Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-09

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:Fabiola Conti Skyrunner.jpeg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file isn't taken from social media. The author of the photo (Iancorlessphotography) gave this photo with all permissions to Fabiola (the person in the picture), She asks me to add the italian page of her biography that was only in french. Loris Toia 1996 (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose But why must I credit "Loris Toia 1996" and not photographer Ian Corless if I want to use this photo? Please ask the copyright owner to follow the procedure at Commons:VRT to have the transfer of permissions verified. Thuresson (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. The actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. We need a permission coming directly from the copyright holder. --De728631 (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Depozitář České traktory v NZM Čáslav.jpg and more...

The owner of the copyright to deleted photos (The National Museum of Agriculture, Prague, Czech Republic) sends the permission to use them to the VRT system.--Gampe (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gampe: Please provide the ticket number. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
...is comming. Gampe (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Not done, a VRT volunteer will review the ticket and undelete the images if called for. Thuresson (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Arianna_Freeman.jpg

This picture has the correct licensing, link from where it was taken from & also the time in the link it was taken from. I am asking for it to be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MIAJudges (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 August 2022‎ (UTC)

@MIAJudges: Same answer.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This picture also originally did not have the correct licensing. I since went back & corrected it. All of the pictures I have uploaded that originally did not have the correct licensing now has it if you go in & look. They all have been corrected.
MIAJudges (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 Support To assist with this discussion I've temporarily undeleted File:Arianna Freeman.jpg. It does appear that it was updated to have a source link and time in the description. —RP88 (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

MIAJudges (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@MIAJudges: Please see COM:TALK.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg I am requesting you to not delete my page because it is the real picture of Yatoo Sahii , youngest poet from Kashmir.

I'm requesting you to not delete my page because this is real information about Yatoo Sahii , he is a youngest poet from Kashmir , he is also active on instagram , Facebook , twitter . If you wana approve my page you can chck the details about Yatoo Sahii , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatoo Sahii (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 August 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This probably refers to File:Yatoo Sahii.jpg which was deleted as a personal photo from a non-contributor. Google shows no hits for the subject except Facebook and Youtube, so I doubt that he meets our requirement for notability. There is also the fact that the subject of the image and the username of the uploader are the same. This does not look like a selfie, so it was probably taken by someone else who must grant the free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Marcin Drag08.jpg

This is the picture of myself and I have full copyright to it. Please undelete it and put in the place where was it originally in Wikipedia.--Wineisgood (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose You claimed that you were the actual photographer. This does not appear to be a selfie, so I doubt if that claim is correct. The copyright is held by the actual photographer. In order for the image to be restored to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT, (b) you must send a free license together with a copy of your written agreement with the actual photographer granting you the right to freely license the image, or (c) you must convince the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) that it actually is a selfie. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - EXIF data credit the author/copyright holder as "Maciej Kulczynski". As you purport to be Marcin Drąg ("This is the picture of myself"), you will need to provide evidence of permission from Kulczynski as described by Jim above. Эlcobbola talk 19:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Tram396KR.jpg

No reason for being deleted. Just a city tram (Ukraine); no persons, copyrights etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertHog (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 August 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Unless you can locate the "unknown" photographer and get a free license from them, this cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Not done, per discussion. Thuresson (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Azul windows xp.jpg

I’m gonna put credits to Reddit plus these copyright rules are so dumb like this is called a free encyclopedia so please bring it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by I do care about (talk • contribs) 17:31, 31 August 2022‎ (UTC)

Not done, from gettyimages.com, photo by Bill Ross. Same image as File:Azul (image).png. Thuresson (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Cedomir.Bozic.jpg

Please undelete this file, it is a photograph taken by Andrej Pap for Provincial Government of Vojvodina which is freely-licensed direct link: https://www.vojvodina.gov.rs/pokrajinska-vlada/clanovi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goran0071 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose No evidence of a free license at the source (first image). None of the images above has a permission or a free license. Please sign with ~~~~. Yann (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 Support {{PD-SerbiaGov}} includes "official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions", so coming from a government website I think these photos qualify as PD. De728631 (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The website for the Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of Serbia itself has a claim that their website is protected by copyright. This strikes me as evidence that Serbia does not consider government websites to be exempt from copyright protection as "official materials". I am not familiar with copyright jurisprudence in Serbia, but in many jurisdictions that exempt "official materials" from copyright protection this is interpreted to refer to materials in which applying copyright protection would interfere with the ability of the public to comply with government laws, regulations, or directives. —RP88 (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree with RP88. The government exemption covers only works such as laws and court decrees that must be free under to be useful. In this case, the source site, named above by Goran0071, is not freely license as claimed above, but actually has an explicit copyright notice "© Покрајинска влада 2021." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus to undelete. --Yann (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Android update.jpg

Android is distributed under the Apache License 2.0 Артём 13327 (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Leatherback Bearded Dragon.jpg

Did more reaserch and found out who had originally used the image and where it was posted. All copyright uses go to Meg Austwick, who had written and article on the reptile and presumably took the image and posted it on Squeaks and Nibbles. All the recourses and references will be found there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NioZ from Italy (talk • contribs) 18:38, 31 August 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Lermontova.jpg

I cited the uploader (vlasne.ua). Here’s the link https://vlasne.ua/city/krivoyrog/street/lermontova-street/

 Oppose (c) Vlasne Все права защищены at the source is not a free license declaration. See COM:L. Ankry (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Nuovo logo falconara.png

Also:

Io sottoscritto, Marco Catalani, responsabile area comunicazione dell'Asd Città di Falconara, ho utilizzato il logo della stessa società sportiva e ne chiedo quindi il ripristino.--Marcocatalani (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose We have no way here of knowing who User:Marcocatalani actually is, so policy requires that an authorized official of the organization owning the copyright send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

there is a way because the authorized officer was already sent to permissions-it@wikimedia.org a few years ago, when the page started Marcocatalani (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no evidence of that here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done We need to wait for the permission and VRT member action. Ankry (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Zu Arthur Ceraj FF.jpg

All due diligence was performed to find a named creator by using reverse image search against the billion images online, and no name has been found, which meets the requirements for ¨PD-EU-no author disclosure¨, the closure invoked ¨PD-old-assumed¨ which is not an EU specific license like ¨PD-EU-no author disclosure¨. The two deletion !votes involved notability, not a license issue. For instance we have images in museums of this person where the photographer was named: as seen here and we have anonymous photographic images in museums as seen here. --RAN (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The corresponding deletion request is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zu Arthur Ceraj FF.jpg, which I decided. In addition to what I wrote there, some more things need to be addressed for this discussion here:
While I basically agree with the two deletion votes about notability, I didn't delete for notability reasons because the file was in use at Wikidata. RAN here is sometimes creating Wikidata entries for these obscure persons and then inserting Commons images there, like in this case. Given Wikidata's quite broad and IMO somewhat ambiguous inclusion criteria, that may be entirely correct as far as Wikidata is concerned.
RAN seems to think that if you can't find the author of some photo or work in general on the Internet, you can then declare this work to be anonymous. For (older) US works, where a publication notice needed to be distributed with the work, we usually accept works as having no notice when we have reproductions that show them in their entirety, front and back, all pages of a book etc. (and then don't see a notice in the work). But here, we don't even have that, so how do we know there was no authorship information somewhere else? Also, I think that information of this kind is just as likely or even more likely not to be found on the Internet, but in records of the traditional kind, on paper. The relevant laws about anonymous works go back to a time when nobody even thought of the Internet, and the first of their kind even to a time when only published books were protected by copyright. So the assumption that you're done when you haven't found anything on the Internet seems rather careless to me.
I didn't write anything about US copyright in the DR, but let's address it here. Either the photo was published at some point, then the URAA might apply. Or it might have been unpublished before 2003, then the conditions shown in {{PD-US-unpublished}} apply: The work is in the PD either if it was created over 120 years ago, or if we have a named author with a known death date who died over 70 years ago.
There are various theories about when some work is published that you can read in discussions here. One is that a photograph is published as soon as a print from a negative is made and given to a customer or someone else. While that might be true for certain older US works when prints were sold, because of common law and court decisions, I don't think it applies to Austria. Another theory is that a photograph is published as soon as it is pasted into a passport or similar official ID document (like in this case). I don't subscribe to that theory either.
But let's assume the image was published at some point in the 1930s. Per en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, Austria's 1936 copyright law had a specific protection term of 20 years for (any) photographs, either after publication or after creation if not published within 20 years. A 1953 law (non-retroactive, meaning expired copyrights were not restored) introduced the distinction between Lichtbild (simple photograph) and Lichtbildwerk (among other things, studio shots like this one, protected for 50 years pma). A 1972 law extending the term to 70 years pma was also not retroactive, and while the law of 1996 was retroactive, it was passed after the URAA date. So if first published before 1933, the photo was most likely in the PD on the URAA date, and the URAA did not restore its US copyright. If published after 1932, its term was extended to 50 years pma by the 1953 law (because it was now protected as a Lichtbildwerk) and to 70 years pma by the 1972 law (and even if published before 1933, the Austrian law of 1996 then restored its Austrian copyright). So if published after 1932, it was copyrighted in Austria on the URAA date, and the URAA would have restored its US copyright. If published in 1939, until the end of of 2034.
If it was unpublished before 2003 however (entirely possible), the terms outlined above would apply. Since we don't know an author, 120 years from creation. We don't know the year of creation, but as I explained in the DR, it's unlikely to have been later than 1939. So then the term of protection would last until the end of 2059.
Which means that most likely the photograph is still protected in the US. Unless it was first published before 1933 or it was unpublished before 2003 and its known author died before 1952. All of which we don't know. --Rosenzweig τ 06:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and also: the two Europeana images linked above are not “in museums” as claimed. They're shown on the Europeana web site because the same person who uploaded the Ceraj photos here submitted them to the Europeana 1914-1918 project, a “project to digitise and publish primary and secondary historical sources on the First World War”. It seems that Ceraj was someone living in the same Austrian / Styrian municipality as the uploader, or close by. --Rosenzweig τ 07:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: I generally agree with the above analysis. However, note that URAA does not apply to works published after February 1989. US copyright law applies to them directly due to Berne. This would make copyright status analysis a bit more complicated: if it was published in Mar 1989-Dec 2002 period, it would be copyrighted in US (till 2048) even if being PD in Austria at URAA date. Ankry (talk)

 Not done per discussion above and lack of requester's response. Ankry (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Chmonia.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the source release the content under CC-BY-SA 4.0, quote:"Матеріали на сайті розміщені на умовах ліцензії Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, якщо не вказано іншого". But maybe Túrelio had a better reason to delete the page. Andriy.v (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


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

User:Vijender jangra

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello, Wiki.

Suppose it is our fault that, again and again, we changed the page to setup. But this is the first time we have used Wikipedia and the image uploaded on it is ours, so we are using it.

I request you not to delete our page. Vijender jangra (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose: Vanity page and sock of User:Micromad98. --Achim55 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of Gyumri.svg, File:Coat of arms of Gyumri.svg, File:Flag of Ejmiatsin.svg, File:Coat of arms of Ejmiatsin.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{PD-AM-exempt}} applies to the images, therefore it is not a copyright violation. Flagvisioner (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

 Question The template declares that the exception applies to state emblems and signs and these are emblems of cities, not of the state. Any comment to this? Ankry (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Hm. I would like to mention then, that it also does say "c) official documents: legal acts, treaties and the official translations thereof;".
In that case, it seems that [1] counts as an official document, meaning that the flag of Gyumri and its coat of arms are not protected by copyright.
The flag of Ejmiatsin is an official document (which is currently down, but fortunately available on the Wayback Machine at [2]). I am not too sure if it means the coat of arms is public domain, though, since the flag is the coat of arms with a cross on it (with the cross probably counting as pd-shape). Flagvisioner (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure if a webpage can be considered official document. Any comment? Ankry (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Definition of document, from Google: "a piece of written, printed, or electronic matter that provides information or evidence or that serves as an official record."
We can see that the sites the flags and coats of arms are found on are documents of official municipal websites. They are electronic matter, provide information and serve as an official record. Which makes them official documents. Flagvisioner (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
"Official document" is a legal term and we need a legal interpretation based on Armenian law here. That is why I am asking others for opinion. Google translate has nothing to do with legal definition. Ankry (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 Support I don't see any rationale for saying that a flag is an official document. However, the template is not quite correct. The Armenian version of the template gives:

"դ) պաշտոնական խորհրդանիշերն ու նշանները (դրոշներ, զինանշաններ, շքանշաններ, դրամանիշներ)."

which Google translates as:

"d) official symbols and signs (flags, coats of arms, medals, coins);".

Note that the word "national" does not appear. Therefore Ankry's question above has no basis. There is no reason to believe that city flags are not "official symbols and signs". If the images are restored, the template should also be changed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done mostly per Jim. Ankry (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:PixelExperience 11 screenshot.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello, the reason why I request the restoration is because it IS my job. I took the capture myself, on my cell phone.

Thanks. AlexTux2014 (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but the underlying image is copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:2023 COMSOVE MINIQ 138.png

Reason of Request: According to the article 10 of the Legal Notice page of the website of the brand, the use of this image can be used by citing the source other than commercial uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucxy (talk • contribs) 15:23, 3 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose. That does not explain where the alleged CC-BY-SA-4.0 license comes from. From [3], article 10: "COMSOVE reserves all rights. All the texts, graphics, images, photos, audio files, animation files, and video files at this Website as well as all the page designs and other intellectual property rights of this Website are under protection. You shall not reproduce or distribute them for commercial purposes, and you shall not revise them or use or publish them at other websites in any way. As an exception, all images, videos and texts can be used for promotional and announcement purposes by showing the source, excluding commercial uses. The copyrights may of some images at this Website belong to their third-party providers." (emphasis added)
Thuresson (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Commercial use restriction is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons licencing requirements. A free license permission that explicitely allows commercial reuse following VRT is needed in order to host the image here. Ankry (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:EdCaraeff.jpeg

I have permission to upload the file by the owner. --Creativemultiverse (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  • probably about File:Ed Caraeff.jpg
  • @Creativemultiverse:
    1. if you needed a permission why did you claim Own work ?
    2. a permission to upload is not suitable, see COM:L
    3. we also need to have the permission; see VRT for instructions to the copyright holder how to send it.
 Oppose per above. Ankry (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:1373 wysowa wylot.jpg

This file was deleted in 2014 by INeverCry (Commons:Deletion requests/File:1373 wysowa wylot.jpg). It was deleted for being out of scope, implicitly for being of no educational use. However, the file is used on OpenStreetMap at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3006555083, and was even before it was deleted. I think use on OpenStreetMap is educational within the broad parameters of COM:EDUSE, and so this demonstrates that the file is of educational use and should be undeleted. --bjh21 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I have restored this temporarily to aid discussion. As you will see, the image is essentially a green nothing. It's hard to understand why anyone would add it to OSM except as vandalism. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, that is spectacularly more useless than I was expecting. I can just about make out a structure in the picture, and if I stare very hard I can convince myself there's a horizontal bit at the top of the structure that's presumably a stork nest. So I think the use on OSM is in good faith: it probably is genuinely a photo of a stork nest, but I can't really argue that it's a useful photo of a stork nest. --bjh21 (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn by requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:CLS Computer Mannheim-Käfertal.jpg

This file was deleted in 2017 by Jcb for being out of scope, implicitly not of educational use (Commons:Deletion requests/File:CLS Computer Mannheim-Käfertal.jpg). However, the file is and was used on OpenStreetMap at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3480739012. Use on OpenStreetMap is educational in the broad sense described at COM:EDUSE, so I think the fact that it's used there is evidence that the file is useful. One slight complication here is that the uploader, Wegavision, explained in the DR that "it is an osm project of all shops in the town", so this isn't a case of new evidence: I'm asking for a reversal of the deleting admin's decision on the grounds that it was incorrect. --bjh21 (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support I agree that use on OSM qualifies this as educationally useful. The store is still there according to Google, and OSM still references our image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Lieutenant Colonel Thita Rangsitpol Manitkul.jpg

It is our politician.lt is selfie’s photo which cannot belong to the news agency that her political enemies claim — Preceding unsigned comment added by แม่สอดตาก (talk • contribs) 23:55, 4 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose According to uploader the source is a Google search. Thuresson (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose As noted by Thuresson, the upload gives the author as "News" and the source as a Google search. The image appears at https://www.flickriver.com/photos/184665593@N05/ with an explicit copyright notice. Even if we assume that it is a selfie, as claimed above, there is no free license for the image. If it is a selfie, then Colonel Manitkul must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Panachaiki 2022 logo.png

This is the official new logo of Panachaiki FC (Greek Football Team) You can check it by your own in the official team pages below. https://panachaikifc1891.gr/ https://matchnews.gr/to-neo-sima-tis-panachaikis-echei-asteria/ Both pages are written in Greek so please translate them if you need.--Nikosdem (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Deleted for being a non-trivial logo. I can't find any Creative Commons license at panachaikifc1891.gr/. Thuresson (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose In fact, the cited page has "Copyright © 1891 - 2022 Παναχαϊκή". In order to restore it on Commons, an authorized official of the club must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. The request appears to misunderstand the issue--the concern is not whether the logo is official, but whether it is freely licensed. Evidence of the latter has not been provided. --Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Guillaume-bottazzi-je-decouvre-l-art-moderne.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission from the artist per Ticket:2018081910004145. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Cambridge by Lamplight

Request temporary undeletion

These files (shown in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cambridge by Lamplight) were intended to be transfered to English WikiSource (due to not being in public domain yet in the country of origin), but the transfer didn't go thru correctly (the descriptions were transferred, but not the actual files). I'm requesting that they be un-deleted so we can try it again and get them properly moved over. JesseW (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@JesseW: I've temporarily restored them as requested. Please leave a note here when the transfer is done. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 09:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have import permissions, so I've asked the WikiSource admin who did failed import previously to try it again. JesseW (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Import doesn't seem to be working right. I've downloaded them; they can be uploaded manually. You can delete them again.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: temporarily restored, then deleted again, per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 09:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Yaguareté (Panthera onca).jpg

Hola, soy editor del Complejo Ecológico de América, todas las fotos que subimos son de nuestra autoría, pido por favor que no se nos eliminen las imagenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu Funk (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: per elcobbola. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:JRM Logo.jpg

File:JRM Logo.jpg--KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Complex logo, no reason provided. Yann (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Parlement Européen de Strasbourg

All the photos concerning the European Parliament of Strasbourg.

These photos should not be deleted because the European Parliament, although located on French territory, does not belong to France but to the European Community.

So the French law on the freedom of panorama cannot apply. Reference should be made to the laws of the European Community.

I don't know of any European laws restricting the freedom of panorama. Maybe you know some?

I don't remember any legal action by the European Community asking for the removal of photos of the European Parliament. Maybe you do?

Unless you have concrete arguments showing me that I am wrong, these photos should not be deleted.

Have a good day.

--Céléda (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The European Union does not have a copyright law. There are Copyright Directives, but those are only directed at the member states to adjust their copyright laws accordingly, they're not directly valid for any citizen, company or organization. So copyright law is a matter of the states that are members. In this case, France. --Rosenzweig τ 10:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The European Parliament owns its premises in Strasbourg, therefore outside the scope of the French law on freedom of panorama. This law cannot be enforced. Likewise, this law cannot apply to the embassy of a foreign country. The States, the State Representations are the only holders of the right to the image concerning their premises. No one can argue otherwise.
Have a good day Rosenzweig
--Céléda (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Actually, there are excellent arguments otherwise. It is well established here that art works and buildings on the grounds of embassies and consulates and on the grounds of the United Nations are subject to the FoP laws of the host country and not those of the country whose embassy it is. There are many cases here supporting this, for one example, see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2021-07 Item 151, File:Australian_Embassy_in_Paris.jpg .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You only talk about the decisions of the Wikimedia Commons supervisors (I am fighting against one of these decisions). You have no legal text, no court decision to support your argument. I don't understand why you insist on over-interpreting a law. (in fact, you are just defending your own decisions) . The fairest thing would be to ask a specialist in international intellectual property law (I assume that Wiki has the means to do this) since none of the opponents is able to advance an argument other than "we already have it do !"
Have a good day Jim (James Woodward) Céléda (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Céléda, I have two comments.
First, you misunderstand the burden of proof here. It is up to you and others who would like to keep the images to prove that we can do so within the law and Commons policy. In a case like this, many of us would very much like to keep the images, but we know that we can't because of the lack of FoP in France.
Second, you come here to argue a point of view that has been argued at least half a dozen times over the last ten years. You bring nothing but your assertion that we must be wrong. On the other hand, a variety of experienced Commons editors have tried to find a way to keep these and similar images (an embassy in Iceland comes to mind as well as a variety of art on the grounds of the United Nations in New York). We have found nothing that supports your point of view and many sources that tell us that embassies and the like do not have "extraterritoriality", but are subject to the laws of the host country. It would be good thing for Commons if you could come back with clear evidence that we are wrong, but I don't think that can happen..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately for Commons, Rosenzweig and Jim are right. Who owns the building doesn't have any bearing on the copyright law used for such building. The European Parliament is in France, therefore French law has to be used concerning photographs of the building. Yann (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Where is the legal base for the assumption that French law doesn't apply for European Union buildings on French territory? Your argument would mean that the premises owned by the European Parliament in Strasbourg are outside of French law at all (not just copyright), but it's certainly not a lawless territory, so some law must apply, and which other if not French? You could maybe try to argue that the copyright law of country X applies for its embassy in country Y (but see Jim's reply), but this is not an embassy of a specific country, and, as Rosenzweig says, there is no "EU copyright law" that could be directly applied. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Again you bring no concrete argument, no decision or recommendation of French or European justice. (For your information, the US embassy is not an area of non-law, but of American law, not French)
My question is very simple: "ARE THE FRENCH LAWS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FORCE WIKI TO CENSOR THE PHOTOS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN STRASBOURG?"
Neither you nor I can answer this question. We simply give our opinion not supported by facts. For the discussion to become constructive I suggest that: The leaders (or) lawyers of Wiki Europe ask the question directly to the French Ministries of Culture and/or European Affairs as well as to the European High Commissioner for Culture.
Posing the question through an "open letter" could perhaps speed up the response?
For me this discussion ends there. I think I have done everything possible to fight against censorship. Ciao everyone, have a great day. Alain Delorme --Céléda (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@Celeda: As Jim pointed out, it is your responsibility to do that, not us. And yes, law INSIDE an embassy is that the country of the embassy. But law for photographing a building from the OUTSIDE is that of the host country. Yann (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Dear Yann,
I didn't want to answer any more, but that's too important, I have to do it one last time. One of the pillars of French democracy is: the accusation, the censor must bring at least one definitive proof that he is within his rights. It is never up to the accused or the censured to do so. Our cultures are too different we cannot understand each other. (As you cannot understand French law. The written word is a small part of French law; the spirit, usage, private contracts - under certain conditions - the multiple exceptions referenced or not, and especially JURISPRUDENCE are superior to writing).
Merci,
Grace à vous et au logiciel de traduction mon anglais s'améliore.
Une bonne journée,
Alain Delorme Céléda (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@Celeda: You are not accused on anything, and moreover, Commons is not managed according to French (democracy) law. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC) PS: I sent a message to Céléda's talk page in French.
Thank you for your kind message in French. Now I understand your way of doing things better. Until now I only saw an authoritarian process. I will send a message to the Ministry of Culture. I'll see if they answer me. But I doubt it. The processes of our democracy are very, very far from perfect. See you again (maybe). Alain Delorme --Céléda (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Picture of the penis of a circumcised man.jpg

I see that this image is suitable for use in Wikipedia because of its clarity and accuracy, and because it is suitable to illustrate what a circumcised penis looks like 7/9/2022 --Rzx1999 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose as per arguments in the DR. Yann (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Nude guy 7.5 inch penis.jpg

I need to download that picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajuuuuu2969 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose as per arguments in the DR. Yann (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Lermontova.jpg

Wikimapia works under Creative Commons license. I assume there is nothing wrong with this upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertHog (talk • contribs) 21:50, 7 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Found at https://scubefixtures.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/MallEntranceBlog.jpg which is © S-CUBE Fixtures 2022. I suspect that the appearance on Wikimapia (the file does not give the address from which the upload came) is license laundering. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support The photo was in fact uploaded 9 years ago by one Sergey Gorinov at Wikimapia where all content is available under CC-by-sa-3.0 (Terms of Service, section 1. F.). A user "gorinov" uploaded this at Freepik too under a non-free licence. Judging from the S-Cube weblink https://scubefixtures.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/MallEntranceBlog.jpg however, their instance was only uploaded there in January this year. So this appears to be a backwards copy of Gorinov's original photo. De728631 (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support This file was downloaded on my iPhone (that’s why it does not give the address from which it came). Sorry I couldn’t have done better at that moment.
The S-Cube’s copy has one evidence of fake (copyright violation)! Difference: the author’s signature in the up-right corner is wiped out with the help of cutting the sky off, which made the picture more widescreened. If they bought it ,but not stole it, the author-seller would just provide the negative not signed. They “zoomed it out” instead!
Btw, considering the image was uploaded on Wikimapia before S-Cube, it can be still exposed freely under its license, I suppose.
The photo was actually taken not in 2022, but much more early – as you can see, the 2nd floor of Victory Plaza(the “round thing mall”) is still under construction, also the neon sign’s still missing right there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertHog (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Comment I'm not so sure. The S-cube image is not zoomed out as suggested above, but is a much higher resolution image. For example, the blue lane assignment arrow sign in the middle of the image is completely readable in the S-Cube version, and not so in the deleted version. The same is true of the lane assignment arrows painted on the street.

We don't have the address at Wikimedia where this is said to have appeared, so we have no evidence that it was actually uploaded to there from a source that was CC-BY-SA. I still think we must assume that it has been license laundered. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done The above discussion shows that this case is controversial, and thus speedy deletion does not apply. A regular DR has been filed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lermontova.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Yaguareté (Panthera onca).jpg

La imagen pertenece a nuestra institución, fue sacada por nuestra fotografa, como me la van a eliminar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu Funk (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 September 2022‎ (UTC)

Procedural close. Double undeletion request. Thuresson (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Jinsuk Nicolas Cheong.jpg

File:Jinsuk Nicolas Cheong.jpg It's an open source portrait from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seoul, not a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkchan113 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The page from which it was loaded, https://www.donga.com/news/Culture/article/all/20210427/106643980/1, shows "Copyright by dongA.com All rights reserved" at the bottom. The Google translation of the page shows no other copyright information and certainly not a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license as claimed by the uploader. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:MininaVV.jpg

Этот файл был опубликован с разрешения его владельца. --Guta Gutman (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose In the upload, you claimed that you were the photographer. Now you claim that the file was published with the permission of its owner. Which are we to believe -- or neither?

In order for the file to be restored to Commons either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b) someone else must send a free license together with a written license from the actual photographer allowing the sender to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:NFT From Zero to Hero by Anndy Lian Front Cover.png

I am the Author and curator of this book cover. I own all the copyrights to the book. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BBS8XF69/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anndylian (talk • contribs) 14:46, 8 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that User:Anndylian confirm that he is the author of the same name using VRT. See the third sentence at Commons:Username_policy#Well-known_names_and_names_of_organizations .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Dead Town in 2020.jpg

Not an advertisement. Just a picture of the band members. Was flagged for deletion by a bot. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingShawn1987 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose See Draft:Dead Town. Come back when and if the article is accepted on WP:EN. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Die Lizenz des Fotografen Georg Schmid liegt vor und ging am 01.08.2017 an Permissions-Commons. --Judgart (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No file name provided. --Yann (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Гасанова Малахат Ибрагим кызы и Ситдыкова Гузаль Рамазановна. Баку. 2000.jpg

̆ːːUser:CommonsDelinker, Вы удалили это фото, несмотря на то, что я уже писала объяснение, что автором фото являюсь я сама[4]. Мною был выбран ракурс, настроен фотоаппарат, затем обработан. Т.е., я являюсь автором этого фото, поэтому прошу восстановить его. --Guram52 (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support per above: @Ruthven: as the image was kept in a DR, it should not be speedy deleted. See also the image talk page. Ankry (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ankry Fine, you're right. My mistake. Forwarding the message to Dr.Wiki54 who added the "No source since" template without checking.
I am undeleting the file... Ruthven (msg) 09:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

ˑИзвините, я имела ввиду вот это фото File:Гасанова Малахат Ибрагим кызы и Ситдыкова Гузаль Рамазановна. Баку. 2000.jpg , обсуждение было о нем. Но и фото File:Участницы юбилея "Китаби Деде Коркут" в Гобустане. 2000.jpg также было снято мной, на мой фотоаппарат, который был настроен на штативе, обработано мной, т.е. также я являюсь автором --Guram52 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC) ːAnkry, обе фотографии сделаны мной, во время моей рабочей поездки в Баку, сняты на мой фотоаппарат, с моей настройкой для рабочего же отчета, редактированы также мной.--Guram52 (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 09:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Susan Alberti AC.jpg

Please find below written permission from the licence owner to publish this photo to accompany the following entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Alberti

Good afternoon Simon,

Further to your kind email, please find the attached for your review and attention as per request.

Additionally, please find Sue’s approved headshot - Copyright of the Susan Alberti Medical Research Foundation. Susan gives permission for Wikipedia to use it.

I trust the attached and above is satisfactory, however, please do not hesitate to contact me should this not be the case.

Sincere and infinite kind regards,

Elda Basso Executive Assistant to Susan Alberti AC, FAICD

Chair Susan Alberti Medical Research Foundation PO Box 3159 Wheelers Hill, Victoria 3150, Australia (P) (Redacted)

(W) www.susanalbertifoundation.org.au

Please note I work Monday, Tuesday, Thursday & Friday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonfrost74 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 9 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose @Simonfrost74: This is not a free license permission as required by policy. See COM:L and COM:VRT for details. Ankry (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Not done, OP received detailed instructions regarding VRT on user's talk page in 2020. Thuresson (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File: 1945-pib-Panther-Holzschnitt.jpg

Die Grafik stammt von meinem Vater. Die Befugnisabtretung meiner Geschwister von Mai 2018 habe ich Wikimedia im Zusammenhang mit der Illustration des Wiki-Beitrags zu Peter Josef Breuer, Grafiker, noch im Mai 2018 zugemailt. Ich kann Ihnen diese wieder zumailen. Leider wird mir hier nicht die Möglichkeit eingeräumt, die Befugnisabtretung anzuhängen. Aber Sie haben ja hoffentlich alles ordentlich archiviert. --Judgart (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


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

Hkbus.fandom

File:324 CTB 48 30-12-2015.jpg

This is my photo,I upload this photo to hkbus fandom,then upload photo to here.

Sourceː https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:324_48.JPG LN9267 (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

File:509 CTB 629.jpg

This is my photo,I upload this photo to hkbus fandom,then upload photo to here.

Sourceː https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:509-629(CTB).jpg LN9267 (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

File:513 CTB 1.jpg

This is my photo,I upload this photo to hkbus fandom,then upload this photo to here.

Sourceː https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:513_CTB_1.JPG LN9267 (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

File:514 CTB 1 24-06-2014.jpg

This is my photograph,I just upload to hkbus fandom first,then upload to here.

Sourceː https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:514_CTB_1_24-06-2014.jpg LN9267 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

File:534 CTB 5B(Right side).jpg

This is my photograph,I upload to hkbus fandom first,then upload to here.

Sourceː https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:534_5B_2.jpg LN9267 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

File:679 CTB 307 06-08-2014.jpg

This is my photograph,I upload this photo to hkbus fandom first,then upload photo to here.

Sourceː https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:679_307(CTB).jpg LN9267 (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

File:686 CTB 70 07-06-2017.jpg

This is my photograph,I upload this photo to hkbus fandom first,then upload photo to here.

Sourceː https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:686_70_07-06-2017.JPG LN9267 (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

 Support All these photos come with a CC-by-sa 3.0 licence at hkbus.fandom.com. You can check this in the links provided by LN9267: See the popup that appears next to the question mark ? in the upper right corner. De728631 (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per De728631. Also we don't delete pctures of vehicles before of advertisement. See the wildely discussed Pokemon Jets, so I am also restoring other files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Alexander RH-bodied Volvo Olympian 12m buses of Citybus. --Yann (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:ENT_LOGO_Large_Black.png

ROCK Entertainment has been changed their channel brand twice. (RTL CBS Entertainment → Blue Ant Entertainment → Rock Entertainment) Not to be mentioned that there was both RTL CBS Entertainment & Blue Ant Entertainment logo on the page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VernardoLau (talk • contribs) 10:23, 10 September 2022‎ (UTC)

No such file by this name was ever uploaded and you don't have any deleted uploads either. So please tell us which particular file you would like to have undeleted. De728631 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. Please send again a request with the file name. --Yann (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:IPhone 14 Pro Official Poster by Apple.jpg

Please undelete the file as I’ll try my best to provide the license details soon

 Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Have_You_Seen_This_Woman?_official_poster.jpg

Permission for file usage sent to VRT via email, ticket #2022091110002768. Ckql10 (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted by Krd. --De728631 (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:סמל ימאהה.jpg

This picture shows Yamaha logo. It was authorized by Yoel Brand, who is Yamaha Franchisee in Israel,for for publishing in Wikipedia as part of the Wikipedia entry about him. Please undelete this picture. Dr. Ilana Ivtzan Author of the Hebrew value: יואל ברנד - מנכ"ל "כלי זמר"

 Oppose The Yamaha logo is copyrighted and non-free. Therefore our rules require that we get a permission directly from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for details. De728631 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose The Yamaha logo is public domain. Oppose undeletion per Commons:Deletion requests/File:סמל ימאהה.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Hard to understand, maybe the deleted logo is written in Hebrew (aka that translated the word "Yamaha" to Hebrew)? In this case COM:TOO Israel would need to be considered, though, I would prefer to see whether someone would love to find or create a svg edition of Yamaha logo in Hebrew. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The deleted file looks pretty much like File:Yamaha logo.svg. No Hebrew writing. Thuresson (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Unneeded duplicate low-quality logo with the wrong proportions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:CNN.svg

Originally requested for File:CNN logo.svg rather than File:CNN.svg

Wouldn't this be under COM:TOO US per the deletion requests of CNN logo.svg, CNN Tonight logo.png and CNN en Español 2010.svg?. It also should've had a full discussion rather than a speedy due to the previous discussion of the logo. Already notified the deleting admin but they're on a wikibreak. We also have many derivative logos at Category:CNN logos --Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 10:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:CNN logo.svg. The closing rationale was that the file was redundant (we do have other SVG logos of CNN), and apparently the SVG code was also invalid. De728631 (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Oops I meant File:CNN.svg which the other file was deleted as redundant of and recently got deleted as a copyright violation which resulted in it getting removed from 100+ pages. --Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 13:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 Support This is not different from File:CNN 11059492.png or any related logos in Category:CNN logos. {{PD-textlogo}}. De728631 (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Clearly not a speedy. Anyone who disagrees may file a DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Downing Street, Earth Hour 2021.jpg

Per discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christmas 2019 Downing Street Decoration (2).jpg, this image can be found on nationalarchives.gov.uk, which says that All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated

Specifically it can be seen in search results at https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/twitter/10DowningStreet?year_from=2021&year_to=2021&amount=90&sort=date_newest&from=560 ("Tonight we joined millions across the globe in switching off our lights"). --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: No opposition. --Yann (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Red in No. 10 Downing Street.jpg

Per discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christmas 2019 Downing Street Decoration (2).jpg, this image can be found on nationalarchives.gov.uk, which says that All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated

I can't see the original image that was uploaded here, but I assume it is the one that can be seen in search results at https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/twitter/10DowningStreet?year_from=2018&year_to=2018&amount=90&sort=date_newest&from=90 ("Downing Street is lit up in red to mark #AntiSlaveryDay and joins others around the UK calling to end modern slavery"). --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Info This is https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk//media/twitter/10DowningStreet/1053019821015740427/https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp0Sw8XXUAA9rmR.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankry (talk • contribs)

✓ Done: No opposition. --Yann (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:The Prince and Princess of Wales, Queensland, 1983.jpg

This file was deleted and the only description I could see was "Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing." However, this photograph was published by the Queensland State Archives and is available on Flickr here with the Public Domain Mark. --Denniscabrams (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support We should trust GLAMs for their copyright assessments. Yann (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 Support This archive record of the Queensland State Government declares the photo as copyrighted to the QLD state government. So the PD release at the government's Flickr account appears to be legit. {{PDMark-owner}} applies. De728631 (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Molly Joyce.jpg

The subject of the photograph provided permission via email for me to put the photo up. Healpa12 (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright is usually held by the original photographer and not by the person depicted in a photo. Also, we do not accept forwarded permissions. The copyright holder of the image needs to provide a permission by email. Please see COM:VRT for instructions. De728631 (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:SELLO DEMETRIO BRID.png

The image of the stamp provided for this Wikipedia article on Demetrio H. Brid was conceptualized and designed by myself in 2017 with the support of a designer under contract (Eliseo Bustamante) who executed the digital artwork provided to him. The image was then supplied to the Dirección General de Correos y Telégrafos de Panamá for its printing and issuance. I can submit additional proof of this statement if required. Best regards, Irvin A. Halman

COM:VRT is needed, thanks!! --Ezarateesteban 18:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission pending. --Yann (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Fabio Concato Iseo 2017.jpg

L'immagine in questione è stata eliminata per violazione di copiright ma è stata scattata con la mia reflex. Ho il file originale. L'ho probabilmente caricata qui facendo download dal mio profilo Facebook ma per pura comodità. @StomboyCarGeek @Túrelio --Alexdechi (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@StomboyCarGeek and Túrelio: FYI. De728631 (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Copied from Facebook, no permission. --Yann (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Je dispose des pleins droits pour utiliser cette image. Mon travail est purement professionnel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmcsenegal (talk • contribs) 00:42, 13 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: No file name provided. --Yann (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Сборник стихов Ермена Анти «Так горит степь».png

Требую восстановить указанный файл, по причине того, что человек, представляемый мной, является автором картины с эксклюзивными правами.

 Not done: Not currently deleted, but permission via COM:VRT needed. --Yann (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Pfarrkirche Ötztal-Bahnhof Betonglasfenster.jpg

The deletion of this file was wrong. As I explained several times (!) in the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pfarrkirche Ötztal-Bahnhof Betonglasfenster.jpg, freedom of panorama in Austria also applies to the interior of buildings: "Es ist zulässig [...] Werke der Baukunst nach einem ausgeführten Bau oder andere Werke der bildenden Künste nach Werkstücken, die dazu angefertigt wurden, sich bleibend an einem öffentlichen Ort zu befinden, zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten, durch optische Einrichtungen öffentlich vorzuführen, durch Rundfunk zu senden und der Öffentlichkeit zur Verfügung zu stellen; ausgenommen sind das Nachbauen von Werken der Baukunst, die Vervielfältigung eines Werkes der Malkunst oder der graphischen Künste zur bleibenden Anbringung an einem Orte der genannten Art sowie die Vervielfältigung von Werken der Plastik durch die Plastik." (§ 54 Abs. 1 Z. 5 UrhG) It doesn't restrict it to the outside view. This sentence from the supreme court (OGH) clarifies that freedom of panorama includes the interior of buildings and even items inside buildings and explicitely mentions glass windows: "An Glasfenstern ausgeführte Glasmalereien sind sowohl von innen als auch von außen sichtbar; sie sind daher sowohl Teil der Innen- als auch Teil der Außenansicht. Ihre isolierte Wiedergabe ist auch durch von innen gemachte Aufnahmen schon deshalb zulässig, weil sie Bestandteil des Bauwerkes sind." --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've already restored it yesterday before seeing this just now. --Rosenzweig τ 11:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Fairchild A-10A Thunderbolt II Cutaway Drawing Key.jpg

I scanned this image directly from an Aperture card (image here: https://imgur.com/a/nYfGO5l)

I do see that the author on the image shows as "Aviagraphica" which leads me to believe that this is the original work of "Michael Badrocke" -- but seeing as how the image is taken from a DoD Aperture card, I'm wondering if we can get it onto the wiki page. Otherwise, do you think I should reach out directly to Mr. Badrocke for authorization? Mandevwin (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment While I think there may have been a case for deleting this, I think that as it was scanned from a DoD aperture card, and was a good-faith upload by someone that believed it to be in the public domain, it at least merited discussion, and did not merit the semi-speedy deletion that it got. Lewis Collard! (talk). 21:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Converted to DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fairchild A-10A Thunderbolt II Cutaway Drawing Key.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Damien ADAM 2022.png

Hello,

this picture of Damien ADAM is mine, i take the picture and damien adam is ok to use by wikipedia.

thank you to let me use.

Aline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aline76000 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 14 September 2022‎ (UTC)

User has reuploaded, COM:VRT instructions provided to uploader. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Request by Monika Siekiewicz

copyright compliance for publication on wikipedia.org was sent to the email address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monika Siekiewicz (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This must be processed through VRT, not here. Thuresson (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Awdat Al-Roh.jpg

Hello

This file is my own work

Thanks for understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsonalfred2022 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 September 2022‎ (UTC)

@Crimsonalfred2022: Are you the producer of a 1977 TV mini series? Thuresson (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Guns N' Roses - Chinese Democracy (Guitar Tab) - "Catcher In The Rye" lyrics.png

Требую восстановить указанный файл, по причине того, что человек, представляемый мной, является автором картины с эксклюзивными правами.

 Oppose Album cover, permission via COM:VRT needed. Yann (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ермен Анти - «Бурлаки и Добровольцы» (2015).jpg

Требую восстановить указанный файл, по причине того, что человек, представляемый мной, является автором картины с эксклюзивными правами.

 Oppose Album cover, permission via COM:VRT needed. Yann (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:«Адаптация» - «Время Убийц» (2008).jpg

Требую восстановить указанный файл, по причине того, что человек, представляемый мной, является автором картины с эксклюзивными правами.

 Oppose Album cover, permission via COM:VRT needed. Yann (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:TurboAnt_X7_Pro.jpg

This image is from TurboAnt Official.It will not be in copyright trouble. --Claybox (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Claybox 9/14

✓ Done: Restored, and DR created instead. --Yann (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:ThomasChittendenVT.jpg

Please restore as we now have a permission statement from the copyright holder for this file per: Ticket:2022083010013703 Ww2censor (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ww2censor: . --Yann (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Deleted uploads of Fapaa

VRT agent (verify): request: Ticket:2022090110011106 alleges permission. I request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jeff G.: . --Yann (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Port of Norwich Cigarette Card 1939 back.pdf File:Port of Norwich Cigarette Card 1939.jpg Port of Norwich Cigarette Card 1939 back.tif

These files were deleted despite there being no consensus. The deleter should lose his admin privileges for high-handed arrogant behaviour like this.Irate (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Irate. The subject card is from 1939, which means that it cannot have been PD in the UK before 1/1/2010. That is 14 years after the URAA date. It will be under copyright in the USA until 1/1/2035.

I also note that the last comment in the DR was in April. We have no mechanism for manufacturing more comments when no one is interested. User:Ellin Beltz and I agreed that the card was a copyvio. Irate and RAN disagreed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

So like the bully you are you decided to give yourself the deciding vote. No consensus means no action, for you it seems to be a green light to do whatever you want, without discussion. If its a problem with US copyright then WikiMedia has servers all over the world it should be uploaded to only those none US servers rather than impose US lawyers over UK laws.--Irate (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Irate, in reply to your insults on my talk page, I suggested you read COM:URAA. I now suggest you read Commons:Deletion requests where it says:
"The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept, it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle."
So, "deciding vote" is a misunderstanding. Admins are required to apply their knowledge of the applicable law. They must take into consideration comments by others, but need not follow them if they conflict with law or policy. In this case, while I don't like the URAA very much, it is settled US law and Commons practice and I must follow it in cases where it is applicable. This is obviously one such case.
You say, "WikiMedia has servers all over the world". That is not correct. Wikimedia Commons has its servers solely in the United States. Some of the Wikipedia projects allow fair use or ignore the URAA, but it is not our job here to move files that violate copyright to other places. This DR was open for more than four months and anyone familiar with the law would know that it had to be deleted, so there was plenty of time for anyone interested, including you, to upload it elsewhere.

 Oppose See: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Irate. I think Jim's understanding of copyright especially as pertains to URAA makes the close of "undelete in 2035" a good call. The Nominations which get left the longest are often the hardest to decide. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Мадзій Ірина Богданівна - 16073245.jpg

The person died. --Микола Василечко (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Микола Василечко: Just to ensure I understand the situation correctly: You are the photographer, you requested courtesy deletion because the subject didn't want the photo up, but now that the subject has died you want the photo to be restored? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Так. 6 років тому ця людина вимагала вилучити її фотографію. Але вона померла. Гадаю тепер файл можна відновити і його можна буде використати в статтях українсьої Вікіпедії. Іншої вільної фотографії наразі нема. Після смерті відновлення файлу вважаю коректним. / So. 6 years ago, this person demanded to remove his photo. But she died. I think now the file can be restored and can be used in Ukrainian Wikipedia articles. There is no other free photo. After the death of the file recovery is correct. --Микола Василечко (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Also @Taivo: , @INeverCry:

✓ Done. But I will restore only first version. I suspect, that second version is not selfie as claimed. Also I will block uploader of second version user:Irina Madziy indefinitely, because she has died. Taivo (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:KAST kast designed by Marcel Douwe Dekker in 1992.jpg

Please restore the first three editions of this image, which was deleted with my consent in the Commons:Deletion requests/File:KAST kast 1992.jpg initiated/nominated by @Whaledad: and deleted on 21:21, 5 February 2012 by @Jameslwoodward: . After this file is restored the new upload can be undone. The reason is that I acquired the copyright in 2012 two weeks later see the following three files:

  1. The conformation email (see here) in which I contacted the original photographer on 2 February 2012
  2. The offer for copyright transfer from the photographer on 8 February 2012, see here, and also an invoice by mail on 14 February 2012, see here
  3. The money transfer print, see here, which proves I paid, and afterwards the copyright of the image has been mine ever since.

In those days, ten years ago, I couldn't bring myself to file such an undeletion request, but now I have gained new insides and I am up for it. As for the long run, I am (again) delighted to share this more original and more professional representation of this work here as part of the selection of works I am already sharing here. Also, regarding the new image I took ten years ago to replace the original, I will re-upload that from Flickr myself afterwards. -- Mdd (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I see no good reason to restore previous versions. The existing version is widely used, so it cannot be deleted or replaced. Also I note that the citations above are not sufficient. Our rules require that the actual photographer send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Just to clarify: Are you objecting because the wording (which is in Dutch so I haven't attempted to understand it) does not constitute a copyright transfer, or because it does not meet our modern standards of evidence (i.e. forwarded permissions)? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
My principal objection is that I think the requester's intention is to replace the existing image with one of the three deleted versions. Since the existing image is widely in use, that's a violation of policy -- the replacement, if any, should be done only by local editors and certainly not by Mdd who has a conflict of interest.
My second objection is, as you suggest, due to our policy of not accepting forwarded permissions. I did hand item 2 above to Google Translate and it appears to cover one image:
"alle beeldrechten van het beeld "De Kast" (zie bijlage = een kople van origineel 4x5 dia)"
"all image rights of the image "De Kast" (see attachment = a copy of the original 4x5 slide)",
but this must be confirmed by the actual photographer via VRT and then may be used only to upload the image under a new name. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Did we have such a policy in 2012? If we didn't, I don't think we should retroactively apply such a standard to an old upload just because we are discussing it now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I must admit that I am rather confused here. It seems clear that the VRT is all about the "copyright holder" which needs to give "permission to publish a file under a free license." In this particular situation the photo was taken 30 years ago, and De facto I have acted as its copyright-holder ever since. I used the photo at my own will in several occasions of publication and promotion and even new product design of posters. Furthermore the photoshoot itself was taken under specific conditions, which are described in article 6 of the Dutch copyright law, and there was a verbal agreements I made with the photographer. This was all thirty to ten years ago.

Only due to the Wikipedia DR dispute I thought I could resolve this: I more or less gave the copyright back to the photographer to purchase it again to have a formal paper trail. There is even a quite remarkable detail here, that the photographer was no longer in possession of own prove that they made the photograph in the first place. If you look at the mail they send me, see here, you will find three copies of files that I published. This proves even more that De facto I allready owed the copyright by then.

If I am not mistaken, the current VRT procudure saying that "Our rules require that the actual photographer send a free license" doesn't take into account these completely legal De facto circumstances. They actually drive me as conceptual artist crazy, because there have been more cases like this. They keep putting me for a rather tremendous false dilemma, that I have to seek permission of unknown photographers that just lend a hand... or in this case have verbally release the copyright to me, which is proven by all my De facto performances. -- Mdd (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC) / Correction 10:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess my main concern is, that my affairs are in order. I again have released this image on Flickr under a CC-SA-BY licence, see https://www.flickr.com/photos/marceldouwedekker/4452153115 . It can be imported from there, and we can call off the replacement. However living up to the one rule that "Our rules require that the actual photographer send a free license" means I can stop all activity, and because that rule doesn't apply to the other uploads I make from other archives. Also I took ten days of conversation ten years ago and given the specific circumstances of the history of image, it will take me probably again hours and days of communication to develop a specific formulation that can live up to these specific circumstances, first with the photographer and then with the VRT team.
It seems to me, that in the past 30 years the photographer of the KAST-kast picture could have sued me directly any day, and it is more then clear that I am fully responsible for living up to all the copyright requirements... that there is no need for any addition Wikipedia bureaucracy. Maybe I just have the same question as King of ♥ if we should retroactively apply such a standard to an old upload. I am well aware that there is a good system in place for new uploads... but for older uploads of images previously published by professional artists I have serious doubts. -- Mdd (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 Support after reading all the arguments above and in the DR. We should consider the picture a work for hire, and the uploader as rightful copyright holder. Yann (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 Support from my end as well, but the first three revisions should be split off from the current revision since these are two different photos here (OK for the first three revisions to remain at a single title since they are just different versions of the same photo). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 Support as the original writer of the proposal to delete, after reading all of the above, I agree that the original picture can be allowed now as pic for hire, but separated from the current picture, so we don't force the original pic onto pages with the current pic. Whaledad (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Additional comment to clear some air here

I want to thank all participants for their contributions so far. I think I have gained some more understanding why it is difficult to participate here and eventually judge the situation, which I would like to share. So far only parts of the story have been told or even summarized here, and little to nothing about its background and consequences, which I can say were rather huge. In the DR itself some links are given to related discussions at the time, which are hard to oversee and I guess even harder to comprehend.

First, a few words to summarize what led to the DR request in the first place: These were events at the Dutch Wikipedia and the Dutch Wikiquote, where I had been to fanatically promoting the participation of professionals and the gathering of quotes, and might have been bragging that my affairs were in order. At that time my participation was over the top and, in a way, I had to be slowed down. These conflicts spread here to Commons as well, where the nominator @Whaledad: questioned this file and a small series of other files. In return I reported this as harassment at the admins noticeboard. It was @Jameslwoodward: , who took the lead to contradict my allegation, and stood by the nominator.

Second, back to the initial DR. I guess this can be better understood if we look at the initial data with the upload of the first image.

== Summary == {{Information |Description={{en|1=KAST kast designed by Marcel Douwe Dekker in 1992. The KAST kast is a interior sculpture build with the letters K, A, S, T on their side First published in ''Viva'' magazine The Netherlands, 18 sept 1992}}

Looking back I realize now that this description alone formally gave enough ground for the DR. In those days that one publication was online visible at my website, see here (at Archive,org), other information that matters was not, see for example here (at Flickr). What I didn't realize by then was, that my own publication also matters and can be described as the first publication. This work is online at the Royal Library of the Netherlands, see here where you can download that work yourself. Reading back at the DR, I think both Whaledad and Jim did a good job explaining that additional OTRS permission was acquired by then.

Last, the thing I am regretting ever since is, that there was to little time and place for fact checking and additional fact finding. Things where confusing from the start, things got framed and things got misframed, and the confusion only got bigger. I think that up to this moment, I haven't been able to illustrated that I was right about some things, but also to admit I was pretty wrong about other things. There is a exceptional situation here, that I had developed the concept for the image in an earlier photo-shoot, see also again here on flickr. I still believe the argument I gave in the first DR is crucial here: The image itself is (in a way) derived work, because I came to the photographer with a set of images that where not that perfect, but did contain the same concept of the image and the shadow. I also believe that @Yann: and @King of Hearts: might have taken this into account in a way... and this supports earlier statements I made here. For now, I hope this clears some air here. I will rest my case, thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:ジェーニャプロフィール.jpg

Tangushuten (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Copied from Twitter, no permission. Yann (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Адаптация - «Так Горит Степь» (2005 год).png

Изображение загружено с личного разрешения автора альбома. Он мой дядя. Извините, но вы достали удалять, не вчитываясь. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timur.bekeyev (talk • contribs)

 Oppose The copyright holder should send a permission via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Сборник стихов Ермена Анти - «Так горит степь».png

Изображение загружено с личного разрешения автора. Он мой дядя. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timur.bekeyev (talk • contribs)

 Oppose The copyright holder should send a permission via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Volkertuerk2022.jpg

I am the photographer & copyright owner. The file has also been uploaded to Flickr under a different CC license (see https://www.flickr.com/photos/bmkoes/52066338475/). For peace of mind, the license on Commons can be adjusted to the same as on Flickr. Herrwatzmann (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose -ND license at Flickr, not sufficient for Commons. Yann (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose. If you are really copyright owner, then change license in Flickr into Commons-compatible license (look here for acceptable licenses. Taivo (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Userway logo (2).png

Hello, this file should not be deleted since there is a license for it to use on Wikipedia. Please restore this image.

This is the file name (File:Userway logo (2).png

Here's the license >> https://postimg.cc/N5Fc7y5q

This is the wiki page which the image was deleted from >> https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/UserWay

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshriblog (talk • contribs) 20:59, 15 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose That permission only allows the non-profit organization Creative Commons to create a wiki page about the subject and use the logo there. It doesn't allow me or any other Wikimedia user to use the file. Whoever wrote that apparently do not understand the concept of a Creative Commons license. Thuresson (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Male Penis 2.jpg

i want to put this back on here. Flameon393 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

We have a lot of penises. Why do you want one more? Taivo (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:PENIS. --Yann (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Teenboy upper body - front.jpg

This boy is so very handsome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.132.124 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Genital Growth.jpg

But I wanted to see it first, please! Just only once! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4454:492:6F00:91B0:3299:BB0A:2559 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:bajuni-cushitic-type.png

https://landofpunt.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/ancient-dna-from-ethiopia/bajuni-cushitic-type/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factbase (talk • contribs) 07:10, 17 September 2022‎ (UTC)

Procedural close. Double entry. Thuresson (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Teenboy upper body - front.jpg

Just only one day for me to show that photo, please! Just only once! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.27.3 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Sleipnir, by Mike Craghead 2016.png

Hi folks,

I posted this original image a while back but I noticed a link to it broke, so I returned to Wiki and found that’s not only was the image gone, but my account also couldn’t be found, so I made a new one.

I wanted it to be used by folks but asked for attribution, but it’s been gobbled up by lots of folks, some of whom are even claiming they designed it.

I was hoping to peek at the deletion log, maybe someone spuriously claiming authorship asked that it be removed? In any case, my preference would be to let it live here rather than the other, darker corners of the web to which it has crept, but it’s hard to prove provenance without that original 2016 link.

Any advice?

Thanks much!!

Mike Craghead (Redacted) Mikecraghead.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecraghead (talk • contribs) 18:21, 8 September 2022‎ (UTC)

@Mikecraghead: Please add the full file name of the file in question. Thuresson (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The original file name was Sleipnir,_by_Mike_Craghead_2016

 Comment No file by that name, and no deleted file from this user. Yann (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Bizarre. It used to be at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sleipnir,_by_Mike_Craghead_2016.svg, I promise! I suppose I’ll send it back up again, but I’d certainly welcome any ideas as to what may have happened. Thanks all!

Aha! This time that link brought up a message I didn’t see before:

This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 14:25, 3 August 2021 JuTa talk contribs deleted page File:Sleipnir, by Mike Craghead 2016.svg (Source of derivative work not specified since 25 July 2021) (thank)

…. So there it is, flagged as “derivative.” It is certainly that, in that it’s an image from Norse mythology, but it is absolutely an original design that I did. Are there further steps I can take? Thank you! Mikecraghead (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Sleipnir,_by_Mike_Craghead_2016.svg

This image was deleted in July 2021 as “derivative,” it’s provably my own work but I missed the original discussion so Inwant able to chime in.

It’s a vector drawing of Odin’s eight-legged horse. I’m 2016 I needed the image for a stage prop (a belt buckle), but all the existing designs I could find fell short for me. So I made my own, then put it here for posterity, under CC-BY-SA.

Here’s the original link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sleipnir,_by_Mike_Craghead_2016.svg

Can it be either undeleted, or wiped completely so I can send up a new one in its place, retaining the URL?

Thank you!

Mikecraghead (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mikecraghead The question here is from where you've taken Odin's horse drawing to create your own SVG. This was the information missing in the file page. Ruthven (msg) 13:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Does the image description say he closely followed an existing depiction? Or was it obviously traced from somewhere? The claim above sounds like it was an original drawing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello folks, Yes, the original SVG was made by me from an original I drew in Adobe Illustrator. It has similarities to a few other versions out there, but it’s a ground-up redesign. For example, mine has legs shaped like a horse’s front and hind legs, while a few other black-and-white Sleipnir designs use thick lines that cross-cross, making a little “lattice” pattern. I literally drew this to carve into a belt buckle because I didn’t like the other versions I was finding, then I shared a more polished version here. Thank you! Mikecraghead (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought I had written words to that effect in the original description, but inexperience made me omit important details. The work is “derivative” of lots of other things, like actual artifacts and a few other folks’ spun on them, but it’s not pulled directly from any. Mikecraghead (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

In case anyone is curious, here’s a link that I put up in 2016 to a how-to for a chair I made and carved this design into. Step 5 shows the design itself, and even the belt buckle that started it all: https://www.instructables.com/Nerd-Throne-a-BogStargazerVikingPlank-Camp-Chair/ Cheers! Mikecraghead (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, @Mcraghead: . If anyone thinks there is a problem with this file, make a deletion request. Thuresson (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Bajuni-cushitic-type.png

bajun garre man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruralgreek (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ruralgreek. No undeletion reason provided. Ankry (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Sultan Mohamed Hajji Hassan.jpg

current Garre sultan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruralgreek (talk • contribs) 17:09, 16 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ruralgreek. No undeletion reason provided. Ankry (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Master Vergil-an anthology of poems in English on Vergil and Vergilian themes, (IA mastervergilanan00nitc).pdf

The work itself is in the public domain, and only two portions were identified as problematic. These are both (according to the text of the work) published before 1927, and are thus in the public domain. This answers the objections raised at the time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Dickens's A tale of two cities, (IA dickensstaleoftw00dick 0).pdf

The renewal was made in the name of the author, instead of the company which actually held the copyright. Thus, the renewal given was never valid, and the work passed into the public domain after the standard copyright period. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Dickens's Tale of two cities, (IA dickensstaleoftw00dick).pdf

The renewal was made in the name of the author, instead of the company which actually held the copyright. Thus, the renewal given was never valid, and the work passed into the public domain after the standard copyright period. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, (IA shakespearesjuli00shak 7).pdf

The renewal was made in the name of the author, instead of the company which actually held the copyright. Thus, the renewal given was never valid, and the work passed into the public domain after the standard copyright period. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Grammar in action, (IA grammarinaction00tres).pdf

The renewal was made in the name of the author, instead of the company which actually held the copyright. Thus, the renewal given was never valid, and the work passed into the public domain after the standard copyright period. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Junkers W 34 hau 'CA+AS', FFS A-B 121, ca. 1941 (b).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Nach meiner Recherche und heutigen Einschätzung wäre die Lizenzangabe {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} die einzig korrekte Lizenz, ich zitiere: "In Germany and possibly other countries, certain anonymous works published before July 1, 1995 are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author if the author's identity became public in any way." D. h.: Die 70-Jahre-Copyright-Frist bei anonymen Werken, die bis zum 01.07.1995 entstanden sind, greift nur, wenn die Identität des Autors, wo und wie auch immer, bekannt geworden ist. Dies aber hat sich bis heute nicht ereignet! Das Bild wurde 1940/41 aufgenommen, und entstammt dem Familienalbum eines Luftwaffen-Kameraden meines Vaters. !!Der Name des tatsächlichen Fotographen war bereits 1940 nicht bekannt, und er ist auch später nicht bekannt geworden!! Beste Grüße, W-R-Hesse-Fotos W-R-Hesse-Fotos (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

When and where was the photo first published and has it been 70 years since then? Thuresson (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The image was created in 1940/1941 and was found in the family archives of another person that is obviously not related to the photographer. To me this looks like contemporary publication more than 70 years ago, i.e. the image went to the photographer's comrade during World War II. The only caveat here would be the URAA term of 95 years copyright following the publication. De728631 (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It may or may not be PD in Germany, but cannot have been PD there before the URAA date of 1996. It will be under copyright in the USA until 2037. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Enganxines.jpg

This file has been deleted because "outside, but apparently non permanent, so no FoP in Spain". It is a group of stickers clearly located on the street. Its "permanence" is the same as any street art. Therefore, FoP-Spain applies. Thank you for your attention.--AlbertRA (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a group of stickers on what looks like a wooden billboard. That does not seem to be really permanent. --Rosenzweig τ 10:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The wooden billboard is fixed to the floor with concrete, it does not hang in the air. AlbertRA (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Llibertat Pablo Hasél.jpg

This file has been deleted because "not a mural, but on some kind of plastic plate, unclear if this is outside and permanent (only then Spanish FoP applies)". It's not a mural. It's a stencil work of art located in a street in the city of Lleida. Therefore, FoP-Spain applies. Thank you for your attention.--AlbertRA (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, it was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AlbertRA but, IMO, it falls under Spanish FoP, so  Support undeletion. Pinging @EugeneZelenko: as the nominator. Ankry (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 Comment I deleted it because the photo is so tightly cropped that by just looking at it you cannot really tell if this is outside. According to the uploader, it is, so we can choose to assume good faith and believe that. Also, it looks like this stencil is not directly on a wall, but on some clear plastic plates or similar which are attached to a wall, so without any context you can't really tell if it is actually permanently there or not. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting things here. A less tightly cropped photo might help to answer those questions. --Rosenzweig τ 10:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
This stencil work is on the street in an exterior stained glass window, 100% permanent. Thanks for the interest. AlbertRA (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:DAVAO REGION HYMN COMPOSER'S VERSION.ogg

Please undelete the file.

First of all, there was a permission for me to upload it here. But although I was not able to provide the evidence of the permission, I was able to add it later before the file was deleted.

Second, the music is free to be distributed, as it is a song officially used by the government and is played in flag ceremonies. Also, it is being freely distributed in YouTube at all without any issues, this basically means that there are no copyright issues with the song.

Third, the composer was properly credited, making it more credible to be undeleted.

Please, reconsider the decision as it is very rightful for the file to be used in wikis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckvinz07 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17. Sep. 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The permission is apparently the image at [5], the text of which can also be seen in the comment section of [6] where the file came from. Such a permission “for use in Wikipedia” is not enough, we need a confirmed e-mail permission directly from the author to the Volunteer Response Team per COM:VRT, allowing the use of the file for everyone for any purpose, including commercial purposes. And while {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} exists, I don't see any evidence or even rationale why it should apply to this “region hymn”. --Rosenzweig τ 13:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
As a person who is born and lives in person in Davao Region, I know and see that the hymn is being used freely, both in person and online without any copyright issues at all. Also, the hymn is created for general use, other than that, everything is fine about copyright. Luckvinz07 (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Free for use is not the same as without any copyright. We need a license that allows derivative works and commercial reuse and warranty that the permission will not be revoked in future. These cannot be assumed, they must be explicitely granted. If the composer has granted such permission, please provide an evidence. Śee COM:PCP #1 & #3. Ankry (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. Also note that the performance also has a copyright, so we need a license from the composer, the lyricist, and the person holding the copyright to the performance. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:The toy maker;how a tree became a toy village, (IA toymakerhowtreeb00thel).pdf

This work was published in the United States, where it is in the public domain. The artwork, published in the book, is subject to the copyright of the book; and as the book was, again, published in the United States, U.S. copyright applies. There is a copyright notice (from 1935), but the copyright was not renewed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a re-telling of a 1930 German book named Das Holzdorf ([7]) by author Gerda Thelen. You can find that on various booksellers' web sites, and apparently the same illustrations were used. So the illustrations were published in Germany several years before they were published in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 22:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Furthermore, the text seems to be a translation of the original German too, LoC names Louise F. Encking as a translator. The illustrator died in 1974, the country of first publication is apparently Germany, so the illustrations are still protected until the end of 2044. The year of death of the author Gerda Thelen is apparently unknown, so restoration would be possible in 2051 with {{PD-old-assumed}} (the US copyright for Encking's translation was not renewed per the discussion). --Rosenzweig τ 13:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Still under copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Internet Archive document 1994columbiarive00nortrich

The Council is, as the file in question clearly states, a federal agency (and not an informal regional agency). Thus, the work is PD-USGov. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Question Per the Council's 2020 report to Congress, “The Northwest Power and Conservation Council was established pursuant to the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-501) by the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington”. So it was established by several US states after a federal law authorized them to do so. Does that make the Council a federal agency? I'm not quite sure. --Rosenzweig τ 07:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The reason that there is a federal law for that seems to be the compact clause of the US constitution: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, [...] enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, [...]” Also, the Council is listed in en:List of interstate compacts, unlike the en:Tennessee Valley Authority which is definitively federal. --Rosenzweig τ 09:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin, so I won't close this, but the Council is clearly an organization of four states, not a Federal agency. See Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Therefore its work is not {{PD-USGov}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn by requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife program (IA columbiariverbas00nortrich).pdf

This is a work of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a federal agency, and is thus PD-USGov. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Comment See remarks in preceding paragraph Files in Category:Internet Archive document 1994columbiarive00nortrich. --Rosenzweig τ 13:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Angus gaye.jpg

There is no copyright violation here. Please restore. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierszim (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

@Pierszim: Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission via email (see COM:VRT for the procedure). Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann -- needs VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Обложка книги Фаины Судкович Я все придумала.jpg

Здравствуйте, поясните, пожалуйста, что означает претензия Unfree book cover? Разрешение на использование обложки я получил у автора книги. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexei Lorentsson (talk • contribs) 12:25, 19 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Book cover. We need the formal written permission from the copyright holder for a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose The permission must usually come from the publisher, not the author, since the publisher generally owns the copyright to the cover. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Undeletion Request to my uploaded images File:Freedom_Fighter_Akaram_dada_Pawar.jpg

Hello, While uploading the images, By mistakenly I did not gave the date when the image was clicked,please give me one more chance to upoad this images again,i will add all required details to upload images. List of files:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manasi.M.Pawar (talk • contribs) 09:33, 18 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Comment Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Manasi.M.Pawar. Yann (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose There are a variety of dates and events shown here, also at least one formal studio portrait. I do not believe that the same person was the photographer for all of them as claimed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done, these files were deleted after a deletion request. There is probable reason to assume that the same person did not take this set of diverse photos dated from 1975 until now. Thuresson (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Gianvito Rossi (Courtesy of Gianluca Fontana).jpg

I request an undelete of the image in the subject, because I receveived from the author the permission to publish in wikipedia, with the permissions to use it only in wikipedia, for a bibliographic page on Gianvito Rossi. Tell me if you need the proof of the permission. --Fulvio1982 (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Both Wikipedia and Commons require that images be free for use by anybody anywhere, so "permissions to use it only in wikipedia" is not enough..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done per Jim. The Italian Wikipedia article "Gianvito Rossi" was deleted on September 20, 2022, apparently for being out of scope. Thuresson (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Sakura Kinomoto fan art.jpg

I request that the file be restored, it is just a fanart and in commons fanarts are accepted, the flickr user where the image came from is the real author and has left it with a free license.Also, admin "De 728631" left his verdict saying: Flickr user Tofu Verde appears to be the original artist and has released this work under a free license, so no OTRS is needed. The image is also within the scope of Commons, as it can be used to illustrate the character.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 18:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Fan art is generally not permitted on Commons as it either infringes on the copyright for the character depicted or, if it is changed enough so it doesn't infringe, then it is out of scope as personal art.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Gustau Muñoz.jpg

This file has been deleted because "photo of a woman wearing a shirt with a photo printed on it (logo of a 2021 documentary film, the man shown died in 1978 (?)". As you can see in the movie article, the deleted photo is not the movie logo, it is a claim shirt without any trademark. Thanks for the attention.--AlbertRA (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose "without any trademark" does not mean that the image printed on this shirt is without a copyright. It's apparently a derivative of the photo shown at the bottom of this article and in various other articles on the web. As the person shown died in 1978 at the age of 16, that photo (as well as any derivative of it) obviously cannot be over 70 years old (which would mean we could keep it if we had some evidence that the author is anonymous) or 120 years old (which would mean we could keep it even if we don't know the author). In Spain, it could be a "simple photograph" protected for 25 years from creation, but per {{PD-Spain-photo}} it would still be protected in the US per the URAA. --Rosenzweig τ 06:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly,{{PD-Spain-photo}} does it cover use outside the US? Thank you for your attention. AlbertRA (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
In Spain (perhaps, if it is a "simple photograph"), not generally outside the US. --Rosenzweig τ 17:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. The image is derivative of a copyrighted photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Doughboy Beatz in 2020.jpg

The file in question is a public domain work found on Flickr. The user has changed the license.--JenniferLance7 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per elcobbola. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Nguyễn Văn Huyền.jpg

Let me add the tags missing to the file. Also, the file (image) is for public use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DP598 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image came from Flickr, where it has the Public Domain Mark. The PDM is not a license and is not acceptable on Commons unless it is used by the actual author of the work, which is not the case here. There is no reason to believe that this image is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done, per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Nguyễn Văn Lộc.jpg

Let me go in and add the tags that some say that was missing. The file (image) is copyright free, okay to use for public purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DP598 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image was taken from Amazon -- there's no evidence that it it is free of copyright. In fact a 1960s Vietnam image cannot be free of copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


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

Uploads by User:Dankovychart

VRT permission has been received. Images are appropriately licensed. Ticket:2022092310004234. Sennecaster (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

At the time of deletion there was no VRT permission ticket number mentioned for File:Війна Богів (Андрій Данкович).jpg. If the image is licensed I have no objection for un-deletion. Thank you. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
✓ Done Ticket has recently been finalized it seems. @Sennecaster: , could you please add the permission, thanks. Ellywa (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: undeleted. --Ellywa (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Undelete it plz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam200 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 25 September 2022‎ (UTC)

Procedural close, file has not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File: behangdesigner.jpg

File: behangdesigner.jpg This file that i want to undelete and re-upload in my Page

 Not done: duplicate request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Dynamite BTS (musical group).svg

I request that the file be restored, it is just a music album composed of lyrics and 2 trapezoids, as user Taivo said here : does not surpass threshold of originality of the United States. --Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 18:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per KoH. --Yann (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:BTS Dynamite.svg

I request that the file be restored, it is just a music album composed of lyrics and 2 trapezoids, as user Taivo said here : does not surpass threshold of originality of the United States.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 02:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:馬場彩月画像.jpg

https://www.peonys.net/company

出典元はここから、著作権も申請しています。 高橋圭 (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The image in question is File:馬場彩月画像.webp. The source page cited above has a clear copyright notice. Please note that claiming {{Own}} when you have lifted an image from the Web is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Dorothy_Hewett_and_Merv_Lilley_at_a_poetry_reading_in_2000.jpg

I took this photo in 1999 and own the copyright. I do not understand why it has been deleted. Can you please undelete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadeluge (talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The problem here is that the file description says the image was taken by Marilla North. If you are Marilla North, then please tell us so. If not, we need a free license from them using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Minna no Rhythm Tengoku.jpg Isn't it just a cover?

I'm not sure why this was deleted.

Aknip (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Nintendo video game cover without an acceptable free license issued by the copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Yes, it is "just a cover", but it clearly is copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Եղիպատրուշ, Սուրբ Աստվածածին վանական համալիր.jpg

Also:

Dear Recipient, The following images were deleted a second time. They were restored previously (Ticket # 2022080810004238) and I communicated with Aaqib Aafi and Alfred Neumann. Now the images are deleted again. All images are linked to the Wikipedia page. Please support me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areshka (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 September 2022‎ (UTC)

I checked only the 1st in your list: it was deleted by an VRTS-volunteer with the rationale "VRTS: Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons". So, deletion was surely required. --Túrelio (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose The first four were deleted by Krd as noted by Túrelio above. The last three were deleted by Túrelio. All were deleted for unacceptable permissions. They are a mixture of drawings b&w photos and color photos, all claimed to be {{Own}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I also note that you reloaded four of these images. Reloading deleted images is a serious violation of Commons rules and wastes both your time and ours. If you do it again you many be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Hans H. Barschkis, CEO Volkswagen.jpg (said to be from 1963)

Also:

Reason: Historic photography that was created before 1963. Therefore the copyright only lasts 28 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VWdeMexico (talk • contribs) 08:23, 23 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by VWdeMexico. The subject was president of VW Mexico beginning in 1964 (see Hans H. Barschkis). The country of origin is therefore likely Mexico. It is also possible that the country of origin is Germany. The 28 years mentioned above would apply only if the country of origin is the USA and only then if it were published before 1/1/1964. There is no evidence that any of the images were first published in the USA. All three are still under copyright if first published in either Germany (pma 70) or Mexico (pma 100). The first may be free of copyright in the USA, but only if it was first published in the USA before 1/1/1964. The other two are still under copyright even if first published in the USA.

Also, please note that claiming that you were the actual photographer of these images, using {{Own}}, is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File: Diliegro postgame.jpg

I am the owner of this photo, uploaded it myself. and granted permission to post on wikipedia commons, there is no reason it should be taken down. i took it, i uploaded it, i grant permission. its been up for years. --Dadilmotos (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fitindia: for any comment. Thuresson (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I have no objection for the image to be undeleted. Thank you - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support The relevant portions of the file description are:

|source=Own work
|author=Dadilmotos
|permission=
|other versions=
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

While the permission= parameter is blank, it seems perfectly clear that this is own work with a CC-BY-SA license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Mechanism (IA cu31924003901265).pdf

The deletion rationale is: “As clearly indicated on p 7, this was a UK, not US publication”. Neither p. 7 nor p. vii say anything about publication, however. The title page states, at the bottom: “LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO./39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON/FOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NEW YORK/BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS/1920/All rights reserved”. This indicates simultaneous publication in the U.K. (and empire) and in the U.S. Thus, it is a U.S. work (owing to such simultaneous publication). As it is in the public domain in the United States (being published in 1920), and as it is a U.S. work, it should not have been deleted. Re: Infrogmation of New Orleans. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support I'm not sure how much the editor of this third edition, Arthur Morley (1876-1962), actually contributed to the copyrightable content of the book. The book does not tell, but it still has the nine chapters already mentioned in the author's preface to the second edition, so Morley apparently did not add any further chapters. The actual author of the book, Stanley Dunkerley, is already named as late professor here and had died in 1912 accd. to this entry at Grace's Guide To British Industrial History, suggesting that the book is in the PD in the UK as well. Assuming there was a US copyright, it expired in 1996 at the latest, and as I don't see a proper copyright notice, perhaps there never was one. So if Morley did not contribute anything copyrightable, the book is in the PD in both the UK and the US, and if he did, the source country is the US per the Berne Convention's rule that in cases of simultaneous publication, the country of origin is the one with the shorter copyright duration (either zero years because of the missing notice, or 28/75 years from 1920, as opposed to 70 years from 1962 in the UK). --Rosenzweig τ 21:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I compared the first chapters of the second and third editions at IA and did notice some changes and new text on pages 12 and 13, presumably by Morley. So because of that, the third edition is most likely still protected in the UK until the end of 2032. --Rosenzweig τ 08:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the page seven reference is to the title page -- page seven of the PDF -- which calls out two UK people as author and editor. Although the date shown on the title page is 1920, the next page makes it clear that that is simply the date of a reprint. This, the third edition, dates from 1912. None of that changes the fact that for our purposes the country of origin is the USA and it is a pre 1927 work, so it is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment [drive-by comment on general grounds] Note that "simultaneous publication" means publication within 30 days. Multiple places of publication listed on the title page are an indication of this, but not proof that it actually happened. Depending on the level of risk (e.g. amount of copyrightable material in absolute and relative terms, potential for commercial exploitation, known aggressiveness or passivity of the copyright holder, etc.) one must find a point of comfort on the scale between blindly trusting the title page (iffy) and locating positive proof of a specific date of US publication (very hard). If the new copyrightable material was trivial (down towards mere spelling and punctuation changes) then perhaps we can trust the title page combined with the presence of copies of this edition in US libraries (regardless of when they were acquired), but the standard only goes up from there. --Xover (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Although the PCP speaks against assessing the risk of a copyright holder complaining, I think that in the case of a 1912 publication that has little practical importance we can safely assume that there is little or no risk in keeping it if it turns out that the US publication did not happen within thirty days. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File: behangdesigner.jpg

This is copyrighted by behangdesigner Please help us republished in our articles Please undelete the request — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behangdesigner (talk • contribs) 09:43, 25 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Info It is possible that this image is related to the deleted draft en:Draft:Hellingbeauty. Thuresson (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was deleted from Commons and the draft article was deleted from WP:EN because they are both unambiguous promotion and therefore out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Jon S Baird.jpg

Hi, this image was previously deleted by a user you have now banned from all of wikipedia. There is no copywrite issue with this photo and we are fine for it to be part of the wikicommons library of images.

LegendBC (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a copyrighted photo by a professional photographer. From [www.wireimage.com/celebrity-pictures/Director-Jon-S-Baird-attends-the-London-Premiere-of-Filth-at-the-Odeon/182546282?r=182546431,182546408,182546282,182546141,182545658,182546430,182546427,182546399&st=Search WireImage]: "Director Jon S Baird attends the London Premiere of "Filth" at the Odeon West End on September 30, 2013 in London, England. (Photo by Dave M. Benett/WireImage)" and "Contact your local office for all commercial or promotional uses" Thuresson (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. The uploader incorrectly claimed {{Own}}. It cannot be kept on Commons without a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

著作権侵害していると指摘を受けましたが、きちんと出典を書いた上で投稿していますが？

 Not done: No file name provided. --Yann (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Sanjeev Headshot.jpg

We have a permission verification Ticket:2022082910011753 for this file. Please undelete. Ww2censor (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ww2censor: . --Yann (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Travis Japan 81 DANCE STUDIO Header.png

This file was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by an approved and authorized agent of the copyright holder. Verification of this has just been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --JAKaiWWM (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Already done. --Yann (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Charles Vanden Bulck (1904-1962) portrait.jpg

This photo is made in 1943 and according to a family member made by US military personnel and therefore in PD per Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army. The subject of the photo, nl:Charles Vanden Bulck was working at the time for the en:Manhattan Project. Reason for the request, this discussion on NL-WP. The photo can imho be undeleted, and the mentioned template can be added to the file page. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was deleted because it appears at http://smithdray1.net/historicallyspeaking/2011/7-5-11%20Charles%20Vandenbulck%20rev%201.pdf without a free license. {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} is problematic for two reasons. First, "according to a family member" is weak evidence of the provenance of the photo and, second, the template requires that the photograph was taken "as part of [the photographer's] official duties". This appears to be a casual snapshot, not an official photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jim,
1) Early this summer the picture was ok as being at least 70 years old until I feared 'someone' would delete it and I mentioned that it also existed in the cited publication after which someone abused this to deleted it. Receiving an existing picture from the interviewee does not transfer any rights. Neither the picture nor the reproduction refere to a photographer. As they did not receive any complaints why would Wikipedia? This Wilipedia reasoning really is so weird!
2) From personal experience I know it is not allowed to take pictures in military installations so check this war time picture at Oak Ridge https://www.pinterest.com/pin/546483736003972950// Therefor it is an official military picture or an 'illigal' family one. His son transfered public use of the family documents to CMOR.
3) Your wording "appears to be" is even weaker than a family statement. Do the pictures of generals Kenneth Nichols and Lesie Grooves 'appear' to be taken "as part of offcial duties"?
For some reason I see a lot of subjective excuses so I hope we can settle this in an honest and objective way. Harry Van den Bulck (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support It is quite safe that a 1943 picture taken in high security area during one of the most secret project in the middle of the WW2 to be an official photograph, not a personal snapshot. Anyone others than official photographers were certainly not allowed to take picture there, or even enter the premises with a camera, at that time. Yann (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • This is a valid question, but at least this is a credible claim. Someone more familiar with this may have further idea based on the uniform and the map on the background. Yann (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Harry Van den Bulck: , the action of King of Hearts means that the image has been temporarily undeleted, but there will be a longer discussion about the image. In Dutch: De foto is tijdelijk teruggeplaatst, maar er is een nieuw "Deletion request" gemaakt, zodat er kan worden besproken of de foto behouden kan worden of toch verwijderd moet worden vanwege de auteursrechten. In eerste instantie is de foto verwijderd via een andere procedure, de snelle verwijdering. Een "administrator" zal de eindafweging maken. Met vriendelijke groet, Ellywa (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Not an obvious case, so converting from speedy to DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Vanden Bulck (1904-1962) portrait.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Margaret Thatcher con Vicente Blanco Gaspar.jpg

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2022092510003982 regarding File:Margaret Thatcher con Vicente Blanco Gaspar.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as requested. --Ellywa (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:AditiSenDe.jpg

Dear Wikipedia,

The above jpeg file (photograph of the subject) was deleted because the owner of the photograph (subject's daughter) was a minor and did not use an email. Hence, she could not use claim ownership. The image was used with the subject's approval as a parent. However, the daughter is now able to claim ownership for the photograph. As such, we request Wikipedia to undelete the file.

with regards

--Mxdartist (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC) Himadri S. Dhar 25 Sep 2022, 11:27 AM IST

 Oppose No, it was deleted because there was no valid license. The named photographer is the subject and it is clearly not a selfie. In order for it to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mxdartist: So, your daughter should claim ownership and license the image according to Commons:VRT. There should be no further problems if that is done, and the file will then be undeleted.
(That message could have been sent earlier, I don't see any problem in a minor's custodian sending such an e-mail on their behalf, with their consent. Only if the author is too small to give such consent is there a problem, and that age could of course vary by jurisdiction.)
–LPfi (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. A message from the custodian (also the subject in this case) was duly rejected by Wikipedia from some reason. Go figure. In any case, I will request a VRT. Mxdartist (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what your jurisdiction is, in some jurisdictions such arrangements might not be valid. –LPfi (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Davud Ordubadli.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please restore the photo of Davud Ordubadli, he is my grand-father and I created the article about him. I want his photo to be shown in the article. The photo from the family archive is used. Paliyeva (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I note that you claimed that you were the actual photographer using {{Own}}. Since that is obviously not the case, you should be aware that such claims are a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.
The image appears to be a professional portrait. It is possible, but very unlikely, that it is no longer under copyright. That would depend on when and where it was first published. Since he lived 1930-2011 it is very unlikely that any image of him as an adult is free of copyright. You should be aware that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right remains with the photographer or his heirs unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. As per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:700X1000_Eng_New.jpg

this is the movie poster of my husbands new English version of the film. he requested me to put it up on wiki. He is the creator, director and producer of the film and thus has all rights to it. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4534598/mediaviewer/rm2033524225/ it was posted on imdb which I also manage for him --Mor9666 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The copyright holder should send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann -- needs VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Category:Baidyabati

Category speedily deleted by Yann for unknown reasons. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Not empty any more. --Yann (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

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

File:N00637-H.jpg

I would like to incorporate this file in an article I am posting.--Rtakele (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Rebecca Takele 9/26/2022--Rtakele (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Support The image appears at https://www.niddk.nih.gov/news/media-library/17713. Therefore your claim that you created it appears to be incorrect. Such claims are a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again you may be blocked from editing here. With that said, however, the image appears to be {{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Stock Moe LLC LOGO.png

I am requesting the undeletion of File:Stock Moe LLC LOGO.png It was incorrectly marked as a 'files and pages created as advertisements' This logo is used on the home page of our website, https://stockmoe.com/ (at the bottom) We do not use this logo in any sort of advertising. Our company does not do any advertising or promotions using a logo because we are a company whose main business is on YouTube. This is a logo that is strictly used on the home page of our website.

Thank you. --StockMoeMrsMoe (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose First, the word "advertisement" covers many things, not just selling products or services to customers. It also covers promoting your company to prospective vendors, employees, and investors. A logo by its very nature is an advertisement. Second, we do not keep logos unless we have a free license from an authorized official of the copyright holder via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Crrldz.jpg

I request for undeletion of the photo. Please know that the photo is mine, I took the photo of the famous Pinay Actress. I am the photographer of that photo please consider. Thank you! (ceri) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispyceri (talk • contribs) 03:37, 27 September 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Crrldz.jpg, it is a relatively small image without EXIF. I suggest that you upload the image at full camera resolution with the EXIF. Also, please identify the subject -- the image is useless without her name. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Юрій Полтавець

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Since this year these photos are in the public domain (70 years passed after death of uk:Курилас Осип Петрович) Renvoy (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The artist died in 1951, so the works became PD in Ukraine last January 1. However they will not be PD in the USA until 95 years after first publication, which is certainly some time from now. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: There are all except one from before 1927. --Yann (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2022-09&oldid=693064205"