Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2023-01

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

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

Belgian museum public domain art batch 3

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 3rd batch of public domain art from the Museum of Fine Arts, Ghent that I intend to put the correct licenses on. Abzeronow (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Daskhuu bayarsaikhan sochi 2014.jpg

I can provide evidence and documents needed to prove that no copyrights violations are made.

 Not done: Not currently deleted. Send the proofs to COM:VRT or the file will be deleted. --Yann (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:MonumentaldelaUNSA.jpg

File:MonumentaldelaUNSA.jpg

El archivo fue eliminado incorrectamente, apenas lo subí y a los minutos alguien lo borró, no sé cual es el motivo, pero quisiera recuperar la foto, me parece importante para poder editar una página. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FerCordova70 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 30 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Appears in a number of places on the web including Facebook without a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Semi erected human penis (front).jpg

Hi, i hope you are having a good day. In April 2019 i think i posted some images on commons because i thought i could provide some extra data or help with the pictures i posted. The quality of the pictures were rather low and after you requested to delete them i agreed because their quality was too low. I had a couple of doctor visits regarding some issues of my genitals and the doctor asked me how the situation was with the disease in the past. I honestly cant remember and searched through my fotos to maybe find some pictures to show to the doctor but i didnt find any and then i remembered that i hab posted some here. Unfortunately i dont have access to them now because they are deleted and thats why i am writing to you. Could you please maybe enable me to be able to see the photos i posted for personal use? I wont publish them or post them in any form, i only need them for the reason mentioned. That would be a great help and i would be very thankful to you.

With best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by الغريزة الفائقة (talk • contribs) 04:49, 30 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Paetongtarn-Shinawatra.webp

This is a public image that used in election signage from Pheuthai Party.

ภาพถ่ายของแพทองธาร ชินวัตร "File:Paetongtarn-Shinawatra.webp" เป็นภาพถ่ายที่ใช้ในแคมเปญเลือกตั้งของพรรคเพื่อไทย ซึ่งปัจจุบันถูกเผยแพร่ในลักษณะของป้าย (e.g. https://storage-wp.thaipost.net/2022/12/S__82935877.jpg )ดังนั้นภาพดังกล่าวจึงเป็นภาพสาธารณะและสามารถใช้ได้บนหน้าไซต์นี้

--Fatjumbo (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Pongsakorn Saeung

 Oppose When you uploaded this image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you claim that it is a "public image". Claiming you were the photographer when that is not correct is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.

The fact that an image is used publicly does not affect its copyright status. Almost all of the images you see in public have copyrights. This image appears in many places without a free license, so in order to restore it to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


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

Logos of Slovenia

Hello. We deleted a number of Slovenian logos back in 2012 since it was unclear what was the copyright threshold. As a new court case appeared in 2018, I believe that the cases currently present at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Slovenia#Threshold of originality allow us to draw a certain line. The court opined: "The slogan and the logo, which contains both verbal and graphic elements, do not allow them to be separated. Only the synergy of the verbal and graphic elements allows the observer to identify the overall message of the author's work." As much as I understand, this means that there must be some unique creative combination of both verbal and graphic elements that conveys a message for a logo to constitute a copyrighted work. For example, as written at the linked page, the title Without Brakes alone was not found to be copyrightable in 2004, while on the other hand, the logo I Feel Slovenia was found copyrighted as it contained an innovative combination of words and graphics and had a message.[1] This leads me to propose the following files for undeletion:

There is no creativity in these text logos, no unique combination conveying an original message. The text that they contain is not creative at all. Also the few letters that are shown are too simple and the text too short to really be eligible for copyright. These logos should therefore be restored. Regarding the rest listed at the DR page, I have not proposed them for undeletion since they seem more complex but will appreciate a potential review. --TadejM (t/p) 13:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:VideoCapture 20221230-232450.png

This photo is taken by me. In addition, this photo was processed by me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CatseyeTaku (talk • contribs)

User:CatseyeTaku: Even the default wallpaper is copyrighted by Apple, the more common practice is to recreate the whole thing like File:IPhone 14 Pro vector.svg or File:Matlab Logo.png, otherwise you can just upload it to a local wiki with under fair use if possible. −ebrahimtalk 16:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose The image infringes on Apple's copyrighted screen and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from Apple, which is unlikely to happen. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:"Bet Your Bottom Dollar" (2023).jpg

Requesting undeletion in my capacity as sole copyright holder for the official film poster for "Bet Your Bottom Dollar" (2023) so that it may be included into the respective wikipedia page for the upcoming film.--GSYrobot (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that for images of posters, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Robert Abela - Official Portrait 2022.jpg

The photo is the official portrait of the prime minister of malta and is used officially everywhere. I have the authorisation by owners of the photo to use it for the wikipedia page. The terms of use of the website you're listing is a generic terms for all government websites and states that items can be used with consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grixtil (talk • contribs) 14:33, 31 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Contrary to the assertion above, the web site has an explicit copyright notice and its terms of use includes:

"We are the owner or the licensee of all intellectual property rights in the website, and in the material published on it. Those works are protected by copyright laws and treaties around the world. All such rights are reserved."

Also note that "authorisation by owners of the photo to use it for the wikipedia page." is insufficient. Commons and Wikipedia require that images be free for any use anywhere by anybody, including derivative works and commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

We need permission for anyone to use it, not just Wikipedia. But primarily, since this is a previously-published photo, unless a free license is actually mentioned at the source we would need an explicit license from the copyright owner sent (via private email) according to the COM:VRT process. That would make sure there are no misunderstandings, and confirm the free license. It would be undeleted once that team confirms the license (and it would be understandable if the owners did not want to give a wide-ranging license, which is another part of the reason we check this way). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK now. --Yann (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Belgian museum public domain batch 4

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: 4th batch of public domain art that I intend to add appropriate licenses to. Abzeronow (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: ✓ Done. Ciell (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I didn't get the ping, but licenses are ✓ Done. Will work on filling out the Artwork template next on these files. Abzeronow (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


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

File:DPAG 2008 Selma Lagerlöf, Nils Holgersson.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:German stamps review delete

It would appear that the artist whose art is on this German stamp died in 1952. Abzeronow (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD now. --Yann (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Affiche Londres Vichy Pullman.jpg

Copyright for this poster expired today, so please restore it. Michalg95 (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Info All contents in Category:Undelete in 2023 will be undeleted without request, probably in the first few days of January anyway. Thuresson (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: No need to make further requests. There is a lot of work to do, so please be patient. --Yann (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Christian Greco al Festival Passepartout di Asti.jpg

Hi Wikimedia commons, I would like to publish the photo "Christian Greco al Festival Passepartout di Asti.jpg" on the "Christian Greco" page (ITA and ENG). I had published it on september 2022 with the code labeled "pending" under the Creative ShareAlike license (CC-BY-SA-4.0) but it was never approved.

You dispute that it belongs to a certain Porro who was actually only the owner of on old Hosting space where it was published. I managed to remove the photo from that space, so it's no longer published online.

The photographer who took it, FRANCO RABINO, with whom I am in contact, has provided all the proofs that he took that photo and has the permission by whom commissioned it, to publishe it under common licence CC-BY-SA 4.0. This is the wikipedia ticket reference: Ticket#2022090210007002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FraLori (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 December 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This will be restored automatically when FRANCO RABINO sends a free license via VRT and the license is received, read, and approved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

FRANCO RABINO send the mail to 'permissions-it@wikimedia.org' on september 22 but we've not received a reply yet. Is the email correct? I'd like to receive it to understand what's wrong. Thanks a lot, FraLori. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FraLori (talk • contribs) 18:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

@FraLori: See the answer from a VRT volunteer: [2]: No permission achieved in the ticket. Yann (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis Welcome Center.jpg

DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis Welcome Center.jpg

Looking at the Google cache, this is a photo of the entire building, not focusing on the sculpture. Per the Ets-Hokin decision, only a photo focusing on the sculpture would be derivative. The sculpture in this case is "incidental"; it is inherently there and unavoidable if you are trying to take a photo of the building. It's similar to photos of the Louvre square which contain the pyramid building, which we keep. We could add the {{De minimis}} tag as a warning, but don't think the photo as-is is a derivative work (if it's the one I think it is). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Annabella2018.jpg

she's own. Morin -- pseudo, Honchanenko (surname). Let in be--Albedo (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Annabella2018.jpg, looks like the uploader requested deletion just a few hours after upload. I can't see the image, but I also can't think of a reason to not respect the request. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose The image has a watermark naming a photographer with a different name from the uploader who claimed {{Own}}. It was deleted as a copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Tentative  Oppose: the permission seems to have come from the subject of the photo, not the presumed copyright-holder, the photographer who watermarked it. We'd need VRT, unless there is something I'm missing. - Jmabel ! talk 23:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Dr Ernest Mercier 1960.jpg

This is a family picture that was taken when my grandfather was a public servant in Quebec, Canada in 1960. As such, it was subjected to crown copyright which expired 50 years after the picture was taken so the image is now PD I have no idea why it was tagged for deletion. Tinss (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tinss: May I ask you to clarify what you mean with "family picture"? Thuresson (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have provided more details. After my grandfather's retirement from public service, it was hung in his home office. My father inherited it upon his death and it now hangs in his office. Regardless, this picture was originally commissioned by the government of Quebec, Canada. Tinss (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 Support if it was Crown Copyright. It was deleted for URAA reasons, and while it was technically restored in the U.S., {{PD-Canada-Crown}} states that such works expire worldwide, which includes the U.S. so the URAA is not relevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl. --Yann (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Category:The biology of the frog (1927)

Contents were deleted as the outcome of a deletion debate Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The biology of the frog (1927) given the then date. A 1927 published work would now have expired in the US. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Armistice Day.djvu

This is filed here because it relates to the restoration of 'deleted' or at the very least suppressed revision.

The original DR is here Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Armistice_Day.djvu , which I eventually withdrawn after I had redacted the source file accordingly.

However, as a 1927 work, copyright in the US has now expired, and thus it is reasonable to consider re-instatment of the unredacted version. The version pre-redaction is that dated "07:53, 18 August 2013" ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Ivyso.jpg

Contacted related parties and they have sent the licensing email through a formal VRT ticket. The reason behind the speedy delete has ceased to exist.[3]--1233 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Granting it the customary grace period for VRT. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Belgian museum public domain art batch 5

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Fifth batch of public domain art that I intend on adding the appropriate license to. Abzeronow (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Eric Oram.jpg

Happy new year... I have emailed an OTRS for the file Eric Oram.jpg it is my own work but I have lost the image since. Australianblackbelt (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The image will be restored without further action on your part if and when a satisfactory free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK now. --Yann (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Rien que....jpg

This file must be undeleted, as I administer the copyright and have the right to decide where it is to be shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunner Byskov (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Comment What you have written above is not a valid file name and you have no deleted images. Therefore there is nothing we can do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:72 kiosk4a (2).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The author has now given permission to release the image under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. The permission was received as Ticket#2022122810009072. Thanks, Daniuu (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Granting it the customary grace period for VRT. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File: Ukpong Ndifreke.jpg

Please this file doesn't require to be deleted.

Please keep file.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndizzy4glo (talk • contribs) 06:31, January 2, 2023 (UTC)

@Ndizzy4glo: File: Ukpong Ndifreke.jpg has been tagged for speedy deletion, but it hasn't been deleted yet. Did you take this photo yourself? If you didn't, then you can't really claim it to be your COM:Own work and the person who took the photo is going to be considered the copyright holder. In that case, you will need to follow the instructions in given in COM:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder so that the copyright holder's consent can be verified. In addition, a number of files you previously uploaded were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ndifreke Ukpong (2).jpg. Since I'm not a Commons administrator, I can't see the deleted files; however, I did ask Wdwd, the Commons administrator who did delete them, to take a look at one of your other recent uploads File:Ndifreke Ukpong.jpg. Are you just reuploading files that have been previously deleted from Commons? If you are, then that's probably not a very wise thing to do. Commons generally isn't website like Flickr, Instagram or Facebook for hosting personal photos just for the sake of hosting them per COM:SPAM. All files uploaded to Commons need to have some kind of potential education value per COM:EDUSE. Since none of your uploads seem to be being used, it's hard to assess whether any of them have any educational value. How do you intend to use these photos and why did you upload them to Commons? Finally, another photo of you (File:Ndifreke Ukpong pix.jpg) has been uploaded by account named "Google4glo". Have you been using multiple accounts to upload files? If you have been, please stop and stick to one account because uploading the same photo using different accounts is just confusing things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. I blocked the sock. --Yann (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Arxiu RTVV Castelló 29-XI - 2.jpeg

Part of a set of pictures covering an historic event (the closure of the Valencian Public TV-radio network), deleted because of alleged no educational potential. Simply, nobody could say it was a pic of a historic event.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This is of poor quality. Isn't there anything better than that? Yann (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea because it's not my file and I can't see it because it's deleted. Is it blurry or just "poor quality"? Because if it's because of resolution, I believe we should undelete it, because it's the only free set we have of that particular event.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The file has no description or categories. It is a blurry image of what looks like a VCR tape library, but might be something else entirely. I can't imagine any situation in which it would be useful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support It can be used to illustrate the closure of the Valencian Public Broadcasting Corporation, because the name is descriptive enogh to know when and where it was taken. I can add a description, if that's the problem.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Not done, plenty of non-blurry useful photos at Category:Closing of RTVV, several lacking relevant description. Thuresson (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Child prodigy River Mason Eromosele honored by Harlem Fashion Week 2022.jpg

Hi,

This in fact did happen and he was honored at harlem fashion week for being a child prodigy. I can forward over video an a possible statement from harlem fashion week stating it did happen. if needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamikaWest (talk • contribs) 02:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per KoH. --Yann (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:060219 StAugustineMassGregory.jpg

Please restore the following file:

I mistakenly tagged this image as “no permission” based on the source website’s terms of use. The images on this page are explicitly declared as free to use. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Jill_Underly.jpg

This photo is the official headshot portrait of the Wisconsin State Superintendent that is available for media use and is the most accurate picture of her. It is public domain and not licensed. The photo that someone keeps putting on the wiki article for Jill Underly was available on an ad from two years ago and does not resemble her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Savannarose22 (talk • contribs) 21:36, January 2, 2023 (UTC)

Hi Savannarose22. A couple of things seem to be going on here. First, as you can see by clicking on File:Jill_Underly.jpg, it hasn't been deleted from Wikimedia Commons. So, there's nothing to undelete from a Commons standpoint. Wikimedia Commons and English Wikipedia are separate projects with their own specific purposes and their own respective policies and guidelines; so, what's happening over on English Wikipedia is not really something that Commons has any control over. I'm assuming that you posted here because this file keeps getting removed from en:Jill Underly by someone over at English Wikipedia. What I suggest you do is start a discussion about the photo at en:Talk:Jill Underly and explain why you think this photo should replace whatever photo is currently being used in the article. If there's a disagreement over which photo to use, then that will need to be resolved on English Wikipedia in accordance with en:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. From a copyright standpoint, this screenshot appears to be OK for Commons; it's not really in the public domain per se (at least from a copyright standpoint), but it does seem to be released under an acceptable copyright license according to the YouTube source. Any other contextual related issues associated with using the photo will, once again, need to be resolved on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Not deleted; LicensedReviewed to put any copyright issues to rest. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Emblem Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Alang Iskandar, Bagan Serai, Perak 2022.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am a student in the school and technically my teacher allows me to remake the emblem of the school. I hope that the page could be restored so people can take the logo for school design or maybe freelance also for the school staff usage. Thank you. Ashraf Syaamil (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a school logo which appears in a number of places on the web. This image is derivative of the copyrighted logo. It can be restored only if an authorized official of the school sends a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Koran Pikiran Rakyat (Depok, Sunda atau Betawi?).jpg

This is my own cellphone shot and I don't think there is a copyright problem. Blackman Jr. II (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  •  Comment The article text (other than the title, which is probably below COM:TOO) is illegible, so I think it's fine from a copyright perspective. However, then it becomes a question of COM:SCOPE: what is the educational use of a newspaper article with a title followed by a bunch of unreadable gibberish? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Denise_Doring_VanBuren.jpg

Undelete request. This photograph is published by the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution with the express intent for it to be republished elsewhere, as it is a publicity photograph. Thank you. https://blog.dar.org/rise-and-shine-america-and-dar WindingRoad (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The source page which you cite above has an explicit copyright notice:

"© National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (NSDAR) | All Rights Reserved"

and no evidence of any free license. I see no "express intent for it to be republished elsewhere", and publicity photographs are almost never published with a license that permits commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

1992 Iranian banknotes (2nd time)

Hi. This is a request for files mentioned in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-07#1992 Iranian banknotes, we are in 2023 now and we can undelete them. Thank you. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @HeminKurdistan: Done for these mentioned in the archive. For others, could you make a list please? The date is written in Farsi, so I can't understand. --Yann (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Copa FIFA Mundial.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This picture is my own work and there are some pages that need it. Thank you Pedromariagutiarejano (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Your photo infringes on the copyright for the trophy, which is held by the heir(s) of sculptor Silvio Gazzaniga who died in 2016. It will be under copyright until 1/1/2087. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Professor K. J. Ray Liu 2020.jpg

Hi,

The copyright of the image Professor K. J. Ray Liu 2020.jpg is owned by K. J. Ray Liu from https://kjrayliu.org, instead of from the website "event.ntu.edu.tw/distinguishedalumni/2021%E5%B9%B4%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E6%9C%8D%E5%8B%99%E9%A1%9E%EF%BC%8D%E5%8A%89%E5%9C%8B%E7%91%9E%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F/". The copyright is released by the holder for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts), indicated at the footnote of website https://kjrayliu.org. Could you please undelete it so that we can put it back to the wikipage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._J._Ray_Liu? Thanks!

Best, --YYY66 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose As a general rule the copyright for images is owned by photographer. Any license which the subject may have is almost always for the subject's use and does not include the right to freely license the image as required here. In order to restore this image either the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or someone else may send a free license together with a copy of the license from the photographer allowing that person to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Vivian Blaineová.jpg

The image was deleted because it was found on an autograph auction site and the reason for deletion was that it needed to be reviewed. That is a reason to go through the standard deletion process, not speedy deletion. I need to see it to find an approximate year. --RAN (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

it is this photo: https://www.regisautographs.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/BLAINE-Vivian.jpg Ellywa (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Probably, I can't see the deleted one, more people should have access to deleted images. --RAN (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The two images are the same except that the regisautographs version has the signature in blue and it has a white border with the words "Vivian Blaine - 20th Century Fox Star" at the bottom. It is almost certain that this is a publicity still that was published without notice. The image is from the early 1940s as her film career ended in 1945 and even if published with notice, almost certainly was not renewed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim and Carl. @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Could you please add the source and the author? Thanks, --Yann (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:田馬場貴裕.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: 私が撮影した写真なので著作権侵害にはあたりません。復元をお願いします。 楊志高 (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was deleted because it appears on Twitter. In order to have it restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Robinsons Place Bacolod.jpg

File to restoration due to building's copyright expiration, so it's free to be on Commons. Michalg95 (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Michalg95: Could you give more information? Why did the copyright expire? Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose This is a 1997 work. Architectural copyrights in the Philippines last 50 years pma. Although we don't know if and when the architect died, the copyright must last at the very least until 1/1/2046. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of Latvia (Soviet colors).svg

On this page I discovered some comments told there are some Latvian people used the flag with medium red in some anti-Soviet demonstrations, and such flags were disappeared after the Latvian flag is restored with correct shade of red. I think it's reasonable to restore this file. --Great Brightstar (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This image should add more descriptions after restoration. --Great Brightstar (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The link above is dead for me. Yann (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 Support I found the link at https://www.fotw.info/flags/lv.html#varia. That confirms that the flag as shown in the deleted image was used during the Singing Revolution. I was the deleting Admin in November 2021 and it appears that the deletion was incorrect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Renominate for deletion if you disagree. Ankry (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Adam West as Batman.jpg

This file depicts Adam West in a costume. I think the main mistake in deleting this file was the assumption that a person in costume is derivative of a copyrighted character. However, it has been established on Commons multiple times that images of a person in costume, even if they are in-character like an actor or cosplayer, are not derivative of the characters they depict. Per COM:COSTUME: Present consensus is that "files that merely show people cosplaying [or costuming]" are acceptable. I believe that calling this file derivative of Batman the character goes against established consensus. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This was already discussed (and declined) recently, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-12#File:Adam West as Batman.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 17:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
That discussion had entirely different rationale. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
If it was about someone wearing a (licensed) costume that they bought, which was intended for the general public, it would probably be OK (though don't focus a photo on a mask). If this is just publicity material from the show which shows the character, and it was published after the character copyright was established, it's a lot murkier -- that is not a licensed costume. Photos of just an actor don't necessarily invoke the character, but something more on th cartoonish side like Batman very well might, per the Warner v. Avela court decision. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose This is a closeup of Adam West head and shoulders, including the distinctive mask. It is both derivative of a copyrighted character and derivative of the copyrighted mask. Note that masks are different from other parts of costumes which are utilitarian clothing and therefore not copyrightable. Masks are not utilitarian and therefore have copyrights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and previous request. --Yann (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Sergio Ermotti.jpg

The File was deleted because it is used by Swiss Re on the official homepage. This picture is free to use and is supposed to used by media and to be used on the internet to represent Sergio Ermotti. It is definitly more recent than all the other pictures used on Wiki. Do there is no reason to delete is. There is no violation. VonThier (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The page referenced in the upload, https://www.swissre.com/about-us/our-leadership.html, has " © 2023 Swiss Re All rights reserved. " The linked Terms of Use page, https://www.swissre.com/terms-of-use.html, has:

"You must not modify, copy, transmit, distribute, display, reproduce, publish, perform, license, frame, create derivative works from, transfer or use in any other way for commercial or public purposes in whole or in part any Content obtained from a Swiss Re Site without the prior written permission of the owner of the relevant Intellectual Property Rights (whether that be Swiss Re, the Service Provider or another third party)."

There is no indication anywhere of the {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license which you claimed or any other free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per above: no free license and Fair Use is not accepted in Commons. Ankry (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Dimas Hop.jpg

Me, Moch Dimas Almahtar, as the copyright owner and owner of the photo uploaded on Wikimedia, request the cancellation of the file deletion on Wikimedia because I am 100% the owner of the image. I will use the image as a Wikipedia article and do not feel guilty for the action of using the image without permission. I also state that I do not misuse the copyright of others and do not engage in actions that harm others by using the image. I request that my request for the cancellation of the file deletion be processed as soon as possible. Thank you.

Topanfirdaus225 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:G.A. Petrelius fountain.jpg

This file is a photograph of G. A. Petrelius fountain (Wikidata:Q11860225), a 1924 sculpture by Gunnar Finne (1886–1952, Wikidata:Q5400749) and Armas Lindgren (1874–1929, Wikidata:Q2665113) located in Turku, Finland. The sculpture entered into the public domain on 2023-01-01. (This is a similar case to Commons:Deletion requests/Images of sculptures by Gunnar Finne.)

I could have added this request to Category:Undelete in 2023 but as all the other requests seem already been handled, I do not know if any admin follows that category anymore, so I decided to put this request here. Apalsola t • c 18:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I added two to the Undelete in 2023 category since I saw it wasn't empty. Abzeronow (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I see no copyright reason why it cannot be restored. It's a 1924 work, so URAA does not apply. However in this image the lion is almost invisible in the trees. We have six other images which show the work much better, so I wonder if we should restore this one. See Category:G. A. Petrelius fountain. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Daniel Joseph Kinahan $5 million USD reward poster.pdf

I do not understand why this image was deleted when it was produced by the US government in accordance with This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.

This is a US government document. See here: https://www.state.gov/daniel-joseph-kinahan/

Furthermore, the deletion discussion appears to have a consensus of Keep, not delete?

IrishSpook (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The images on almost all wanted posters are not PD for the simple reason that a wanted person is, by definition, not in custody, and therefore the posters have whatever image the government can find. This one is obviously not a government mug shot because people in mug shots never have hats. Therefore the authorship of the photograph is unknown and we must assume that it is under copyright.

As to the comment about consensus, please remember that comments in DRs are not votes and while the deleting Admin must consider them, the Admin is not required to abide by a count of the comments, but must use judgement and knowledge of Commons rules and the law. In this case there are two comments on each side -- if you must count them as if they were votes, please remember to count both the nominator and the closing Admin, so this count would be 2-2. Also note that the nominator and the deleting admin have over a quarter of a million Wiki actions. The two opposing people deletion together with IrishSpook have about 1100 between the three of them. Experience counts here.

Finally, this image was reloaded after it had been previously deleted. Such reloads are a violation of Commons rules, and if done repeatedly can lead to being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim above. The original DR was closed correctly: the single "keep" vote was not based on policy. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:とらのあな 秋葉原店B 中央通り沿いショーウィンドウ 声優界NO.1アイドル 田村ゆかり 春待ちソレイユ.jpg

This file is Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) https://www.flickr.com/photos/37259551@N00/6888539096

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Prayetietia.png

Deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prayetietia.png

This file was deleted with this message: per nomination, not notable. But the only users to actually investigate the subject’s notability concluded that the subject is notable. The closing admin did not respond to my query. Brianjd (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, but I would ask for the original image with EXIF data. Not a small thumb in PNG format. Yann (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@MisterGabby: ^^^^ Ankry (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose While we don't have the same notability standards as WP, we must set some bar. This person has no article in any WP, not even in WD. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Catalina Velasco Campuzano.jpg

The file Catalina Velasco Campuzano.jpg is under Public Domain on Flicker by the official account of the Ministry of Housing of Colombia (Ministerio de Vivienda, Ciudad y Territorio). The subject, Catalina Velasco, is the current Minister of Housing of Colombia which means this is an official photo released under the public domain by the official account, there is no reason to request additional evidence of ownership.

Kind regards, Chien (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The Flicker PDM is acceptable here only when the actual photographer puts it on their images. In a use such as this we will accept CC-0 but not PDM. The reason is simply that the Ministry could decide at any time to revoke the PDM while a CC-0 is explicitly irrevocable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Les voitures qui ont mangé paris poster.webp

I consider this file to enter the Category: Fair use images of film posters according to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_film_poster

I tried using the following matching template to make sure everything went accordingly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_use_rationale_poster

However, being inexperimented with Wikipedia, I most likely didn't do it the right way. Thank you in advance for either fixing my mistake or explaining to me how to do it properly.

--Zacharie Barzilai (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair Use images are not accepted in Wikimedia Commons. You can upload it directly to enwiki under enwiki Fair Use policy if you need to use it there. Ankry (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per User:Ankry. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:00840066.docx.jpg

Deleted because the uploader used the date of the scan not the estimated date of the original. All images prior to exif data are estimated based on the best knowledge available at the time. --RAN (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose If we do not know the author, creation date is not enough in order to determine copyright status. For photos created less than 120 years ago we also need a publication / disclosure date. And this needs to be verifiable, not estimated. Ankry (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This is an anonymous image, no creator has been credited in a search of over 1 billion images. Romania does not copyright "non-artistic photographs", if it was artistic, a single photo from 1956 to 1996, was just given 5 years protection. In 1996 she was 79 years old, if I remember, the image was of a young woman. --RAN (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was moved to File:Polly Ági portrait.jpg. She worked, briefly and unsuccessfully, as an actress in both Romania and Hungary, see Polly Ági. After WWII she made a film that the WP article describes as "a half-Hungarian, half-Romanian co-production film".

This looks like a movie studio publicity shot from that era. If it originated in Romania, then, indeed, it had a very short copyright period from publication. If it originated in Hungary, then the period was 70 years pma or 70 years from publication if the author is unknown. Therefore we cannot restore the image without knowing in which country it originated. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose User:RAN has the bad habit of making assumptions and then changing licensing based on that, during DR discussions, so that admins/reviewers can't see what the original issue was. Anyway, nothing known about this image, not even the place of publication. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:周柏均.png

No support evidence to proof that "appears to be a screenshot"--Wpcpey (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Evidence, as always, is the duty of those adding or seeking to retain an image. Nevertheless, the support is the visual characteristics of the image itself. It certainly looks like a screen capture to me--and is indeed low res, lacking EXIF, and uploaded by a user whose sole other upload was a blatant COM:DW copyvio. Эlcobbola talk 20:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality suggests that this is a screenshot from a video, not an original photo. If you disagree, ask the author for providing the original file with metadata. Ankry (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Bishopswancathedra.jpg

I am the owner of the file and did not violate any copyrights. Please restore this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjones3927 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. You can request undeletion again if ever VRT permission has been received. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:1121-Txernobylgo zentral nuklearrerako sarkofago berria.svg

This file (and all the derivatives) has been deleted by Krd (talk · contribs) without any discussion. I don't even know what is the reason provided to delete them. -Theklan (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Theklan This file was speedily deleted (no permission). The uploader was warned at User talk:Bt infografiak#File tagging File:1121-Txernobylgo zentral nuklearrerako sarkofago berria.svg. See that section for an explanation. Brianjd (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The permission is pretty clear at the web. Also, the batch of files was uploaded 7 years ago. It was even published in blogs and their newspaper made a piece about these files. Speedy deleting something that is pretty clear and stable, and doing it in a speedy way, seems odd to me. -Theklan (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The file comes up as

XML Parsing Error: out of memory
Location: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3A1121-Txernobylgo+zentral+nuklearrerako+sarkofago+berria.svg&:file=hf8ja5p8o8vjthxookyxiuwqfeuqtb0.svg&token=6f6992bdce61ac221c73330fb804107263b70303%2B%5C
Line Number 11, Column 4:
<image overflow="visible" width="4280" height="2200" id="Txernobil-sarkofagoa-berria_1_" :xlink:href="data:image/png;:base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAEMAAAAiICAYAAAAszm6qAAAACXBIWXMAAC6ZAAAumQHd3klXAAAA
------------------------^

so restoration is not possible. The indicated source, https://www.berria.eus/paperekoa/1829/038/001/2016-11-23/horma_berria_erradiazioari.htm, comes up as a 502 error. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I can access the web without problems. Also, trying to access a page some years later is not the best practice. In some years, most of the sources we have will be gone. -Theklan (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe, the technical problem was temporary: undeletion works for me, temporarily undeleted
 Support as the source page licensing states: CC BY-SA 4.0
Aitortu-PartekatuBerdin lizentzia
www.berria.eus BERRIA egunkariaren edizio digitala da. Webgunea bera eta bere edukiak (testuak, irudiak, soinuak, bideoak, diseinuak, sorkuntzak, sofwareak) Creative Commons lizentzia baten pean daude. Zehazki, Aitortu-PartekatuBerdin delako baimen pean. Baldintza horiek ondoko salbuespenak dituzte: ez diete eragingo EFE eta Argazki Press agentzietatik datozen edukiei eta Euskal Editorea ez den beste enpresa batzuetatik datozenei. Eduki horien gaineko eskubideak haien jabearenak izango dira, eta, beraz, ezin izango dira kopiatu, banatu edota eraldatu jabearen baimenik gabe.
(or at least, worth discussion in a DR whether the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license declared there is valid. Ankry (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 Support I don't know if I am missing something in the way, but the original link states clearly it is a CC-BY-SA 4.0. My concern is also for other like files that have not being checked yet. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Yann. Can you undelete also the template in the image (Template:Other versions/1121-Txernobylgo zentral nuklearrerako sarkofago berria) and the images that were cited there? Thanks! -Theklan (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done Yann (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Evgeny Shaposhnikov.jpg

Nominated for a speedy by DejaVu and deleted by Túrelio in spite of ruchess.ru website is freely licensed (КОНТЕНТ РАСПРОСТРАНЯЕТСЯ НА УСЛОВИЯХ ЛИЦЕНЗИИ CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION-SHAREALIKE 3.0). See also Photos from ruchess.ru. --Xunks (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

 Support per the site license. Ankry (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I'm not an admin so I can't see the photo. I think this could possibly refunded if the copyright holder is the website, and the photo was first published on that website. On the other hand, if the website was just hosting the photo (i.e. got it from someone or somewhere else), then the website's copyright wouldn't seem to matter. In that case, the COM:CONSENT of the original copyright holder would still be needed or the photo would somehow have to be within the public domain in order for Commons to host it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: you don't have to be an admin to just open the link left on the file page to view the image. --Xunks (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Vartika jha.jpg

This photo of vartika jha & I would love to edit wikipedia article to fix them . This photo purpose only to वर्तिका झा विकीपीडिया page hold image not personal or voiletion any rule.

So please check once again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameer481 (talk • contribs) 6 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Uploaded to subject's Instagram page in September 2020, instagram.com. May I please ask you to explain how you became the copyright owner of this photo? Thuresson (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: PER Thuresson -- Needs VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Alstom.svg

Hello,

The logo is the official Alstom logo, I don't understand why it should be deleted : All other French and Worldwide companies have their logo displayed in their Wikipedia page, why not Alstom ?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropiness (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alstom.svg. Ankry (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Many logos appear on Wp under Fair Use which is not possible here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry and Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Channel_nine_on_the_WIN_network.png

I am requesting that this file on Commons be undeleted because the file illustrates the current state of WIN Television as a Nine Network affiliate. Please undelete the file before I put it in the English Wikipedia page en:WIN Television. From Bas.Bassie f (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I will also put this file in the category Category:Logos of WIN Television once it is undeleted.Bassie f (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This file was deleted for being a non-trivial logo. I think the file is trivial. Bassie f (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I will put Template:PD-textlogo on the file if it is undeleted. Bassie f (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose The logo in question is a combination of en:File:Nine2012 Glossed Logo.png and this shape of Australia. The glossy 3d-look and the very low threshold of originality in Australia make it a non-free graphic. De728631 (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. The ToO is very low in Australia. This is more complex than File:Flag of the Australian Aborigines.svg which was under copyright until the Australian government purchased the copyright and allowed its free use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631 and Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Canadian Alerting Attention Signal.ogg

I request a temporary undeletion to transfer this file to English Wikipedia under fair use because it is the official emergency alert tone for Alert Ready. B4531826 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Support I don't think this has a copyright -- it's only two tones. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Nicholas Mitsakos.jpg

User:P199 deleted this photo on the basis that "Just being a CEO doesn't make him notable. No articles on any WP or WD." First of all, where is it stated that no-one without a preexisting Wikipedia article or Wikidata listing can be notable enough for their photo not to be hidden on Commons? On COM:VIC, we promote images in scopes that as yet lack a Wikipedia article and in many cases never will have their own article all the time, because the standard there is, at least implicitly, that a scope could conceivably be useful in (not necessarily as the subject of) an article on any wiki. (See, for example, Commons:Valued image value: "It is not required that a VI candidate is in current use in any Wikimedia project....One of the purposes of the VI project is to make these images stand out as recommended for their useability by the Commons community." And there have been several discussion threads in which preexisting use in a Wikipedia article was proposed as a requirement for the promotion of VI candidates and vehemently shot down.) Moreover, though, if you read https://arcadiacapitalgroup.com/nicholas-mitsakos-chairman/, which I linked in the deletion requests thread, you'll see that this guy is not "just a CEO", but that among other things: "Mr. Mitsakos is a member of the MIT Technology Review Global Panel, active with Harvard University’s Innovation Center, a member of the President’s Circle of the Milken Institute (until 2015), and a lecturer at UCLA’s Anderson School of Business (from 1993 to 1998)." I think the combination of things he's done, maybe especially the work with MIT and Harvard, makes one photo of him potentially useful, and I respectfully submit that hiding the photo was based either on a stricter standard of notability than we should be using, a failure to read the link I provided or both. I realize P199 would likely disagree with my point of view on this photo even if they read the link I gave, because they would like to hide more images than I would, and that's why I ask for a wider review of this decision. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. Commons requires that the image must be realistically useful for an educational purpose or else this would just be a webhost. If you cannot create an article or a Wikidata page or anything about him without the image, there is no use for the image. No amount of images is going to make a person notable and there is zero chance this picture of him is valuable on its own. If VIC thinks that an image adds value when it is an image of someone not notable, VIC needs a change. Also, commenting on what you think P199's motivations are does not help your cause at all. If this person is notable, then tell me somewhere this image is useful: there are even articles about members of organizations that include separate images of each official so it doesn't mean an article about him specifically. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - "[W]here is it stated that no-one without a preexisting Wikipedia article or Wikidata listing can be notable enough"--right next to where it says the very meagre credentials of "member," "active," and "lecturer" establish notability. It is difficult to believe a potential re-user familiar with professional and academic credentials would find those anything but marginal puffery, and indeed the article for which this image was intended was deleted as spam. This is all moot, of course, as this is a COM:NETCOPYVIO here July 2022 and in more complete version here January 2008, well before the November 2022 upload. Commenting on the motivation of others, as per above, is a frequent tell that someone doesn't actually have a point. Эlcobbola talk 18:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination First of all, since this is copyright violation, it should have been deleted on that basis if no other. Otherwise: Sorry I offend you all by commenting on the obvious differences in philosophy between me and P199, which are clear to me from experience and previous interactions. If you think they mean I don't have a point, I can only say you didn't read my argument. But in terms of where this photo might be useful, it wouldn't have to be in an article about this individual himself but could be in an article about the MIT Technology Review Global Panel, Harvard's Innovation Center or larger organizations they're a part of. However, I will make sure to be careful about what I argue here, because it looks like my opinion on what to include on Commons is not mainstream here and will receive a hostile reception here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Charles Racine, Zürich 1967.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022121510009766. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by 冷床系 (talk · contribs)

Deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 冷床系#Files uploaded by 冷床系 (talk · contribs) 2

See also: User talk:Yann#Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 冷床系 (nomination 2)

These files were deleted out of process: there was no consensus or policy basis for deleting these files. The deleting admin might think that these files clearly lack an educational use, but the evidence suggests otherwise: eight files were kept because they were in use. This suggests that similar files from the same set also have educational use; there is nothing in the discussion that suggests otherwise. The fact that these files were not in use at the time of deletion (one was labelled as being in use during the discussion) does not mean anything.

These files should be undeleted without prejudice to smaller, more targeted deletion requests for any that appear out of scope. Brianjd (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @冷床系 as uploader (not sure if the heading counts as a ping). Pinging @Adeletron 3030, Zundark, Dronebogus, Kainioaefa, Cwek, Benlisquare, A1Cafel, Bluebosh, Peacearth, P199 as other users involved in the DR. Brianjd (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 Comment @Brianjd Sorry I stopped chiming in as the original nominator. I thought given the overwhelming "votes" for keep, I didn't think my input was needed or consequential. I don't oppose an undelete — I thought the overwhelming amount of similar uploads and I believed the free license rationales were dubious but not enough to go against what seemed like a consensus. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose AI images without educational use, specially erotic or sexually oriented images which are not used, are out of scope on Commons. Yann (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    Why specially erotic or sexual images? Trade (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    For the same reason we have COM:PENIS and other related policies. But as Jim also mentioned, we don't keep personal art either, unless there is some educational use for them. IMO educational value could be accepted for many of these, contrary to the deleted images above. Yann (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    No, the reason we have COM:PENIS is because we actually, verifiably have more penis images than we could possibly ever need. We barely have any AI generated erotic artwork and you’ve decided that barely any is somehow too much. Dronebogus (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is well established that we do not keep personal art from artists who are not themselves notable. Commons is not a gallery for art. I also note that at least one of the images that was kept because it was in use was uploaded to WP:ZH by its creator. We do not consider that as being "in use" when making decisions here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Jameslwoodward No, a file that is legitimately in use is in scope, regardless of who it was added by. Commons:Deletion requests/File:人間の交尾.jpg was initially closed as ‘keep’ even though I pointed out in that DR that the use was probably not legitimate; further discussion on that project proved me correct, and a new DR was closed as ‘delete’. Brianjd (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 Support Undeletion. There was a consensus to keep. Yann is clearly super-voting on his own dislike of /opposition to “AI erotic images” against consensus. Unbecoming of an admin. Dronebogus (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Note Yann cited a nonexistent policy/guideline (“AI erotic images are not welcome”). Dronebogus (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: You should withdraw your personal attack. They have no place here, and on Commons generally. Yann (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
No, you supervoted. And you clearly don’t like this type of image. It’s a statement of reasonabl opinion based on evidence. Either justify your stance or back down. Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I’d like to note that yes, I closed a DR I was involved in, but I at least had a pretty clear consensus supporting me (two direct supporting votes and a majority in general agreement) unlike Yann, who just decided he can close however he likes by saying “it’s not a vote!” Dronebogus (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
In fact the reason I closed was partially because I was worried he was going to pull this stunt again. Dronebogus (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I have already urged Dronebogus (at their talk page) to revert that closure, partially because of their dispute with Yann here. I fear that that every AI discussion is now going to be taken over by a small number of users attacking each other. Brianjd (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I know it doesn’t look good, but do you think I was wrong enough to unclose it? Dronebogus (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The main questions of the DR were copyright and the legitimacy of the nomination. Since the answers were fairly obvious (1: there is insufficient general consensus that AI are DW, making local consensus irrelevant; 2: the nomination was too much of a w:wp:trainwreck to judge reasonably) I think the close was fair. Dronebogus (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Just because a few admins can’t see educational value does not mean there is none. Two users here, including the DR nominator, have said that there seems to be a consensus to keep these files. Does anyone dispute this? Brianjd (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, I wasn't endorsing the undeletion request. I was simply explaining why I decided not to engage in the discussion, but it was just my impression. It should not be taken as gospel, as clearly, there are plenty of !votes opposing undeletion. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The closing rationale was "It should be clear that AI erotic images, and more generally AI images without a clear educational use are not welcome on Commons."
But is it? Where do we have such a policy? If it's so "clear", then surely this is written down somewhere for all to see? It couldn't just be an admin making policy up on the hoof, could it? We do have COM:NOTCENSORED, we have plenty of "erotic images" (including this same anime style) and so this appears to be AI images being treated quite at variance to non-AI images of the same subject matter. That is not a practice we can really justify. See COM:AI-generated media and ongoing discussion.
And to avoid the same red herring being thrown yet again, COM:DW is a whole different question to COM:SCOPE. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Out of scope, per Jim and others. We're not a web-hosting site. Abzeronow (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Where was the consensus to Delete them?, Zundark's comment was enough to speedy keep the DR,
Also we all on this very platform sing from the same hythm sheet "INUSE = Instant Keep" .... so why has INUSE been ignored here ?, Zendark made it clear the file was being used yet was ignored .... Why?. (Maybe the deleted ones weren't in use but if the kept ones have value then logic says so does the rest?.....). –Davey2010Talk 18:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No evidence provided that they are educational. In use and educational are different policies. Non-educational images can be kept here even if in use as illustrations somewhere in wiki. Eg., if you need an image of an apple as a wiktionary illustration, this does not mean that a bunch of similar images is educational. I would support undeletion if anyone provides a reason to use them on wiki or in an educational process. Ankry (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • File:Virgin-killing sweater s-2527302306.webp could be useful to illustrate the Wiki article about the subject. @Ankry: --Trade (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see the close as a supervote. The discussion related to educational purpose and other than the images in use, and the keep discussions did not have any discussion about policy other than to advocate ignoring it under a broad idea that artwork is inherently educational which is not policy. Even now, the best example of why these all should be undeleted is Trade suggesting that image for the Japanese article for Category:Clothes that kill virgins? It seems duplicative of the two images already there and while I don't read Japanese, a translation doesn't show much more that isn't illustrative by the actual people images. There is zero reason to keep three images of the same topic by the same uploader, especially when the images are something that can be easily generated an AI and more importantly when we have non-AI actual images that better illustrate the same idea (the slang term didn't come from this recently generated AI work). If there are others, people can ask for undeletion and suggest their use but it feels like the only uses people imagine are illustrating the idea of AI work (with deliberately offensive/provocative images for amusement I suppose) or to illustrative various erotic art articles with already have non-AI human people images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Lean toward oppose, especially as a mass-undelete. If there are some images here that are specifically useful, fine. Otherwise, a batch off arbitrary AI-generated art is no more appropriate for Commons than a batch of arbitrary drawings by a non-notable contributor. If some of them could illustrate something like the effects of subtly changing a prompt for AI drawing, fine, but for that they'd need descriptions that actually describe that prompt, are clear what AI was used, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Consensus is against mass restoration. Individual images may be restored upon request if someone wishes to run a trial on some article to see if it sticks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:HMS Eastbourne, 1972 (IWM).jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:HMS Eastbourne, 1972 (IWM).jpg was marked as "undelete in 2023" by Abzeronow. However, I don't see a reason why the copyright should now have been expired if it was copyrighted before. {{PD-UKGov}} has any of the following requirements for a work being PD:

  • It is a photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957; or
  • It was published prior to 1973; or
  • It is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created prior to 1973.

The DR notes that the source has a non-commercial licence for the photo, but that is standard practice by the IWM even for images that are otherwise out of copyright.

So if this is a UK government work, it can reasonably be assumed, that the photo was also published shortly after its creation in 1972. De728631 (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose While the UK copyright may have expired, the US copyright will last until at least 1/1/2066 -- 95 years after first publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The text of the PD-UKGov licenses says "HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply)". URAA does not apply here. Abzeronow (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The source site, http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205395749. says the author is "Royal Navy official photographer". I'm not sure I believe that -- it looks like a shot from someone's home downriver on the River Dart. However, I think we probably can rely on it for our purposes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:REALISTISCHES MANIFEST Naum Gabo Antoine Pevsner.jpg

== [[File:REALISTISCHES MANIFEST Naum Gabo Antoine Pevsner.jpg|thumb|REALISTISCHES MANIFEST Naum Gabo Antoine Pevsner]] ==

Das REALISTISCHES MANIFEST von Naum Gabo und Antoine Pevsner ist ein Plakat, das bereits 1920 in der Öffentlichkeit ausgehangen wurde. Es ist im Internet frei zugänglich zu finden. MeCorbeau 8-Jan-2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeCorbeau (talk • contribs) 15:15, 8 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Naum Gabo (1890—1977) and Antoine Pevsner (1886—1962). No license template. Thuresson (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose As it was first published in Moscow, it would have to be in the public domain in Russia as well as in the US.
Russian copyright terms expire 70 years after death of the author, and in this case neither of the two authors are more than 70 years deceased. Felix QW (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Books by Daniel Radočaj

Knjigaart (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Per Ticket:2023010610009033, Daniel Radočaj gives permission to publish a series of covers and descriptions of books of which he is the author. He complains that a bunch of those files were deleted, and requires restauration. Unfortunately, he is unable to list the file names, and can only issue a list of the concerned book titles:

  1. Četrdeset i četiri plus šezdeset deveta File:Četrdeset i četiri plus šezdeset deveta.jpg
  2. Velika smeđa fkeka File:Velika smeđa fleka.jpg
  3. Ponekad bih odlazio k njoj biciklom File:Ponekad bih odlazio k njoj biciklom.jpg
  4. Vodič kroz Krležu ili Priča o godinama opasnog življenja File:Vodič kroz krležu.jpg
  5. Suprtno od nogometa ili Što za vrijeme utakmice rade tvoji prijatelji koji ne vole nogomet File:Suprotno od nogometa ili Što za vrijeme utakmice rade tvoji prijatelji koji ne vole nogomet.jpg
  6. Krleža i Veliki rat ili Kako smo pojeli Krležu od marcipana File:Krleža i Veliki rat ili Kako smo pojeli Krležu od marcipana.jpg
  7. Anatomija rastanaka File:Anatomija rastanaka.jpg
  8. Mutacije bunta File:Mutacije bunta Daniel Radočaj.jpg

Is it possible to derive the file names from that information, and to restore them?

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2021111110000025

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2021111110000025 regarding

Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes: Ready for final processing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:ecotel_Logo_2023_transparent.svg

Hello,

I am employed as a digital customer experience manager at ecotel communication ag and was commissioned by Mrs. B. Loosen-Flanz to exchange the old logo (previously published on Wikipedia) for the final revised version. But that doesn't seem to be easy at all. You can call the human resources office of ecotel communication ag at any time +49 211 55 007 0 and find out about the truthfulness of the information I have provided.

Kind regards R. Werner

You need to provide an evidence that the free license has been declared for the logo on its source page. Or the logo copyright holder (or his legal representative) needs to follow COM:VRT procedure. Ankry (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Procedural close: image not deleted. Ankry (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Belgian Museum Public Domain artworks batch 6

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the sixth batch of files from MSK Gent that I intend on adding the appropriate licenses to them. Abzeronow (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Portrait of Jiří Pelcl.jpg

Hi, please undelete File:Portrait of Jiří Pelcl.jpg. VRTS permission came as ticket: 2022120710009147. Thanks! --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Martin Urbanec: FYI. --Yann (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2023011010011405

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2023011010011405 regarding File:Svensk skulptur svensk konst svenska konstnarer skulptorer konstnar svensk skulptor skane malmo konst nerlov konstverk scandinavian impressionism swedish art impressionist swedish sculpture sculptor expressionism.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Yann (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Hoàng Thị Thế trong bộ váy cưới.jpg

The photograph was firstly published in 1931 (see Thanh-Nghê-Tīnh Tân Van), but not first published in 1975 as @DHN claims. The photograph is therefore in the public domain and should be undeleted. 源義信 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That may be correct. The cited page is from Thanh-Nghê-Tīnh Tân Van, a newspaper published in Vinh, Vietnam, dated November 6, 1931. I can't read the caption. If it credits a photographer, then the work was under copyright for fifty years from his death, which was probably beyond the URAA date and the US copyright would last until 1/1/2027. If a photographer is not credited, then the Vietnamese copyright expired 1/1/1982, before the URAA date and it is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward The caption credits another newspaper "Trung Bắc". Under the 2005 Vietnamese law, this photograph was already in the public domain in Vietnam (as well as in the United States) at the time, and the subsequent new law does not affect the status of photographs that are already in the public domain. In other words, the year of publication is important here, not the date of the photographer's death. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam 源義信 (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Serpent'sHand.png

File was deleted for lacking permission. However, the source image is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, as with all other content from the SCP Foundation wiki unless otherwise stated (and this file is not stated as being under any different license, and, thus, falls under the site's general CC BY-SA 3.0 umbrella), and CC BY-SA 3.0 is a Commons-accepted license. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 12:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Support per https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/ . @Shizhao and Túrelio:  ? Ankry (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Charles Sheeler - Gladioli (15726769225).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings of flowers

I believe this is the 1927 painting by Sheeler that's held by MoMA. I've already uploaded a similarly titled painting from 1926 File:Gladioli in White Pitcher - Charles Sheeler.jpg (which is held by Santa Barbara Museum of Art as I put as the source). Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: Why do you believe so? Ankry (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It's the only one that I found that matches the title exactly: this pdf lists "Gladioli" as a 1927 painting by Sheeler. https://www.moma.org/documents/moma_catalogue_2855_300061941.pdf It's too bad I can't find a picture of the 1927 painting, that would definitely make it easier to confirm. Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 Info The deleted image is of the same painting available at etsy.com. In the lower right corner it looks like a signature, "Sheeler" plus something else. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:D.Amarbayasgalan1.jpg

File:D.Amarbayasgalan1.jpg This image was taken by me and i've full copyright. Please undelete my picture. I dont know why someone requested it for copyright issues. --E.A

Procedural close: The image is not deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  • reopenning as the image has been deleted.
  •  Oppose No evidence that the Commons uploader is the same person as the Twitter user "Ү.OЮУНЗУЛ @OyunzulU". If no public evidence for this can be provided, COM:VRT is the right procedure to be applied here. Ankry (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Screenshot yaglom.png

The software Yaglom is GPL licensed: https://sourceforge.net/projects/moebinv/

✓ Done: {{GPLv3}}. --Yann (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Screenshot yaglom russian nine points circle.png

The software Yaglom is GPL licensed: https://sourceforge.net/projects/moebinv

✓ Done: {{GPLv3}}. --Yann (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Yaglom-icon.svg

File is published under GPL license here: https://sourceforge.net/p/moebinv/gui/code/ci/master/tree/yaglom.svgz

✓ Done: Already undeleted. --Yann (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Marseille-Alexandrie La Route D'Egypte (4505509584).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Boston Public Library collections - Vintage Travel Posters

according to https://catalogue.swanngalleries.com/Lots/auction-lot/JOSEPH-DAVIEL-DE-LA-NEZIERE-(1873-1944)--MARSEILLE---ALEXAND?saleno=2589&lotNo=27&refNo=780707, the artist was JOSEPH DAVIEL DE LA NEZIERE (1873-1944) and so this became public domain in France in 2015. As a 1927 published work, it became free of the URAA this year and so is clearly in the public domain now in the United States. Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD now. --Yann (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Tallinn, Kalamaja saun, 1928.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Author, architect w:et:Aleksandr Vladovski, died in 1950, thus this building is already in public domain in its physical location country which is Estonia (follows 70+1 years term). {{PD-old-architecture}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD now. --Yann (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Paintings of Nina Kossman

(3 requests combined by Ellywa (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC))

Hi,

This painting by Nina Kossman was stored in Wikimedia Commons as her "own work". It should not have been deleted. Please restore it.

Hannayana (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No action required as the files are not deleted. Permission is received per VRT. --Ellywa (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:DirkMoses2022HausKulturenDerWelt.png

The institution that posted the video from which this screenshot was taken gave email approval, but not in the complete template form required by Wikimedia. The responsible person was then on vacation and did not send in the correct email on time. He will now do so.

From: Trautmann, Jan (Redacted)

Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:59 PM

Subject: AW: Rechte für Screenshot von HKW video

To: Dirk Moses (Redacted), Harold Marcuse (Redacted) Dear Dirk Moses,

I am happy to help! I am sorry for the delay, your emails were sent to me when I was on vacation. It appears to me that in the meantime the picture has been deleted from the wiki-page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DirkMoses2022HausKulturenDerWelt.png,

I think it must be uploaded again, so I can submit my permission as described by Harold Marcuse below.

All best, Jan Trautmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmarcuse (talk • contribs) 08:10, 12 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose If and when the required permission is received and accepted by VRT, the image will be undeleted by them or on their request. Ankry (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Will be restored if and when the email is received, read, and accepted by VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Husayn ibn Ali embraces Qasem Soleimani.jpg

Hi, I am requesting regular deletion nomination of the file above (it was speedy deleted). From the file's name, I can guess it is either this or this and I don't see any copyright problem with any of them. The reason for this request is a similar speedy deletion request by the same nominator (here) which I find totally baseless. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Please consider the same for this file as the name suggests a similar case. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: DR created instead. --Yann (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Belgian Museum Public Domain artwork batch 7

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 7th batch of public domain artwork from MSK Gent that I intend to add appropriate licenses for. Abzeronow (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Logo inform kz.png

Добрый день. Прошу Вас восстановить логотип Logo inform kz.png (МИА "Казинформ"), т.к. он является основным и верным. Так же, я курирую работу inform.kz (МИА "Казинформ"), что могу подтвердить ч/з почту rafael@inform.kz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfrafa (talk • contribs) 5 January 2023, 3:11 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  • Why did you claim that you are the author and the copyright holder of the logo? Can you prove that you (Wikimedia user Gfrafa) granted a license under which the agency use tha logo? Claiming copyright to works made by someone else is blatant copyright violation and serious violation of Wikimedia Commons policies. Ankry (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Silk way tv logo.jpg

Добрый день. Прошу Вас восстановить логотип Silk_way_tv_logo.jpg (), т.к. он является основным и верным. Телеканал Silk Way входит в состав НАО "Телерадиокомплекса Президента РК" и является внешней веткой вещания Jibek Joly. Так же, я курирую работу jjtv.kz (Jibek Joly), что могу подтвердить ч/з почту r.gafarov@ptrk.kz (почта НАО "Телерадиокомплекса Президента РК"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfrafa (talk • contribs) 5 January 2023, 3:28 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  • Why did you claim that you are the author and the copyright holder of the logo? Can you prove that you (Wikimedia user Gfrafa) granted a license under which the TV station use tha logo? Claiming copyright to works made by someone else is blatant copyright violation and serious violation of Wikimedia Commons policies. Ankry (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Max Wenner album number 5 Royal Aero Club certificate nos 1480-1900.jpg

I'm so sorry I didn't realize it didn't have a license! It should fall under PD-UK-unknown PD-old PD-US or all of the above bc it dates to 1915 and the photographer is unknown. TY Jengod (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Question Is the photographer really "unknown" though? I see an embossing in the lower right corner of the image, like photography studios sometimes used to do. It looks like "F. N. Manet" or similar, though the image resolution is not good enough to be certain. --Rosenzweig τ 08:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Already undeleted. --Yann (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:20220824conference.jpg

Could be ineligible from copyright according to meta:Wikilegal/Copyright in Zoom Images

  •  Support Not ineligible for copyright, but rather the copyright belongs to the taker of the screenshot. But in this case, the person speaking is Fumio Kishida, the prime minister of Japan, so regardless of what Japanese law says on this topic, any creative input by him would be covered by the GJSTU license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per KoH. --Yann (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Przygody Tomka Sawyera tłum. Tarnowski.djvu 81.jpg

Anonymous illustration from a Polish 1933 book. The license template should be {{PD-anon-1996|publication=1933|country=Poland}}. It was not PD in Poland in 2000-2003 period, due to retroactively extended copyright term, but this does not affect URAA (in 1996 Poland had 50pma copyright term). Ankry (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Same applies to:

Ankry (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Page941-1024px-PL Dumas - Mohikanowie paryscy T1-18 v2.jpg

A separator from a 1908 book published in Austria-Hungary. The license should be {{PD-anon-expired}}. Ankry (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Menu Start Windows 11.png

Il file è opportunamente segnalato come protetto da parte della Microsoft Corporation, l'autore dello screenshot è il sottoscritto. Non è una scusa valida "Windows screenshot", in quanto qualunque screenshot può esserne tale o facente parte, con dovute segnalazioni per l'autore. --Giov.c (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Giov.c

 Not done: Windows screenshot. Not free. --Yann (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Mueller-Harju Dieter de Harju.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: for verification of VRT Ticket:2023011310006415 ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 13:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Tiven2240: FYI. --Yann (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:SeminariTLB - Quina RTVV volem - 1.jpeg

 Oppose A consensus is not required. Deletion is entirely up to the closing Administrator's judgement. That being said, note that two Admins -- the nominator and the closer -- thought that the images should be deleted and only TaronjaSatsuma thought otherwise. I also note that two of the three images infringe on the copyright for the poster on the wall behind the speakers. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Support per King of Hearts.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the posters are de minimis. No comment on any other aspect of this. - Jmabel ! talk 22:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Belgian Museum public domain artwork batch 8

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 8th batch of public domain artwork from MSK Gent that I intend to put appropriate licenses on. Abzeronow (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Page8-1024px-Przygody Tomka Sawyera tłum. Tarnowski.djvu 8.jpg

Anonymous illustration from a Polish 1933 book. The license template should be {{PD-anon-1996|publication=1933|country=Poland}}. It was not PD in Poland in 2000-2003 period, due to retroactively extended copyright term, but this does not affect URAA (in 1996 Poland had 50pma copyright term). Zdzislaw (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done per Zdzislaw: this is PD as other illustrations from this book. Ankry (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Page1-1024px-PL Dzieła Eugenjusza Sue prospekt.djvu1.jpg

Anonymous illustration from a Polish 1929 booklet. The license template should be {{PD-anon-1996|publication=1929|country=Poland}}.

I wonder why it was ever deleted as there was a correct license there at deletion time. @Ruthven:  ? Ankry (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done per requester. Ankry (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably because of Special:Diff/609168372. Thanks for restoring the file. --Ruthven (msg) 15:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Wrensted Horsens c. 1893.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The author w:Benedicte Wrensted died in 1949, so this photograph became public domain in Denmark in 2020. As an 1893 photograph, it's long been public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: It there is a known pre-2003 publication, then please fix the copyright template. Ankry (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Claudio Caniggia Boca Juniors.jpg

This was marked for deletion because it was a poorly sourced upload by a sockpuppet but because it was (likely) out of copyright in Argentina and potentially useful, I fleshed out the file description and licensing, and uploaded a higher-quality version before it was (understandably) deleted by EugeneZelenko. You can see the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Claudio Caniggia Boca Juniors.jpg. Please restore this image as it is a valuable photograph of his time at Boca Juniors playing alongside Diego Maradona. Thanks in advance. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose While this photo may be PD in Argentina, it is definitely not PD in US. Ankry (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Every file in Commons must be freely usable in two countries: source country and USA, where Wikimedia servers are situated. While this 1996 photo is really in PD in source country Argentina, it is protected with copyright in USA 95 years from publication, that means until 2092. Taivo (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Kamvol Logo.png

Авторские права на файл принадлежат ОАО "Камволь". Просим восставить данный файл на соответствующей странице предприятия — Preceding unsigned comment added by ВикСталь (talk • contribs)

ВикСталь, см. ru:ВП:КДИ - загружать такой логотип нужно прямо в Википедию как несвободный файл: ru:Служебная:Загрузка. Здесь никто вам его не восстановит, только зря теряете время. --Xunks (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Due to the image in the upper part of the logo, a free license permission from Kamvol authorities sent to VRT is needed in order to host the logo in Commons. Ankry (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Erich Wichmann, omstreeks 1927.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of WH

I'd like to have this file temporarily undeleted so I could investigate its copyright status. Abzeronow (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Info Also published at designhistory.nl. Thuresson (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done No need for undeletion as the photo is available elsewhere. Ankry (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Teun Koopmeiners WC2022.jpg

MOTIVOS: Imagen nueva, para aumentar las fotos del Mundial de Catar y usarlas en los Wikisitios. --GuachulaMazurier (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Gundel 1957.jpg

Because one of the persons on the picture definietly died in 1951 (the 2nd lady from the left Mrs. Karczagi was one of my relatives), the filename was probably wrong, but the picture itself is for sure PD-HU-unknown. Please undelete it. Shakes (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - COM:EVID requires supporting evidence in all cases. That a random website from which you sourced the image failed to attribute an author does not mean it is unknown (unknown to you, or the website, is not unknown to anyone--"cannot be determined" presupposes a genuine inquiry). For such cases we use {{PD-old-assumed}}, which is creation + 120 years; this is nowhere near eligible. Эlcobbola talk 16:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    Just because you can find it on that archive's website, it doesn't mean it is the source of the picture. The original negative roll is in the archive of the restaurant and the catalog does not contain information about the photographer. One paper copy is in the archives of the Hungarian Museum of Trade and Tourism but there is also no information about the author. None of the persons depicted are still living to tell the name of the photographer. Because the picture was made before 1951 it is in public domain by law in Hungary anyway at least since 2021, and so in the US: works first published in a country other than the US between 1928 and 1989 are subject to URAA restoration. (See Article 29 of Act No. VII of 1994 and Article 108 of Act No. LXXVI of 1999). Also, because it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States. The restaurant was public company from 1946 until 1991 and by law all copyright was retained by the "public" (aka the Peoples Republic) trough the employing company until 1968. The picture was evidently made by a company employee as it appeared around 1957-58 in a publication of the company to pay tribute to the retired exeucitve chef. So, in this case {{PD-HU-unknown}} is just fine. That's why we have it. Shakes (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    It's the source you provided. None of this specualtion about US status is responsive to my comment. You offer no support for PD-HU-unknown. Эlcobbola talk 18:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand the URAA reasoning above. 2021 is long after the URAA date, so it has a USA copyright until 1/1/2053. If, as the requester says, it was taken by a restaurant employee, the restaurant would own the copyright only in the very unlikely case that it had a staff member who was specifically paid to be a photographer and had a written work for hire agreement in place. Almost certainly the copyright belongs to the photographer or their heir(s). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Hungary non-retroactively extended their terms from 50 years to 70 years in 1994. PD-HU-unknown means there needed to a publication, or at least a "disclosure", before 1944 per the older law -- not simply taken. I think the older law had unlimited duration for undisclosed works. Are you saying that happened? Or was this photo just found somewhat recently, and published much more recently? Mainly, it would seem that unless we can find some information on a pre-1944 publication, not sure how it would qualify for the tag you say it does. Unfortunately, some provenance information is often necessary. You state there was a 1957 publication, great. But if that was the first disclosure, then copyright lasted originally 50 years from then, later extended to 70 in 1994, so it would only expire in 2028. The U.S. copyright would be 95 years from then (or 120 years from creation), whichever is earlier, so 2053 it would seem. You would need to document an earlier publication I think for it to qualify for that tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


OK. Actually, this is why I refrain to edit Wikipedia anymore for the first place. First it was deleted, because the requester seeing 1957 in the filename meant 5 years are still missing for the required 70. Then I showed, it is for sure older than 70 years as one of the persons depicted are dead for more than 70 years. Now, the couchlawyers arrived, claiming bogous copyright jurisdictions and taking it much too serious. Sure people. No problem. As one of the museologist/historian curator of the restaurant's archive I surely know, that absoulutely no one living has a clue, who the hack toke that picture some 70+ years ago and absolutely noone claims copyright to it. Just by assuming from the age of the known persons on the picture, it was taken in the post WW2 era, in the deepest stalinistic times of Hungary, when no private person was allowed to own a camera and absolutely no private person was allowed to buy a filmroll, what was at that time not even sold for the public. So, just because of that, and because the negative filmroll is also in the archive, we can take it for a fact, that both the camera and the filmroll was owned by the public company owning the restaurant, and because of the setup, probably someone on the picture brought the set out from the office and a random waiter was asked to push the button. Now, dear professors of law, here is an interresting question for you to discouss: who owns the copyright? The Hungarian public who owned the company that owned the restaurant what owned the camera and filmroll, or the person who grabbed the camera-set from the office, or the random waiter who was asked to push the button for the exposition? There is also an even more important question to discouss: was Wikipedia created to offer a place for law-hobbyists to spend their life feeling themself important, or to make the knowledge of the mankind available to easily access to anyone?!? (Including, but not limited to this picture to learn about the most important chef and his team of the flagship Budapest restaurant.) I have my life, so I am out. I just kindly asked to restore this picture, but if you people in your selfimportance feel you have to block this because of some bullsh*t, I am fine with that too. Have a nice life! Shakes (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

To answer the question -- as I said above, unless there was a written work for hire agreement in place, the actual photographer, the "random waiter" or his heir(s), owns the copyright. But, the question of who owns the copyright -- restaurant or waiter -- is moot, because, as Carl says above, if it was actually first published in 1957, it is still under copyright in both Hungary and the United States. In order for us to restore it, it must be proven that it was first published before 1944. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Copyright law is still the law. When you write a Wikipedia article, you write your own text, you don't copy it from somewhere else. You are allowed to import public domain text, but in that case you have to show it's public domain -- it's the same thing with photos here. If you didn't take the photos yourself, we have to show the public domain status (or get a license via COM:VRT). Unfortunately, showing that something is public domain can be very, very hard, as copyright laws can be very complex -- it's downright awful, really. If we want an "easy" cutoff, then wait 120 years after creation, which will be OK in most all circumstances. Anything newer than that, be prepared to dive into the mess.
Hungary has been a member of the Berne Convention since the 1920s, so they have had 50pma terms since then -- copyright lasts the author's lifetime and 50 more years (even if that copyright was owned by someone else). And as mentioned, extended to 70 as of 1994. Anonymous works were 50 years... but not from creation, from "disclosure". That's where things get really awful, as here. A work could be undisclosed for 80 years, then disclosed, and its copyright would last for 50 years from there. The newer laws do have a limit of 70 years from creation if not "made available to the public" (slightly different legal term, but probably similar to "disclosure"), if no author was named when disclosed. It was clearly created 1951 or before. Assuming that it's anonymous, then it was definitely disclosed in 1957. If that was the first public disclosure, it's still under copyright in Hungary and the U.S. Someone owns it, even if we are not sure who -- almost certainly the restaurant, but someone does. If the restaurant owned the negatives, I'm fine with believing they own the copyright. We would accept a license from them, I think. The U.S. copyright situation is even harder; we need to show it was public domain in Hungary in 1996. The standard we have is the Commons:Precautionary principle. That does not mean that any theoretical doubt can be used, but if we think there is a significant doubt based on everything we know, it can be deleted. The U.S. side of things means it had to be disclosed in Hungary before 1944, for it to qualify for PD-HU-unknown -- that is what that tag says (This work was first published in Hungary in 1943 or before). I'm certainly willing to believe it counts as anonymous. If we know it was created before 1944, that would at least make it possible, but I'm not sure that is even shown. Evidence showing PD status per all those above rules is required, or at least evidence beyond a significant doubt.
Looking at the old law, there was a clause I was not previously aware of:
Chapter XI Protection of Photographs, Illustrations and Other Visual Aids
Art. 51.– (1) Photographs, figures, technical drawings, maps, graphic illustrations or aids and films which do not enjoy copyright protection as scientific or artistic works shall nevertheless enjoy protection if they bear the name of the maker and the year of publication or disclosure.
(2) The duration of protection shall be 15 years from the end of the year of publication or disclosure.
(3) Use of photographs, pictures, technical drawings, maps, graphic illustrations or aids and films enjoying protection shall be subject to the authorization of the maker and the mention of his name. It shall not be necessary to obtain authorization and to mention the name of the maker in those cases in which such is not required for the use of works enjoying copyright protection.
So... that brings up another possibility. I'm not sure we have any examples of what Hungary considered "artistic" versus non-artistic in Hungary back then. In other countries, studio portraits were generally considered "artistic", since they had full control over posing everything in the photo. Snapshots outside were usually not. If this is not, then there was actually a far shorter copyright term on it, which would have passed long ago. The retroactive EU laws make that moot in Hungary today, but it would take the U.S. side of things out, since there would be no URAA restoration. At that point, we would only need to assume that it was "made available to the public" (which includes public display) before 1953 to be public domain in Hungary today. At worst, we can undelete in 2028. But this at least gets into the "significant doubt" question, since if even displayed in the restaurant before 1953, then if it's a non-artistic photo it's fine today in both the U.S. and Hungary. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 11:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:عرش بر زمین.jpg

با سلام ممنون از توجه شما این صرفا تصویر یکی از آثار نقاش است که در فضای اینترنت منتشر شده 

و در بسیاری از سایتها در دسترس است

البته خود اثر به صورت محافظت شده موجود است و این عکس پیش نمایشی است — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farshid.tofigh (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose All this user's uploads are copyright violations. Yann (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:my_dad.jpg

My immediate and extended family memebers view this pictore many times as a remembernnce for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilipdhanda (talk • contribs) 23:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Nonsense request. It was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:My dad.jpg. B4531826 (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:All Is Vanity.jpg

Please see Ticket:2023011410007556. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Red-tailed hawk: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ph-mm-makati-makati cbd-ayala ave. - gt tower eastbound (2015-04) 01.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: if I can recall correctly, this road scene is similar to File:Ayala avenue street scene.jpg, in which no particular building is the focus and de minimis applies. Contesting IP user's claim at COM:Deletion requests/File:Ph-mm-makati-makati cbd-ayala ave. - gt tower eastbound (2015-04) 01.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Virtually everything in the image is copyrighted and the detail of the building on the left is certainly far above de minimis. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: how about the other file I mentioned ("Ayala avenue street scene.jpg")? Is it fine or does it exhibit similar problem? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
They are virtually the same scene. I don't know enough about Philippine DM to comment on whether it's OK, but for sure we should not have one deleted and the other kept. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed.  Oppose both. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 Support keeping File:Ayala avenue street scene.jpg; if the other one is similar than support too. If the photo is of a wider scene, I think they are OK. I think photos need to be focusing on the copyrighted work; I don't think we have any court examples which say otherwise (unless intentionally including a copyrighted element for effect). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl. --Yann (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Radar of the Alexander City tornado emergency.jpg

Yesterday, the file was speedy deleted under a copyright violation. I used an application called RadarOmega to access public domain NEXRAD radar content, which is operated and controlled by the United States Government. I think there was a potential mistake in it being speedy deleted since the content itself was under public domain. Same idea as accessing Wikipedia for publicly domain images, it is just an application which allows a user to access that publicly domain radar data. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Were there elements of the RadarOmega software itself, or was it just the satellite photo? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - 1) Uploader falsely claimed this to be {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} and 2) the argument here is tantamount to saying a screenshot of a federal employee's Windows 10 desktop would be PD-USGov by virtue of being software "operated and controlled by the United States Government". This is nonsense. The federal government did not program this software; that the federal government may operate a radar facility that uses this software does not magically make its graphical output free. Эlcobbola talk 16:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
On a reply/side-note to the 1st point brought up, I was asked by another user on my talk page to replace it with the NWS Public Domain copyright, which I agreed to do if this was undeleted. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. The image here is clearly significantly more than the image from NEXRAD. It required computation to show the limits of the tornado warning. https://www.radaromega.com/ has absolutely no copyright or terms of service information except "RadarOmega © copyright 2023 | All right reserved." I am inclined to think that since the image is purely the combination of PD NEXRAD images and some non-human computation that it is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to  Oppose. The software is private, and while it is using data from NEXRAD, every software system interprets radar data in different ways, and thus displays it differently. It's a tricky thing. If the data had come from the National Weather Service's website then I agree it would be Public Domain, but since it is being shown through the filter of RadarOmega I'm disinclined to keep it on Commons. It's a gray area, and thus COM:PCP. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Note, @Elijahandskip: has now uploaded File:Alexander City Tornado Emergency in 2023.jpg, which contains the same element on the right of the deleted image and, of course, suffers the same infirmities. Эlcobbola talk 19:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Noting for the record I challenged it with NWS usage of an application that also "interprets" radar data. These deletions may actually need to be a larger discussion since NWS uses and publically publishes screenshots from these applications. Based on what you guys are saying, they do not fall under public domain, meaning not all US government things are public domain. I'm not familiar with commons process for larger discussions (similar to Wikipedia RfCs) so the outcome of these smaller discussions should probably lead into a larger one. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Personal confusion, or failure to read critically, does not mean a larger discussion is required. {{PD-USGov}} applies to “work[s] of the United States Government” (17 U.S.C. § 105) which are "work[s] prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." (17 U.S.C. § 101). It does not say "all US government things are public domain" (the government, for example, explicitly can receive and hold transferred copyrights) and it certainly does not say "works of others published by the US government". RadarOmega software was not prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. A government employee posting screenshots therefrom has no bearing on its copyright. Do you believe, for example, that the FTC compelled MovieLand IP to enter the public domain because it used screenshots in its complaint? Эlcobbola talk 19:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I will point out that the government employee who posted the RadarScope screenshot on twitter was, at that moment, preforming their official duties, since it was through the official and verified government account. Basically the same as any .gov website. Had it been a personal twitter account from a government employee, it would be different, but in that instance, the employee used the official government account. So based on your exact reasoning that they have to be on official duty, then the RadarScope screenshot was in fact public domain. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, per {{PD-NWS}}, "NWS-created images are automatically public domain in the U.S. since the NWS is a part of the U.S. government. However, the NWS sites also host non-NWS images which have been submitted by individuals: these are generally shown as "Courtesy of ...". Such images have explicitly been released to the public domain by the copyright owner as part of the upload process." Elijahandskip (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
If the software is just processing data via automated algorithm, then the expression on screen may not be copyrightable. The copyright would come in if actual expression (say icons) were also added. The addition of screen elements coming straight from the software might do it. But, the presentation is not really fixed expression like a map is. That does get difficult. At some point, the software is just a tool for an author to get a desired result -- for example, Photoshop does not get a copyright on the result of any of its image processing algorithms. The copyright is still the same as the input. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
That’s the basic idea. The National Centers for Environmental Information (agency under NOAA) gives out the data in a zip file which can be read by applications. GR2Analyst (GR2Anaylst/GR3 Analysts Wikipedia article) is specifically mentioned on the .gov page. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Appears to be a controversial case, so restored and bundled to the DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alexander City Tornado Emergency in 2023.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Spree TV 2020 logo.png

This is a necessary logo that was and will be on Commons after this discussion concludes for Spree TV. It is a necessary logo because the logo was the last logo of Spree TV, used between 2020 and 2022. This file was deleted in June 2022, via CSD F5, because of missing essential information. I will add some essential information, such as the license and the source if the file is undeleted. I will also put the file in the category Category:Network 10 logos, if it is undeleted. Please undelete this file before I put it in the English Wikipedia article Spree TV. From Bas.

 Oppose Complex logos (like this one) can be in Commons (or restored like this one) only with VRT-permission from company. Taivo (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Created a fresh file with this name just now. Bassie f (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I recommend don’t recreate deleted content. Instead create a new file based on a deleted file. Bassie f (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the same as File:Last and 2020 logo of Spree TV.png. Yann (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Much smaller and more tightly cropped than the version cited by Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. Above ToO in Australia. --Yann (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Files of CatseyeTaku

I like to have another look for these files. They were deleted as copyvios. Two first of them (source link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opSgFJZ3Zf8) have proper license in YouTube. Source seems to me official YouTube channel. I did not find copyright notice from video itself (come on, it's 3½ hours long!).

Third file has proper YouTube license as well (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri0dctMv-fI). Source is as well official YouTube channel. But video itself has at 1:00 license "© 1987, 2019 ARMOR PROJECT BIRD STUDIO SPIKE CHUNSOFT SQUARE ENIX All rights reserved. © SUGIYAMA KOBO". Does it change the situation? Taivo (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Out of scope, whatever the license. Yann (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
By principle, they can be really out of scope. But the uploader is blocked and requested unblock. Answer to this question helps me to decide the unblock request. Taivo (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope and probably copyvios. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Spree TV 2013 logo.png

As you can guess by the title, this file is the 2013 and first logo of Spree TV. This file was deleted by Ruthven, after a deletion request, for being a unused, trivial logo. I will put a license, if it’s undeleted, such as Template:PD-textlogo. I will also put the file in the category Network 10 logos, if it is undeleted. Please undelete this file, before I put it in the English Wikipedia page Spree TV. From Bas, thank you. Bassie f (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the same as File:First Spree TV logo.png. Yann (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose The image cited by Yann is 1080 x 1080. The subject image is 200 x 200. We need only the larger one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, and under a copyright. --Yann (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Davud Ordubadli.jpg

Hello,

I have added the page about the poet Davud Ordubadli, who is my grandfather. I have used a photo from family archive to add to the article, this photo is taken in mid 1950s when he was posing for the new book coverage. I would appreciate if you restore the picture and appove my request for undeletion.

With kind regards, --Paliyeva (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Pari Aliyeva

 Oppose The image was deleted because you claimed incorrectly that you were the actual photographer when obviously that is not the case. Such claims are a serious violation of Commons rules. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Davud Ordubadli.jpg

The photo appears to be a studio portrait. The biography at Давуд Ордубадлы says that he lived and worked his entire life in Azerbaijan. The law there calls for copyrights lasting 70 years after the death of the creator, or, if the photographer is anonymous, 70 years after publication. Therefore a photograph from after 1952 must be still under copyright there and any Azerbaijan photograph from later than 1929 will be under copyright in the United States until 95 years after first publication. (The Azerbaijan URAA date is 4 June 1999). Unless you can get a free license from the actual photographer, the image cannot be kept on Commons for many years. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Not done, this is your second undeletion request (archive) of this image. There is no reason to believe that you own the copyright or that the photo is old enough to be public domain. Thuresson (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Belgian Musuem Public Domain Artwork batch 9

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 9th batch of public domain artwork from MSK Gent that I intend on adding appropriate licenses. Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Alice and Sparkle cover.jpg

This book cover was explicitly created using the Midjourney AI image generator and thus is not eligible for copyright under US law according to Template:PD-algorithm

This should be no more copyvio than the hundreds of other images in the Midjourney category. --Trade (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The art from that book consists of unautorized derivatives of art created by humans, see https://time.com/6240569/ai-childrens-book-alice-and-sparkle-artists-unhappy/ for proof. B4531826 (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Converted to DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alice and Sparkle cover.jpg. Not an obvious copyvio as the image is not derived from any known character (see COM:FANART). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Byars Harley Davidson Dealership.jpg and File:Ray Byars Harley Davidson Shop.jpg

I can't see the deleted images, but one of the other's up for deletion was taken by a photographer who died more than 70 years ago. The question appears to be whether the images were taken by the local photographer Ward Jaycox (1869-1944). Unless stamped like File:1918 Pearl St Shop.jpg, the image is anonymous, and would be "PD-US-not renewed". US case law, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg, sides with publication (made available to the public), occuring when an image leaves the custody of the photographer.

The DR says that File:Ray Byars Harley Davidson Shop was most likely published in 1928, which is less the the -expired threshold. Whose name did we search for renewals under? Seems fine to undelete in 2024, but before then was there a name associated with the photo that renewal searches could be done under? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The images need to be temporarily made visible. Images had to display a copyright notice, and be renewed up until 1964. If there is no name attached to the image it was made public, and is anonymous. There in nothing in the renewal database for "Harley Davidson" and "Texas" or "Ray Byar" at 1928+28 +/- 5 years. I have yet to see a local Texas photographer appear in the renewal database. You can find news agencies and big city photographers. --RAN (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
That's not correct. Having a paper photograph without a copyright notice does not affect the copyright status of the image. In order to use PD No Notice, one must prove that the photo was published without notice. A single notice suffices for all photos in a book or periodical. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The images need to be temporarily made visible. Wouldn't the burden be on the deleter to present evidence that the image appeared in a book? The uploader has scanned a paper print image, so we know it existed as a physical print, not appearing in a book or a newspaper. They have made no claim that it ever appeared in a book. The argument that any image could have appeared in a book, and it is up to the person scanning it to prove that it has never appeared in a book goes against Commons:Precautionary principle. United States case law has ruled that when a physical print leaves the custody of the photographer it has been made available to the public. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. Also the copyright for images in books are not held by the author or publisher, they are owned by the photographer and have to be renewed by them. Publishers license the images for use in the book, they do not buy the copyright outright. Google Books was sued over that very issue. If the author takes all the images in a book, then the renewal would cover those images. --RAN (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The copyright owner of a periodical, or other composite work, can file a renewal as the "proprietor of copyright in a composite work". A book does not always rise to that level, but I believe that type of renewal can preserve the copyright of the contained works, even if the owners are different. The DR asks for some evidence of publication without notice. If it was scanned from a paper print, fine, where did that paper print come from? A modern paper print would not be evidence. The related file File:Ray Byars Harley Davidson Shop.jpg, also deleted, seems (in Google cache) to show a caption underneath, so it came from some publication. If scanned from that publication, not sure that is evidence either way (even if the book was renewed, could be a long-existing photo). The "own work" claim is false, and no provenance information is given, which is required to claim PD-US-no_notice. Odds are high that it is, but we need something to rest the PD declaration on, at least until 2024. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The images need to be temporarily made visible. The images if published, would have to renewed by the copyright holders, not the publisher, just like as required for advertisements in newspapers. Any renewals by the publisher would only cover images produced by the author/publisher and not third parties, just like advertisements. --RAN (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Advertisements in newspapers/magazines are a particular exception to the usual periodical copyright covering the contained works. They are treated different than material the editors put in there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Google Books was sued over that very issue that the publisher of a book does not hold the copyrights to the licensed images contained within the books. Licensing allows the use of the image in the book, and does not transfer any copyrights. --RAN (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Well sure -- each photo can have an independent copyright. For photos first published in a periodical, a renewal on the entire periodical can serve to renew the copyright on the contained items, even if the owner of a particular photo copyright is different. For re-used photos where the periodical proprietor merely had a non-exclusive license, which is often the case for books, they wouldn't be affected at all by a periodical renewal. That may not be the case here, just noting the possibilities, but if this was taken from a 1928 publication which was renewed, then it might. If it was from a newspaper of that era, then it's OK, as only a few NYC newspapers renewed their pre-WWII issues, and nothing outside of NYC did. However, would like to know which publication this was scanned from, so we at least know a date it was published on, and also any provenance information from that publication. There is a claim of PD-US-not renewed, which implies publication before 1964, so when was that exactly? Renewal searches using the subject information are not really enough; the title may be unrelated, and it's the photographer or copyright owner which usually need to be searched for. It was clearly published elsewhere, and I'm not comfortable assuming publication only after 2003 (especially given the tag that was applied, which claims publication before 1964). That may well not have been the first publication, either. There are many ways it could be PD, but also ways it might not. When we have basically no information on an image (especially knowing it was previously published), I'm not comfortable saying there is no significant doubt. If we are scanning from a book or magazine, name the source, and give all the provenance information for the photo given in that source, at the very least. We are left guessing on something the uploader could have easily done themselves (if they were the scanner, and if not we know even less). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
{{Temporarily undeleted}}. Yann (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The font used in File:Ray Byars Harley Davidson Shop.jpg points to post-1978 publication and probably post-2003 publication. If it can be shown that Jaycox is the photographer, I'm inclined to support this staying undeleted. Otherwise, we may have to wait for 2049 since 1928 seems like the most plausible date of creation and I'm not seeing any evidence this was published before 1978. (EDIT: I'm read the other related stuff. If there is evidence that proves that the photograph was used as a carte de visite or publicly displayed at the dealership before 1978, I'd also support this staying undeleted. I don't think we have that as evidence yet though). Abzeronow (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

For the benefit of non-admins: both of these are the same photo, but File:Ray Byars Harley Davidson Shop.jpg (temporarily undeleted) has the caption underneath and File:Byars Harley Davidson Dealership.jpg is higher resolution. - Jmabel ! talk 22:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Please undelete File:Here 2 Be Dragons.jpg

This is a powerpoint image that includes the AI generated dragon image thumb|A potorealistic dragon on a transparent background The AI Generated dragon image is now a correctly identified and lisenced part of the commons collection. The Here 2 Be Dragons.jpg is my own creation with the addition of the dragon image. I will appreciate your consideration and undeletion. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lbeaumont: The DALL-E generated material ought to be {{PD-algorithm}}. Is the slide (including the text, layout, and texture) entirely your creation? You should add a copyright notice (e.g. {{Cc-zero}}) if that is the case; in general, unless something is very obviously ineligible for copyright, we prefer that people explicitly release their work under a free license instead of simply describing it as PD-ineligible, because it ensures the image is OK even if it turns out to be eligible for copyright. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose This is personal art and is therefore out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This image was created as part of the Wikiversity course Problem Finding. This meets the "Is it suitable here" criteria for inclusion. Lbeaumont (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Correct, scope cannot be in contention per COM:INUSE; I see it was removed from the article only after deletion. @Lbeaumont: Can you answer my question above about the copyright status of the slide? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I am happy to release this under the most permissive copyright (e.g. cc-zero). My only hesitation is that this image includes an AI created image, and I don't want to exceed the permissions of that included work with the copyright of this work. I will appreciate your advice on that. Thanks! Lbeaumont (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Any scope-related objections will have to go through DR, and only after a successful removal of the image from the Wikiversity page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Photo de profil 20 10 2021 II.jpg

I'm reaching out to you to request an undeletion of the file : "Photo de profil 20 10 2021" on behalf of Eiffel Biokou who initially uploaded the file on Wikimedia Commons. The photographer sent within an email, a permission statement to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" for the use of the file.

Thank you for your understanding. Bassie f (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Wilo Dawn requested this photo to be undeleted, but didn't sign it.Bassie f (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Is that the subject of French article "Grey Wolf, de son vrai nom Ed Mac-Eiffel Senam Biokou, né le 12 octobre 1994"? If so, if the article is deleted (as it seems it will be very soon) the file is out of scope and should not be restored. Bedivere (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope, article deleted. --Yann (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Chizhov A.A.jpg

Добрый день! Фотография Chizhov A.A. принадлежит мне, сыну изображенного лица. Фотография сделана в Кремле в 1989 году штатным фотографом. Мною она была восстановлена, отретуширована и размещена на странице моего отца. В качестве основания для удаления приводится ссылка https://tvsamara.ru/news/samarskomu-geroyu-socialisticheskogo-truda-anatoliyu-chizhovu-ustanovili-pamyatnik-na/?ysclid=ld01o4pcv7767726417. На сайте приведена фотографии с открытия 29.10.2022г. памятника моему отцу, в том числе и снимок моей фотографии, которую я изготовил для этого мероприятия. Прошу восстановить фото Chizhov A.A. на странице отца. Спасибо. Otchijov (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you claim that it was taken by "a staff photographer". If that is the case, the copyright is owned by that photographer, or, possibly, by the organization for which the photographer worked. Owning a paper or digital copy of an image does not give you the right to freely license it. In order for it to be restored on Commons, the actual photographer or the organization for which the photographer worked must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The photo was taken for my father in 1989 in the Kremlin by a staff photographer, as a memento of an event. I found a paper version of this photo in the family archive, I restored and retouched it, digitized it and placed it on the page dedicated to the memory of my father. Who do I owe get permission to publish in the Kremlin, from Putin, from the descendants of a full-time Kremlin photographer who received a salary for his daily work? What are you talking about? My friend, whose father was photographed with President Reagan at the White House and who subsequently published this photo, also had to get permission from the staff photographer at the White House? I think you are very interested. Sorry for my English. Otchijov (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Your English is fine, but you add little to what you said above in Russian. While it is possible that you can find a Russian government official who has the authority to freely license this image, it is more likely that it is a copyright orphan. In such cases we wait 120 years from the date of the image before accepting them on Commons. As for the White House image, images made by Federal government photographers are PD. That is not the case for Soviet or Russian works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your willingness to help. Sorry to bother you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otchijov (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Not done: withdrawn by requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Reger Max Postcard-1910.jpg

The file was clearly marked as being an image of a postcard from 1910 of Max Roger. Although I haven't seen the original image, I don't see any reason to believe that's not the case going of off the comments in the DR and the file name. Also, there's likely a copy of the image here. If they are the same image it clearly qualifies as PD-old, regardless of it's a postcard or not. Although, I suspect it is. The image should be un-deleted either way though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Support As an anonymous German work its copyright ran for 70 years from publication. Both the name at the top and the number in the bottom right -- a page number? - suggest that this was published in a book or periodical. Reger died in 1916, so I think we can assume that the image was published before 1925 and is therefore free of the URAA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

We already have a better copy of this photograph as File:Max Reger (HeidICON 33565).jpg. I'm not sure we need this bad quality version restored. --Rosenzweig τ 09:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate. --Yann (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Ana yurdu tr to undelete.jpg

Hello,

I have full rights to File:Ana yurdu tr.jpg Somehow a draft of the poster is leaked to internet. Wikipedia is using that. This file is official poster of the film.

Thanks, Sepheri --Sepheri (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Somehow it leaked to the Internet? Like appearing on the official site (indeed, the URL on the poster itself (!!!)) in 2016, and in official social media linked therefrom in 2016 (Facebook) and 2017 (Twitter), well before your 2023 upload. Previously published works require COM:VRT evidence of permission, in this case from the production company (Zela Film). Эlcobbola talk 17:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Belgian Museum Public Domain artwork batch 10

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 10th batch of public domain artwork from MSK Gent that I intend to add the appropriate licenses to. Abzeronow (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Rima Das Headshot.jpg

Have the permission to use the picture by Rima Das, whose picture it is and who had commissioned the picture.

Brenna Ribeiro (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:M2 Macbook Air Midnight model - 1.jpg

Picture of a MacBook Air was speedily deleted due to the copyrighted Apple wallpaper, when the wallpaper could have simply been blurred. Requesting undeletion so I can do it myself, and the unblurred version can be deleted again. Thanks DFlhb (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

{{Temporarily undeleted}} @DFlhb: Please blur the screen, or the image would be deleted again. Yann (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Done, many thanks @Yann!
You may want to also check out File:M1 iMac Green model.jpg, File:M1 iMac blue model (cropped).jpg, and File:M2 Macbook Air Starlight model.jpg. Wish these copyright laws weren't so! But hey, I get it.
Best, DFlhb (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK now. --Yann (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Bobcat-image-MariadB.png

This image was removed from the Bobcat page, and it shouldn't have been as I had permission from the copyright holder to begin with.

File:ProofOfBobcat.png

You may check in with the copyright holder at her E-Mail, mdebruynphotography@yahoo.com --DashFish (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - 1) We do not accept forwarded permission; the copyright holder will need to send permission directly using the process at COM:VRT and 2) even if we did, this is is not acceptable as, for example, it is limited to use on Wikipedia, is not a specific license, and does not address the required conditions. Эlcobbola talk 22:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK now. --Yann (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Alan Robert Jackson.jpg.

This photograph should not be deleted as this is the property of mine that my grandmother took. I advise that all actions be reversed and that copyright rights remain in me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carey3146 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 19 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Presumably about File:Alan Jackson, AO.jpg.. This image has a VRTS ticket number and should be processed there instead (VRTS Noticeboard). Thuresson (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: waiting for VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:The Whispering Knights, Rollright Stones, Circa 1919 (Postcard No2).jpg

The image was deleted due to having an own license and the photographer dying in 1970. If the image was taken in 1919 I assume it would qualify as PD-Old though. So I'd appreciate it if the image was un-deleted. The same goes for the following images:

--Adamant1 (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The images were taken by Frank Packer (1876-1967). Since UK copyright law is pma 70, they will be under copyright in the UK until 1/1/2038. Since they are 1919 images, they are not under copyright in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose PD-old is 70 years after the author's death, i.e. 70pma (70 years post mortem auctoris, or after the death of the author). That is the term in much of the world (and the U.S., for works published since 1978). Correct that they are public domain in the United States, but if these are British postcards, we also need to wait for the UK copyright to expire before hosting here. They can be uploaded to en-wiki, using en:Template:PD-US-expired-abroad, since that project just uses U.S. copyright law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Carl. --Yann (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Acceptance does not mean approval.jpg

Hi, I'm writing to request the undeletion of File:Acceptance does not mean approval.jpg.The source of ownership with respect to the background of the graphic is open to the public domain from pixabay.com, whereas for the content of the graphic, I am the rightful owner of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durrani1906 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose In order to restore this to Commons, we will need both a free license from the author of the quote, Myron Doc Downing, and evidence that the image behind it is free -- a URL for its source. We will also need to understand why this quote with this unrelated background has any educational use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - No, this is not public domain at pixabay. There it has a "Pixabay License" which is not sufficently free as it includes, for example, "The Pixabay License does not allow: Sale or distribution of Content as digital Content or as digital wallpapers (such as on stock media websites or as NFTs); Sale or distribution of Content e.g. as a posters, digital prints, music files or physical products, without adding any additional elements or otherwise adding value" (bold in original) which are unacceptable limitations. Эlcobbola talk 15:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File: Difference does not make wrong, it makes interesting.jpg

Hi, I'm writing to request the undeletion of Difference does not make wrong, it makes interesting. The source of ownership with respect to the background of the graphic is open to the public domain from pixabay.com, whereas for the content of the graphic, I am the rightful owner of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Durrani1906 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

@Durrani1906: Please clarify the purpose in a Wikimedia context of an illustrated quote by Myron Doc Downing. Thuresson (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose In order to restore this to Commons, we will need both a free license from the author of the quote, Myron Doc Downing, and evidence that the image behind it is free -- a URL for its source. We will also need to understand why this quote with this unrelated background has any educational use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - No, this is not public domain at pixabay. There it has a "Pixabay License" which is not sufficently free as it includes, for example, "The Pixabay License does not allow: Sale or distribution of Content as digital Content or as digital wallpapers (such as on stock media websites or as NFTs); Sale or distribution of Content e.g. as a posters, digital prints, music files or physical products, without adding any additional elements or otherwise adding value" (bold in original) which are unacceptable limitations. Эlcobbola talk 15:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Jennifer_Cihi_Headshot.jpg

This is my work. I took this photo and edited this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsChristian (talk • contribs) 19:44, 18 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This is a small image with no EXIF that appears on Twitter that another user claimed was their own work. If it is actually your own work, please upload it again at full camera resolution with full EXIF using the same file name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

Not done, same photo as File:JenniferCihiHeadshotNew.jpg.jpg who was deleted as a suspected copyright violation. Readily available all over the internet. Thuresson (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:EVE Online - Les carrières du jeu.jpg

This file was deleted by mistake among 5 files deleted at the same time with the reason for deletion being a missing free license. This image is licensed under CC BY-CA 3.0 according to its indication at the bottom right of the image.

Please restore it.

--Dr.Snip3rFR (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you own the copyright to EVE Online? Trade (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: License OK, not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Belgian Museum Public Domain artwork batch 11

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 11th batch of public domain artwork from MSK Gent that I intend to add appropriate licenses. Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Marianna Arzumanová.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: permission received in VRTS as ticket:2022122810007949 Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Martin Urbanec: FYI. --Yann (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:2022-12-08-Cell-Broadcast-Screenshot-iPhone13Pro.png

The file was proposed for deletion by Premeditated and deleted by Túrelio. It does not contain any copyright infringement because the work is also released in the public domain and is only an appendix in the actual work. The origin was correctly referenced and it was deleted directly instead of checking it. (By the way, all works of NASA are in the public domain ...) I therefore ask for restoration of the file.

Links: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pillars_of_Creation_(NIRCam_Image).jpg https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-takes-star-filled-portrait-of-pillars-of-creation

FabianHorst (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done The icons may or may not be above COM:TOO (and/or qualify for COM:DM if the answer to the first question is yes), but certainly there is no obvious copyright violation and any issues would need to be raised in a DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Lya de Putti.jpg

The image was taken in 1928 or 1929 by the photography studio Ross-Verlag. Consensus seems to be that photographs taken by photography studios are considered anonymous works. Except in cases where the photographer is clearly state on the photograph, which doesn't apply here. Also in this case, there are already plenty of images by Ross-Verlag being hosted on Commons for that reason. See their category which I have linked to for some examples. So this image would be public domain since copyright term in Germany expires 70 year after the date of publication for anonymous works. I will note that the deleting administrator said the problem is that the image is missing a scan of the opposite side of it. I don't find that a compelling reason to delete the image though since the same goes for most scanned photographs on here, including ones by Ross-Verlag. 99% of the time no one scans the backs of printed media since most of the time the backs of printed media don't say who the publisher or photographer is anyway. Therefore I'd appreciate it if the image was un-deleted. Thanks. BTW, I somehow accidently recreated the page for the file. Sorry if that causes issues. Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The assertion that studio photographs are anonymous works is incorrect, but it doesn't matter here. A 1928 or 1929 German image was under copyright for at least 70 years after publication and possibly for 70 years pma. In either case this image would have been under copyright in Germany on the URAA date and therefore will be under copyright in the USA until at least 1/1/2024. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that studio photographs are anonymous. What I said is that they are anonymous works "except in cases where the photographer is state on the work." I'm sure you get the difference. Of course that's baring cases where it's obviously known who the original photographer was. But in cases where it's not obviously known who the photographer is the consensus clearly is to treat the photograph as an anonymous work. Especially in cases of studio photography though, since the photographs could have been taken by any random employee who can't hold the copyright in most cases. So a studio photograph is "generally" treated as anonymous baring any obvious signs of who took it.
More to the topic at hand though, there's no photographer named on this postcard and it isn't clear who took the picture. So it's clearly anonymous. That said, you might be right about the URAA thing since that's not really my area of expertise. There's 195 images of postcards in Ross-Verlag though. Including ones from the same series as this postcard. From what I can tell most or all of them are tagged as PD-old-80. So is there a reason you don't think PD-old-80 is sufficient for this image in particular when it's clearly fine for photographs that were taken around the same time or do you think they are wrongly licensed? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
My apologies -- I read the one sentence and then didn't connect the next. Many studios had only one photographer so even if the photographer isn't specifically identified, the work is not anonymous. In this case there appear to have been at least two and their dates are not clear.
As for the images at Category:Ross-Verlag, many of them date from before 1/1/1928 so they do not fall under the URAA. Later ones do. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ross-Verlag.
If you are going to continue asking for undeletion of images from this period, I suggest you become thoroughly familiar with the URAA, as it will generally apply to any image made in a 70 years pma country after 12/31/1927. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, obviously if the studio only has one photographer and we know who it is then the work isn't anonymous. No really? In this case the work is anonymous though because like you said there was two photographers and we don't know when they worked or took which specific photographs. That's literally the definition of the author being anonymous. It doesn't matter if we know who worked for the studio. What matters is if we know who took the particular image, and we clearly don't have that information in this case. Otherwise, your free to point it out. But as far as I'm aware if a photograph is taken in a studio that has multiple employees and we don't know who the photographer the consensus is to treat it as an anonymous work. If you can tell me Who took the photograph be my guest though.
The reason I know that BTW is because I nominated an image for deletion a while back that had the same situation going for it and that's what multiple people, including an administrator, told me. So you can either figure out who the photographer was or the term is 70 after date of publication. As far as the URAA thing goes, I'm actually pretty familiar with it. I just disagree with your interpretation of it, and particularly in this case. You can be my guest and look through past DRs I've opened though. Many of them have to do with URAA. I just think your wrong here about if it's an anonymous work or not, just like you are clearly wrong about Deletion requests/File:R.M.S. Walmer Castle.png being taken in the UK. That's all. I think I should be able to disagree with you about the specifics of how the URAA should or shouldn't be applied in this specific case without you treating me like I'm just ignorant of the law or whatever. In the meantime I don't see any indication anywhere that the rule for anonymous works isn't 70 years after the date of publication, URAA or otherwise. Just like we still follow the standard term of life + 70 years regardless of the URAA. Nowhere does Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Austria say either term was nullified by the URAA though. Otherwise your free to point out where exactly it says as much. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW @Jameslwoodward: [[this]] is the DR I was talking about. In that case the photograph was taken by a studio that had only two or three employees at the time the photograph was taken. It was still determined to be an anonymous work though because we can't determine which of the two or three employees took the photograph. Maybe you can tell me what you think about it and why you think the same rule shouldn't apply in this case. As you can see from my comments in that DR I'm actually sort of in agreement with you that photographs taken by studios like this one aren't technically anonymous, but that's clearly not the consensus. So it is what it is. -Adamant1 (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

First, the URAA. The US law is never 70 years, so I'm not sure what you mean. The URAA is actually fairly simple. If a non-USA image is PD on the URAA date, then it is subject to the URAA is under copyright until 95 years after first publication. Therefore, with respect to this image, if we apply the German rule for anonymous images, it was PD in 1998 or 1999, after the URAA date, so it has a US copyright until at least 1/1/2024.

As for the studio and anonymity question. If there were a studio in a 70 years pma country with, say, three photographers, and we knew all their dates of death, I would be prepared to argue that all of the studio's works would have a copyright until at least 70 years after the earliest of them.

As for my comment about your knowledge of the URAA, you said above, "you might be right about the URAA thing since that's not really my area of expertise", so I suggested that since the URAA might apply to every post 1/1/1928 image, therefore you should be familiar with it. That seems to me a reasonable suggestion under the circumstances, so this seems a little out of line, "you treating me like I'm just ignorant of the [URAA] law or whatever". Anyway, I certainly did not mean to give offense and I'm sorry you feel that way. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I argued the same thing and it didn't go anywhere. Regardless, that's the situation we have here anyway. In this case the "postcard publisher" was a collective of random photographers from different countries and there's really no way to know who exactly went through there or took what photograph. Again, unless the postcard explicitly says who took it, which this one doesn't. So your opinion about what should or could be done with a studio that only has three photographers really doesn't matter. Outside of that, I said the URAA isn't my "area of expertise", not that I don't know anything about it or how it works. I'm sure you get the difference. Either way though, telling someone multiple times that they should learn more about an area if they are continue to be involved it instead of just stating what your position is and leaving it at that can come off as conceding. Even in cases where it's not, the point in this to address the topic of the DR. Not turn it into a personal back and forth about who has more credentials in the area then everyone else, obviously. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
If the human photographer is identifiable (or was identified within its anonymous copyright term), then the term is 70pma. A credit to just a photography studio (unless it's known to be a one-photographer studio) does not do that. However, if there is a photographer credit elsewhere, then it's not anonymous. For example, see this eBay auction postcard, where it appears there is photographer credit on the image itself. For many postcards, the photo takes the entire front, so we want to see the back as well. I can't see this image, but if it is the same one as this Flickr page, then there is plenty of room for some credits on the front, where the photographer credit would most likely be. This page seems to be another copy of the postcard, where the back did actually have publisher credits (not author). Germany did have some particular oddities with older anonymous works; see COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works. But, this one was clearly published or released. Given all that, I certainly think this one is anonymous. However, if it was published in 1929 at the latest, it would not have become PD in Germany until 2000, meaning it was also restored by the URAA in the United States, and its term would not expire until 2025. So  Oppose and undelete in 2025, for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
From what I've seen most of the time they credit the photographer in the image like with your example. Then they have the name of the photography studio were the image was taken on the bottom left and the name of the movie studio associated with the actor/actress if there is any on the bottom left. Although it depends on how far into the series the postcard was. From my understanding the series started with another photography studio that Heinrich Ross worked for in like 1919. He took the idea and ran with it. Then it was eventually continued by another photography studio. I think the series ended around 1945, but all the postcards in the series apparently follow each other in the numbering system and have essentially the same format. So it's pretty likely the photographer would have been cited on the front of the image if they weren't anonymous since that's how the rest series is going back to the first version.
Although if it's the same image there is a listing for this postcard on eBay here that says something on the back of the postcard. Unfortunately the image is to blurry to make it out though. At least except for the word "Verlag." So I assume it's a text logo for Ross-Verlag. Also of note is that the photography studio was more like a collective of many different photographers and photography studios that worked together there at separate times, which Heinrich Ross had some involvement in organizing, sure. But a lot of Ross-Verlag postcards are taken by studios or photographers and he just published them. But the point is, if the photographer isn't explicitly named on the front of the postcard there's essentially no way to figure out who it was. For all we know it could have been someone who worked for one the other two studios that published the series. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Good find. I'm willing to go with the postcard being published in 1928 or 1929 then. I guess the only question left is if the URAA thing applies or not. As said in another "A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion." I'll defer to administrator's on if it should be the sole reason not to keep the image deleted or not though, That said, I think it would be pretty reasonable to un-delete it based on the term of 70 years after the date of publication passing. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure any of us know what "mere allegation" means in this context. If we agree beyond the "significant doubt" required by PCP that the image was not PD on the URAA date, then the URAA applies and it has a US copyright until that expires. I don't see any circumstances where there could be a "mere allegation", as the law is clear and simple in almost all cases. I think "mere allegation" arose out of the fact that until the US Supreme Court decision of 18 January 2012 there was uncertainty about the law and we kept images that were subject to it. After that there was heated argument about whether we should obey the law or not. I myself have mixed feelings -- on the one hand, I see no reason why anything should have a US copyright longer than that in the original country but on the other hand it seems reasonable that a foreign work should have the same copyright term here as US works. Nonetheless it is the law of the land and we would be doing our users a disservice if we ignored it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
There were times when the URAA restoration was claimed, but people were forgetting about the particular copyright history in the country of origin (for example, Italy was effectively 56pma on the URAA date, not 70). Thus, some images were getting deleted which did not need to be. So, the people arguing for URAA deletion need to show, based on the detailed legal history of the country or origin, and what we know of the facts of the work, that it was indeed restored (or at least significant doubt exists, given the facts). At that point, it's not a "mere allegation". Germany is known to be 70 years, as they retroactively restored everything to the current EU norms before the URAA date (and they had been 70pma previously anyways), so no doubt about that here. 1928 or 1929 are the given possible publication dates for this anonymous work, so if we use that it was definitely restored in the U.S., and won't be public domain there until 2025 (if 1929 was the date). So barring further publication info, I would undelete in 2025. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Undelete in 2025. --Yann (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Postcard RMS Walmer Castle.jpg

The image was deleted due to being tagged as the uploaders own work. It appears to be a postcard from the early 1900s though. So I assume it would qualify as PD-old. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose While this may be PD-Old, that must be proven. The subject vessel was scrapped in 1932, so this could easily be recent enough to have been under copyright on the URAA date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Rather  Support, but @Adamant1: could you check the date? If it is from before 1903, then PD-old-assumed is OK, or if there no photographer mentioned (on the back?), then PD-UK-unknown would do. Yann (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: I assume it's the same postcard as File:R.M.S. Walmer Castle.png, which is clearly old enough to be hosted on Commons. That said, can you temporarily un-delete it so I can check? If I can see what postcard it is I'm pretty sure I can find a copy of it online and date it, or just date it based on the image. My guess is that it's old enough to be fine though since the uploader said it was from the early 1900s. If I were to guess I'd say "Anonymous Create/Publish + 70 years" would do it, but I'd have to see the image to be sure. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not the same photograph. RMS Walmer Castle was built in 1902 and scrapped in 1932. As I noted above, if the image were made after 1927, it would still be under copyright on the URAA Date and therefore still be under copyright in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Which photograph is it then? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks similar to File:StateLibQld 1 127151 Carnarvon Castle (ship).jpg. File description of the Walmer Castle postcard says 1917 but 1926-1932 seems more likely. Will keep looking. EDIT: https://www.bandcstaffregister.com/page4313.html says "She was replaced by the Winchester Castle in 1930, making her last sailing in the October before being laid up at Netley as a reserve steamer." so we can eliminate 1931 and 1932 so the range is now looking like 1926-1930) Abzeronow (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 Info You can see the back of the postcard here: https://oldthing.de/AK-Royal-Mail-Steamer-Walmer-Castle-Union-Castle-Line-to-South-and-East-Africa-0037563626 No photographer credited: PD-UK-unknown. Abzeronow (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, I changed the license. Yann (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

We have agreed that the photograph is a UK photograph taken 1926-1930. If it were taken in three of the five years, the UK copyright expired after the URAA date and therefore it would under US copyright until at least 1/1/2024. 60% is far beyond our PCP requirement of "beyond a significant doubt", so I think we must delete it now and argue again several years from now. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Where exactly does the 1926 date come from? The ship was built in 1901 and from the research I did the postcard could have been created anywhere between 1915 and 1930. Also your ignoring the fact that mere allegation that Commons:URAA-restored copyrights says "A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion", which I assume would also apply to un-deletion. In other words, you can't just give a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file in order to keep it from being un-deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The 1926 date comes from when the ship featured on a similar looking postcard was built. Alamy also has a different ship postcard in a similar style from 1934 https://www.alamy.com/dampfer-athlone-castle-der-union-castle-line-usage-worldwide-image381714513.html?imageid=B9409252-4502-4652-924F-B79131BA02D5&p=1418175&pn=1&searchId=b76c99d683e7b9d9ff5042c27aff0903&searchtype=0 The evidence points to the postcard being from the late 1920s or the early 1930s. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The evidence I found points to the fact that this is one postcard in a series of images of ships, which the publisher started printing around 1915 and continued doing so until around 1935. For instance there's multiple postcards in the same series where information says they were published between 1915 and 1920. There's also ones later then that. Just because there's ones in the series printed in 1932 doesn't mean they can't also have printed postcards of ships in 1917, obviously. Also,the image you linked to isn't even of the same ship. So, outside of an image of a different ship exactly what evidence do either of you have that 1. The publisher didn't publish postcards of ships prior to 1926 2. That this postcard was published later then that?
Also, how do you square your assertions that the postcard was published after 1925 with the fact that there's multiple images in the same series where the information says they were published earlier? Are the people who entered the dates just lying about it or what? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: You know I think I'm going to pass on this one since I'm going to be pretty busy for the next couple of weeks and I won't have the time or energy to waste repeatedly countering obviously ridiculous strawmen. So if you don't mind, can you just delete it again? Thanks for undeleting it and giving me a chance to research when it was published at least. I actually find some information about a couple of postcard publishers I had been looking for in the process. So at least it wasn't a complete waste of time. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The ship in the File:StateLibQld 1 127151 Carnarvon Castle (ship).jpg postcard was not launched until 1926, so if this postcard indeed took the (almost certainly much earlier) photo here, and added the waves from that other ship photo, then the resulting combination couldn't have been until at least 1926 (so even if the ship portion is OK, there may be other elements which were added later and which are not). On the other hand, this postcard sure looks like the same basic view of the Carnarvon Castle (there are even some people standing in the same spots), but again with completely different wave graphics. That in turn may indicate that they may have had some stock wave graphics which they could place different ships onto, and therefore it's possible those aspects predated the 1926 ship, meaning this card could have been quite a bit earlier. I have not found other examples of those waves being used. Definitely odd, and definitely some retouching. Given the ship was taken out of service in 1930, that is the end possible date. And usually you would not put too much money into creating new advertising for ships in the last years of their career. I'm sure they needed postcards for passengers actually on the ship, but feels more likely it was published earlier. I would feel more comfortable if we had an actual postmark on a copy of this card, of course. I suppose it's possible that it was first published in 1928, 1929, or 1930, but... that feels not too likely. I think it's definitely anonymous, and therefore definitely PD in the country of origin. The only question is the URAA restoration, and that seems unlikely to me.
Furthermore, our policy does state that A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle. That implies that there needs to be at least a significant doubt about the U.S. status; I'm not sure this rises to that, especially since there are doubts that 1926 is the lower bounds. The odds will decrease each year over the three years, as the U.S. copyright would re-expire even if the URAA had restored it. I can understand other coming to different conclusions, but I don't see this as a significant doubt at the moment, given the evidence we do have. So, leaning  Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Adamant, Carl's right that there is a possibility that the photograph was taken before 1926. I don't think the uploader was lying when they put in the 1917, I just think it was a guess. And I linked to a site earlier in the thread that has photographs of the Walmer Castle from 1917 which show it with the dazzle paint on it, so I think it's unlikely to have been taken in 1917. I've also found a few other instances of Alamy dating postcards of the same style to 1934. If you have evidence that the postcard publisher started doing this series in 1915, please present that evidence. Right now, we don't know when this was published, and under COM:PCP, that means it should not be restored until we are certain that URAA did not restore the copyright. I'd like to keep this permanently restored, but I don't think we have the evidence we need at the moment. Abzeronow (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl. --Yann (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Milazzo - chiesa della Trasfigurazione del Signore Gesù Cristo.jpg

La foto è mia e non è soggetta a copyright.
Picture is mine and is a free content, without copyright.
Please, undelete the page.
TrasfigMi (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Your photograph certainly has a copyright, but you have freely licensed it. However, the building shown in the photo also has a copyright and your photo infringes on it. The photo cannot be restored to Commons without a free license from the building's architect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and KoH. --Yann (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:QMWDC.jpg (NSFW)

Maybe i'm missing something but i'm fairly certain this (arguable poor) image was used on a Wikipedia article when it got deleted--Trade (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it normal to end a deletion discussion after only 10 hours? --Trade (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
We have many more images of penises than we really need (over 1,000), so any image that is not of very high quality can be deleted immediately. See the header at Category:Human penis. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
My point is that we are not supposed to delete pictures that are in use on Wikipedia--Trade (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Unless you can remember the site on which you found it, there's little we can do about that. Note that the user broke the rules by uploading the image three times. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there really no way for an admin to see which Wikipedia pages a (now) deleted picture was used on? @Jameslwoodward: --Trade (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
It wouldn't surprise me if there is a tool which will do that, but the project has hundreds of special tools and I don't know about that one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Not done, this is the same photo (different file name) that OP nominated for deletion with the following argument: "terrible quality". Thuresson (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Москвич 3.jpg

This file was deleted for a wrong reason. It was listed as copyvio Commons:Deletion requests/File:Москвич 3.jpg, but if you go to the linked webpage: https://www.mk.ru/economics/2022/11/23/nazvana-cena-novogo-gorodskogo-krossovera-moskvich3.html It says "источник: википедия", meaning the source of image is Wikipedia. So the image got deleted because a news site used the image. --Mikko Paananen (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Info Also uploaded same day by the same contributor: File:Москвич 3 2.jpg and File:Салон москвич 3.jpg. Ping @Didym: . Thuresson (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I have {{Speedy}} deleted both of these files because they appear in many places on the web before their upload here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose It was uploaded here on 23 November 2022. It also appeared in hundreds of places on the Web on the same day. While this isn't as completely obvious a case as the two above, I doubt very much that was the result of its uploading here. Much more likely that the manufacturer, Moskvitch included it in a press release. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:IPhone 14 Pro - 2.jpg

Was speedy deleted because of the copyrighted wallpaper, but the image was used on w:Apple Inc., and I'd like to rescue it by blurring the wallpaper. Best, DFlhb (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

{{Temporarily undeleted}} @DFlhb: Yann (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Done. But actually, does this even count as "obvious" copyvio? Not entirely sure the wallpaper would meet COM:TOO (purely geometric shapes), and the app icons seem de minimis enough. What are your thoughts? DFlhb (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the background is complex enough to have a copyright. Some of the icons might also. If that opinion prevails here, then the Admin closing this discussion should deleted the first version of this file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Probably should not have been a speedy deletion, given that it is a derivative work. Wallpaper image is definitely copyrightable -- it is only simple geometric shapes which are not, and then only when there are just a few. A combination of many of them can get a copyright on the "selection and arrangement" of them. It is almost certainly fair use of the image; I don't think the photo would be ruled a copyvio in real life, at least in almost all situations. You might argue that the fair use is embedded in the image, but I don't think we have a direct policy on that type of fair use. We normally reject all fair use arguments, because images on Commons are not used in any particular way -- if there is a way you could use the photo which would infringe the copyright, then we don't accept them. The "incidental" argument is close, which is part of the Commons:De minimis policy page but not strictly speaking de minimis. However, that usually also implies that the work was unavoidable. The photo of the phone could have been taken with a black screen, or lock screen, or pointed to say a Wikipedia website page. If the photo was enhanced by the inclusion of the home screen, then arguably the photo is partly trading off the expression in that wallpaper image, so may not qualify for that. Obviously  Support the blurred image; the unblurred one is dancing around some of our policy lines and I'm not as sure. If the photo of the phone's default screen is considered a viable "subject" as opposed to just the phone itself, then maybe the wallpaper is unavoidable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK now. --Yann (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:1927 Schematismus československé branné moci..jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:1927 Schematismus československé branné moci..jpg

as a 1927 book, it is now public domain in the United States. Now the only question is if there is sufficient evidence that the author of the cover page was anonymous or if it has a known author which would make its copyright status in the EU clear. Abzeronow (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've temporarily undeleted the file. I don't think there's anything copyrightable here, of the two file versions, one is just a title page without graphics, and the other one is just a list of names (apparently military personnel). The question is: Is this somehow useful and in scope? --Rosenzweig τ 10:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. Certainly in scope. --Yann (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Statue of Washington at Buenos Aires presented by American residents LCCN2016821253.tif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Charles Keck died in 1951. His works entered the public domain in Argentina (where this statue is located) on January 1, 2022. 1951+70+1=2022. Lugamo94 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: These should have been restored last year, but unfortunately, the undelete category was not added to Commons:Deletion requests/George Washington Monument in Buenos Aires. --Rosenzweig τ 10:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Muster.jpg

Vermutlich habe ich nur vergessen anzugeben, dass das Bild mein eigenes Werk ist und dass es jeder ohne Einschränkungen verwenden kann. Nun habe ich aber dasselbe Bild unter File:Zwei Muster.jpg erfolgreich hochgeladen und im Artikel "Ordnungsprinzip (Kunst)" eingefügt. File:Muster.jpg könnte also auch gelöscht bleiben?? FriedeWie (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I have deleted File:Zwei Muster.jpg. Reloading an image that has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules and a waste of resources. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.

I see no educational use for this file. You have inserted into a file on WP:DE in a row with a work by M.C.Escher and other notable works. You are not Escher and we do not keep art from artists who are not notable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Ich bin nicht Escher und erhebe auch keinen Anspruch in dieser Richtung. Aber: In dem hauptsächlich von mir geschriebenen Artikel "Ordnungsprinzip (Kunst)" habe ich zu jedem einzelnen der 7 Ordnungsprinzipien vier Bilder eingefügt. Das erste stammt jeweils von mir, womit ich abstrakt das Prinzip anschaulich verdeutlichen möchte. Es folgt je ein Beispiel aus den Bereichen Schmuck, Architektur und Bildender Kunst. So ist es nur logisch, dass das Bild "File:Muster.jpg" an entsprechender Stelle eingefügt wird. Logischerweise müsste man ansonsten diskutieren, die übrigen von mir erstellten Grafiken ebenso zu entfernen. Mein Vorschlag: das Bild "File:Muster.jpg" wieder herstellen. Dann füge ich es in meinen Artikel ein.FriedeWie (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


Belgian Museum public domain artwork batch 12

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 12th batch of MSK Gent files that I intend to add appropriate licenses to. Abzeronow (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Lya de Putti.jpg

Deleted because of the theoretical possibility there may have been an author on the back of this Ross Verlag postcard, but we know from all our examples that any photographer credit is on the front of the image. See for example File:Olaf_Fønss_1919-1924_Alexander_Binder_001.jpg and File:Lil_Dagover_by_Becker_and_Maass.jpg. We also know that the photographic stock they used had a postcard form pre-printed on that side. See for example this image at eBay. The lack of info on the back is why we never bother uploading the backs, even though eBay has them scanned. --RAN (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Was just closed here at UDR as "not done" (restore in 2025) because it was published in 1928/1929 in Germany and is therefore still protected by copyright in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 10:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per previous request and -Rosenzweig. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:ChiacgioGiannome.png and File:CGPrideFlag.png

They were under {{Permission pending|year=2023|month=January|day=08}} and it haven't been 30 days yet. The license permissions have already been mailed by the authors. Could you restore them back? --Lmalena (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  •  Support "Permission pending" is an explicit defense to speedy deletion per COM:AGF, as long as the uploader does not have a history of abusing the grace period to keep around copyvios for 30 days. @Jameslwoodward: What do you think is the proper procedure to release a previously published image, if not to upload the image to Commons under {{subst:PP}} before sending VRT? The copyright holder can't compose a permission release form without a valid Commons URL, and while they could send an not-yet-uploaded image file to photosubmission, it is generally discouraged in favor of permissions-commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    I see nothing that is an "explicit defense to speedy deletion per COM:AGF". This is an experienced user -- 15,000 global edits -- so they should know better than uploading an explicitly copyrighted image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Jameslwoodward: What do you mean? Let's say I find an image on a copyrighted website. I contact the owner, and they agree to release it under a CC license. Now what? Am I not allowed to upload it to Commons under {{subst:PP}}? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  • At the very least, a proper regular DR is needed is this case. I undeleted these 2 files. Yann (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. DRs created. --Yann (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:SAID AL SABA (PHOTO).jpg

--113.212.111.212 17:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Personal image of a contributor with 9 edits in all Wikimedia projects. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:The Canadian field-naturalist (1927) (20331439328).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Internet Archive document canadianfieldnat1927otta

Was PD in Canada, now is public domain in the United States Abzeronow (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. 1927 works are not longer under copyright in the US. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD now. --Yann (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Die Gartenlaube (1890) b 481 1.jpg

Die gelöschte Abb. File: Die Gartenlaube (1890) b 481 1.jpg wird im Artikel "Deutsche Originalcharaktere aus dem achtzehnten Jahrhundert Friedrich Freiherr von der Trenck." in Wikisource verwendet. Der Autor ist schon ausreichend lange gestorben. {{PD-old}} - WeHoLindenbronn (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Support It appears to be a work from 1787. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Info The author (engraver) appears to be Category:Johann Ernst Mansfeld. Thuresson (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 07:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:San Siro3.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:San Siro3.JPG

If this is a photograph of w:San Siro, the architect Ulisse Stacchini had died in 1947. Abzeronow (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose It is and he did. The copyright in Italy shifted from 50 years pma to 70 years in 1996/7, but in either case the work was under copyright after the 1996 URAA date. However, while the original stadium was finished in 1927 and would therefore be free of US copyright, there were two major additions in the early 1950s and late 1980s which increased the seating by 60% and added a cover. The architects for that were Giancarlo Ragazzi (1937-2017) and Enrico Hoffer (1937- ). That addition included the red supports which show prominently in this image. The stadium will be under copyright until 70 years after Hoffer dies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: No comment on the rest of your arguments, but I believe URAA is never a factor to consider for buildings because US FoP (and lack of copyrightability pre-1990) applies worldwide. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Right, in the U.S. photos are not derivative works of architectural works -- the architectural copyright scope stops short of photos of buildings, basically. So if the photo itself is licensed, it's fine for the U.S., and if the photo is now OK in Italy due to when the architect died, it should be OK for Commons. But, the Italian copyright may be an issue for the additions. I guess the question there is if the photo is focusing on those additions, or if the photo is of a larger work and those additions are unavoidable. That dividing line is less clear-cut, but unless the photo is focusing on the additions, I would tend to support keeping it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The architecture copyright in the US is a close call, since the second addition was completed in 1990, but it was almost certainly a few months before the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act came into effect. However the question is moot, since the Italian copyright has at least 70 years to run.
The additions fundamentally add 50% to the height and 11 towers to support the new roof, so the additions are more than half of the structure that is visible in the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The 1990 date is not relevant. It's that U.S. law states that photos of buildings are not derivative works of architectural works. So no matter what the architectural copyright situation is in Italy, this photo would be fine now on en-wiki. This is solely a question about the copyright status in Italy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I see. I'll have to make sure to note in the original DR that the relevant architects are Ragazzi and Hoffer. Certainly in cases like this, Italian FOP would be very helpful but I suppose that is a matter for Italians to take up with their politicians. Abzeronow (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The 1990 date doesn't matter actually - I mentioned it only a technicality for why it's OK in the US, but either way it's OK in the US. If it's pre-1990, then it's OK because it's not copyrighted. If it's post-1990, then it's OK because of US FoP and lex loci protectionis. Just because Commons requires that a work to be free in its source country doesn't make lex loci protectionis itself disappear; rather, we accept that it means there's no US protection but insist that it's not enough. The ultimate consequence is that for architecture, we only need to check whether it's OK in the source country, because it is always OK in the US no matter what. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Note that the seven visible spiral towers, the outward slanted portion near the top, and the roof structure are all part of the additions. The only part of the original building visible is the structure behind the towers. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this makes me uncomfortable, as they almost wrapped the old structure inside a new one. Could certainly be moved to en-wiki, if it was in use anywhere, but seems like the older portions of the building are almost the exception. Photos focusing on the old portion would be OK, but I can't quite convince myself that this is OK, given the FoP status. Since this is a living architect, even the relaxed standard of {{FoP-Italy}} can't be used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Carl. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Ward Hunt Island, Geomorphology, Map2, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada.jpg

Reason for undeletion requestː The names mentioned below the deleted map with the copyright indication are the joint authors of the map: 

© S.Baumann, G.Hell, W. Zick, R.Lehmann, 1990; scientific expedition leader: L. King, Gießen.
Scientific geomorphological Field work was done by Rainer Lehmann ín summer 1988, The expedition was financed by Lorenz King, professor for physical geography at Giessen university, with funds of the German Science Foundation (DFG). The final cartography was done at the two universities in Karlsruhe, Günter Hell (University of Applied Science Karlsruhe) and Wolfgang Zick, Karlsruhe University (KIT), section cartography and geodesy, The persons mentioned form a team of scientists working together for more than 20 years, and we have several joint publications (e.g. Hell+King, Hell+Zick, King+Lehmann and many others. It is the strong wish of all of us to include this map in Wikipedia. The map earns to be known, as it is really unique, a large scale geomorphological map of the northernmost spots of the world, Ward Hunt Island. The expedition leader contributes to Wikipedia as [Matti&Keti], many details of our expeditions to several islands of the Canadian Arctic can be found in de.wikipedia, fr.wikipedia and en.wikipedia, together with our joint publications in the references. Please undeleted the map and make it available in Wikipedia.---- Matti&Keti (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Matti&Keti: In general, shared accounts are frowned upon, because every time a user uploads their own work to Commons they are asked to click on a button that affirms that they are the copyright holder and agree to publish their work under the stated license. If an account represents multiple people, then we don't know who is actually operating the account and whether they are actually the copyright holder as opposed to one of the other operators of the account. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for your prompt reply, and sorry for the confusion with my alias-name. [Matti&Keti] is not a shared account, it is my personal account, connected with my personal email address. All contributions of [MattiKeti] without any exception have been done by myself. I was the expedition leader of many expeditions, and now retired professor (also Hell and Zick are retired). I uploaded the geomorphological map to Wikimedia,commons with the strong wish approval of all contributors. I hope you can undelete the map. Matti&Keti (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Accounts here are effectively anonymous; if this work was previously published, then we prefer to have communication via the COM:VRT process (which involves private emails) to confirm the licenses, to make sure there are no misunderstandings. The other solution would be to mark the image with a free license at its Internet source, though I'm not sure there is one here. It sounds like the cartography copyright is jointly owned by at least two and maybe four people; we may need individual permission from all of them, which is probably the biggest issue here (we don't accept stated claims of permission, or even forwarded emails, from other authors since 2007 -- see Commons:Grandfathered old files). Once that process finishes, the image would be undeleted. Maybe we could treat this as Commons:Assume good faith, since the uploads pretty clearly come from an involved person and I'm not sure there is an external source at that resolution, but if there is a joint copyright for this one some admins may want to see the individual permissions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Carl. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

My Name is Anthony "Amp" Elmore. I live in Memphis, Tennessee I am a Memphis born 5 Time world Karate Kickboxing champion. I promoted the fight between myself Anthony "Amp" Elmore and Demetrius "Oak Tree Edwards."

The fight too place at the Memphis Cook Convention Center May 29, 1982 where I won the "PKA" World Heavyweight title. The image presented is my image whereas we hired photographers and released our images. The image posted on Wikipedia while used by other media is our original media. We request that I story is undeleted and posted on Wikipedia.

E.S.P.N. covered the fight. I am the promoter and the image posted is an image that I own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmore12 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose in the case of File:Anthony "Amp" Elmore vs. Demetrius "Oak Tree" Edwards.jpg, we require the copyright owner to contact COM:VRT for previously published images. Abzeronow (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose(Edit conflict) This is probably about File:Anthony "Amp" Elmore vs. Demetrius "Oak Tree" Edwards.jpg. Since the uploader is in the photo, he cannot have been the photographer. Owning a paper or digital copy of an image does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is held by the actual photographer. As general rule photographers may license the subject or the person who commissioned the image to use the image for their own purposes, but such licenses rarely give that person the right to freely license it. Therefore, in order for the image to be restored to Commons, either the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or someone else may send a free license together with a copy of the written agreement from the actual photographer giving them the right to freely license it.

Also note that claiming that you the actual photographer, as you did here, is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Abzeronow and Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Belgian Museum public domain artwork batch 13

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 13th batch of public domain artwork from MSK Gent that I intend to add appropriate licenses to. Abzeronow (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Screenshoot from scratch.mit.edu

All screenshots from Scratch.mit.edu are licensed under CC-BY-SA as can be deduced from the FAQ, readable here: https://scratch.mit.edu/faq. Can I use screenshots of Scratch in a book or presentation? 

   Yes, you can use screenshots / images of the Scratch application and website in a book or presentation, and consider them to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. We ask that you include a note somewhere in your materials saying: "Scratch is a project of the Scratch Foundation, in collaboration with the Lifelong Kindergarten Group at the MIT Media Lab. It is available for free at https://scratch.mit. edu".

I therefore ask that they be restored. --Mattruffoni (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please point us to particular screenshots?
Also there's a question for individual screenshots. Whilst that licence statement is releasing any claims from MIT as to any part of Scratch itself, there's still scope for Scratch coders to have produced a copyrightable work within that environment. We'd also have to be certain that they released that claim too. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No response after one week. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Elizabeth Tan001.jpg

This is my photo. I don't why it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apm44 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://m.imdb.com/name/nm1989862/mediaviewer/rm3017403393/. Policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File: Żołnierz NJW MSW w latach 1974-76.jpg

Proszę o ponowne załadowanie pliku .Plik jest mojego autorstwa i posiada wymaganą licencję . Pierwsza wersja posiadała zła licencję i zosatła usunięta z tego powodu.24.01.2023 (Pamulab (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC) )

 Comment You claim that you were the actual photographer of this image which was taken almost 50 years ago. Is that correct?.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Pamulab, do you believe that taking screenshots of Google Image results makes images yours? Are you aware this is merely stealing from others (direct)? Given that your uploads are replete (and perhaps entirely) NETCOPYVIOs of this subject matter, why should we believe a word you say? How do you explain the appearance of the instant image on Twitter? Эlcobbola talk 17:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:senem tuzen by Furkan Ustel.jpg

Hello,

I have full rights to use this image. It is me, who is photographed by Furkan. I have his email which gives me full authorisation.

Thank you, Senem Tuzen. --Sepheri (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Breakthrough Party Logo 2023.jpg

I am jess Nelson I am a member of the Breakthrough party and I had got permission from the DL to update the Breakthrough Wiki page to the new logo, I am requesting the undeleting of the Image in question.--JessNelson12345 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright owner must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Not done, per Jim. Permission to update a Wiki page is not enough. Thuresson (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:SPECIALPURPOSEONLY Grouppicture 2019 BUSCH 14 Familie Aussen 294 3 300dpi RGB.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Wir haben die uneingeschränkten Rechte an diesem Bild. Busch Vacuum Pumps and Systems (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at the photographer's web site, https://www.leonkopplow.com/corporate, with "All images on this website are copyright protected and may not be used without written permission." Owning print or digital copies of an image does not give you the right to freely license it. Licenses from photographers rarely include that right. In order for this to be restored to Commons, either (a) the photographer, Leon Kopplow, must send a free license using VRT, or (b) you must send a copy of your written license from Leon Kopplow which gives you the right to freely license the image.

Also note that Commons:Username policy requires that accounts in the name of organizations must be verified by an authorized official sending a message to VRT. If you do not accomplish that promptly, the account will be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, didn´t know that. Sent an E-Mail already. Leon Kopplow also sent an E-Mail to VRT. Busch Vacuum Pumps and Systems (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Will be restored when and if the photographer sends a free license and it is read and approved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Muster.jpg

Das Bild "File:Muster.jpg" soll wieder hergestellt werden, denn ich habe es wirklich selbst hergestellt und jeder kann es verwenden. Vermutlich habe ich aus Versehen nur falsche Angaben gemacht. Wieso das Bild "File:Zwei Muster.jpg" gelöscht wurde, ist mir ein Rätsel. FriedeWie (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per previous request. Do not ask a third time. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:E Woodward Seated Female Nude 1927.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:E Woodward Seated Female Nude 1927.jpg

This is a 1927 painting by w:Ellsworth Woodward, an American artist. It should be public domain in the US now. Abzeronow (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, as the original nominator.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD now. --Yann (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Crônicas para se ler na guerra - Eduardo Vespoli Paolucci .webp

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Gentlemen, Good Afternoon! The quoted text and work do not violate copyright terms. There is a mistake. It's a book by a Brazilian writer named Eduardo V. Paolucci, a book that is for sale on all digital platforms in the country. Please check again and revert what happened. Yours sincerely, Dutis Dutis04 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Fair use. Please have a look at Commons:First steps before contributing more photos. Thuresson (talk)
Note Paolucci's article on PT Wikipedia was deleted for being out of scope. I think we could get a license for this work, but it would probably be out of scope here as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose The fact that it is for sale in print or digital form does not give you the right to claim that you were its creator (that is what {{Own}} means) or any right to freely license it. That right belongs to the author or the publisher. Please note that falsely claiming that you are the creator of a work is a serious violation of Commons rule and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No valid reason for restoration. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Hans-Jürgen Bretschneider.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022112310011945. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: As requested. --Rosenzweig τ 20:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored as requested by VRT agent. --Rosenzweig τ 20:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Wappen-600-dpi ohne Name.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022111810009682. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: As requested. --Rosenzweig τ 20:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored as requested by VRT agent. --Rosenzweig τ 20:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Shay Mitchell Headshot TheCollectiveYou.jpg

I am the photographer of this photo and request undeletion.

hereby affirm that I, Dennis Gocer of The Collective You, the creator of the exclusive copyright of the media work, photo of Shay Mitchell, as shown here: File:Shay Mitchell Headshot TheCollectiveYou.jpg, and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

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

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

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

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

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

Dennis Gocer

Copyright holder

Dgrocerphoto (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose This should go through the established procedure Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Standard COM:VRT grace period which this upload failed to benefit from previously, given that it is available at a resolution not found online. Following up with the uploader on their talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:SBSWorldWatch logo 2022.svg

This file should be temporailly undeleted here on Commons and this file should be moved to the English Wikipedia (it's fair use guidelines) per the template Template:Request temporary undeletion. This file was deleted after a deletion request, which closed today. Please undelete this file before I put it in the English Wikipedia page SBS WorldWatch. From Bas. Bassie f (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Available at the source, logos.fandom.com. Thuresson (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not needed -- per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:RobertMargolskee.jpg

The picture seems to be deleted for a copyrights violation. I am not sure what I missed but the picture is NOT copyrighted. I also received it from Robert Margolskee, the person pictured in it, for the purpose of uploading it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedNotAkhmed (talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 January 2023‎ (UTC)

@AhmedNotAkhmed: If it is not copyrighted, why is there a Creative Commons license assigned to it? Thuresson (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose There are several problems here:
First, the image is copyrighted. Almost all works are copyrighted until expiration, which, for this image, will probably be in the next century.
Second, the subject rarely owns the right to freely license an image. That right is almost always held by the photographer.
Third, the image appears at https://www.med.upenn.edu/asef/robert-margolskee.html with "© The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania"
Fourth, "for the purpose of uploading it here" is not sufficient. Images on Commons must be free for any use by anybody anywhere.
I also note that when you uploaded the image you claimed that you were the actual photographer, using {{Own}}. Now you claim something different. Note that making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.
In order to restore the image, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


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

(File:B. Galinon-Mélénec. Colloque L'Homme-trace, Le Havre, 2018.jpg

colloques L'Homme-trace. IDEES-Le Havre - CNRS 6266. ULHN, Normandie Université Bonjour,

Je réponds très tardivement aux questions concernant le dépôt de deux photos de deux professeurs d'université français du XXIème siècle ayant des fiches sur wikipedia. Je vous prie de m'excuser pour ce retard.

Cette photo est un travail personnel.

Elle est stockée dans le fichier photo du e Laboratory on Human Trace UNITWIN UNESCO Complex Systems UNESCO (fondé à l'université du Havre) Ce laboratoire organise régulièrement des colloques à l'université du Havre et ailleurs. Ce fichier a déjà été validé comme source par wikimedia pour la photo d'un autre conférencier (Yves Jeanneret) intervenant dans ces colloques. Voir le lien : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yves_Jeanneret._Colloque_L%27Homme-trace,_Le_Havre,_2011_-_1.jpg

Les colloques ont eu lieu tous les 2 ans de 2011 à 2018. Ce qui explique que la légende des photos reprennent la date du colloque et non pas celle du dépôt sur wikimedia. Ceci est vrai pour chacune des photos issues de ces colloques. Le lien concernant la photo de Béatrice Galinon-Mélénec lors du colloque de 2018 est : http://www.colloquelehavre.fr.

Espérant avoir répondu à vos questions,

Cordialement

COVD — Preceding unsigned comment added by COVD (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

@COVD: Qui est le photographe de cette image ? Yann (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by COVD. --Yann (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:NHS mural seen during the COVID-19 pandemic on the Baxtergate side of the Horse Vaults pub in Pontefract (23rd May 2020).jpg

This file despite having only 1 recorded delete vote and by the end of the vote had 3 keep votes and 0 delete votes, was deleted despite general opinions of the people in the discussion. --FusionSub (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:NHS mural seen during the COVID-19 pandemic on the Baxtergate side of the Horse Vaults pub in Pontefract (23rd May 2020).jpg

 Oppose Please remember that

"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." [from Commons:Deletion requests]

With that understood, also note that two people asked for deletion, the nominator and the closing Admin. They are both highly experienced Commons editors, with more than a million actions between them.

I agree with the deletion. There is nothing in the record to suggest that this is not a legal mural. In cases where there is uncertainty, it is up to those who want to keep the image to prove beyond a significant doubt that it qualifies for the status they suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose @FusionSub: public murals are subject to artists' copyrights. Since United Kingdom does not allow free exploitations of flat arts like murals and frescoes, commercial licensing to photos of copyrighted murals is not permitted. A commercial license permit from the muralists, preferably via COM:VRTS correspondence, is a must. The only permitted Creative Commons licenses in Wikimedia Commons mandate commercial reuses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit: I am renouncing my involvement in this discussion and nullifying my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionSub (talk • contribs) 13:21, 27 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Not done: withdrawn by requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Coefficients d'extinction amérindienne.pdf

What is this file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educated Businessman (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The file description is

"Effets des 5 siècles de colonisation sur les populations amérindiennes"
Effects of 5 centuries of colonization on American Indian Populations (translation: JLW)

If needed, the file should be recreated in wiki markup. PDFs are not useful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


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

MLK Danville Airport

I own the rights to the file and grant permission for its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torreydixon (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

This is probably about File:MLK visits Danville meeting 1963.jpg.
@Torreydixon: Why do you own the right of this image? Who is the photographer? What is its publication history? Yann (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Another version of it here, labeled as courtesy of the newspaper. That site dates it as 1963, same as the title, but the image description says 1964. That difference actually could be the factor between it being public domain or not; the Danville Register copyrights were never renewed, though particular contributions were. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
All other sources an internet search brings up confirm that the event took place on July 11, 1963, so the image description just seems to be a mistake. Felix QW (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Support The CC license is bogus as is, probably, the claim above that the uploader has the rights. However, a 1963 image without renewal is PD. The closing Admin should fix the license and change the date to July 11, 1963..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Not deleted. License fixed. --Yann (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Alessia Russo Tar Heels 2019 (cropped).png

Both File:Alessia Russo Tar Heels 2019 (cropped).png and parent file File:Alessia Russo Tar Heels 2019.png.

The files were nominated for deletion as copyvio of an ESPN broadcast even though the file pages noted that the YouTube video from which they were taken contained both clips from ACC (ESPN), and a montage of what were claimed to be original photos by the uploader that were made available under the license - the file page also noted that I had done a reverse image search and could find those photos nowhere else, so this and the fact they were all of the same game from the same angle made it seem clear that the YouTube uploader was the author as they said. As the files are screenshots of those photos, they should not have even been nominated for deletion if someone bothered to read the note and paid attention at the source. Kingsif (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Where does the Youtuber make an explicit claim that the photos are her own work? Without such a claim, I am reluctant to assume that these were taken by her when there is no other evidence of her being a sports photographer. With such a claim, I'll believe it per COM:AGF. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Great question, I can't remember the link nor see it at the files for obvious reasons. I would ask for temp undeletion for discussion and to review the uploader's comments, then (I of course don't remember them, either, just enough of the details that made me confident to upload the image, insomuch as I believe there was at least a comment attributing the elements of the video that aren't the photos, so one would assume the uploader would have also attributed the photos if not own work)... but I appreciate that would have to be a quick thing and I might be tied up through (until) next week. I assume the discussions at this page stay current for a week and if I am busy, I can come back and ask then Kingsif (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Link: [4]. Your comments: "The uploader notes in the video description that the match footage and the audio over the photographs is taken from other sources, but claims the photographs as own work. As there are several photographs, all of one match and which I have used Google Lens and not found anywhere else on the internet, I am satisfied that the uploader is the photograph author and able to release them under the YouTube Creative Commons license." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Thanks; I suppose I was referring to the video description saying Audio from Anson Dorrance, Alessia Russo, and match play. - attributing the audio and match play video, while adding a commons license (claiming the rest, as I understood it), and see my small note above. If this is insufficient (or COM:PCP), I'm good with that. (Separately, the Daily Tar Heel link is GDPR-blocked for me and it's a small effort to use the usual workarounds, but I'll AGF on it) Kingsif (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose The photographs are likely not the YouTube uploader’s work. At least two of the photographs belong to Savio Washington/the Daily Tar Heel (though like the Kingsif, I wasn't able to find the photograph that was clipped out): https://www.dailytarheel.com/staff/savion-washington. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Belgian Museum public domain artwork batch 14

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 14th batch of public domain artwork from MSK Gent that I intend to add the appropriate licenses. (I estimate that I'll be finished with the 18th batch) Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Flecture Logo.png

copying from file page, pinging @Annatics: --Achim55 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Dieses Bild steht unter der Lizenz CC BY-SA 4.0, wie auf der Coding da Vinci Website, auf der es veröffentlicht wurde, zu sehen. Ich bitte es wieder herzustellen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annatics (talk • contribs) 12:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: It was wrongly tagged as copyvio. --Yann (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Graham Hamilton 001(Headshot)Colour.jpg

Please undelete this photo of me, Graham Hamilton, in my Wikipedia entry. Reasons: It is a studio shot taken by a professional photographer, Phil Adams, for British Equity Collecting Society, when I was its Chairman.

Signed: Graham Hamilton00:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)JGH McOwat (talk)

Procedural close. Please do not request undeletion of a file that has never been deleted. Submit your comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Graham Hamilton 001(Headshot)Colour.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Statue in front of the European Parliament.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/08#Image:Statue in front of the European Parliament.jpg. However, there is FOP now in Belgium. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: one more for Category:Euro monument in Espace Léopold. --Rosenzweig τ 08:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Melissa Ong.webp

Was deleted for lack of license; public-domain release of the image has now been obtained here. Thanks! Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Appears to be a selfie; release made by verified Twitter account. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Estatua ecuestre de Marti, parque central de NY.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Estatua ecuestre de Marti, parque central de NY.JPG. But the DR states it is from 1950. May be eligible for {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}, if ever. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 Support I think you misread the DR -- it says 1959, which is correct. SIRIS shows a garble in the inscription where the (c) would be, so it may have had notice, but there is no renewal, which was required for a 1959 work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Elizabeth II & Philip after coronation (Elizabeth II sitting).webp

I replied to the message on my talk page, setting out the reasons for why I believe the image to be in the public domain. This means speedy deletion criteria F1 no longer applies ("This does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research"). I received no reply and the file was deleted a few hours later.--Madfly2 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I see no reason why this image is PD. As you say in the file description, it was taken by Cecil Beaton, who was a private citizen -- never an employee of the UK government. Beaton died in 1980, so it will be under copyright until 1/1/2051. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Converted to DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elizabeth II & Philip after coronation (Elizabeth II sitting).webp; requestor clearly intended to challenge the speedy deletion. @Madfly2: In the future, you should click "Challenge speedy deletion" if you disagree with a speedy tag. If you simply reply on your own talk page, no one will read it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Battlezxxzxz.jpg

Reasoning - faithful reproduction of a work that is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Original uploader may have accidentally uploaded the file as "their own work." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightoftheswords281 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 January 2023‎ (UTC)

Presumably because the magazine found the image on Wikipedia and for this reason credits the uploader Wisielec.97 as the author. Is Wisielec.97 = Henryk Baranowski who died in 2005? Thuresson (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Not done, per above. Uploader has also claimed to be Andrey Klimenko (b. 1956). Thuresson (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Maurice Fatio at age 30.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maurice Fatio at age 30.jpg

"Photo was taken in 1927 in New York." I cannot see if this was a published photograph which would be public domain in the US or if this is from an unpublished negative, which might need to wait until 2048. Abzeronow (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Support I think it's a halftone, which would indicate that it has been published. have restored it to help in the discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, TinEye turned up something from before this was posted to Commons. Internet Archive link to the page: https://web.archive.org/web/20140811004110/http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/social-history/2009/palm-beach-social-history. This is captioned "Maurice Fatio in Palm Beach, 1927." on that page. Abzeronow (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Wider crop (though different scan) here; looks like it was used inside the cover in a 1992 biography written by his daughter but feels like it was taken from an old print. Likely published far earlier, though the daughter may have had access to family stuff. This looks like a formal portrait though. Would  Support I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Rockefeller Center Atlas1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rockefeller Center Atlas1.jpg. However, I think this may pass either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}, if so. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per KoH. --Yann (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Tokyo-Cinderella-Castle.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tokyo-Cinderella-Castle.jpg. But castles like this are buildings, therefore {{FoP-Japan}} applies. It is not a sculpture or a sculptural structure like the Tower of the Sun. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 Support This was deleted in 2006, so the closing Admin should fill out the description and other information. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:CuteAggression in dogs.png

I believe my image [in dogs.png|CuteAggression in dogs] was deleted in error. It is an image I own, and is an original. I have permission from the owner of the dog to use the image.

--Sreyoshibhaduri (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Ping @Didym: . Thuresson (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
An uncropped version of this image was published on Twitter[5] one day before your upload here. --Túrelio (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission via COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:NYC-RC-Prometheus.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: both deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NYC Rockefeller Center Plaza by slonecker.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NYC-RC-Prometheus.jpg. However, these appear to be pre-1978. Possibly {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

 Support SIRIS describes an inscription which does not include notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done per Jim. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Belgian Museum public domain artwork batch 15

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 15th batch of public domain artwork from MSK Gent that I intend to add appropriate licenses. Abzeronow (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:A cute bichon shih tzu dog.jpg

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2023012710013435 regarding File:A cute bichon shih tzu dog.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ganímedesː✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:RN-Riviera-Adriatica-1973-gozzi.jpg

The image was deleted because it was wrongly licensed as being the uploaders own work. I assume it would qualify for PD-Italy due to the 20 year term for simple photographs though. So I'd appreciate it if the image was un-deleted and I'll update the license. The same goes for following images:

--Adamant1 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. Ruthven (msg) 09:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Biagiolli

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: authorization process ongoing, Ticket#2022111710012689 .avgas 15:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Filippo Biagioli doesn't seem to be notable, so I wonder why these would be in scope. In addition, File:Personal photo 1.jpg and File:Filippo Biagiolli.jpg are portraits of the artist himself, so the permission should come from the photographer(s). Yann (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose I have to disagree about notability -- he appears on many of the art auction and art pricing web sites. However, I agree about the two photographs of him -- they are not selfies so can't be {{Own work}}. Also, it is policy to require that editors using the name of notable artists must confirm that they are actually the artist using VRT, see Commons:Username policy. We get far too many imposters to allow anonymous users to upload copyrighted works without checking that they are actually the artist. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 Comment One renamed to File:Filippo Biagioli 1.jpg. Yann (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm VRT operator. I asked to restore the files because my user group doesn't allow me to view cancelled one(s) when I've to realize what it's in order to continue my work. I think I can figure out who gets to send us authorization for what. Tnx, --.avgas 14:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: VRT doesn't replace community consensus. Files have been undeleted because the author contacted VRT, but everyone is free to open a DR or an admin can even speedy delete files that are out of COM:SCOPE. Ruthven (msg) 09:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Bruce Gilley on Chinese politics.ogg

I think this file was removed by mistake, user Herby accidentally read the wrong terms of service intended for C-Span's proprietary materials such as logos, commercials, banners, etc., which does not apply to the content appearing on C-span and which has completely different terms of service which clearly states that: "Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRoyalTrust (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose I see an NC license here, but not a free license and in any event, this did not originate "from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate", It is obvious both from the on-screen display and the logo on the wall behind the speakers that this panel was at the American Enterprise Institute. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Keep The licensee (C-SPAN) moreover states on its website:

"Under C-SPAN's copyright policy a license is generally not required to post a recording of C-SPAN's video coverage of federal government events online for non-commercial purposes so long as C-SPAN is attributed as the source of the video. However, simultaneous streaming or retransmission of the C-SPAN networks' video coverage of any event not in the public domain, live or recorded, may not be posted under any circumstances without a license.Keeping a C-SPAN logo on the screen during the non-commercial use constitutes sufficient attribution under this policy."

So If i understand it correctly, non commercial use of the footage is permitted, as long as C-spans logo is not removed from the footage. If this is not the case, (please explain why not), then i agree with (Jameslwoodward) that the footage should be deleted, and i sincerely apologize for uploading copyright protected content to Commons. TheRoyalTrust (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. Please create a DR if needed. --Yann (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: A non commercial licesnse is not sufficient for Commons -- we require that an image be free for any use anywhere by anybody. Second, this is not a Congressional event. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Bishop-Bossilkov.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bishop-Bossilkov.jpg As an anonymous Bulgarian photograph from 1927, it would be public domain in both Bulgaria and the United States. Bulgaria was 50 PMA in 1996, the date of URAA restoration by the way. Abzeronow (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD now. --Yann (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Redd Velvet.jpg

Photo deleted in error — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvet Ventures LLC (talk • contribs) 07:09, 29 January 2023‎ (UTC)

@Velvet Ventures LLC: Please add the full file name. Thuresson (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No file name provided. --Yann (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Pavlos Michaelides violin.jpg

I request undeletion of this file name because this is my personal photo and I myself uploaded in the description of my page as part of my CV. Pavlos Michaelides https://violin.cy/ (Redacted) --Pavlos.violin (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright holder is Antonis Farmakas, so we need a formal written permission from him. And Wikimedia Commons is not a social media. We do not accept CV and personal images, except from active contributors. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Červené oko.jpg

Please undelete the file, as permission came as Ticket#2023012610006285. Thanks, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: As requested. --Rosenzweig τ 00:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Martin Urbanec: Please add also categories. --Yann (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2023010710008005

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2023010710008005 regarding File:Photo de profil 20 10 2021 II.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganímedes: This should be renamed. Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-01&oldid=812294807"