Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-05

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

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

File:Rudy Atencio.jpg

@Geo Swan and Ruthven: This file was deleted as "Unused photo of an unknown person – out of COM:SCOPE", although it was pointed out that the person was a named politician. I don't know at what level to put the threshold for politicians (and I don't know this one), but the rationale was moot. The file may have been uploaded as advertisement, but so what? We have no reason to discourage uploading images of politicians in early stages of their carrier. We want to have these images when, perhaps sometime, the persons get famous, instead of only then hunting for the images (and probably get a more one-sided collection). The images may also be valuable as something like a cross-section of candidates. –LPfi (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Info As far as I can tell, subject dropped out of the race in April 2020 long before the election. en:2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Washington#District 3. Thuresson (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose We considered this image a week ago and decided not to restore it. We agreed then that an image of the subject has a place on Commons but that both of these are likely copyvios and that a free license from the actual photographer is required. Therefore this should be closed because all of the discussion above (except Yann) is moot and there is nothing here that raises a new issue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


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

Files in Category:Protocetus

Files deleted here[3], undelete per discussion here:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Concerning File:Protocetus BW.jpg: in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Protocetus we see:
The artist is the uploader
The declared author is Nobu Tamura, the uploader is User:A. C. Tatarinov. @FunkMonk: could you explain this, please? Ankry (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 Support Ankry, I don't understand. When I look at File:Protocetus BW.jpg, I see uploader User:ArthurWeasley~commonswiki claiming own work. I think we have established that Nobu Tamura is User:ArthurWeasley~commonswiki.
I also note that part of the controversy surrounding these files is that he has (or had) them on his web site at high resolution with CC-BY-NC-ND and at low resolution with CC-BY. Several years ago we established that under copyright law there is only one "work" whatever the resolution and therefore if the works appear with a CC-BY license, then that license is effective for all resolutions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Marino-lagattolla-head-of-seo-specialist.jpg

Hello, the photo File:Marino-lagattolla-head-of-seo-specialist.jpg is just me and so I agree to the creative common laws for my image. Thank you for your time and for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laga77olla (talk • contribs) 13:25, 28 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose We do not keep personal photos of non-contributors. Commons is not Facebook. I also note that you claim to be the photographer. Since the image does not appear to be a selfie, that may be incorrect. If so, it is a serious violation of Commons rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Rudolf Prack.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The picture is from the Austrian State Archive. In Austria, the copyright for an image expires 50 years after the image was taken. This image has been created in the 1940s. Quasitiv (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Also note that while a 1940s image might be PD in Austria, if the photographer died before 1952, it cannot be PD in the USA until 95 years after creation., see COM:URAA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Kadiri-on-board-mumbai-express.jpg

I AM SORRY THAT I HAVE NOT MENTIONED THE SOURCE OF THIS IMAGE SOURCE :- https://indiarailinfo.com/departures/kadiri-kry/6082 --Pmk123456 (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No evidence of a free license on this site. --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, clear copyvio. --Yann (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Category:Image pages created for Flickr upload bot without files

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This cat is used by Template:LicenseReviewMenu, should not be deleted although it is empty. Stang★ 14:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Stang. --Yann (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by SpectraKo

The game these screenshots are taken from (SCP - Containment Breach ) are licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 as seen at the bottom of their website

See related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SpectraKo‎. Yann (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  •  Support As I mentioned in the deletion request page linked above, any screenshots which do not contain the likeness of the Untitled 2004-derived model for SCP-173 are CC-BY-SA 3.0. Any images containing the model have restricted licensing terms incompatible with Commons. aismallard (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thuresson: Please undelete?--Trade (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The copyright status is not as clear as described above. The page cited above has
"© The content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License"

Note that it says "this page", not the more usual and more general "this site", while another page has:

"Copyright Undertow Games © 2022"

The file descriptions say only "Source = SCP: Containment Breach", so we do not know which copyright notice is applicable and must therefore assume that the second one applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

indiedb.com is not the game developer. The explicit copyright notice on the game developer's site trumps anything said on another site. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Actually they are contradictory. The game developer's site has an explicit copyright notice without a free license. The fact that indiedb.com shows a cc-by license can't change that. Github also can't change that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The indie site I'll give you, however in the case of the repository it's the developers who set the repo license, not GH-the-company. Even if they did so mistakenly, CC licenses provide no mechanism for retraction, and I don't think it was mistaken. And again, 'copyrighted' doesn't necessarily mean 'all-rights-reserved' -- it can serve as a simple reminder that copyright is held and an explication of who holds it, even if certain permissions are released under the CC license. Arlo James Barnes 06:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Again, the developer's site has an explicit copyright notice without a free license. You say "CC licenses provide no mechanism for retraction", but in a case where a third party applied the license incorrectly, the license doesn't need retraction because the license never existed. We don't know whether GitHub put the license on it as instructed by the developer or not, so the Precautionary Principle requires us to assume that it was an error.
You don't need to explain twice that "copyrighted" and "CC-BY" can co-exist. Of course they can, since, with some exceptions, everything is copyrighted until it expires. If the coexistence were not possible, then a CC-BY license would not be possible. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I apologise, I didn't mean to belabour my point; I just misinterpreted what you were saying as asserting that the (c) on the site was evidence against the CC license being intentional, not merely absence of evidence for such a conclusion. In any case, I emailed the dev organisation and linked to this discussion, so hopefully the message reaches them and they weigh in. (edit: forgot to mention that since the game is a derivative of the SCP wiki which is By-SA 3, if they didn't intend to apply the license on Github then that would mean they would be out of compliance with the SA clause, which seems much less plausible to me than concluding they are intentionally in compliance [aside from the SCP-173 model].) Arlo James Barnes 03:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Jim is correct that the statement at scpcbgame.com is not helpful given the wording "this site" (the game and website are separate works and the game appears not even to be hosted on scpcbgame.com--download mirrors are undertowgames.com and mega.nz). If one actually downloads the game, however, the readme in the .zip says "[t]his game is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License" (underline addded), which is, of course, explicit and resolves issues of which work (game v site) is referenced. --Эlcobbola talk 14:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Undelete File: David W Orr 2010.jpg

Hi,

I am requesting undeletion of the file -- David W Orr 2010.jpg. Wikimedia volunteers asked David Orr to identify the photographer who took the picture of him and to acquire permission to use the photo. David is not proficient on a computer and has been busy writing a book. Therefore he did not respond to the request before a deadline. I am attempting to update his Wikipedia page, and am willing to acquire permission from the photographer and submit it to Wikimedia.

Please let me know exactly what kind of permission form should be signed by the photographer. Thank you.

I am a novice at Wikipedia, so thanks for your patience and assistance.

--Keep Colorado Wild (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Keep Colorado Beautiful

 Oppose The procedure is explained at VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Not done, please follow the instructions at COM:VRT. The file may be undeleted if and when the request is successfully processed by a VRT volunteer. Thuresson (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Jose Krakover retrato.jpg

Enlazador de mundos File:Jose Krakover retrato.jpg Solicito sea restaurada por ser una foto familiar de mas de 50 años. Autor no identificado y fallecido por su antigüedad.

--Enlazador de mundos (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Enlazador de mundos: Owning a picture doesn't give you the copyright, which usually rests with the photographer. We need to know the date, the author, and the place of first publication. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. No answer. --Yann (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:JRD with Lech Walesa.jpg

Resubmitting this photo from the personal collection of John R. Davis Jr. This is not a copyrighted work.--JRDInfo (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@JRDInfo: Owning a picture doesn't give you the copyright, which usually rests with the photographer. We need to know the date, the author, and the place of first publication. Yann (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
This photo is from John R. Davis Jr.'s personal collection. It was taken at his residence by Helen Davis. JRDInfo (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@JRDInfo: Then we need the formal written permission for a free license from Helen Davis. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The image might be undeleted if and when we get a permission. --Yann (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Baker Cable.jpg

Resubmitting this image from John Roger Davis Jr.'s personal collection. It is not a copyrighted work.--JRDInfo (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support PD US gov. Yann (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. @JRDInfo: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Bi-weekly press briefing by UNIS Geneva

When I originally posted this picture, there wasn't a sufficient link to the copyrights. These can be found here:

Picture: https://www.flickr.com/photos/unisgeneva/16959282568/

Copyright license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/

I hope this is sufficient to undelete the image. If it is easier/better to add the picture myself, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klhartog (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Both NC and ND are not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Kid Rock Bad Reputation.jpg

There was absolutely NO copyright violations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasthedarkenguine (talk • contribs) 00:55, 3 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose It is a copyrighted album cover. No source was given but there is no reason to believe that it was freely licensed at the source. In order to restore it to Commons, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. Clear copyright violation. --Yann (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Popieluszko Anniversary.jpg

File came from John R. Davis Jr. personal collection. Taken by Official US Embassy Photographer--JRDInfo (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@JRDInfo: Owning a picture doesn't give you the copyright, which usually rests with the photographer. We need to know the date, the author, and the place of first publication. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
This photo is in John R. Davis Jr.'s personal collection and was likely taken by an American Embassy of Warsaw representative, or by one of the many Polish journalists who attended the event, the first anniversary of Father Popieluszko's death in October 1985. JRDInfo (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
It would be OK if taken by an official photographer from the US Embassy of Warsaw, but we would need the permission from the author if taken by a journalist. Yann (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Double checked - official US Embassy photographer. So this should be okay to use. Do I need to fill out a form somewhere? JRDInfo (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done as PD-USGov per above. Ankry (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Bush In Poland 1989.jpg

Resubmitting this photo from the personal collection of John R. Davis Jr It is not a copyrighted work. Taken by official Whitehouse Photographer --JRDInfo (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@JRDInfo: This might be PD-USgov, but I can't find any copy on the Internet. Could you tell us how you got this picture? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
This is a photo taken at the home of John R. Davis Jr, while he was Ambassador to Poland, during the visit of President George H.W. Bush. This is an original copy from John R. Davis Jr.'s personal papers. It was likely taken by a White House Photographer. JRDInfo (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 Support then. This information should be added in the file description. Yann (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Have done so and republished. Thank You JRDInfo (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Logo-clermontferrand-2022.jpg

Hi,

This is a very simple logo which is acceptable on Commons as it's not copyrighted per COM:TOO. I will fix the license (and other metadata) after restoration ({{PD-textlogo}}).

Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 Support as {{PD-textlogo}} Ankry (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Volker Burkert.jpg

We now have explicit confirmation that this image is in the public domain at Ticket:2022021410007225. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@VernoWhitney: Temporarily undeleted, please update the image description page accordingly. Thuresson (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done - closing. Ankry (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:O Tarana-Burke CS.jpg

Im not sure what is needed because this photo was simply retrieved from google images this is the website https://pittnews.com/article/127470/opinions/saying-metoo-streets-not-just-tweets/. It seems it is for public use. I can also use this one which says its from public source: https://www.publicsource.org/tarana-burke-talks-to-a-pittsburgh-crowd-about-the-roots-of-metoo-and-her-response-to-its-viral-takeoff/. or this one: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-04-06/social-justice-activist-tarana-burke-lands-cbs-studios-production-dealFoorgood (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose No evidence for the declared CC-BY-SA 4.0 license provided; "for public use" is not the same as "freely licensed". We need an evidence that Christian Snyder has granted the free license. Ankry (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)  Oppose Everything you see on the Web is for public use, which is to say, you can look at it. Very little that you see on the Web is freely licensed -- you may not take it and use it for your own purposes or put it on your Web site or in a book. Commons accepts only media that is freely licensed -- that can be used for any purpose by anyone anywhere. All three of the sites you list above have explicit copyright notices. You can look at them, but not reuse anything on them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
So how do do i find pictures that are freely licensed since im sure not every uploader gets in contact with the photographer?Foorgood (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Similar to how we ask Wikipedia editors to write their own text (someone else's text is covered by copyright), the easiest way is to take your own photos and license them. That is of course more difficult than writing text, but that is the situation. It's either that, or convince other photographers to license images. Flickr does give the ability to license photos with acceptable licenses; you can do a search there with "commercial use & mods allowed" filter to see if there are any you can use. (Also "no known copyright restrictions" and "US Government works", but those are typically just library and/or government ones, so unlikely to have general images). Not many photographers do, understandably, but it's a line we can't get around. Some photos are on en-wiki as "fair use" but those can't be uploaded to Commons, and there are tight restrictions on them even there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, copyright violation. --Yann (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Files: Canonizzazione di Maria Goretti (1950).jpg and File:Giovanni XXIII durante il Concilio Vaticano II (Lothar Wolleh).jpg

Although this user has uploaded many images that were copyvios and has abused multiple accounts, there is no reason to delete this images because the license of both files were ok, they were {{PD-Italy}} as they complied with the terms of that license, and were properly linked and the information was properly documented. Also, I saw that a lot of photographs with similar features were also deleted en masse by the same user: example, File:Giovanni XXIII durante il Concilio Vaticano II (Lothar Wolleh).jpg (which was requested for SD and later kept by King of Hearts and declared in a DR that it was also PD in Italy). I think it would be better reconsider the restoration unless there's evidence otherwise, this is, unless is presented new evidence which declares those files are not free and PD-Italy is not valid. 79.145.148.64 21:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Comment, here is cited the original source for the file Canonizzazione di Maria Goretti (1950).jpg.
79.145.148.64 21:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose the first image. As can be seen at the cited page, the first image is a Time/Life image from 1950. It is most likely therefore that the country of origin is not Italy, but the USA. Time/Life has been diligent about renewing copyrights, so I think we must assume that it will be under copyright until 1/1/2046. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 Comment, In the case of Canonizzazione di Maria Goretti (1950).jpg, with the new evidence, it is better to keep the file deleted until 2046. I also,  oppose to undelete Canonizzazione di Maria Goretti (1950).jpg.
79.145.148.64 19:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

One ✓ Done as PD-Italy, the other  Not done as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Polovkov_Ivan_Petrovich2.jpg

Dear Gbawden, please undelete the image "Polovkov_Ivan_Petrovich2.jpg". It was granted for publication by Natalia Polovkova, the daughter of I.V.Polovkov and the author of the photo within limited license, where the author should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OgnevESL (talk • contribs) 06:22, 3 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose You claimed that you were the actual photographer when you uploaded the image. Now you claim that the photographer was the subject's daughter. The image looks like a formal portrait taken by a studio photographer, not a casual snapshot. In order for it to be restored to Commons, the actual photographer must grant a free license using VRT or you must show that it is PD for some reason. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Keri-Lynn.png

Hello Turelio, Please undelete the following photos: File:Keri-Lynn.png, File:Keri-Lynn First Born.jpg

The reason for my request is simple: As I have already stated, I own all of my own material and works.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Thank you. --Keri-Lynn (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose As for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose: In addition to having appeared elsewhere, copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject. Accordingly, as you purport to be the subject and the image is not a selfie, evidence of permission from the actual author is needed. This also appears a COM:NOTHOST issue regardless of copyright. We are not a venue for your self-promotion. Эlcobbola talk 17:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Vivek Pandey.jpg

Vivek Pandey A RTI Activist, Freelance Journalist, MBBS And Youtuber, he have public identity and this photo was not uploaded on personal basis. Taken from reference given below https://famepublish.com/news/vivek-pandey-a-rti-activist-freelance-journalist-mbbs-and-youtuber/

He is one of the Youngest RTI activist in india his work can be seen in google esw4cg with all his public profile.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vivek+Pandey+activist&oq=v&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60l3j69i57j35i39j0i67j46i67.699j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

So I request to restore his photo Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhkaran321 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 4 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose First, I note that the image was uploaded by User:Vvk755, who claimed he was the actual photographer. Given that the image does not appear to be a selfie, I wonder if Vvk755 is actually Vivek Pandy. If so, someone else was actually the photographer and the image is a copyvio.
Second, as noted above, it appears on the Web. It is not noted above that it appears with a clear copyright notice, "© FAME Publish- All Rights Reserved.".
Therefore, policy requires that the actual photographer provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obvious copyright violation. --Yann (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:AIYM cuttack.jpg

photo was taken from mobile so not any the copy right policies applied on this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandy 1989 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright violation. No valid reason for restoration. --Yann (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:AIYM logo.jpg

logo was created with 1924-2022 ( up to date) so image was not used from any where so don't consider as copyright violation [[5]]

 Not done: Copyright violation. No valid reason for restoration. --Yann (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Pappu Yadav and Lalu Prasad Yadav.jpg

Old image was uploaded from book so its not Copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandy 1989 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 4 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pappu Yadav and Lalu Prasad Yadav.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright violation. No valid reason for restoration. --Yann (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Benes Serie CV 19 (1).jpg and others

Hello, can you please undelete the following photos?

There's a valid permission in ticket:2022030610003644. Thanks, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Martin Urbanec: fyi. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ruedi Rüegg.jpg

It`s important to show a picture of the person wich the article is about. All rights form the picture belong to me, because I took it. --Designalltag (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Comment Small image uploaded without a license. Yann (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Small image, no useful EXIF. I suggest that Designalltag should upload it again at full camera resolution. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Antranig Fedayee.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: from English Wikipedia, speedily deleted as violation of artist's copyright (no FOP in Armenia back then). However, {{FoP-Armenia}} since 2013, if ever the sculpture is outdoors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Also:

- if ever this is outdoors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 Support Both. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Сергей Венедиктович Сартаков, 1977, Ялта.jpg

Also:File:Игорь Ляпин, 1985, Карачарово.jpg
File:Игорь Ляпин, 1983, из архива Сартаковых.jpg

The rights to the images belong to me - Mikhail Sartakov. Pictured is my late grandfather and father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msartakov (talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In each case, you claimed that you were the actual photographer, but in at least one case the File Description suggests that is not correct. Your comment above raises the same question. Please remember that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right usually rests with the actual photographer or his heirs. Please explain whether you were the actual photographer and, if not, who was. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:JRD with Lech Walesa.jpg

Checked source. This is a digital copy of an original in Ambassador John R. Davis Jr.'s private collection. The original photograph is from official US Embassy Photographer. --JRDInfo (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-USgov. @JRDInfo: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ongais 1977 VPJ6B Indy.jpg

This image should be in the public domain by virtue of being published without a copyright notice before 1978. I had added the copyright tag to it before it was deleted ({{PD-US-no notice}}). Seanbarnett (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, where was it published then? Thuresson (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose No response to a relevant question. Thuresson (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. No answer. --Yann (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Placide Konan.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022042010011633. --Mussklprozz (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Milei en TN - A dos voces.jpg

The video (when the image comes) actually has CC BY license because it is below on the description in YouTube, and the uploaded had agree to “release” the rights under that license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejitao123 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 May 2022‎ (UTC)

@Alejitao123: Where is this information please? Link to Youtube. Thuresson (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@Thuresson: If you see below in the description, it mentions that the video has licensed under CC BY, and not the YouTube standard license. For more information, see this.
Sorry, but I do not see any license information. Here is the full description:

Fragmento de "A Dos Voces", emitido el miércoles 13 de abril del 2022.

★ Suscribite a nuestro canal → [link removed]

★ Informate sobre las noticias desde nuestra web → https://tn.com.ar/

★ Y no te olvides de seguirnos en las redes! Facebook → https://www.facebook.com/todonoticias/ Instagram → https://www.instagram.com/todonoticias/ Twitter → https://www.twitter.com/todonoticias

#TN #TodoNoticias #Noticias #A2V #ADosVoces

Thuresson (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No CC-BY license in YT. Ankry (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Kid Rock Bad Reputation.jpg

I know for a fact that I did NOT violate ANY copyright rules, I used something that's called FAIR USE and I feel like I'm getting censored when there's nothing I did wrong. Also why is it ok for other album covers to be on here when I pretty much followed the exact same steps to upload something that is fair use. This isn't fair User:thomasthedarkenguineUser talk:thomasthedarkenguine 23:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair use is not accepted on Commons. Yann (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Yann is right, fair use is acceptable on the English Wikipedia and certain other Wikipedias but not here. All uploads at Commons need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose. De728631 (talk)
I uploaded the image locally at the English Wikipedia as en:File:KidRock Bad Reputation.jpg so it can be used in the article about that album. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No Fair Use in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Promises Film.jpg

To Whom It May Concern,

I hereby affirm that I represent Painted Legacy Productions, LLC., the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the following media:

the content attached to this email

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

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

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

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

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

James Naleski Co-founder of Painted Legacy Productions, LLC. 2022-05-06

[generated using relgen.js]

Please note: this email is in line with Painted Legacy Productions, LLC's contact form found here: https://www.jamesnaleski.com/contact

Additional Information regarding can be found here: Company structure: https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.painted_legacy_productions_llc.f7db62f153ccdb2f185c82047d00caf4.html IMDb Media Copyright: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt19244426/mediaviewer/rm29563905/

We have sent multiple emails without any response. Thank you for helping us with this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnF2039 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

See Ticket:2022042410006212. Yann (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: and what is your opinion basing on the ticket? Requests related to VRT tickets should go to COM:VRTN. Ankry (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not a VRT volunteer, so I don't have access to the ticket. I did write a message on COM:VRTN#File:Promises Film.jpg. Yann (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The file will be undeleted if and when a permission is received and validated by the VRT team. --Yann (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Alia Zuberi ex MP on 9 July 19 at Dr PL Punia’s residence at New Delhi.jpg

 Question Does PD in India extend to photographs taken by government officials in the course of their work? This appears to be a photograph taken of an official gathering with Alia Zuberi et. al., so my question would be whether this is actually PD by reason of the setting and photographer? If so, wouldn't any derivative of that photograph also carry PD status? asked by @DaneGeld: to User:Dl2000 (user who requested the false deletion) before deletion and discussion was still open.
As photograph was taken during official gathering of an IAS officer, an Indian Government official. Photograph carries a PD status as per GODL-India licensing and must not be deleted. --BeLucky (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is the applicable license: {{GODL-India}} BeLucky (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as we know, the GODL license must be explicitly marked to be valid -- it cannot be assumed. To date, I think it only applies to datasets on data.gov.in , and has never been applied to a photograph. If the license is not explicitly mentioned at the source, then it's not freely licensed. Indian government works are under copyright for 60 years from publication, and must be licensed for us to hold it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose as per Carl above. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Carl and Ankry. --Yann (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


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

DrAntonioCarlosMdeQueiroz' request

" If you are the sole heir and these work weren't given to anybody else, then you can upload them here with any licence you want, regardless of whether you want to host them elsewhere, as long as there are no exclusive licence agreements. Just make sure the author information is correct. In the licence templates, use "heir" instead of "self". (Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_DrAntonioCarlosMdeQueiroz)

I, Guilherme de Queiroz Hobbs, Dr Antonio's nephew, am the sole heir of the works listed in the Subject, these works weren't given to anybody else and I would like these works to be undeleted under any viable licence as soon as possible, please.

--DrAntonioCarlosMdeQueiroz (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@DrAntonioCarlosMdeQueiroz: Please, contact VRT providing them an evidence that you are the heir of the author together with the above file names. On-wiki licensing can be used for unpublished works only. Ankry (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


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

亜細亜大観

This is an index to gallery pages. Other indexes exist like Koninklijke Bibliotheek. @Yann: , can you restore it please? --Upload for Freedom (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

it's User:Jameslwoodward who deleted the page. RZuo (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think he is not online.Upload for Freedom (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

{{Weak oppose}} I doubt the index should be hosted in Commons. @Upload for Freedom: could you elaborate why is it created here and where is it intended to be used? IMO, it is out of scope. Ankry (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ankry: I have created gallery pages like 亜細亜大観/01、亜細亜大観/02... This is the content page of them. Upload for Freedom (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Upload for Freedom: Where the gallery index is intended to be used (linked from)? Gallery pages in Commons have purpose: they are intended to be linked from various Wikimedia projects or from Wikidata items. And the index? IMO, it should be created directly in the project intending to use it. It would be useless here: it will not be found by image search tools. Ankry (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ankry: 亜細亜大観 is a photo album for China by the Japanese. It contain many volumes. It will be linked as one of early China photography book. There might be a wikipedia page for the book and could link the galleries with only one link. See en:s:Illustrations_of_China_and_Its_People, which is another photo album containing many volumes. The wikisource content page is important so that I can only refer to it with just one link, rather than all four links. Upload for Freedom (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
It is linked from Template:Early China photo books. Upload for Freedom (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the page should be restored. You see it's the only red link.--Upload for Freedom (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Support as per Upload for Freedom's comment above. Yann (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done per Yann. Ankry (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yann, Ankry, see Commons:Deletion requests/亜細亜大観 .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:AliWalsh_Cityboxing.jpg

There was no reason for the deletion of this picture. The permission was granted directly from the owner. The owner of the photo is Nico Ali Walsh and he granted permission for the use of this photo on his Wikipedia page.

Owner of the photo not automatically the copyright holder. If copyright holder is not the author, then an evidence of copyright transfer needs to be provided together with the permission. If you know the ticket number under which the permission has been sent to VRT. please provide it. Ankry (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. No answer. --Yann (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:BlaisValeria.jpg

picture taken on this page https://gw.geneanet.org/mblais_w?lang=it&pz=francois&nz=blais&ocz=6&p=valeria&n=blais --Ricercastorica (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright violation, no evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No free license at named source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Jim Karahalios HS.jpg

I do not know why my picture keeps getting deleted. This is our picture that we took of Jim Karahalios at an event. I would appreciate if someone undeletes it. --Tdm0305 (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC) Tommy

 Not done: No file by that name. Other deleted files uploaded by you are copyright violations. --Yann (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Medalha de Nossa Senhora das Lágrimas (Medal of Our Lady of Tears).jpg

The original colored photo and the white and black version belongs originally to the International Apostolate of Our Lady of Tears (www.nossasenhoradaslagrimas.com), and that Catholic movement dedicated that image files to the Public Domain. Several souvenir and religious articles shops are using that files because they are in Public Domain use. Anjo Sozinho (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored, and DR created instead. --Yann (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Incrociatore Gorizia dipinto da Carlo Jacomelli milanese.jpg

I am the owner of the work and all rights belong to me. I authorize the publication accordingly. Massimo Presciutti --Pergzrv (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - COM:DW of painting. Per the signature in the lower left, this is a painting by Giacomelli. Ownership of the physical item ("owner of the work") is not the same as ownership of the related IP. As this appears too recent to assume Giacomelli has been dead 70+ years, evidence of permission from Giacomelli (or their heir) or evidence of a written IP transfer is needed. Эlcobbola talk 20:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is a COM:Derivative work of an original painting. Please note that owning an original artwork does not automatically make you own its copyright, so we need a permission from the painter Giacomelli or his heirs. De728631 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Kerwan Highsmith I I’m work my jobs and work work done ✅ work tomorrow I’m just going back home 🏠 I have a few friends now [[:File:]]

 Not done: No file name provided. Please sign and provide a file name. --Yann (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

https://africanhype.com/jahfeeil-sorry/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elder Jahfeeil Manley (talk • contribs) Yann (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Not done: No file name provided. That website has a mention "(c) africanhype.com All rights reserved." so we need a formal written permission for a free license. --Yann (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:OJB-Geo-2K.jpg

Die Datei ist von mir und es gibt keinen Löschgrund. Der flickr-Link zeigt auch ein Bild von mir; die Bilder sind aber nicht identisch (viele Jahre dazwischen). --Friedo (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This one failed Flickr license review, and it is so blurred that it is basically useless. If this is your picture, you should change the license before uploading it to Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Das Bild ist nicht von Flickr, es war nur ein Hinweis auf ein älteres Bild, welches nicht zu Wikimedia hochgeladen wurde, aber auch von mir ist. Friedo (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose The Flickr link shows a different image, so the deletion was technically wrong. However, I fail to see how the Commons upload is useful. The information table cannot be read in the photo and you can't even properly see the images depicted on the table - so why would we need an image of this particular installation as a whole? De728631 (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Der Upload des (jüngeren) Bildes hat nichts mit Flickr zu tun; von mir aus kann der Hinweis auch entfallen. Friedo (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@FkMohr: In order to undelete we need to know how the image is in COM:SCOPE. The above comment suggests, that it is useless, so out of scope. Ankry (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand, what you mean or want to know. It is my picture and not identical with the older one from flickr. Friedo (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
We do not host any photos, but only photos (a) used in other Wikimedia projects or (b) educationally useful. De728631 suggests above that it is not educationally useful as content of the table cannot be read from the photo. So? Ankry (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion -- no possible educational use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Col-cleveland-war-prize-painting.jpg

This file has been deleted under "No Permission" mistakenly. The artist has provided the low res image of his painting under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unportedand GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) which has been provided previously (September 4, 2020) to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millertraci (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 May 2022‎ (UTC)

Where is the proof of that? We need the formal written permission from the artist. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - The uploader claimed this to be the work of Don Troiani, who claims "All artwork and images Copyright © Don Troiani All Rights Reserved." The related VRT ticket, 2020090410009171, was not accepted; it is from someone who is not Troiani and who ignored the volunteer's request for explanation (which is, by the way, something that all but never happens with legitimate tickets). Эlcobbola talk 21:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done. From the image description page: "Original Artist has signed a waiver for this document to be published". This can not be resolved without COM:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Gottardo-N.jpg

Es war seit 29. März 2022 angegeben: "Die Genehmigung zur Veröffentlichung liegt seit heute per Mail von Melina Wechsler von Uri Tourismus AG vor. Daher ist die Datei nicht zu löschen. Es werden noch Änderungen vorgenommen; so wird «© Verein Gottardo Wanderweg / UBIQ AG / Agentur für Web & Grafik» eingetragen." Das bezog sich auf die zweite Version; diese bitte wiederherstellen. --Friedo (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gottardo-N.jpg. You were asked to follow the procedure at COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Wie ich schon schrieb, liegt das Einverständnis vor; hier ein Auszug aus der E-Mail vom 29. März 2022: "Betreffend der Karte: Für uns ist es in Ordnung, wenn Sie die Karte mit dem entsprechenden Copyright verwenden. Bitte geben Sie «©Verein Gottardo Wanderweg / UBIQ AG | Agentur für Web & Grafik» an. Wir bitten Sie, den Inhalt der Karte nicht zu verändern." Daher die zweite Version, um deren Wiederherstellung ich nochmals bitte. Friedo (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The quoted text is not the proper permission as required. The image may be restored after the required free license permission has been received and verified by VRT team. Ankry (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Welcher Text soll von wem an welche E-Mail-Adresse geschickt werden? Friedo (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann and Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:KreuzMairspitz.jpg

Es war angegeben: "Ich habe bei der Sulzenauhütte nachträglich um Zustimmung gebeten und bitte daher, die Datei nicht zu löschen." Da sie erst am 18. Juni 2022 wieder öffnet; bitte ich noch um etwas Geduld. --Friedo (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:KreuzMairspitz.jpg. You were asked to follow the procedure at COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Leider noch keine Antwort der Sulzenauhütte (vgl. oben). Friedo (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The file may be undeleted after the permission is received and verified by a VRT member. Ankry (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The file may be undeleted after the permission is received and verified by a VRT member. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Kaela Singleton Profile.webp

_MG_5934-2_JPG.webp or Kaela Singleton Profile.webp is the file to be undeleted. Kaela Singleton (person in photo) owns the copyright of this photo and the website it is from as stated at https://www.kaelasingleton.com/ and I have been given permission to upload it to Wikipedia coomons for publishing on her self-named Wikipedia article. --Izzys.young (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Unfortunately we cannot accept forwarded permissions, but in such cases the copyright owner needs to send an email as outlined in COM:VRT. Please note also that the person depicted in a photo usually does not own the copyright unless it was explicitely transferred in writing. So, generally the copyright of a photo is held by the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose This file didn't have a license. That website has a mention "© 2020 by Kaela S. Singleton, PhD." so we need the formal written permission from the copyright holder. Yann (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Mitchel Musso on Walmart Soundcheck (5637766795).jpg

File:Mitchel Musso on Walmart Soundcheck (5637766795).jpg [6] 317 × 260 (42,214 bytes)
File:Jonas Brothers Fan Message (4875770381).jpg [7] 641 × 386 (96,061 bytes)

Owners of intellectual property are entitled to release their images under multiple licenses. These two images were released by Lunchbox LP, a music marketing firm, and were among the over 1000 images in Category:Files from Lunchbox LP Flickr stream.

From those 1000+ photos they released they seem to manage promotional events for musical artists. The images they have released, under free licenses, are around 1000x800 pixels, apparently from promotional events they managed. I think it is clear that their free licenses are legitimate, that they hired the photographers, that they owned the IP rights, and so were authorized to release those images.

Whoever nominated these images seems to have assumed (correctly) that they were commissioned by a marketing firm, and (incorrectly) assumed no marketing firm would ever release lower resolution versions of their images under a free license.

@Oinkers42, Túrelio, and 1234qwer1234qwer4: I think these images should be restored. Geo Swan (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Hi, The first one is very small, and I wonder what educational it could have. I would delete it as advertising whatever is the copyright status. The second one is not really much better (poor quality, etc.). That's also the case for several other images from that source. Yann (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done out of scope; we have better quality images of this band. Ankry (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:SuoneChilcheriB.jpg

Seit 9. Mai 2022 19.49 Uhr liegt die Genehmigung von esz54@hispeed.ch vor. Hier der Original-Text: "Sie dürfen das Bild hochladen mit dem Vermerk: oberwalliser-alpen.ch". Daher bitte ich um Wiederherstellung. --Friedo (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done instructions pointed out 4 times, no need to continue the discussion here. Ankry (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Easyjet orange.png

Re: File:Easyjet_orange.png Unfortunately did not log in in time to comment on the proposed deletion.

Requesting undeletion.

This file is indeed a recreation, and not a copyrighted image, using a similar colour palate to easyJet's corporate branding, and using Cooper font which is freely available on Mac, the kerning has been adjusted to better resemble the easyJet wordmark.

EasyJet plc was incorrectly referenced on this as this is the brand it references, but in reality the image, a reproduction, was not taken from a copyrighted resource. I will rectify this if undeleted.

This image should be undeleted so it can be used again on the various easyJet pages, as the current placeholder is orange text on white background which has not been used on easyJet branding since at least 2015, and was being phased out before this. All branding uses either a plain or shaded orange background with white text only.

--Ianwakes87 (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

See related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Easyjet orange.png. That would be {{PD-textlogo}} in USA, however EasyJet is a British company, so UK law must apply. Yann (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose We do have a few really simple EasyJet logos that are not copyrightable even in the UK, but this one has a sort of "woven" background which should raise it above the the threshold of originality in the UK and generate a copyright. De728631 (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. The UK copyright for typography certainly applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631 and Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Official World Record.jpg

This image is registered in my name !! at https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/013986054 Bookowr (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)bookowr

Personally created, unpublished (Own work) logos are out of scope. Official logos require written permission from the logo copyright holder, see VRT for details. Ankry (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, yes, this process is done and approved in the same logo in different colors! https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Bookowr&ilshowall=1 Bookowr (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
See related DR (similar logos by the same user): Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bookowr. Yann (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Personal art from a non notable artist. Out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry and Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Hossein-Mahmoodian.jpg

it's my own image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosseyn01 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose 36 edits on Commons on ten pages -- hardly a significant contributor. Also, as noted there's no user page to put it on. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Most edits on Wikimedia projects are self-promotion and advertising. --Yann (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Joaquin prats color.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo has not copyright conflicts because I friend of mine made it with a mobile phone during a conference and she let me use it. It should be restored in Wikimedia Commons. Thank you. Judit.lopezsalgado (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose For any photo that was previously published without evidence of free license, VRT permission is required by our policy. Note also, that a permission "to use" is not compatible with our licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. We need a permission from the original photographer which makes the work free for anyone to use for any purpose. --De728631 (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:José Antonio Puglisi.jpg

Reason: No se trata de una página de autopromoción, sino de un perfil personal como existe con otros periodistas dentro y fuera de España. No veo problema en editar el artículo para dotarlo de un tono más neutral, pero veo exagerado su total eliminación. — Preceding unsigned comment added by José Antonio Puglisi (talk • contribs) 10:17, 11 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Your only upload is File:Jose-antonio-puglisi.webp. We do not allow personal images of non-contributors. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Commons is not a webhost or a social media site. User page portraits are only allowed for users that have been actively improving the Wikimedia projects for some time. --De728631 (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Indrek-Vau.jpg

The file was deleted by a random raider.--Krõps (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Krõps: Please explain why the file should be undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Copied from the Internet, no license provided, and copyright mention at the source. Yann (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Not a valid reason for undeletion. Yann is not a random raider but an experienced administrator who knows when to delete a copyright infringement. --De728631 (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Sivaji Ganesan 4.jpg

Please undelete this Image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gasi1996 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 11 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose No reason given why we should restore this image. It seems clear that the license given on Flickr is not valid. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done no reason to undelete. Ankry (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Emma-mackey-for-wonderland-magazine 2022.jpg

hey, the image File:Emma-mackey-for-wonderland-magazine 2022.jpg that is in the list for deletion, i stated a respective owner and the source, how can i impove that!? or i want to add more source link!help --WikiUser1211 (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)wikiuser1211--WikiUser1211 (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC) may 12, 2022

 Oppose The original source, i.e. the Wonderland Magazine does not publish any content under a Creative Commons licence as you claimed. So, we would need a permission coming directly from the copyright holder. De728631 (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a license from Wonderland Magazine using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Inbound9156383820119199023.jpg

Inbound9156383820119199023.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbhsrocks (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the actual copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Григорий Врачански Митрополит.jpg

The source of the image, bg-patriarshia.bg, clearly states in the footer of his page that he gives permission to publish materials from the site. In this case it is a photo of one of the bishops, who also has the title Metropolitan of Vratsa sorce: https://bg-patriarshia.bg/vraca-diocese-bishop

Here is the text from the footer translated from Bulgarian into English:

BG: "Св. Синод на БПЦ благославя използването и цитирането на материали, но при точно позоваване на източника Българска Патриаршия (https://www.bg-patriarshia.bg) при съблюдаване на всички авторски права."

EN: "St. The Synod of the BOC blesses the use and citation of materials, but with precise reference to the source Bulgarian Patriarchate (https://www.bg-patriarshia.bg) in compliance with all copyrights."

The word "blesses" is used here, which in Orthodox Christianity also means permission to undertake any activity that requires this permission. --Moniboy83 (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires an irrevocable free license from the actual photographer via VRT or a free license from an authorized official of the Patrarchate together with written evidence that the Patriarchate has the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg Those pictures I asked my friend who took the photos for them

Too whom this is going too? I grew up in Colton, my friends lived in Richie Canyon ware the burrors still live and she took this photo back in the 70's when she was in High school. Those are photos from my good old friend Lorena. So keep your opinions too yourself and stop trying to cover up what has been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.26.181 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: In addition to being incoherent, no file has been indicated and logged-out editing precludes review of deleted contribs. There is nothing to be done here. --Эlcobbola talk 16:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Category:Instagram influencers

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: RZuo (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC) RZuo (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted -- nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Nunavut Red Ensign.png

The flag was proposed as a flag of Nunavut. It is relevant that remains at least as an option for future editors

--Hew2126 (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted as out of scope -- personal art. In order to restore it, we need to see evidence that it actually was seriously considered as the flag for the territory. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence provided that it may be in scope. Ankry (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

The picture was taken by me - the artist is dead already i am also the owner of the picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troubadour470 (talk • contribs)

this is right...dont know how this got written undet the example jpg... Troubadour470 (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done unclear request. Ankry (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Fabrizio cerina.jpg

{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giafar95 (talk • contribs)

You declared that the photo is from linkedin, so not your original. You can use this licencse declaration if you upload a photo from your camera, not from the web. Ankry (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done no evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:海上保安庁ロゴ.svg

According to Japanese copyright law chapter 13, Governmental works are not copyrighted for the purpose of making them widely known. That's why I disagree your decision.Luke atlas (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Luke atlas

 Info Upload again by OP as File:JCG logo.svg. Thuresson (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose The comment above is not supported by Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Japan/en#Not_protected. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

In general rule, From PD-textlogo/en,the logo which consists only of simple geometric shapes or text does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. Actually,Japan coast guard's logo also has only simple geometric shapes or text. However, people who do not fully understand Japanese copyright law have unfairly removed this logo. Please,understand it. Thank you.Luke atlas (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2022 (JST)Luke atlas

 Oppose Those waves are not simple geometric shapes but they look like their proportions were purposefully designed. De728631 (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Kathy Barnette (candidate).png

The image seems to be released under a free license. Please check the source and let me know why if it isn't permitted if that is the case. I'm a bit puzzled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooonswimmer (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose No such free license at the source. Thuresson (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
https://barnetteforsenate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Kathy_Barnette_Headshot.jpg ? Mooonswimmer (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mooonswimmer: I doubt it is a selfie as you claim. Who should be attributed as the photographer, as the license requires? I do not think that the site you mentioned belongs to the photographer; so the license declared there may be invalid. Ankry (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose if undeleting, we need to fix the authorship info. But none has been provided. Ankry (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 Support We have an original source with a free license. That's enough for me. Yann (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose As Ankry notes above, it does not appear to be a selfie as claimed. I doubt very much that the photographer actually granted the Barnette Campaign a license that allows the campaign to freely license the image. Almost always, such licenses are limited to the campaign using the image to publicize the candidate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 Support I was unable to see the source, maybe because the site is currently down. But If the source says it's in the public domain, it's not the duty of Commons volunteers to cast doubt on the credibility of that claim and require more evidence. I have been a VRT member and I know for a fact that VRT standards are no better than this (we do accept licenses from gmail accounts). If there is indeed a copyright problem, a DMCA can always be filed. This level of doubt is beyond COM:PRP. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not PD, it's CC-BY-SA, which requires that any use attribute the photographer. Without the name of the photographer, we can't keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done COM:CSD#F1 does not apply anymore, as it requires clear evidence that the image has no free license. Regardless of whether we accept the permission at https://barnetteforsenate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Kathy_Barnette_Headshot.jpg, it is not a clear case of copyvio, and so requires a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kathy Barnette (candidate).png. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Escudo Alianza Lima.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The original logo was created in 1928 by a anonymous designer. See Depor (La República) and Mercado Negro. So the second logo (like recent) is created for a organization and made public before 1971 (the template is {{PD-Peru-organization}}). This includes the detail of the texts and the crown, which have not been modified since 1928 and is old enough to enter the public domain. If it passes the originality threshold, this version is a derivated of 1970 version (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Alianza_Lima#Escudo). Anyway, this version lacks "author's whimsy" in the detail of the crowns, for example. DSan (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above, no opposition. --Yann (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:سرگرد تفنگدار دریایی مهدی تهرانی.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These are in the public domain. The deleting admin can't read Persian apparently. He'd better nominate images for deletion rather than deleting them speedily. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - The "public domain" comment appears to be mere license laundering. The Hamshahri newspaper began in 1992 and File:Marines Major .Mehdi Mirza Mehdi Tehrani.jpg, for example, is dated 1986. Nothing is in the public domain without a reason, and the unexplained and unsubstantiated say-so by an entity that does not purport to be, and indeed cannot be, the author is not adequate. Why are these PD? Эlcobbola talk 17:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    Firstly, File:مهدی تهرانی.jpg is a recent work, created well after the Hamshahri's launch.
    Secondly, regarding the other two files, Hamshahri may have obtained the copyright and released them into the public domain. Hamshahri is a major publisher (one of the biggest newspapers, related to the municipality of Tehran) in Iran and if it says those pictures are in the public domain, it is not our job as mere volunteers to cast doubt on that claim.
    Thirdly, these files may very well be in the public domain in Iran, since the Iranian copyright law protects images for only 30 years after publication and these two images are clearly older than that (they date back to the Iran-Iraq war in 1980s).
    Finally, these debates belong to the DR, not here. Why has the admin deleted them speedily? 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
That would be a question for @Jameslwoodward: Why is all of the above idle speculation rather than the required evidence? Эlcobbola talk 17:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by Why is all of the above idle speculation rather than the required evidence. Do you mean that my explanations are pointless and yours are correct? 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose It is certainly possible that I have missed seeing a free license in Persian, but the source page for the first image has "Copyright © 2020 HamshahriOnline, All rights reserved" at the bottom, in English. The others are the same. Above that is "حقوق همشهری‌آنلاین متعلق به موسسه همشهری است" which Google translates as "Hamshahri Online's rights belong to Hamshahri Institute". That is clearly enough for a speedy deletion and to require that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using VRT..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That is a general notice at every page of that website. The licensing information of those files are specific and have been mentioned exclusively at the source page in red. The speedy deletion of these files is clearly out of process and should be overturned. If you insist on the deletion of these files, you can nominate them for deletion, of course.
VRT is not needed as the necessary evidence has been provided by a reliable source which is Hamshahri, a major publisher and newspaper in Iran which deals with the Iranian copyright law on a daily basis as part of its routine business. Commons volunteers are in no position to challenge the credibility of that source.
If you visit [8], you will see "تصویر مطلب از امیر زنده رود. این عکس در مالکیت عمومی است." in red at the bottom of the content, as opposed to the page. This is the required evidence. We don't need speculations. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I see the text in red. Google translates it as "Image of Amir Zande Rood. This photo is in the public domain." That is not a license, merely an assertion by a third party of something that may or may not be true. Our policy on that is clearly stated at {{PDMark-owner}} where it says, "If a file is tagged PDM by someone other than the copyright holder, a more specific copyright tag such as one found at Commons:Copyright tags/General public domain must be applied."
You say, "Commons volunteers are in no position to challenge the credibility of that source." You certainly have enough experience here to know that newspapers often publish photos for which they do not have a license..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The files were using {{PD-author}}, not {{PDMark-owner}}.
Hamshahri is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. It is not a local or provincial newspaper, but a major national newspaper and publisher in Iran. To make things clearer for you, let me give an American example: One can say it's similar to The Washington Post or The Atlantic. Why should Commons cast doubt on the credibility of those sources? This is beyond "significant doubt" as described in Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. The deletion of these files was not needed in the absence of a DMCA notice and such. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
You say, "The files were using {{PD-author}}, not {{PDMark-owner}}" -- that's the point, the newspaper is not the author, the photographer is, so their putting a PD on it is equivalent to someone putting a PDM on a Flickr file when they are not the author. We don't accept that. Also Commons would not accept a similar completely unsupported assertion of PD from the Post or the Atlantic either. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
"امیر زنده‌رود", the author, is an employee of the Hamshahri. We don't need to distinguish between them.
Amazing that we don't accept PD claims from the Washington Post (according to you), but we do so from the Library of Congress and a bunch of other institutions! 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored as per 4nn1l2, and DR created instead. There is clearly a doubt about the copyright status of these files, and they should not have been speedy deleted. --Yann (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:کتیبه شاپور یکم در کعبه زرتشت.jpg

This image I uploaded is the result of editing this picture (File:Shapur Kabe Zartosht.png). I only added the footnotes to the picture. But it was removed! Please undelete it.Histo.beh (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I do not think there is a copyright issue here. The typescript from which the image was taken was published in 1955 in the USA and does not have a copyright notice. Therefore it is PD-USA no notice.

However, I don't think that the additions made by Histo.beh are of any use educationally. Footnotes and other information should be added to the image file in the description, not as part of the image. These are particularly bad as they are very much too large. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gbawden: This source is the source for marked words in my picture; not for the inscription itself. Basic picture(Picture of inscription) is the same image that was previously uploaded to Wikimedia commons.Histo.beh (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  •  Support No copyright problems here. The file is especially useful because it has marked two words in a text in an ancient script. Since normal people, as opposed to specialists, can't read that inscription today, marking and highlighting those words is useful. If you can do this better, you are more than welcome to upload your work as a separate file, but please don't delete such works until there is no better alternative. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support as per 4nn1l2. Ankry (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, the annotation is wholly out of scale with the original image. Annotations, except perhaps for the underlines, belong in the file description, not as part of the image in a font 1/3 the height of the image being annotated. Putting them in the file description has the additional advantage that they can be in many languages so that the same image can be useful on many different WP projects. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Are those ancient characters in the Unicode? If not, we can't just write them; we need to make pictures of those characters. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: So, do you think that the words written at the bottom of the image should be completely removed or should be smaller?Histo.beh (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: If you download the ancient alphabet, you can write it. Also, one of the phrases is written in this article from Wikipedia[9](𐭀𐭓𐭉𐭀𐭍)(𐭠𐭩𐭫𐭠𐭭). However, I wanted them to be inside the picture with specifying the words.Histo.beh (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Concerns about COM:SCOPE were never mentioned during the DR, so they cannot be a valid reason for sustaining a deletion carried out solely for copyright reasons when the latter justification has proven to be incorrect. No prejudice against renomination on scope grounds. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:爱在校园?.jpg

因为它是免费的

With google translate this means because it's free
 Oppose. The image was deleted because it was considered a non-free movie poster. It concerns a DVD with title Love in school, see this web version. No new information is presented now to show this is a free image. Ellywa (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Toll free ≠ copyright free. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No valid justification given. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Dimitar dmitrov new.jpg

The photo was provided by Dimitar Dimitrov's son - his name is Ilko Dimitrov and he is the author of the photo. E-mail - [email address blanked] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilian nik (talk • contribs) 12:28, 16 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description you said that the author is Emilian Nikolov, which is presumably you, User:Emilian nik. Now you say that the author is Ilko Dimitrov. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a violation of Commons rules. Don't do it again.

In order to restore the image, we will need a free license from the actual photographer using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Watch View Edit

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

File:Lyliana Wray.jpg

Hello,

We had sent authorization for this picture to be used. Personal authorization was sent (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org,) URL links, and other information that was requested. We are requesting this image not be deleted.

Thank you,

-- Georgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31gm31 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose "Lyliana Wray attends the Global Premiere of "Top Gun: Maverick" at the USS Midway Museum on May 4, 2022 in San Diego, California. (photo: Alex J. Berliner/ABImages) via AP Images" at apimages.com. Thuresson (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose authorization for this picture to be used is not a valid licese; see COM:L for our requirements. And the license need to be verified and accepted by the VRT in order to undelete. Ankry (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The image will be restored when and if a free license is received at VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Ivan Brezina

Picture is mine, I am the bearer of author rights. A also already send confirmation of my ownership to Michal Gregor, member of Wikimedia Commons, at <email redacted>. Ivan Brezina (I can't sign under my real name, because it is already in use by some other person, so I used "Franta Voprsalek" nick). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franta Vopršálek (talk • contribs) 04:01, 17 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Info File:Ivanbrezina.png and File:Ivan Brezina.png have competing claims of copyright from different Wikimedia users; also previously published at idnes.cz. Thuresson (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Franta Vopršálek: First, we cannot host images without a license. Second, for any image that has been published elsewhere without evidence of free license before its upload to Commons, our policy requires a written permission from the copyright holder. If the copyright holder is not an author, we also need an evidence of copyright transfer (eg. providing a copy of the appropriate contract). Third, authorship claim by multiple users may be also a problem that resulting more detailed evidence of copyright authorship being required, especially as authorship is non-transferrable. And fifth, as the image is not deleted yet, it is out of scope of this page at the moment. Ankry (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done image not deleted (yet). Ankry (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg Souk el belad är min bild

File:Souk el belatIMG 6336.jpg souk el belat
File:Souk el belat souk el belat

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouali béchir1 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose This is not an original photo ("Google" as creation software in EXIF), so it cannot be licensed on-wiki. The author needs to follow the VRT procedure. And the image is not deleted, so out of scope of this page. Ankry (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Image not deleted - nothing to undelete. Ankry (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:PEGI Discrimination.svg

The image was deleted back in January of 2022 and I believe it was mostly in order to vandalize the Pan European Game Information (PEGI) page, as they didn't give a clear reason as to why this image should be deleted. Gold Luigi (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Accusing an Administrator of deleting an image in order to vandalize a page is a serious charge. Christian Ferrer, who deleted this image, is a respected member of the community and it is absurd to think that he would commit vandalism. I suggest that before you make any more such false allegations, you gain more experience here.

 Oppose This image is copied from an image at https://pegi.info/what-do-the-labels-mean. The terms of use there say,

"The PEGI trademarks and logos used on this website are the exclusive property of PEGI and may not be used without PEGI’s explicit consent to do so."

PEGI, s.a. is a Belgian non profit company. The Threshold of Originality in Belgium is not summarized at COM:TOO, but this would be above the ToO in most countries. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Christian. --Yann (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Floki Vilgerdarsson.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File:Floki Vilgerdarsson.jpg was recently moved to File:Bayeux Embroidery - Harold landing in Ponthieu.jpg due to the name being misleading (see discussion). File mover Mosbatho left a redirect, which is in line with Commons:File_renaming#Leaving_redirects. Later, the redirect from the old file name to the new was deleted by Yann. Per the guideline, there are only 3 cases where the redirect should be deleted, none of them applies here. It even says "When in doubt, leave a redirect". The file has been on Commons under that name for more than 10 years, so there's a change that the deletion broke external links. Please restore the redirect, it does not hurt anyone and might help to make the internet a little bit less broken. El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, the given reason for the deletion was F7, which very clearly does not apply for redirects. El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
To correct El Grafo, the reason for deletion is "File page with no file uploaded". If the name is misleading, why should we keep it? It will only confuse people further. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, to correct Yann, the complete reason given was: "File page with no file uploaded (F7)". If you actually click on the link, you will see that the criterion you were referring to is (my emphasis):
F7. File is empty, corrupt, or in a disallowed format
Empty file pages are subject to speedy deletion, unless they are being used as redirects. [...]
That is for file pages that were created without a file being uploaded, not for files that were moved somewhere else. There is a reason we have that "unless it's a redirect" exception. The file name may have been misleading, but there may be external pages still linking to that page. Per the already mentioned Commons:File_renaming#Leaving_redirects, redirects for moved files should never be deleted, unless:
  1. To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. [...]
  2. To perform file name swaps.
  3. When the original file name contains vandalism. [...]
None of this applies here, so the redirect should have been be kept. People are not going to be confused by that name. The only time anybody is ever going to encounter it is if somebody follows an old link from somewhere else. However, they will be confused if they follow that link without being redirected to the place they thought they were going. Deleting this file redirect breaks proper sourcing/attribution for any external re-user that used that file elsewhere in the past 10 years. Leaving a redirect when moving files is the default setting for a reason. You're wasting your precious time cleaning up things that don't need to be cleaned up, producing en:Link rot without any benefit. El Grafo (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Leaving the redirect in place also prevents people from uploading a new file under the same name. That's a good thing! imagine following an external link looking for the source of this, but ending up at a totally different file. That's confusing. Commons is not only part of the Mediawiki bubble, where we can track usage and fix links. People use our repository all over the web and beyond. We owe them stable URLs so they can properly list their sources. El Grafo (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Done per request. Thuresson (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:RogerWinterKirkHopperFineArtsSept.20.2014.jpg

This image was properly given permission for use which was sent by the owner Scott Pearce directly as instructed. I am unsure why it has been deleted or how to have the reviewers access the permission. --Gallodrow (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:El Ranger 7Lotus - Biography Image (Solo E Group).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Images on soloegroup.com are licensed under CC BY 4.0 per https://soloegroup.com/solo-e-group-copyright-disclaimer/. Please note that the license does not extend to prose, so the descriptions on the file pages should be removed as copyvio. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: I verified that the website posted free license release. --Jarekt (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Bryan Spinks.jpg

I have been given written permission by the photographer to upload this picture. --Jcs285 (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jcs285: Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission for a free license following the instructions at COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Top secret.png

The latest deletion request for this stated, "imho this is above threshold, due to the 'damaged look' of the stamp. It is not purely colored red. Not in use on the projects." This is not a valid reason to delete a picture. I'm using this stamp in a book cover design, and I would like it to stay in easy access for me and publishers. Thank you. --Wikicommonsgoat (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Top secret.png. There was also a JPEG version, on which this file was apparently based: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Top secret.jpg. The original source is claimed to be under a copyright. You can find many similar images on the Internet, e.g. [10]. Yann (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Also note that "I would like it to stay in easy access for me and publishers" is not a valid reason for keeping a file here -- use DropBox or some other repository. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:OS_Icon.png

I was tasked by the creator of the website Online Sequencer to write a Wikipedia article for him, and it seems the image was in the commons before I began uploading the image. I would like the image to be undeleted so I can finish the article with the best detail possible. If you have any questions, you may contact the owner, Jacob Morgan, at <redacted> or on Discord @ Jacob_#5461. Ctrlkey0 (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ctrlkey0: Hi,
Be aware that you have a conflict of interest, which is prohibited on Wikipedia.
I am not sure if this file has a copyright (it is quite simple), but you are not allowed to upload files from the Internet without a formal written permission from the copyright holder. If you have such a permission, please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ivan Brezina.png

Hello, a valid VRTS permission arrived for File:Ivan_Brezina.png. Can you please undelete the file, so I can handle the rest (note the author information is incorrect in the file, and will need to be fixed after undeletion; I'll take care of that once undeleted). For my future self: Ticket#2022041010003107. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Martin Urbanec: . --Yann (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Tarek-William-Saab-halabi.jpg

Moviol restaurar imagen File:Tarek-William-Saab-halabi.jpg

los motivos de su eliminacion estan mal fundamentados quisiera fueran restaurados la imagen

Firma: --Moviol (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright violation, no permission from the copyright holder. Yann (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Valdemaras Kukulas by Augustas Didzgalvis.jpg

The entire Category:Images by Augustas Didzgalvis is full of excellent images made by the distinguished photographer with the exactly same description, and the nominator has seemingly admitted his oversight here, but a year later (!) has nominated one more file, which is still not undeleted. --Xunks (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Revenge is a dish best served cold.
His interest is not pictures, but to argue. I will not. If deleted, OK -- not my fault.
~~ BigHead (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Especially given this confirmation note is available at your talk page since 2014. --Xunks (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
And @P199: did you as deleting admin do anything to check if the nomination was well-reasoned? --Xunks (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Almost a year ago. I don't remember that... I will undelete. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: identity confirmed. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:MGU-library.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: freedom of panorama for architecture now exists in Russia. This may be eligible, if ever it shows a building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


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

file:Clyde Tingley.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: In 2012 when the file was deleted, 1925 was not old enough to pass when going by the rule of the longer term; I believe we in 2022 are now in a different situation. Arlo James Barnes 11:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 Support 1923 image now PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Student studying at JNV.jpg

Shown image is of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Jamnagar, clicked 2-3 years ago by myself so its my sincere request to undelete this image

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Deletion of File:Modified smallpox2.png and File:Modified smallpox1.png

Moved from User talk:Ellin Beltz#Deletion of File:Modified smallpox2.png and File:Modified smallpox1.png. Aeschylus (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I saw that these files were recently deleted. Any idea how these files are copyright violations? It says on the source, https://phil.cdc.gov/Details.aspx?pid=10417 for one, that it is free of any copyright restrictions. Aeschylus (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Ellin, what do you see here that I do not -- they look PD to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Same with File:PHIL 2627.png, File:Manwithrabies2.png, File:Manwithrabies1.png, and File:Man with rabies.png. These were all PD images I uploaded that were mistakenly deleted. Aeschylus (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:HerbPogonPrudnik.png

Request temporary undeletion to allow transfer to a fair use project (English Wikipedia). Logo of a football club: Pogoń Prudnik. --ElCet (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: File was transferred to the English Wikipedia and deleted thereafter. --De728631 (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Roberto_Di_Molfetta_-_Robertodimo_su_Wikipedia_-_Aprile_2022.jpg

RICHIESTA Annullamento cancellazione REQUEST Cancellation cancellation

ITALIANO

McZusatz ha cancellato il file File:Roberto Di Molfetta - Robertodimo su Wikipedia - Aprile 2022.jpg per violazione di copyright.

Ma sono io, Roberto Di Molfetta, la persona ritratta nella fotografia, il proprietario dei diritti della foto e il proprietario del sito https://www.sociologifamosi.it

Nella motivazione della cancellazione del file, c'è scritto il seguente testo: " Questo file è una violazione di copyright per la seguente motivazione: previusly published here: https://www.sociologifamosi.it/roberto-di-molfetta/ "

Se leggete il contenuto della pagina Web che citate, https://www.sociologifamosi.it/roberto-di-molfetta/, potete leggere il seguente contenuto: "Mi chiamo Roberto Di Molfetta, Web Marketer, Scrittore di saggi, Laureato in Comunicazione. Appassionato della Bellezza, d’Arte, Cinema e Musica. Sono il Fondatore e Amministratore del sito che state visitando, “Sociologi Famosi”, indirizzo www.sociologifamosi.it. Classe 1974, nativo di Salerno, da madre romana di viale Trastevere (allora viale del Re) e padre ciociaro, di Ceccano (Frosinone)."

Vi riassumo tutto: Sono io, Roberto Di Molfetta, il proprietario della foto che avete cancellato, sono io la persona ritratta nella foto, e sono il proprietario del sito www.sociologifamosi.it !!! La pagina che citate infatti ha come URL il mio nome: https://www.sociologifamosi.it/roberto-di-molfetta/ Vi chiedo cortesemente pertanto di ripristinarla, in quanto sono io il detentore dei diritti della fotografia e quindi la vostra cancellazione è immotivata. Grazie.

ENGLISH

McZusatz has deleted the file File: Roberto Di Molfetta - Robertodimo on Wikipedia - April 2022.jpg for copyright infringement.

But it is me, Roberto Di Molfetta, the person portrayed in the photograph, the owner of the photo rights and the owner of the site https://www.sociologifamosi.it

In the reason for the deletion of the file, the following text is written: "This file is a copyright infringement for the following reason: previusly published here: https://www.sociologifamosi.it/roberto-di-molfetta/"

If you read the content of the web page you cite, https://www.sociologifamosi.it/roberto-di-molfetta/, you can read the following content: "My name is Roberto Di Molfetta, Web Marketer, Writer of essays, Graduated in Communication. Passionate about Beauty, Art, Cinema and Music. I am the Founder and Administrator of the site you are visiting, "Famous Sociologists", address www.sociologifamosi.it. Born in 1974, a native of Salerno, from a Roman mother from viale Trastevere (then viale del Re) and a ciociaro father, from Ceccano (Frosinone). "

I'll summarize it all: It is me, Roberto Di Molfetta, the owner of the photo you have deleted, I am the person portrayed in the photo, and I am the owner of the site www.sociologifamosi.it !!! The page you mention in fact has my name as its URL: https://www.sociologifamosi.it/roberto-di-molfetta/ Therefore, I kindly ask you to restore it, as I am the owner of the rights of the photograph and therefore your cancellation is unmotivated. Thanks.

  •  Oppose I am sorry but I have to oppose undeletion of this file for two reasons: First, owning a physical copy of a portrait does not automatically make you own its copyright even if you are the person depicted. Copyright is usually held by the original photographer unless it was explicitely transferred in writing. So we need a permission from the actual copyright holder to be sent by email (see COM:VRT for details). Next, there is no way for us to verify your identy through your Wikimedia account, so even if you do own the copyright of the photo and are the owner of said website, we still need a verification through an email from you. De728631 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Magnanini - Il bene e il male.jpg

Also:

--Ilaria Bortolotti (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Chiedo il ripristino del file in quanto possiedo tutti i diritti per caricarlo.

 Oppose Each of these images shows a copyrighted work. The artist Renzo Magnanini (1946-2006) is credited on the first four of them and is probably the creator of the last one also. Each of the images infringes on the copyright which belongs to the artist's heir(s). They cannot be kept here without a free license from the copyright holder via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Files by École polytechnique de Lausanne (EFPL)

Please restore

We have permission from an authorized executive at EFPL per Ticket:2022051310008195. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: These files should be renamed. --Yann (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Batiment Vortex vue de l'intérieur.jpg

Own work by uploader @Yasminkaa, hence no VRT permission required. Probably deleted by error because it was mentioned in a deletion request together with a couple of other files which needed permission. - Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Mussklprozz. --Yann (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Jean Brian. Affiche J.O. 1968 Grenoble. Base Joconde.jpg to undelete

This file comes from the "Joconde" database, which is the public database for the French public museums. Therefore it complies with Wikimedia Commons policy and regulations. Please undelete. Boncoincoin (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Boncoincoin

@Boncoincoin: But why does it say "© musée national du Sport" at here. Designer Jean Brian died in 1990. Thuresson (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't know. Mistake ? Abuse ? Anyway, the "musée national du sport" is really a French public museum, thus dealing with Joconde database regulations, as all French public museums do (public domain). Please refer to weblink https://pop.culture.gouv.fr/notice/joconde/50279000110. "Propriété de l'Etat" means "State property" Boncoincoin (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
To clarify, why does it say "© musée national du Sport" and not "CC-0" or "Creative Commons Zero"? Where does the Creative Commons license come from? Thuresson (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry. I am not an expert at all. For sure, the poster belongs to French state. Would © mark refer to the photo of it ? Boncoincoin (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Still under a copyright anyway, no evidence of a free license. Beside, the copyright probably still belongs to the designer's heirs. Yann (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Certainly requires a free license from the heirs of Jean Brian and may require a free license from the museum. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File: Non Nono 220523.jpg

こんにちは。 英語が得意ではないため、日本語で失礼致します。 先日23日「File:Non Nono 220523.jpg|thumb|ミス東スポグランプリの野々のん」の名前でアップロードした画像を、管理者EugeneZelenko氏に「著作権侵害」を理由に削除されました。 これは私自身が撮影してご本人に提供したものです。著作権侵害にはあたらないと考えてるので復帰をお願いしたいです。宜しくお願い致します。

又、野々のんさんご本人のInstagramの投稿に 『撮ってくださったファンの方がウィキメディアコモンズに投稿してくださいました。 Author: User:スノウヌン(Wikimedia Commons)License:cc-by-sa-4.0』 と掲載して下さってます。 著作権者名とライセンスがDMではなく公開の場で確認できてるためそちらも確認して下さると幸いです。 https://www.instagram.com/p/Cd43iSmu2Li/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Translated with Google translate: Hello. I'm not good at English, so I'm sorry in Japanese. The other day, the image uploaded under the name of "File: Non Nono 220523.jpg | thumb | Miss East Sports Grand Prix Nono Non" was deleted by the administrator Eugene Zelenko because of "copyright infringement". This was taken by myself and provided to him. I don't think it's a copyright infringement, so I'd like to ask you to return. Thank you.
Also, in the Instagram post of Mr. Nonon himself, "The fan who took the picture posted it to Wikimedia Commons. Author: User: Snownun (Wikimedia Commons) License: cc-by-sa-4.0 ”. Since the copyright holder name and license can be confirmed at the public place instead of DM, I would appreciate it if you also confirm that.
I think we can trust this user a.o. based on the link on instragram and can undelete the image. Ellywa (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: 2021 appearance with (C) ORICON News Inc. -- Need a free license from Oricon. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:PTKM-1R-Top-attack-Anti-tank-mine.webm

According to the site roe.ru, i have the right to distribute information from their website with the source indicated. On their site there is a video from their YouTube channel, which indicates a direct connection of the site with the YouTube channel. Logvlad9 (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Logvlad9: Do they also allow modifications (derivative works)? This has to be granted explicitly. See COM:L for Wikimedia Commons requirements. Ankry (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ankry: "all material from the specified site can be reproduced in any media, on servers on the Internet or on any other media without any restrictions on the volume and timing of publication with an indication of the source." It turns out that if they publish videos from their YouTube channel, it means that this video is also part of their site. Since it is a video material that can be viewed from their website without going to YouTube. I wrote to them on the e-mail and VK.com, but have not answered yet. I understand they use YouTube to post all their videos. That is, they do not upload videos separately for the roe.ru website, but use the YouTube platform for convenient placement and viewing of videos. Logvlad9 (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Their videos can also be watched on YT, e.g. [11], but there is no free license there. Yann (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Per COM:L, we require a specific license that addresses, among others, derivatives, commercial usage, and perpetual duration. The quoted statement (e.g., "without any restrictions on the volume and timing") does not address derivatives and is thus unresponsive to Ankry's question. It does not reference the purported cc-by-sa-4.0 license. It does not reference perpetual duration. There is no free license at the YouTube site. Эlcobbola talk 14:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Headshot of Paraguayan Entrepreneur Diana Vicezar.jpg

Greetings,

I would like to request the undeletion of this image. I own all the rights of this image as I took it in 2021 and had permission from the individual pictured. Are there any documents you need from me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeroNam (talk • contribs) 21:58, 24 May 2022‎ (UTC)

@Didym: who deleted the file. Thuresson (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Image previously published (e.g. [12], [13], [14], etc.) and in more complete, less cropped versions (e.g., here). VRT evidence of permission needed. Copyright may even be moot, as this appears a non-notable person - see COM:SCOPE. Эlcobbola talk 22:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, because the individual pictured used the image but I took it. What kind of evidence do you need? Do you want the person to upload the image to wikidata? JeroNam (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    @JeroNam: As for notability, we mostly defer that to other Wikimedia sister projects like Wikipedia and Wikidata. You mentioned Wikidata - if Wikidata uses the image, or if you can plausibly name a Wikipedia page which would be illustrated by the image, that would be enough for Wikimedia Commons. If none of the sister projects uses it, we might reject it as non-notable. (See what Jim wrote below for the copyright issue.) whym (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I tend to agree with User:elcobbola that this individual is probably out of scope. She is a student. All of the Google hits I see are personal -- I see no independent evidence of notability. As for evidence that User:JeroNam was the photographer, the best evidence is uploading images at full camera resolution with full EXIF. This image is small and has no EXIF. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola and Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Tothem Una Voce per San Marino.jpg

File caricato con licenza da parte degli artisti. È stata inviata una mail con il permesso di pubblicare su wikipedia.

Template:Informazioni file {{Permission pending}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldogiovannigiacomo01 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 25 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:XXXTentacion by Jack McKain.jpg

Hi,

I'm requesting undeletion of the image referenced in the title because it is my image. I took the photograph and I own the copyright.

I give Wikipedia permission and license to use the image for non-commercial purposes on the XXXTentacion Wikipedia page.

Here it is on my Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/BkL-mUogT8S/

And from the museum that displayed it: https://www.annenbergphotospace.org/person/jack-mckain/

Please let me know what else you need from me.

Jack McKain www.jackmckain.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackmckain (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose "Non-commercial purposes" is not sufficient for Commons. Anyway, documents previously published elsewhere need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Letter from the People's Mujahedin of Iran to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.jpg

The file was deleted in this discussion by Ellywa. They said the "The PD-Text is intended for logo's or short texts, not for an original letter." I have discussed the matter with them and still believe the file should be restored per (Template:PD-text). It's a simple text. --Mhhossein talk 18:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

in my motivation to delete the file I also stated " The text of the letter is copyrighted imho. " Ellywa (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose As a general rule, in the USA and most other countries, a single sentence may or may not have a copyright, but it is very unusual for two sentences not to be copyrightable, and a letter of this length certainly has a copyright. See USCO Circular 1, "Copyright Basics", where it says,
"Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:
...
• titles, names, short phrases, and slogans...."
Note that "short phrases" are not protected, which implies that anything longer is. Case law supports this.
I don't know the law in Iran, but its status in the USA certainly means it cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Moreover, if the country of origin is US, what is the rationale? Was it published in US with permission of the copyright holder? Maybe, this document should be considered an unpublished document from Iran, so not protected in US? (Still unsure about copyright status in Iran, however.) Ankry (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
A translation of the Iranian copyright law can be found here. Ellywa (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • According to the article 2 of the Iranian copyright law [15], only "scientific, technical, literary and artistic" texts are protected. --Mhhossein talk 19:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    • A letter would be a literary work. Agreed that there is no U.S. protection, so whatever the protection is for Iran would hold. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't think we can consider an official letter as a "literary" work. It has nothing to with literature. So there's no protection from Iran. --Mhhossein talk 11:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Pinging 4nn1l2 if he'd like to share his point on the status of the file according to the Iranian copyright. --Mhhossein talk 11:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
        • In general, copyright doesn't make distinctions based on artistic merit -- a child's scribble is copyrightable. If there is enough text to be copyrightable, then it's a literary work. People's letters have generally been considered copyrightable for a long long time. Whether Iran's law goes there, not as sure -- it seems to say Books, pamphlets, plays and all other literary, scientific and artistic writings are copyrightable. "All other literary writings" would seem to imply that, but it's also possible that it would only be commercially valuable stuff which was implied, though that would have been counter to other copyright laws even in 1970. On the other hand, this appears to be a letter between countries, and you could start arguing some {{PD-EdictGov}} territory (not that we need a U.S. rationale), or if the copyright owner was deemed to be the government, maybe it gets Iran's 30-year terms. Was this written in an official capacity? Was it made public at the time, or kept private? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
          • Clindberg The letter is not governmental. Moreover, I don't think "all other literary writings" may imply the letter is protected. --Mhhossein talk 07:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
            • What would make you think that? The wording seems similar to other laws, which protect letters. (Meghan Markle recently won a copyright lawsuit against a newspaper for publishing too-large portions of a letter she wrote to her father, for example). Obviously I can't read the original Persian, but what are you basing that opinion on? If it could be considered a work for hire and not a truly personal work, maybe it could still get the 30-year term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
"Literary works" is usually construed very broadly in copyright matters. Computer programs are literary works. While I don't know the practice in Iran, it is certain that this would have a copyright in almost all countries.
I also note that it is very small, 321x424 pixels. Even magnified 4 times it is not legible. Therefore it has little or no educational use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: You missed something: this would be not protected in most countries (unless the country has a copyright-related treaty with Iran). Ankry (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean it that way -- I meant that under most (maybe all) copyright laws it would be protected if it had been written in that country. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
But this is not, so this goes OT. Ankry (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
BTW, in some European countries computer programs were considered not protected by copyright until explicitly mentioned in newer law. So it is obviously not clear how Iranian law treats such letters. COM:PCP? Ankry (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Can you name any country in which a text document of this length would not be covered by copyright? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I will provide you examples in private if you wish, as they would be OT here. Text length is not the only criterion to be considered in order to resolve whether there is copyright protection, or not. This is not a personal letter. Official (non-private) letters send by officials as their duty are often free of copyright. However, while this letter is definitely not a private one, I am not sure if such documents are considered free of copyright in Iran. Ankry (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Ankry: What if the letter is not governmental? --Mhhossein talk 07:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Then it is most likely copyrighted by the sender. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Maybe the text of this file is helpful :-) Lotje (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
No it is not as I see no community decission concerning its copyright status nor an evidence that such letters are considered not copyrighted in Iran (unlike they are in most of the world - as literary works). It is a problem of Iranian ToO, which I cannot resolve. So likely COM:PCP should be applied. Ankry (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just noticed a clear cut portion of the Iranian CR law determining its TOO status. The law covers only the works have one of the three elements; "knowledge, art or innovation" regardless of the creation method. This loan request letter from a political/militia group fails to have any of the mentioned elements and hence falls below TOO according to the law. --Mhhossein talk 15:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Mhhossein. --Yann (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Frantik.jpg

OTRS permission has arrived --Gampe (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gampe: Tiket number? Yann (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Ticket#2021110610003416 — Copyright_foto_Frantik Gampe (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Gampe: And there is no file by that name. Yann (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No file name provided. --Yann (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:MichalFrantik.jpg

OTRS permission has arrived --Gampe (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gampe: Tiket number? Yann (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: Ticket#2021110610003416 — Copyright_foto_Frantik Gampe (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Gampe: And there is no file by that name. Yann (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No file name provided. --Yann (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Sogndal-Raufoss 310720 Daniel Eid-1.jpg

This appears to be an invalid attempt at license revocation by Bep, similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sogndal-Raufoss 310720 Igoh Ogbu-1.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Igoh Ogbu.jpg. It is well past the grace period of 1 week for COM:COURTESY deletion, and it is part of the same series taken at the same event with the same camera, so there can be no doubts as to its authorship. The "no permission" tagging by Missvain and subsequent deletion by Fitindia does not make sense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Support as per KoH. Yann (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 Support as the deleting admin. (Was an error in judgment on my part. Apologies!).--- FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


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

file:cordialgreetings1x pix.gif

Did that VRTS email ever get sent? Arlo James Barnes 07:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Please use Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard for VRT related questions. Thuresson (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Emblem of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front.svg

Cause: restore File:Emblem of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front.svg

Hello, I would like to restore the file: Emblem of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front.svg, because this file had no copyrights anyone else must have revoked by mistake so I'm sending this message to know if you wikimedia commons could restore the page of the file, I look forward to it, --Felipe Fidelis Tobias (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Almost every document has a copyright by default. We need the formal written permission from the copyright holder to restore it. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Is this wat you are looking for? :-) Lotje (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 Comment There are several files with the same status. We need a coherent decision. See also VPC. Yann (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann. --De728631 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Olympic scrap Jarrow.jpg

I want the image undeleted because the image is in the public domain in the United Kingdom, where the photo was originally taken. Angelgreat (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This 1936 image became PD in the UK in 2007, but will not be PD in the USA until 1/1/2032. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to resolve the image copyright status, we need to know when and where the image was initially published (not: created). As it was created in 1936, it is clear that it cannot be PD in UK before 2007, and so in cannot be PD in US before 2032 (unless we have evidence that id has been published in both countires during a 30-day period before 1952). Note, that it is still unclear that the image will be PD at the mentioned date(s). Ankry (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. Uploads at Commons need to be free in the country of origin and in the US because that is where the file servers are located. --De728631 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Yvonne Jougla.jpg

La photo de Yvonne Jougla a disparu de sa page wikipédia. On demandait une illustration, je l'avais en ma possession, la photo a été mise en mars 2022. Je viens de vérifier elle a disparu. Pouvez vous la restaurer? Merci infiniment. Claudine Gourvat Albert Jougla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gourvat (talk • contribs) 14:24, 27 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The file description credits Studio Harcourt which still exists. The Studio's distinctive watermark is mostly cropped away in the lower right, but the long cross of the T is still there. The studio was founded in 1933, so the image cannot be old enough to be PD in the USA. The subject lived 1921-2002. In order for the image to be PD in France, it would have to have been taken before 1952. The subject appears to be older than 31 so it is probably still under copyright in France as well. It cannot be restored without a free license from Studio Harcourt. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. We need evidence that this is out of copyright in France and the United States, or we need a permission from the current copyright holder. --De728631 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:JAVIER DIAZ FAJARDO.jpg

Hola, creo que el artículo completo fue eliminado por la foto, sin embargo tengo los permisos de publicación, ¿qué debo hacer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayan Quijano (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Support The image was deleted by Túrelio as a personal image of a non-contributor, but the subject is Chief Executive Officer of Bancóldex, the Columbian Export Import Bank, so I think he fall within scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Jim. The subject is notable, so the image is educationally useful. --De728631 (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Wakeley Performing At Carnegie Hall 2022.jpg

The picture used for Kitt Wakeley's Wikipedia page "Wakeley Performing At Carnegie Hall 2022" was taken by Michael Benabib. Michael has given permission for this picture to be used for Kitt Wakeley's Wikipedia page. Statement by Michael Benabib is as follows:

I hereby grant all rights to photos I took of Kitt Wakeley to be used however one wishes. Please see contact information below.

Michael Benabib www.michaelbenabib.com 275 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10016 212-683-4853 Email: (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBenabib (talk • contribs) 20:54, 27 May 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Uploaded by User:Teresa Jolie who claims to be the copyright owner and requests to be credited when this photo is used. Competing copyright claims can not be resolved on this page. Thuresson (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. This image is very small (454 × 606 px). The easiest way to resolve this is for the actual photographer to upload the image at full camera resolution and full EXIF, which will prove authorship. If the image is small because it is a radical crop, then upload both the full image and the crop. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please ask Mr. Benabib to upload a full-resolution image including metadata. He should also send an email with a permission to verify his authorship as explained in COM:VRT. --De728631 (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Prehistoric people.jpg

File:Proof of License.pdf

Dear Sir/Madam, 

The "Prehistoric People.jpg" image was legally purchases from Dreamstime LLC (www.dreamstime.com) under the Royalty Free license (see attached license copy). So, I believe I can use it in my Wikipedia article.

Vlad Kozh (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Buying the high-resolution Media (purchasing the license) does not transfer the copyright. You may not claim that the Media is your own and you may not sell, license for use, or in any way distribute the Media for reuse.
So, you may have the right to use it in your own works, but only you, and nobody else. You don't own the copyright and therefore cannot license it freely for others -- in other words, you can't give it a license which conforms to Commons:Licensing. And as it says, you also can't distribute it for further reuse, which is what uploading it to Commons is doing, since we are a repository of images for everyone to use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. Use on Commons is clearly and explicitly prohibited. I have deleted the license because it, too, is copyrighted and contains private information. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:El puto inolvidable. POSTER-Premios.jpg

I am the director of the film. I work for Sombracine. I am an associate a the production company. I have the rights to publish the poster of the film everywhere. Thanks. Best,

 Oppose Please note that we cannot verify your identy through your Wikimedia account. In such cases our rules require that the copyright holder sends an email with permission to use the image. Please see COM:VRT for details. De728631 (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done to allow for our customary grace period for new uploads with a credible claim of authorization. @Lucassantaana: You must send proof of your identity, in accordance with the instructions at COM:VRT. If permission is not confirmed within a month, the image will be deleted again. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Android Easter eggs.xcf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I set this file for deletion and now I understand that the reason for deletion is incorrect Артём 13327 (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: I had already posted on the deleting admin's talk page before this undeletion request. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Asanga Udara.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this is not copyright contant plz recover this. Asangaud (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Personal image by non contributor, out of scope. Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia are not social media to promote you. Please read COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done. This was deleted for being out of scope and OP has not addressed this. Thuresson (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:645x645.jpg

dont delete it. Шѐќіз — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nas4tb (talk • contribs) 14:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Small image with a watermark, obviously not own work, no evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Adam Santelli DP.jpg

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2022052310010887 regarding File:Adam Santelli DP.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganímedes: . --Yann (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Armed_teacher_in_classroom.png

Mistakenly claimed by deletion requester @EvergreenFir: and confirmed by @Yann: to be modern when actually from 1924 as indicated in file description

Original at https://archive.org/details/delineator104olou/page/n125/mode/2up

Based on copy in commons at File:Teacher_at_blackboard_(1924).jpg, again as indicated in file. I recognize that other modern publications have reprinted this public domain work but still it is public domain.

If I am in error then please explain. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: An error, sorry. --Yann (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


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

File:tearliner_2.jpg

it doesn/t have any copyright issue. Because, I draw this 'tearliner' logo. --Vertis9 (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted -- nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2022-05&oldid=660180709"