physical flags - not commercial use on clothing, buildings, and probably whatever else you can think of. When it comes to moral rights, I haven't seen anyone say that we should suddenly cut off Harold Thomas from being credited and mentioned, where he consistently has been, as the original designer.
Citing precedent of a notable example is the BBC's logo, which most definitely has not been released in the United Kingdom stating it may be used in the way the flag has, despite it likely being above the threshold of originality for the UK. I am not saying that the flag should be undeleted because it's below Australia's TOO, but the BBC is an example of where the logo's primary application (online/digital form) is more at risk of infringing restrictions by being on the Commons - that specific file being kept is a separate debate.
So, if it's a risk-based assessment, based on a comparison, which is more at risk of infringing local restrictions? The logo of a major news reporting organisation, with a primary international presence online, or a flag with its copyright purchased for $20 million[2], by the Australian Government, specifically intended to remove all limitations, even if they didn't quite get all, except the physical commercial production of bunting, being stored and presented in an online encyclopedic format?
To ensure the flags themselves are of the highest quality and continue to be manufactured in Australia, Carroll and Richardson Flagworld will remain the exclusive licensed manufacturer and provider of Aboriginal Flags and bunting. While this ongoing arrangement covers commercial production, Flagworld is not restricting individuals from making their own flag for personal use.
As with pretty much every national flag (although the Aboriginal Flag is not quite the same), {{Insignia}} also implies considering additional legalities. Even adding {{Trademarked}} might do it because there are plenty of public domain US logos on here, which have similar limitations. Using another example: Apple is considered public domain, but don't try using it on your own brand of smartphone.
The Aboriginal Flag will now be managed in a similar manner to the Australian National Flag, where its use is free, but must be presented in a respectful and dignified way.
This is my view because I believe it is the clear intention of the Australian Government to release it as restriction-free as they could and that the use of the flag on the Commons with a reasonable free license, so that it can be used on any of Wikipedia's different languages and sites, is extremely unlikely to go against that spirit. However, if the response from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs' office to an email[3] from Bidgee says the opposite, that will obviously be the end of the matter.
TL;DR:
The Australian Government clearly intended their purchase of the copyright to remove all restrictions they could, in order to be "free"
Commons has a number of precedents, with imperfect licensing, or specific commercial limitations, and files have been kept (e.g. BBC and Apple)
To be sure there is no doubt on the file page, readily available and used templates like {{Trademarked}} and {{Insignia}}, or even its own new template, should give enough additional clarification
Until there is more official confirmation, the explicit declaration the flag is free to use in any medium, besides commercial flag production in Australia, should be sufficient
"the explicit declaration the flag is free to use in any medium, besides commercial flag production in Australia, should be sufficient" -- this is nonsense. We require that images be free for any use by anybody anywhere. That means that flag makers anywhere in the world must be free to make and sell copies of the flag -- not just one company in Australia. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I was paraphrasing a specific part of the press release, where they mention production in Australia, the specifics of whether their license agreement applies internationally were not mentioned. It's not "nonsense", for example, any agreement may be invalid in the US, given the flag probably already has been in the public domain, there, since it's almost definitely under the threshold of originality.
Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. The use may however be restricted by issues not related to copyright, though, see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and the license may demand some special measures.[4]
This flag is a clear use case for the latter point, with this being a discussion of the file being undeleted, and I'm just using the example of being {{Trademarked}} because it's as good as, when the only stated commercial limitation is with physically manufacturing flags, with the design of a flag. If you think it shouldn't ever be used, I'd suggest taking that up with the 150,000 other files with the same tag.
It's early days and, frankly, I don't think the government were considering a discussion like this, when they made their brief headline-making announcement, before their day off. So, until there is further official clarification, I still believe the emphasis of the press release on the flag now being "free" on all other grounds qualifies it as "public domain" with an asterisk, even if they haven't used that precise wording.
Burberry pattern I found another precedent, where a textile design was uploaded under a free license (CC 3.0), despite physical manufacturing of any garment/textile, not just flags and bunting, being limited to one company (Burberry), which was tagged as being {{Trademarked}}. It was on the Wikipedia Trademark page and has been there since 2 May 2011. Maybe someone should nominate or edit that, if they think the same principle shouldn't be applied to this flag, at this point. Bacon Noodles (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Nothing to do with Australia or flags of Australia. Let’s not use other countries copyright and/or trademark laws. Bidgee (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I think you are conflating copyright restrictions with non-copyright restrictions like trademark restrictions, legal restrictions on the use of national symbols, privacy restrictions, etc. Copyright restrictions hold a special place with regards to Commons because, unlike other Wikimedia wikis, Commons is specifically forbidden by the Wikimedia Foundation from having an Exemption Doctrine Policy and thus can only host works with a free copyright license. So, for example, if Australia has established a regulation or law that says only Flagworld is permitted to manufacture Aboriginal Flags then Commons doesn't care — that would be a non-copyright restriction, and doesn't affect whether or not the flag is available under a free copyright license. On the other hand, if until recently Flagworld has been the exclusive manufacturer of Aboriginal Flags because Harold Thomas only granted them a license to the Aboriginal Flag's copyright and now that Australia is the owner of the copyright they plan on continuing to use a copyright license to enforce Flagworld as the exclusive manufacturer of Aboriginal Flags then Commons does care. —RP88 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe that any non-copyright restriction legislation is involved. The government has simply purchased the copyright and intends to continue the practice of licensing flag production to a single company. Given that it's a flag design, and the production of flags is restricted, I don't see how it can be considered "public domain" or "freely licensed". Also, there's no guarantee that this is the final word in the flag saga: some Aboriginal commentary has already been negative about the new arrangement. --ghouston (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
In my reading of the press release, I cannot see how the Australian Government would put so much effort, let alone the political impact, into such an important long-running matter, with the specific intention of making the flag "free", just so that, in the end, one hold-out flag manufacturer could invalidate everything else, and they would continue to use the copyright in the same way as Harold Thomas (which was the entire issue, to begin with). As per Ghouston, Aboriginal communities will continue to object any restrictions whereby they don't hold the moral rights, and I frankly wouldn't be surprised if, at some point soon, Flagsworld cancels their agreement. But, if the primary objection is whether the press release did or did not announce the flag being freely licensed by the new copyright owner, consider that objection, if Flagsworld was not mentioned, would the announcement practically be saying it's free to use?
All Australians can now put the Aboriginal Flag on apparel such as sports jerseys and shirts, it can be painted on sports grounds, included on websites, in paintings and other artworks, used digitally and in any other medium without having to ask for permission or pay a fee.
It's my view that, by saying this, it effectively did, mirroring near-verbatim the most widely used free licenses, in a simplified form, so it's surely reasonable enough to consider it a release of the copyright, more than an exemption of applying ownership, although the specific license/template to use is still a matter of further discussion/clarification. However, having said that, Flagsworld is still a factor and, by no means am I saying it should be neglected.
If your long-term objection, RP88, is that non-copyright factors should be disregarded for all files, perhaps you should expand that with the discussion on what goes into Commons:Licensing, which I am merely applying to what I see as being fairly direct wording, along with the thousands of comparable precedent files (regarding non-copyright exemption disclaimers), to how I think it may now also apply to this file. I continue to use {{Trademarked}} as an example because when a flag can only be commercially made in the form of a flag, by one flag manufacturer, with the design of what was intended to be a flag, it is undeniably similar. Legally, at this point, {{Insignia}} may be more appropriate, which is why I also mentioned it, which begins to take in the point of whether the flag production is licensing of a free design or application of a copyright by its holder.
To be clear, as is often the case with things like this, I am not saying the press release was an irrevocable disclaimer with every detail ready, but, I do strongly believe, so far, it is sufficient as both being free in terms that comply with Commons:Licensing (with the aforementioned disclaimers), and not a repeat of why the file was originally deleted. It's still ongoing, there will continue to be disputes, press releases, etc. If those invalidate everything I've said, then, that's simply how it is, and maybe speedy deletion would be best (should the file be restored). However, to repeat, I do not think it would be unreasonable for us or anyone else to use the press release as the expressed written consent from an official representative of its new copyright holder that the flag is free, to the best of our considered understanding, in the way it would be used, where we will be clear to anyone who has access to it, there may still be ramifications for inappropriate uses. Bacon Noodles (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that a free license has been granted for non-flag uses, although probably revocable (e.g., if Aboriginal concerns about unrestricted commercial use of the flag are considered in future), but for use on flags, which is a major use for a flag design, the license for the general public is only non-commercial. According to the press release, the licenses are only granted to Australians, so exclude even non-Australians living in Australia, not to mention the rest of the world. --ghouston (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Support I believe that the conditions in the press release are similar enough to Creative Commons to comply with Commons guidelines. The restrictions on who may commercially print the flag are similar to {{Trademark}} restrictions which are allowed on Commons. Commons also allows other insignia such as flags to be used with non-copyright restrictions with the template {{Insignia}}. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
There's an interesting opinion at [5], that if the copyright has been fully transferred to the Australian government, then it would become subject to a 50 year expiry as a government-owned work. Since it was created in 1971, the copyright would be already expired. --ghouston (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Australian copyright law states that only works created or first published by or under direction of the government are Crown Copyright (similar to the UK rules in their old 1956 law). Not sure how I see that an assigned copyright like this would qualify though. It's certainly possible they are using trademark to enforce the manufacturing restriction though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
We know that Australian trademark law has, to date, not been the mechanism used to enforce Flagworld's manufacturing exclusivity. The Aboriginal flag is ineligible for trademark protection under section 39(2) of Trade Marks Act 1995. It appears in the trademark database #-9001637 as a prescribed sign that can not be trademarked. —RP88 (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The Copyright Act can be found at [6]. I don't know exactly how to interpret it, but paragraph 180 seems to apply the 50 year term whenever the Commonwealth or a state owns the copyright. It doesn't seem to discuss copyright transfers explicitly. --ghouston (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, I had always thought that section specified the term of Crown Copyright, i.e. the term of works which become Crown Copyright by the previous sections, but you're right it doesn't -- just says the term of copyright where the government is the owner. By that, copyright would have expired this year. They might get around that by saying that all rights except flag manufacturing rights were sold, and those rights are owned by somewhere else, technically. It's possible they acquired the base copyright, and all of the licenses other than the flag manufacturing one, which remains in force, and since that right is not owned by the government, maybe it doesn't expire. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Also of some interest: Company that retains exclusive rights to make Aboriginal flags says Coalition has ‘misled’ community by The Guardian. The only thing new is a statement from Flagworld “The government’s announcement is misleading and confusing and does not ‘free the flag’ except for its use on clothing, badges, pins etc, or its reproduction in digital formats and on playing surfaces,” and "As far as the flag’s concerned, it’s really business as usual. The only difference is the royalties will be paid to the government." Unfortunately, these don't really clarify for us, in either direction, the details for the license that the public will have to Aboriginal flag. —RP88 (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a few days ago a picture I had uploaded was deleted (File:Frieda Mitscherlich.png). Since I am not yet so familiar with the technology of Wikimedia Commons, I probably answered in the wrong place. I had written that the photograph was taken by Marta Wolff (1871-1942) and therefore the copyright should have expired more than 70 years ago. The scan is from the magazine "Berliner Leben" from 1908. Or can someone kindly explain to me how the user "Martin Sg." comes to the conclusion that the photograph is in the public domain only in 2040?
Oppose The photograph is fine -- as noted, its copyright in Germany expired on 1/1/2021 and its URAA based US copyright far before that. However the photograph infringes on the copyright for the sculpture, which will expire 70 years after Frieda Mitscherlich's death. See for a longer explanation.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The sculpture occupies about one third of the entire photograph but since this is a portrait of the artist most of all and the focus is on Mitscherlich herself, I think we could claim de-minimis for the artwork. De728631 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The image can imho be undeleted and the sculpture can be cropped from the image. A useful portrait will remain. Ellywa (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
"Photographs of the "Memorial de la Tranchée des Baïonettes" and the "Gare de Versailles-Chantiers" : the architect for both buildings is André Ventre, who died in 1951." Now pubic domain in France and the US doesn't have copyright for architecture that is pre-1990. Abzeronow (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose In the United States, copyright for works before 1978 is not determined by the lifetime of the author but by the date of first publication and possibly by the presence of a copyright notice or a registration with the copyright office. And apart from the sculpture as such there is also a copyright for the photograph. What we need to know is a) when was this sculpture first published, b) who took the photograph and c) when was the photograph first published. The source page of the image states that this marble bust was carved in 1947, and there is a 1947 copyright entry for Charles Keck of a bronze bust of Truman. That copyright, however, was not renewed. Now we could assume that the marble statue's design is identical to that bronze bust and that the photograph was taken by an employee of the U.S. Senate Collection of artworks. That would put the photo in the public domain but I think we need some proper evidence instead of assumptions. On another note, fair use is not allowed at Commons. All uploads here need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose. De728631 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
This logo is released by official website of Forests, Range and Watershed Management Organization. FRWO is an Iranian government agency responsible for natural resources management. You can download the logo here.
Oppose Being available on the internet does not mean that something is in the public domain or automatically comes with a free licence. Generally speaking, all recent content is copyrighted and non-free unless the source page says otherwise. De728631 (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I think this would almost certainly have a copyright even when "creative effort" was required. It is not only a lattice tower, but also two levels of habitable space. I also think that keeping the Nuclear Plant images is wrong -- a building of that size and complexity certainly has a copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure about the "utilitarian" argument for this tower, but the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant New Safe Confinement is an industrial building with purely utilitarian function. Size and complexity are not arguments for a copyright, only artistic design is. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
That varies country by country. In the USA, any habitable building, no matter creative or not, has a copyright. Fortunately the USA has FoP for architecture, so the issue does not arise. The Ukraine copyright law does not mention "artistic design" but only that the work must be "creative". Plainly there is creation involved in any structure more complicated than an igloo. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The U.S. requires "at least some minimal degree of creativity". They don't make aesthetic judgements, i.e. "artistic" or not, just that a degree of creativity is there. The TV tower would be an interesting test case, as only a small portion is designed for human occupancy, and it's a regular geometric shape. But it's also not a standard element of other buildings. No real idea on Ukraine's TOO though. The "country of origin" is also kind of interesting here -- for architecture, it's generally the country where it's located. But apparently the design was first created for Moscow, probably early 1960s or even late 1950s, though not actually built, then re-used (though shortened) for the Ukraine. If it was published enough earlier in Moscow, unsure what the real country of origin would be -- making a copy in another country should not change that. Also at the time, the country was the USSR -- so it might be considered "simultaneously published" in all the former Soviet republics. Some of those are still 50pma, and 50 years from publication for anonymous works. It's an odd situation, for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Question who was involved in the design or construction? An architect or an engineer? If the former is true, then the file must remain deleted. But if latter, then possibly it can be restored, as in most cases works created by engineers do not exhibit artistry (similar to our antenna masts despite the lack of FOP in our country as of this moment). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)11:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
"Husarski, Wacław (1883-1951)". Now public domain in Poland. 1924 seems to indicate this is public domain in the US too. Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
This image was deleted due to a missing source. However, the source has been determined to be the San Quentin State Prison. This would mean the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is the author. It is my understanding that {{PD-CAGov}} would apply in this case. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
My name is Jonathan; I'm Hanan Ben Ari's Social Media Manager.
We ask you please to undelete File:חנן בן ארי - גיא כושי ויריב פיין.jpg as we have the all necessary rights to use it as we want. This file is Hanan's updated face identity. This file File:Hanan Ban Ari.jpg seriously harms Hanan and his privacy and is not approved for use on any digital, public, broadcast, or print platform.--Jonathansror (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ankry: Yes, destinationevents have sent us the copy of a contract with Matt Sprake in which is stated that “destinationevents owns the rights all photography taken at LNYDP”. --Mussklprozz (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I think this was just a mistake because "Template:Permission received" had not been put in the file description after undeletion such that the reason for undeletion was not visible with the file. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. About the File:Escudo_de_Villamuelas_Original.svg it's my own work. I don't understand why my work was deleted. It's my work, my time, my decision. I shared the image with the town (Villamuelas) and with all of people here in Wikipedia.
I need an explanation why MY WORK!! is infringing copyright property. Thank you. IMajano.
Oppose it is DW of the official COA ([2]), not your original work. Or is there any evidence that you are the designer of the official COA? Ankry (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
An evidence? what do you need? I am www.Villamuelas.es, I am the town's webmaster. if you browse through villamuelas.es, the news and or other entries are by IMajano... this is a joke. I have lent my work to the City Council and wikipedia without profit. IMajano (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted due to invalid license (should be {{PD-anon-expired}}): text is purely informative (contents, list of titles), not copyrighted and graphic design is published anonymously - unsigned. Ankry (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I appeal to not delete this pic, as I have the permission of the owner since 2008. I have used this image for free since then on posters, my logo, my website, etc. This image belongs to me, as the owner gave it to me a long time ago. It was his first photograph, and he gave me the permission to publish it everywhere I wanted to do it.
Exemples:
This site is the official site of the Catalan Government, and they published an article about me in 2013 when I celebrated 25 years of may professional career as a musician.
This is my official image and I used to show myself to the world, and of course, with the permission of the author. He is a friend and if he didn't gave me the permission, I would never used it as I did.
For all that, I ask for an appeal to not delete it from commons wikimedia. This reflects who I am as I want.
Thank you so much for your attention.
Best regards
Big Mama Montse
Montse Pratdesaba
Not done procedural close image not deleted. You need either to fix the file description providing a link to a site where the declared free license is granted, or ensure that the actual copyright holder send a free license to VRT. Own work declaration cannot be used for already published or non-original photos. Ankry (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Restore files
I request the restoration of these files because they were deleted unjustifiably, without even making a deletion query:
They all come from a news account in the Dominican Republic and these videos are licensed under Creative Commons, and I can't find any Copyright mark that was the reason they were removed, please can be restored these files? RevengerTime (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Support The images seem to be screnshots from a freely licensed video published on the official TV station YouTube channel. @Rjgalindo and Polarlys: why do you doubt the license? Ankry (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment Ya, if the screenshot of the still frame falls under an allowed attribution from a YouTube video to Wikimedia, then I'm good with the restoration. Rjgalindo (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Reason: The file uploaded here was a digitally enhanced version (by me) of a standard photo for passport, which was made in a Dutch photo booth. The original was lost in my own archive, but i just found it and uploaded a copy to prove it, see File:Fragment of Dutch photo booth sheet and photograph, 2006.jpg. In this particular case I believe I am the the copyright owner of this work, and the image was released properly. Mdd (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I really don't understand why this picture was removed. Please give a brief detail about its deletion. It is requested to please undelete this file as I have to use this file on multiple Wikipedia projects. Thanks.
MubasherKaleem (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I really don't understand why this picture was removed. Please give a brief detail about its deletion. It is requested to please undelete this file as I have to use this file on multiple Wikipedia projects. Thanks.
MubasherKaleem (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@MubasherKaleem: This was deleted because it is a copyright violation. You are not allowed to upload content on Commons for which you are not the sole author. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
OK I understand that, but the work was originally by my Father he died in 2017 & now I'm the only sole owner of his all work so please guide which license should I select to upload these files again?
The reason I insist to upload my late father work is, he had worked a lot in many fields of development & I'm going to add articles about his work which are not useful for anyone unless I attach his work alongwith. Regards, MubasherKaleem (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Maryna Mykha: You were notified that the actual copyright holder of this photo (photographer, photographer's heirs, or a person who has a written copyright transfer contract with them) needs to send a free license permission to VRT. It seems that we did not receive the permission, yet. Ankry (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
This Wikivoyage banner was speedily deleted without notice to the local wiki. Per COM:CSD#F3, "Given the complexity of copyright rules like freedom of panorama and de minimis, it is best for such issues to be resolved in a formal deletion request". In this case, it was just speedily deleted and didn't follow policy. Requesting undeletion so I can locally upload it to en.wikivoyage. (please give me a ping if/when it gets undeleted) --SHB2000 (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose no evidence provided that the image is PD. A copy sent via email to the requester for Fair Use based use, if applicable. Ankry (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Again: Photos by destinationevents.com
For the following photos, we have permission per Ticket:2022020310005917. The client presented the copy of a contract with the photographer which grants him full rights upon the photos. On my demand, @Ankry: gently restored the photos, yet only half an hour @Wdwd: deleted them again. Can the photos please be restored again, in a way that they do not get deleted shortly after, or can the objection against keeping them please be substantiated?
Addendum: I was yesterday offline. Sorry, my speedy-deletion overlapped because the template wasn't removed, and I missed it in the deletion log.--Wdwd (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"the author, w:Karl Barth (Architekt), died in 1951, ". These files (50+) are now public domain in Germany, and pre-1990 architecture is copyright-free in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Although the file description does not give a date for this work, the bio there suggests strongly that it is post 1927 and therefore still under copyright in the USA. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
For all content previously published elsewhere, we need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder, who might be the artist or the editor. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Use of Pak artwork and images: Lost Poet 12755.png
The artist Pak has been explicit in approving the use of their art on Wikipedia and Wikicommons (see: https://twitter.com/muratpak/status/1465342092457164803). The image was deleted despite this point. If further permissions are needed to keep this and other Pak images up, I am happy to email he artist. Please see this tweet were permission is granted. If specific and special wording is required please advise. cc for help/feedback: user:Lord_Belbury--Pmmccurdy (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
It looks like they haven't been explicit enough - their affirmative Twitter response to "are we ok to right-click save some work for @Wikimedia to feature on your @Wikipedia page?" doesn't tell us what licence they're releasing the work under, or even whether they interpreted the question as referring to a Commons release at all (it could be plausibly read as a fair use request for Wikipedia).
Note also that the email license must come directly from the artist and may not be forwarded by third parties. It is too bad that we must have this requirement, but we have too many fans and others who attempt to use forged licenses. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose The copyright policy of that website is CC0, but only for text. The seconds sentence reads, translated in English: "CC0 is not applicable for photo's. It is not allowed to reuse a photo, unless it is indicated at the photo that reuse is allowed." These imagers are photo's of specimens and one of these even contains a photo of a person, so they are not CC0 licenced. Ellywa (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Can this file be restored ? I admit I didn't pay attention to the license required, but I can, as soon as it is published, modify and put the appropriate license and post on the flickr site ({/{cc-by-sa-2.0}})
But it says "Certain rights reserved", and when we click on this link, it is displayed that it is a 2.0 license, the one I want to use. Teidix (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
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.
Oppose There appear to be at least two, maybe three copyrights for each of these images -- one for the photograph of the artist, perhaps one for the photograph of the background, and one for the design of the work as a whole. In each case we will need a free license from each of the three copyrights or other satisfactory evidence that the images are freely licensed in every respect. All of this must be done using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
This image IS my own work. It was uploaded to Facebook by the owner of the page, to whom I've sent the photo after snapping it.--AquilaNCM (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Images that were previously pubished without evidence of free license require permission via email as explained in VRT. Facebook is not free. Ankry (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
This image IS my own work. It was uploaded to Facebook by the owner of the page, to whom I've sent the photo after snapping it. --AquilaNCM (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Images that were previously pubished without evidence of free license require permission via email as explained in VRT. Facebook is not free. Ankry (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Note also, that if you allow others to use your photo without attributing it to you, you may have problem proving that you are the author. Ankry (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The photograph was published between 1927 and 1977 without a copyright notice. It is a photographic portrait of an artist which was used for promotional and publicity purposes. Its use is intended solely to identify the subject. --Johnwellsking (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Judging from the uploader's contributions, this is the baseball team of Tustin High School in California. I don't think that this would have been published in 1926, but it looks more like a private photo to me. De728631 (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I cannot see the photograph but wouldn't be possible that a photograph of the 1926 baseball team would be contemporaneously published in the 1926 yearbook of Tustin (Union) High School? Abzeronow (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose When I graduated from High School, 35 years after this, spring sports were not included in the current yearbook because the closing date for the book was in March or April. If published, this would have been in the 1927 yearbook. However, that's moot -- if it was in either yearbook from that era, I can't imagine that the copyright was renewed, so it would be PD. The scan is not good enough to tell for sure whether it is a half tone or not. I think not, which would suggest that it is probably unpublished until recently and therefore under copyright until 1/1/2047. Also, there is the question of whether the Tustin Union High School baseball team is notable in any way. Most high school athletics photos are out of scope. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
IMO historical images like this one are in scope, provided they are of decent quality, whatever the subject. If we can assume that the copyright was probably not renewed anyway, then fine. Since the author seems unknown, the only issue would be if it would not have been published at all, or not before 1989, which seem unlikely. Yann (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
"The photo has a copyright notice on the front: "Copyright 1926 - Kaufmann & Fabry Co. - Chicago". " Photograph's copyright has now definitely expired in the United States. Abzeronow (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
In the DR, no stamement which contests any rules of WM Commons is given. Instead, a gossip published by "welt.de" (online only) was the only reason to delete the image (even two versions). Die Welt also states "Durch die Priorisierung beim Impfen ließen sich gerade bei jungen Menschen Rückschlüsse auf ernste Vorerkrankungen schließen."[5] (Due to priorized vaccine applications may others get a hint of serious illnesses of a person). That's total bull, because people who get high prios are not only all ill, they may have a status of systemic importance (MD, nurses, assistive personnel in Elderly homes, policemen, firefighters and whatnot). This shows the big lack of quality of the article, because this is not stated in the article. Their only source is "Bundesfamilienministerium" (name missing). If you are reading their FAQ, nothing is stated regarding a publication of a person's vaccination record. Another person than User:Polarlys should make a final decision here. Thanks, --Mateus2019 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose There is no need for the Bundesfamilienministerium to prohibit the publication of a person's vaccination record because that is already ruled out by the General Data Protection Regulation (Datenschutzgrundverordnung). The lot numbers of the vaccines can eventually be linked to specific individuals so we should not publish them here. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment That's your interpretation and it is wrong. I cannot do an offence because I publish my own data. Furthermore, the DSGVO is not applicable for WM Commons. Erratum: the correct expression is Bundesgesundheitsministerium. --Mateus2019 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
You are of course free to publish your own data. Regarding privacy laws though, we still respect those according to the country of origin of a media file. And I will retain my opinion that we should not publish any of those lot numbers – not only for privacy reasons where applicable, but also because they are prone to be used for forgery. One could argue that this is an issue for any file user and not for Commons, but I think we should also act with a certain level of scrutiny in such cases. De728631 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I don't understand why anyone thinks this is in scope -- we certainly don't keep other medical records except those of individuals notable for their medical records and only then after their death. Perhaps I should upload my yellow fever card? . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that might be in scope, as an example. I would even say, one for each country would be in scope. --Yann (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment COM:SCOPE is something you have brought up. Not the admin who deleted all versions of the file. So your comment is kinda out of scope here. Just stick to the topic ... okay? --Mateus2019 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps a blank card for each country, or even each system of showing the VAX record, but I think that this one, heavily redacted as it is, is not something anyone is going to use. A blank one would be better.
As for the fact that scope was not an issue in the original DR, there is no point in restoring an image here because the DR was in error only to delete it again for another obvious reason. Images get more attention from highly experienced editors here than they do in most DRs. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mateus2019: proposed in the DR to delete the original version in favour of a redacted version (blurred batch number). The redacted version however was reverted back to the unredacted version by Mateus himself. I asked Mateus to upload a redacted version up to his own standards. And yes, as stated in my comment, there is a significant risk that others create fake entries to the national register of adverse events using data like vaccinating doctor, date and batch number. --Polarlys (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Deswegen musst Du nicht gleich alle Versionen löschen. Du weisst nicht, ob die "Scheißhausparole" von Welt.de stimmt oder nicht. WM Commons policies sind nicht tangiert (oder nenne mir diese einmal kurz). --Mateus2019 (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Bezugnehmend auf deinen o.g. Vorschlag: Welche Version hätte denn bleiben sollen? Die Originalversion wurde beanstandet und ich habe sie aus den genannten Gründen gelöscht (unabhängig von welt.de …), die bearbeitete Version war dir nicht genehm und wurde zurückgesetzt. Bitte lad doch eine von dir nach deinen ästhetischen Maßstäben redigierte Version hoch. --Polarlys (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Mittlerweile ist es mir egal, welche Version bleibt. Du bist vollkommen oberflächlich und überreizt. Ich mache eine Revertierung, daraufhin kommt gleich eine Dateilöschunng von Dir! Es wäre auch möglich gewesen, die nichtmaskierte Version zu löschen. --Mateus2019 (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Danke für die Ferndiagnose. Es sollte eine unkenntlich gemachte Version bleiben, die, die es gab, wolltest du nicht. --Polarlys (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Das ist eine Schlussfolgerung aus Deinem Verhalten, das Du bei dieser Löschung an den Tag gelegt hast. Oder es war ein Versehen. Letztgenanntes hast Du aber nicht kommuniziert. Die Löschung kam bei mir als unreflektierte und unproduktive Aktion 'rüber. Nur weil mir eine Version nicht gefällt und daher zurückgesetzt habe, musst Du nicht gleich alle Versionen löschen. Im Idealfall hätte man vorab den Dialog mit mir suchen können. Ich hoffe, dass die Angelegenheit durch Wiederherstellung der maskierten Version erledigt ist. Wie erwähnt, wird es keine Abbildungen von Impfdokumentationen von meiner Seite mehr geben. Abschliessender Spruch: Warum einfach, wenn's auch kompliziert geht?. Trotzdem schönen Restabend. — Keep keine Commons-Richtlinien sind tangiert (bezüglich beider Versionen). Daher war die Löschung nach Gutsherrnart. / no WM Commons policies are affected by restoring both versions. In return, the deletion was based on "unlawful" grounds. --Mateus2019 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Support There are no data privacy issues since the patient uploaded their own card. With the details redacted, there is no forgery risk, especially since other copies of this card can be readily found online. And this is clearly in COM:SCOPE for illustrating what a German vaccination card looks like. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠23:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Reason: Although originally uploaded as a user photo, and deleted as an unused userpage picture, out of scope, it depicts Eduardo Cantillana Pastrián, a local politician, councilor of La Estrella, Chile, and is totally in scope. Bedivere (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Support I cannot see an image, but the information provided makes it notable media. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 05:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The Canadian Film Centre holds events, attended by leading figures, and rising figures, in the Canadian film and television industry. Also attending their events were other VIPs, rich donors, politicians, musicians...
For more than a dozen years whoever was responsible for hiring photographers to mingle at theses events released images on their flickr page, under licenses that allowed them to be freely re-used. Flickrreview confirmed those images were properly licensed, when they were uploaded.
Commons contributors uploaded thousands of those images. Some commons contributors cropped headshots of individuals from group photos the CFC had uploaded. There are something like 1000 headshots cropped from those photos.
Administrator Taivo asserted that the deletion of the Dan Trotta article from en.wiki meant the image of Dan Trotta was not in Commons:Scope. I think we all know that this is a much more narrow interpretation of Scope than is usually used here.
I think that, since he did comply with our policies, and did confirm his identity through OTRS, we should honour Bryan Atkinson's request for the courtesy deletion of the headshot of him. If someone were to contact OTRS, with confirmation they were the real life Dan Trotta, we should honour a request for courtesy deletion from them, in spite of their name calling and vandalism.
I was indefinitely blocked, on en.wiki, by an administrator who colluded with other administrators to block me, in 2018. He waited three years for an excuse. Unfortunately the justification he invented is widely believed. The justification he invented is that I had a pre-existing grudge against the real life Dan Trotta, and that I cropped an image of him, and started an article about him, in order to carry out some kind of malicious vendatta.
Because the justification of the en.wiki administrator who has a baseless grudge against me is so widely believed I feel I need the revision history of File:Dan Trotta at the Gale Anne Hurd Masterclass (6829984489).jpg to be publicly visible, so anyone can see the diffs that show the lack of civility of the individual who claimed to be the real life Dan Trotta, who, nevertheless, was not prepared to confirm their identity through OTRS.
In general, administrators on the commons don't want to see drama from en.wiki transplanted here. Similarly, in general, en.wiki administrators try not to transplant controversies from the commons over there. I know it may seem like I am requesting bending that principle in restoring this image. But, I think it was administrator Taivo who bent that principle, by deleting an image that I think clearly measured up to Commons:Scope, feeling influenced by the en.wiki drama.
Oppose. I stand behind my decision. There is still no article about Dan Trotta in English Wikipedia, educational value is not shown. Taivo (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Trotta is a notable television producer. He played a leading role in the success of two television shows, one of which is re-distributed around the world. He has granted interviews to the media. Granted, he is not Shonda Rhimes, but that is not necessary to put him in scope.
As I have pointed out to you several times already, we have about an order of magnitude more images than en.wiki has articles. Having an article about a topic has never been required for an image to be recognized to be in scope. You must know this. Further, the image could illustrate an article on something else, like an article on one of the shows he produces, or the prestigious Canadian Film Centre, where he studied. Geo Swan (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Support He's a producer that had at least two hit Canadian television series, including Murdoch Mysteries, a show that I enjoyed. This would have enough of an educational use on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Support I think there are three kinds of people: 1) those who are so notable that we would never entertain a request to take down an image of them taken during a public function; 2) those who are so non-notable that we would not allow an image of them to stay up even if they wanted to (COM:CSD#F10); and 3) those in the middle. For the third type, we would keep the image if challenged on COM:SCOPE alone, but could consider a courtesy deletion on a case-by-case basis. Given the circumstances of this situation, I am not 100% convinced that the appellant is actually Dan Trotta, so I would not grant the request unless he confirmed his identity via VRTS. We have to draw a hard line here, or else anyone can get any image of a borderline-notable person taken down just by claiming to be that person. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠01:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I am requesting you to undelete the file indicated in the subject of this message temporarily so I can transfer the image to Wikipedia article for Fairs Use in English, Uzbek and Turkish.
The subject matter of copyright is any creative activity of individual nature, made in any form, regardless of its value, intended use, the form of expression
In case I ACa 809/08 court states about the article above that:
It defines essential qualities of the work, which are distinguishing it against works of others. In source literature, the prerogatives are defined as originality ('indication of creative activity') and individuality. In the first case it is about making a 'subjectively new intelectual creation' (cf. J. Barta, M. Czajkowska-Dąbrowska, Z. Ćwiąkalski, R. Markiewicz, E. Traple 'Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Komentarz', Dom Wydawniczy ABC 2001).
Originality itself isn't a sufficient condition to call the result of an activity a work. It is also mandatory for it to be marked by individuality. 'measures of individuality' proposed in the doctrine underlines analysis of statistical single-usability, meaning finding out whether analogous work existed in the past and if someone specializing in the same field could statistically achieve the concurrent effect. Another possible way is an analysis of the extent of artistic licence. In other words: in other words: is it the result of work determined by the function of the object, practical assumptions to be met by it, technical requirements or other objective factors, or - a process that leaves a choice.
Statement, that the product is an indication of 'creative activity', means that it shall be a result of the activity of creative nature. That statement, often described as the premise of 'originality' of creation, is true when there's subjectively new intellectual creation; it is therefore only included on a ground of subjective novelty and retrospectively oriented.
In the judgement, there is also another case brought up: FSK 2253/04 where it is stated that:
Proprietary curriculum can't be considered a work (on basis of art. 1 law 1 of copyright and related rights act of February 4, 1994) if maker's creation doesn't have qualities of originality and individuality, in the sense of law."
Therefore logos above can't be considered original and individual work as there are modifications of previous club logos variants (with copyrights expired, as they were made before World War II), as seen here including this, which the admin that deleted the other files seem to deem not original. Piotr Bart (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I tend to Support this request as the club name, its creation year and standard geometric shapes do not seem to express any creativity. But pinging @DMacks: the deleting admin for comments. Ankry (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
If others think these specific ones are free, then I'm fine with their undeletion. Note to Piotr Bart though, I merely was running a list of files tagged by others. You can see from your talkpage the note about how this came to admin attention, and that's why I specified in my deletion "tagged as copyvio (non-free logos)". I was not browsing by uploader or topic, so File:Poloniawarszawa2.svg was not even on my radar. DMacks (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries; the fuller admin view of the history makes it much clearer what was going on than the public-facing puzzle-pieces. DMacks (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
I don't understand "fatal stain". I see an artifact on Jesus's left shoulder that is different in the two images.-- what is it and why did you remove it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: There is a defect on the left arm of Jesus statue, visible here.
Since the author was Australian and the source of this file is Australian, this became public domain on January 1, 1994 since the author died in 1943 and this was public domain in Australia on January 1, 1996 and was therefore public domain in the United States. Abzeronow (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Why do you need her permission if you are the photo author (photographer) and copyright holder as you claimed at upload? Providing false or incorrect authorship info is violation of Commons policy.
For any photo that was published elsewhere without evidence of free license (Instagram and Facebook photos are not free) we need a written free license permission as instructed in VRT. If the copyright holder is not the author, we may need also an evidence of copyright transfer. Ankry (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Quería decir que he intentado añadir una imagen a la wikipedia y me la han eliminado por copyright cuando he puesto el dueño de la fotografía. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axcloud (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose It is insufficient to attribute the author. Recent images also need to come with a free licence from the author which this file does not. This is why it was deleted as a copyright violation. De728631 (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
"File:ARM Reformador during UNITAS LXII military excercise in Peru.jpg" was a picture of the Mexican Navy Long Range Ocean Patrol Vessel ARM Reformador, which was recovered and cited properly, as well classified correctly under the CC terms. I thus request this one to be recovered, as to not go over the process of resubmitting the whole image, including all the process this conveys. According to the message/warning I receiving, the main reason due to its deletion was a "Low edit count," but what's point of trying to start in Wikipedia and do edits of good faith, if every is going to be rejected with the excuse of being a newcomer. Unless there is a genuine problem with the picture, or related to the picture, I do not see why it shouldn't be allowed on the platform. I request that this please be verified, and thanks whoever may be in charge in advanced, thanks!
--UnsuspectingPilot (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Die Seite des Users dient der Vorstellung des Users und muss entsprechende Inhalt tragen.
Die Seite des Users dient der Vorstellung des Users und muss entsprechende Inhalt tragen.
Dazu im Gegensatz die Datein welche frei eingestellt sind. Die User Seite muss wieder hergestellt werden, eventuell kann diese etwas abgespeckt werden, was der Sache nicht dienlich ist. Eine Userseite ohne Inhalte ist Sinnfrei entsprechend müsten dann alle dieser Userseiten komplett entfernt werden.
Desweiteren gilt Europäisches Recht wo der User angegeben sein muss. Da ich als User auch als Quellenangabe diene. Wird die Quellenangabe entfernt müssen auch die Inhalte entfernt werden.
Desweiteren empfinde ich das als mehr als unfreundlichen Akt einfach zu löschen ohne etwaige Probleme auf normalem Wege mit zuteilen. Besonders wenn wie in diesem Fall es nicht um eile geht. Diese Angewohnheiten machen mir die Wikiseiten schon lange sehr unsympatisch.
Oppose The image description says it was taken in 1926, but published “in Herald Tribune on 27 July 1934”. So undeletion in 2030 seems possible. --Rosenzweigτ12:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Good catch! My comment above was correct -- The one time that newspapers do publish photos of their staff is in their obituary. He died 26 July 1934, they day before the image was published. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Question Was the 27 July 1934 issue copyright renewed? The 1962 Jan-Jun lists 1Feb1934-31May1934 and the 1962 Jul-Dec lists 12Sep1934-31Jan1935 issues. It seems to me that issues dated 1Jun1934-11Sep1934 were not renewed. Can someone verify? Ankry (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes seem like that particular issue would fall into {{PD-US-not renewed}}. I had no way of seeing the image description so thanks for that information Rosenzweig. The DR even missed that piece of critical information. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea: According to the file description this is a project of an official edict, not the edict itself. Why is it PD or why do not use its final form? Ankry (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Ankry: The “government edicts” doctrine covers all work made by any legislature in the course of that body’s “legislative duties,” which includes drafts for laws and other preliminary material, such as committee reports, &c. The Supreme Court confirmed this in Georgia v. PRO. “[L]egislators[ ]may not be considered the ‘authors’ of the works they produce in the course of their official duties as … legislators.” Georgia, 590 U.S. ____, ____–____ (slip op., 5–6). “Rather than attempting to catalog the materials that constitute ‘the law,’ the [government edicts] doctrine bars the officials responsible for creating the law from being considered the ‘author[s]’ of ‘whatever work they perform in their capacity’ as lawmakers.” Id., 590 U.S. at ____ (slip op., at 8) (quoting Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 253 (1888)). The doctrine “applies to whatever work legislators perform in their capacity as legislators. That of course includes final legislation, but it also includes explanatory and procedural materials legislators create in the discharge of their legislative duties. In the same way that judges cannot be the authors of their headnotes and syllabi, legislators cannot be the authors of (for example) their floor statements, committee reports, and proposed bills.” Id., 590 U.S. at ____ (slip op., at 9). “[C]opyright does not vest in works that are (1) created by … legislators (2) in the course of their … legislative duties.” Ibid. Thus, this draft legislation is covered by the government edicts doctrine, and is in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Ankry: The restriction is not specific in that regard, but I do think that “official” should be read to exclude drafts. Whether or not the work is acceptable on Wikimedia Commons, it is acceptable on English Wikisource, and so I ask that it be restored so that it can be moved there. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I question whether the Life magazine publication in 1965 was the first publication of this photograph. It was likely published around 1926. Abzeronow (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
If you think restoration with a new DR to clear up the copyright on this file is the best way to proceed, I won't argue with that. Famous Players-Lasky was folded into Paramount Pictures in 1933 so if this is a promotional photo with their name on it, that certainly points to 1920s publication. Abzeronow (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Fictional flags are unlikely in scope unless realistically useful eg. for a Wikipedia article or actually used in real world. See COM:NOTHOST. There is also possible copyright problem: you need to prove that the original source is freely licensed by the flag author. This particular flag is above COM:TOO and FoP does not apply. Ankry (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose These have clear and explicit copyright notices. In order to have them restored, an authorized representative of Leonardo must send a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Es liegt definitiv keine Urheberrechtsverletzung vor.
Ich möchte darum bitten, dass die Datei wiederhergestellt wird.
Vielen Dank.
Thorsten Schulz
Werbeagentur Schulz-Design
Oppose@Schulz-Design: Bei solchen Veröffentlichungen außerhalb von Wikimedia Commons brauchen wir grundsätzlich eine Freigabe per E-Mail (siehe COM:VRT/de). Wir können nämlich anhand des Wikimedia-Benutzerprofils nicht eindeutig feststellen, um wen es sich dabei tatsächlich handelt und Betrügereien mit falschen Nutzernamen und angeblichen Urheberrechten sind hier leider weit verbreitet. Alternativ würde auch eine Creative Commons-Lizensierung des Logos auf der Webseite von Schulz Design genügen.
P. S.: Bei Beiträgen auf Foren und Diskussionsseiten wie diesen hier, bitte immer mit vier Tilde-Zeichen unterschreiben ~~~~. Das dient der Dokumentation und fügt automatisch den Benutzernamen und einen Zeitstempel ein. De728631 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Comment Also, what do we think about the username "Thisisemmafromwiki" -- This is emma from wiki -- suggests to me that she is claiming to be a representative of headquarters. Does it violate Username policy? . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Ankry, good work. The situation with the portrait photo is indeed different. I will add permission to the artwork images and write to the client about the photo. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
As COM:SS § Software states, "In most cases, screenshots of computer software (which include programs, video games, operating systems) cannot be uploaded to Commons unless the software is released under a free software license that complies with the Commons licensing policy (software released under licenses that meet the OSI definition of 'Open Source' will meet the requirements)." The GPLv3 license is OSI-approved (GPL-3.0), and therefore, this screenshot does not constitute copyright infringement. — Newslingertalk13:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Because the GNU licenses, including GNP, require that a copy of the license be provided with every use of the licensed material, they make it very impractical for anyone to use licensed material unless it is part of a software distribution. Therefore policy here changed several years ago to forbid new uploads of images that relied on GNU licenses. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Actually, we make an explicit exception for software-related media in COM:L:
"However, screenshots of software under the GPL or a similar free software license are generally considered to be OK."
"GFDL is not permitted as the only acceptable license where all of the following are true ... The content is not a software logo, diagram or screenshot that is extracted from a GFDL software manual."
The licence not accepted on its own for new media was GNU GFDL (intended for manuals and books and therefore unsuitable for images). I have not seen anybody here complain about the GPL, and especially not about screenshots of programs licensed under the GPL. Moreover, the GPL does not require a copy of the license be provided with every use, instead the copy must carry prominent notices about the licence. The problem is of course that the GPL requires special handling of the source code, but I think we have not worried about that.
Regardless, we do allow screenshots of free software. If we want to see issues in that, we should handle that on a general level, not by deleting arbitrary individual screenshots.
Even the GFDL is allowed as only licence in some cases, such as when it was licenced long ago or the content is "a software logo, diagram or screenshot that is extracted from a GFDL software manual." –LPfi (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Support The image shows a generic underground train station of sorts. There is no sign of copyrightable architecture as far as I can tell. De728631 (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Reason: Temporary undeletion request based on ticket:2022020710001468. All we have is basically the uploader's words which is somewhat weak but nevertheless looks satisfactory because I don't see much reason to doubt the words either (such as something that suggests the works were previously published or evidence of them being derived from another artwork). I would like to review the deleted file pages if temporary undeleted. If it turns out that something concrete, beyond "this looks professional", is in the deleted file pages, I will go back to the ticket and continue verification. If not, I think we are good with keeping them restored. whym (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Done@Whym: Please let us know the outcome of your assessment, especially if the files need to be deleted again. Otherwise feel free to tag them with a valid VRT ticket. De728631 (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Since the ticket has some additional information (that I failed to mentioned/noticed before), I have tagged the files. No deletion is necessary as far as I'm concerned. whym (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Reason: may actually depict public domain buildings after all. Daphne Lantier who deleted these was a sock of INeverCry, whose deletions are a mix of rights and errors. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)06:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not sure about the minarets, they may or may not be old enough to be PD. The second picture, however, shows a nightly cityscape of a modern quarter of the city. There are lots of skyscrapers and several modern buildings featuring a purposefully designed facade. So I would rather oppose the undeletion of both images. De728631 (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I agree that the minarets may or may not be PD, so PCP applies and we cannot restore them. The city image certainly infringes on a number of architectural copyrights. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Looking at it now, I'm not sure if the year 1926 claimed by the uploader is true. The immediate source is at [6], no year is mentioned there. That hotel was built in 1925/1926, so the postcard could have been published in 1926. --Rosenzweigτ20:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that we cannot be certain of 1926, but the postcard linked does appear to be possibly 1920s and the usage of "New Bismarck Hotel" does seem to support that this was probably a few years within when this hotel opened (the old Bismarck hotel was demolished in 1924). I also don't see a copyright notice on the postcard so this seems like {{PD-US-no notice}}Abzeronow (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Es un trabajo propio. La fotografía fue tomada por mi, por eso no posee licencia de copyright.
Oppose While the photograph may be your own work, the Copa de La Liga Profesional de Fútbol Argentina is a non-free sculpture with a copyright of its own, and you may not publish photos of it without permission from the copyright holder of the trophy itself (see this image for reference). Please see also COM:Derivative works for a detailed explanation. De728631 (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I am the legal owner of this picture and it wasn't taken from Facebook, it's from my personal archive, from where it was uploaded to Facebook as well as Wikipedia. I request an immediate undelition, as there was no legal reason for the file to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PEproduction (talk • contribs) 16:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose In cases where a work has been published before without a free licence, our rules require that a permission email is sent by the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for instructions. Once that email has been processed and accepted by our volunteer response team, the file will be undeleted automatically. De728631 (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
As far as I understand from the deletion discussion, this file was uploaded with fake authorship (and perhaps fake license). Despite that, in fact the photo is under a free license: it is by G. Merzon and may be found on his personal site [7] under CC-BY-SA-2.0 license. Medvednikita (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Temporary undeletion
Requesting temporary undeletion of the following "blacked-out images" so that I can download them for social media purposes. I will give signal if I have already downloaded the files (so that these will be re-deleted). Archive.org didn't archive these when these were still up, hence I am requesting temporary undeletion.
Oppose The image does show the Kaaba and the Al-Haram mosque, but the background is dominated by the Abraj Al Bait Towers which are too recent to be out of copyright (actually images from that category are currently subject to deletion requests). De728631 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I previously mentioned the harry truman bust and you guys found it was on public display at the Capitol so it was allowed does the same go for the other busts including Dawes Garner Wallace Barkley Nixon Johnson Humphrey Agnew Ford Rockefeller Mondale Bush Quayle and Cheney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journey896 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the link that was used for the truman one to see https://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&view=subscriptionsummary&uri=full=3100001~!4687~!0 jo Davidson made dawes and Wallace in 1930 and 1947 respectively James Earle Fraser made Garner in 1943 Kalervo Kallio made Barkley in 58 Gualberto Rocchi did Nixon in 66 Jimilu Mason did Johnson in 66 Walker Kirtland Hancock did Humphrey Ford and Bush in 82 85 and 90 respectively William Frederick Behrends made Agnew and Cheny in 1995 and 2015 John Calabro did Rockefeller in 87 Judson R. Nelson did Mondale in 87 and finally Frederick E. Hart did Quayle is 2002 in regards to truman someone found out that the bust never had a copyright put on it to begin with not sure if it's true with the others as I don't know how to use the website that was used for truman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journey896 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
First of all, anything after 1989 is a no-go. They are copyrighted and will be able to be restored 70 years after the death of their creators. 1978-1989 is tricky because there was a period in which copyright could be attached after initial no notice. OK, I looked at both of Jo Davidson's statues on SIRIS and saw no copyright info. I'd Support restoration of this file and the Dawes bust if the photographs are also freely licensed. Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
This picture was added to show a clear example of an anti-racist skinhead both in look, symbol and visible text. This is an important part of the history of skinhead culture and of the culture of today. It was placed in the right places about SHARP-skinheads, anti-raist skinheads.
It was clearly stated by me that the picture belonged to me and that I gave Wikipedia the full rights to use it.
It seems to have been deleted withouth any reason (there was nothing visible), so I repeat: you have the full rights, from me (who is in the picture!) to use it. The reason to have it is educational about the history of anti-racist skinhead culture. This is a very important part of the culture, so I hope the picture can be put back and not delted again (as I give you the right to use it - again).
@Ransmyr: As the reason was stated as "No permission since 6 January 2022", it seems that there was some problem about how you stated the permission. If you are in the picture, the photographer is probably somebody else, and we need their permission. Probably they should mail VRT to tell they took the photo and release it under a specific free licence, such as {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}} or {{CC-zero}}. –LPfi (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ransmyr: Permission "to use" is not enough for Wikimedia Commons. We need a license which can be granted only by the owner of exclusive copyright of the photo (not the same as the owner of the photo). Ankry (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Owning a physical or digital copy of an image does not give you the right to freely license the image as required here. That right is owned by the actual photographer and can be transferred only in writing. In order to restore the image the actual photographer must freely license the image for any use -- not just Wikipedia -- using VRT or you must provide a free license together with a copy of the license from the photographer that allows you to freely license it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Info The subject of the 2001 photo is "Thomaz" and a 2020 photo of "Thomas Ransmyr" is available here. It looks like the same person, although almost 20 years apart. Thomas Ransmyr is now an established photographer. Thuresson (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Side note: While we could ask for VRT identity verification, IMO it is not necessary as this user was active in 2007. It is highly implausible for an imposter to be playing such a long con, so I am confident that the user is the real deal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠18:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei wurde in Verbindung MIT einem Eintrag auf Wikipedia hochgeladen. Dieser Eintrag wurde auf Wikipedia gelöscht und die Datei auf Commons verschoben. Daher nun die Anfrage zur Wiederherrstellung UNABHÄNIG des/eines Eintrages. --Diamus Fidibus (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
When uploading the photo you declared that you are the photographer and exclusive copyright holder of the photo and that you grant an irrevokable free license.
Six days later, in a Deletion Request you declared that copyright status of the photo is unclear (Die Datei wurde in Verbindung MIT einem Eintrag auf Wikipedia hochgeladen. Dieser Eintrag wurde auf Wikipedia gelöscht und die Datei auf Commons verschoben. Daher nun die Anfrage zur Wiederherrstellung UNABHÄNIG des/eines Eintrages).
Could you, please, elaborate what did you mean by the unclear copyright status and why do you think that it is already resolved? We cannot accept on-wiki declared licensing by people who provide contradictory information. Ankry (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Owning a picture doesn't make you the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer. We also need to know the date of creation, and if it was published published, and where. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I hereby affirm that I Lise Fouassier represents AMI Paris company holder of the exclusive copyright of this picture as shown here: Alexandre Mattiussi_portrait.jpg and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Lise Fouassier
Global Communications & Digital Manager
I believe that this should be undeleted, as I have taken this photo directly from the Italian Wikimedia directly, and couldn't find a way to use the Italian version during editing, so I reuploaded it to the English Wikimedia.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyGoatUnicorn (talk • contribs) 23:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose This is obviously a half-tone, so it has been scanned, probably from a magazine. Since the first of these tanks was produced in 1980, it cannot possibly be PD from age. It may be PD for another reason, but that must be proven. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Please restore deleted of Edward VIII Portrait - 1936.jpg, user cannot view what he look like, replaced Edward VIII coin, There is no portrait image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernogood (talk • contribs) 14:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
circa 1926 American photograph of a musician. Could have been a promotional photograph that would have been disseminated to the public at the time. Abzeronow (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Wall painting in world war ii jeath war museum.jpg file, when I visited the World War II jeath war museum for Japanese war research, I took a photo as a memento and donated it to a wiki article. Officials at the World War II jeath war museum allowed permission to take photographs, for evidences only, there is only an admission certificate to the World War II jeath war museum, see the photo below admission certificate to World War II jeath war museum.
Not done: None of these files have been deleted. So, since this is not a request for undeletion, I will answer on your user talk page. --De728631 (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for being late to request this, because I wasn't active for a while here.
It seems like my 'screenshot' of a game called "Total War: Rome 2" has copyright. since I took the screenshot myself and didn't download it from the internet (or anything similar), I don't think it has copyright, does it? Perhaps I'm mistaken, maybe a screenshot has copyright too. By the way, Let me know if something was wrong with it, otherwise please make that screenshot back.
Oppose Regardless of who takes a screenshot, the game itself, i.e. the output on your screen is copyrighted and non-free so you may not publish any screenshots of that content without permission from the game's developers or the publisher. See also COM:Derivative works. De728631 (talk) 11:37, 21 February 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.
They appear to be deleted because they were listed as "own work" which sadly every new uploader does. However they appear to be {{PD-RO-photo}}. Romania did award copyright to ordinary portrait photographs prior to 1996, and even if they are considered art photography, they were given just 5 years protection. This applies to images made prior to 1991 (1996-5 for art photos) and all non-art prior to 1996. --RAN (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose That is correct, except that the five years begins with publication and we have no evidence of when they were first published. Since uploading here counts as publication, the best we can do is restore them in five years. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Reason: Copyright holder (Vaishnava Foundation; CEO Srihari Vijayaraghavan) has sent copyright release for this media work to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Vaishnava1 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was taken personally by me and violates no copyright law. It is a screenshot of an iPhone picture on portrait mode. I am a close personal friend of the subject of this Wikipedia page and was asked to upload it.
Good morning!
I'd like to make an undeletion request for the file I've uploaded to the Wikipedia a while ago. I'v alredy contacted VRT team.
the file name is File:Icons of Russia Book Kniga o Rossii.png
Oppose The VRT crew has a substantial backlog which may need several days or even weeks to be processed. When your email has been approved, the VRT team will ask for the file to be undeleted, so please be patient and wait. De728631 (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
This file is a work of my own and company. We are using this gif in our website development. Hence I'd request you to please restore it
File Name - File:Introducing_the_LeBron_17_Nike.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohitt4ever (talk • contribs) 10:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC) (UTC)
For all documents previously published elsewhere, we need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Also what's the educational use of this file? Please read COM:SCOPE. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The file File:Claudia Durastanti.jpg is legitimately owned by Mrs. Durastanti, who asked me to upload it free of copyrights, since the previous photo was unauthorized.
The deletion request has been advanced by the very user who uploaded the unauthorized photo.
Please keep the photograph online, since it is Mrs. Durastanti's will and she ownes it, having acquired all the rights from the photographer.
Oppose In such cases we need a copy of the written contract with the photographer emailed to our volunteer response team, so we can verify the transfer of copyright. Please see COM:VRT for the email address. De728631 (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose "public use" is not sufficient for Wikimedia Commons. We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Yann (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Weak oppose While the logo is PD, I think we have also a copyrighted photo here. And the website declared as the dource is not freely licensed. Ankry (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, while the original logo banner/poster is definitely PD, this version is broken. And while destruction is not "creative" it may make it not purely 2D. However "weak" as I am unsure. But this is similar to painting frames which we remove. Ankry (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
IMO, this is similar to a crack in a painting. Most old paintings have cracks, but we still accept their 2D reproduction. Yann (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Support The work is fundamentally 2D. As Yann says, oil paintings are not completely flat -- they may have cracks and some painters use a lot of paint that has some shape, but Bridgeman still applies. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Hallo MquadratDD. Solche Freigaben müssen direkt vom Urheber, in diesem Fall Herrn Braun, per E-Mail eingereicht werden. Siehe dazu COM:VRT/de. Weil diese Freigaben in der Vergangenheit zu oft gefälscht wurden, akzeptieren wir leider keine weitergeleiteten Genehmigungen mehr. Noch ein Hinweis: Bitte unterschreibe Deine Beiträgen auf Foren oder Diskussionsseiten wie diesen hier mit vier Tilde-Zeichen ~~~~. Das dient der Dokumentation und fügt automatisch den Benutzernamen und einen Zeitstempel ein. De728631 (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Бих искал да кача изображение на Проф. Ангел Кирков за статия, която пиша в момента. Името на файла е "Проф._Ангел_Кирков". Снимката е собственост на семейния архив на Проф. Ангел Кирков и аз съм част от семейството му. Ако тази снимка се появява някъде другаде в интернет, то бъдете сигурни, че тя е излязла от семейния архив предварително. Източникът й си остава семейния архив на Проф. Ангел Кирков.
Благодаря ви за разбирането! Моля за потвърждение, че снимката няма да бъде изтрира.
This is apparently not a request for undeletion but a request not to delete an upcoming upload. @A.Savin, EugeneZelenko, and Ahonc: Could any of you please inform this user on their talk page about copyright requirements for photos from family archives, the possibilities of attributions, etc.? Otherwise there is nothing we can do here. De728631 (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
It's hard to tell. A lot depends on age. I have several Bulgarian friends who knows Russian very well but they studied in school in 1980s. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
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.
Justin Greywolf
2022-02-23
[generated using relgen.js]
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose This does not appear to be a selfie. If it is not a selfie, then in order to restore it to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b) User:Jgreywolf must send a free license together with a copy of the written license from the actual photographer giving him the right to freely license it for any use by anybody anywhere. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Miyuki Meinaka: Please explain more precisely: where exactly we can see the declared license and how this license declaration relates to the image you wish to undelete. Without precise information why the particular license applies to the particular image we cannot go on here. And, as you can see, we lack Japanese-speaking advanced users. Ankry (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ankry: https://calil.jp/doc/stamp_caution.html → "写真投稿の注意" = "Caution of photo posting", "撮影した画像にはCCライセンス(CC-BY) が適用されます。図書館の紹介などのため第三者に提供される場合がありますので予めご了承ください。" = "Photos you took are applied to CC license (CC-BY). Please note that your photos may be provided to a third party to introduce libraries." If you click the word "CCライセンス(CC-BY)", you will get "CC BY 2.1 JP" license page.
Support per above. The link to the licensing page shown above can be found on that website by clicking the dropdown menu on the right side just above the orange button and selecting the last entry. So photos there come with a CC BY 2.1 JP licence. De728631 (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Buongiorno,
mi sembra opportuno richiamare la vostra cortese attenzione sull'annullamento di quest'immagine.
Detengo i diritti d'immagine sulle opere e sulle memorie di Maria Casalanguida: ho già inviato il documento in questione che è conservato su Commons.
Chiedo di annullare il provvedimento sul file in oggetto perchè la fotografia può essere prodotta sulla pagina in costruzione di Maria Casalanguida su Wikipedia.
Grazie per l'attenzione e rimango in attesa della vostra cortese comunicazione.
Dott. Gianpiero Menniti--Gianpiero Menniti (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose This image was taken from Facebook. If you are, as you claim, the actual photographer, then please upload the image as it came from the camera, without the Facebook EXIF. Sending a message using VRT is unlikely to be helpful. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Buongiorno Gianpiero Menniti, la procedura non è corretta. Il documento deve essere inviato dalla pittrice stessa (o inoltrato da un familiare) al servizio VRT, scrivendo a permissions-itwikimedia.org. In seguito, tutte le opere che indicherà nella mail saranno autorizzate. Grazie Ruthven(msg)13:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
As I commented in the UnDR above, "Oppose This does not appear to be a selfie. If it is not a selfie, then in order to restore it to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b) User:Jgreywolf must send a free license together with a copy of the written license from the actual photographer giving him the right to freely license it for any use by anybody anywhere." Does the message received at VRT satisfy one of (a) or (b)? Which one? . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@FormalDude: Can you provide an answer to Jim's concerns? We don't need any details wrt to VRT confidentiality, but a quick info on either option a) or b) would be appreciated before we restore the file. De728631 (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@De728631 The image has been restored temporarily. The VRTS ticket authorisation is not satisfying and probably the VRT agent will answer soon requesting a permission directly from the photographer. Ruthven(msg)13:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I think in general, we should just automatically restore files upon receipt of VRT correspondence. This has several advantages: 1) non-admin VRT agents will not have to make another request here; 2) the file description can be tagged {{Permission received}} with the ticket number, so that future correspondence which references the same file but without the same ticket number can be connected back to the original chain of messages; 3) if the sender/copyright holder is not the uploader, then it is unclear how they could release the rights to a file that they cannot see, blindly trusting that the contents are as expected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠20:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: I disagree. This is a case in point. We have a VRT message that is "not satisfying". I'm guessing it comes from the subject and offers no evidence that he actually has the right to freely license the image. I don't know what percentage of images for which we receive VRT messages are never restored because the sender does not have the rights and cannot arrange for a free license, but it's not negligible. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: And what happens when the VRT message is "not satisfying" because it doesn't appear to come from the copyright holder? The sender will need to get the copyright holder to send a message. But can the copyright holder really consent to a release form when the referenced URL does not work? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠21:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Separately, there is a very clear argument in favor of automatically restoring images deleted as copyvio: they would not have been deleted so soon if they had been tagged by the uploader with {{Permission pending}}, and we don't want to punish people for procedural errors by refusing to display their images until VRT is fully confirmed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠21:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I hereby affirm that I represent Rick Caruso, the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work as shown here: File:Mc-RC.pdf and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Matthew Kelly
Appointed Representative of Rick Caruso
February 25, 2022
Hi Matthew, you need to write that to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. And to give them a proof why you are representative. The better way would be to ask the photographer to write to them, because he or she owns the copyright in first place. --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Info The user who uploaded is this has been blocked for sockpuppeting. Thuresson (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Done: PD-textlogo. @Mvcg66b3r: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Support Good catch. I think we can safely restore it.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Not done: The image has not yet been deleted, but see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Er Prem Anand.jpg. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Question Are you sure that you've uploaded the image? It appears that this was deleted due to the file page being created without any media file being uploaded there. I see that you've posted this without having logged in, keep in mind that unfortunately it is not possible to contribute media without having logged in. If you wanted to upload the file via chunked upload it is in fact sometimes beneficial to created a file page, and then upload, but you can also just enter the information about the file in the description field and it will be applied to the page, when the page does not yet exist. I am also unsure what is the policy of recreating a file page which has been deleted for a reason such as this. But if you intend to upload the file, I would 
Weak support I do not think the drawing is a DW of the photo as all attributes making the photo copyrightable seem to be removed. I do not think that making a view of a 3D geometric shape from a specific angle can be considered copyrightable. The photo can be rather considered a source of information about the architectural work in this case. Ankry (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
That, however, is not a free licence because it was granted by the copyright holder, but it refers to Crown Copyright having expired due to old age. That is not the case here. De728631 (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment It seems like we've never really decided what kind of copyright restrictions on reproduction / derivative works are allowed in a "freely licensed" work. Per precedent, the answer is not "none": we allow images of outdoor sculptures in Germany despite restrictions on reproductions of the 3D object without the sculptor's permission, and images of US skylines containing copyrighted billboards despite restrictions on cropping. We'll have to get more clarity from the Australian government on what exactly is restricted, but if it narrowly targets the making of physical cloth flags, I fail to see the difference from FoP-Germany. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Neutral as the government hasn't exactly specified which license it's under. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep keine Commons-Richtlinien sind tangiert (bezüglich beider Versionen). Daher war die Löschung nach Gutsherrnart. / no WM Commons policies are affected by restoring both versions. In return, the deletion was based on "unlawful" grounds. --Mateus2019 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Half done: I've split the histories in File:Parafia sw Jozefa Pan Jezus Milosierny.jpg and File:Parafia sw Jozefa Pan Jezus Milosierny2.jpg, but not restored the "fatal stain" version, as it has been reverted and thus don't look really useful. Ruthven (msg) 07:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination for undeletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg_and_File:柴灣天主教海星小學興華（二）邨校舍_(1999年).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg_and_File:柴灣天主教海星小學興華（二）邨校舍_(1995年).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg_and_File:柴灣天主教海星小學興華（二）邨校舍_(1993年).jpg){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg_and_File:New_Dutch_ID_Card_(Back)_(2021).png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![149 File:Новый дизайн бутылка пива ТМ "Львівське".jpg](#File:Новый_дизайн_бутылка_пива_ТМ_"Львівське".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_MURAQ-E-KHATTATI_(%D9%86%D9%82%D9%88%D8%B4%D9%90_%D8%B1%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A7_%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%85_%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%B9_%D8%AE%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B7%DB%8C).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg){kind=link}
_(22778463887).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2021).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg_and_File:New_Dutch_ID_Card_(Back)_(2021).png){kind=link}
.jpg_and_File:New_Dutch_ID_Card_(Back)_(2021).png){kind=link}
.jpg_and_File:New_Dutch_ID_Card_(Back)_(2021).png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg){kind=link}
_127_(25910368047).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_shn.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(no_freedom_of_panorama_phl_blacked-out).png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
(2017-12-30)_(no_freedom_of_panorama_phl_blacked-out).png){kind=link}
Weak oppose While the logo is PD, I think we have also a copyrighted photo here. And the website declared as the dource is not freely licensed. Ankry (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
wikimedia.org. In seguito, tutte le opere che indicherà nella mail saranno autorizzate. Grazie Ruthven (msg) 13:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
