Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2023-02

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

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

File:Любезнов-старый-собор-алтарь.jpg

I have reviewed the situation after I was reached by the requestor. I agree that users here are usually suspicious about such old photos and usually the pictures are just found somewhere and declared to be free as they are owned by the uploader. Here the explanation seems sufficient for me, it can't be checked/confirmed via VRT (as works weren't published before), @PereslavlFoto is a long-term contributor and I trust him. I see no other way to confirm the license here, it is simply the first publication of own works. Restore rubin16 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Rubin16. --Yann (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Jose Luis Espejo libreria-cerdanyola 14-8-2022.jpg

Copyright violation and used the wrong license (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why Dr vulpes has made this request, it's a picture I've taken personaly "my self" with my mobile in Cerdanyola so there is no violation at all

The photo was transferred to the web using wasap and all metadata is lost in the transfer

You can see all the process from my camera (wasap) to Commons, proof that's my original work

https://www.histo.cat/files/pictures/2023013003595476875.jpg cropped https://www.histo.cat/files/pictures/2023013003595454779.jpg final picture removing shadow https://www.histo.cat/files/pictures/2023013003595420192.jpg

Please restore my original picture which i've proved it's my original work

Mcapdevila--Mcapdevila (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose First, it doesn't look like a selfie. Unless you actually had the camera on a stand and pushed the shutter button yourself, you do not own the copyright. Second, the source site is clearly marked "© 2023 Manel Capdevila" which may or may not be you -- we have no way of knowing who User:Mcapdevila actually is -- imposters are common here. So, please send a free license from the actual photographer using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not a selfie at all.. who said it was a selfie.. Ive visited his bookshop at Cerdanyola and have taken a picture that i have proven 2 levels of edition want doyou want me to do.. change my web "© 2023 Manel Capdevila" by "© 2023 Mcapdevila wikipedia user" I can do it if you want.. Mcapdevila (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you can add a free license on your website: ""CC-BY-SA-4.0 Manel Capdevila" for a list of pictures. Yann (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I have introduced what user Yann asked me i the contacte list I will add any other requested picture
https://www.histo.cat/contacte
"CC-BY-SA-4.0 Manel Capdevila" for this list of pictures
https://www.histo.cat/files/pictures/2023013003595476875.jpg
https://www.histo.cat/files/pictures/2023013003595454779.jpg
https://www.histo.cat/files/pictures/2023013003595420192.jpg Mcapdevila (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 Support then. Yann (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 Support Looks good now. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: IMO verification was not necessary here; User:Mcapdevila was created in 2008, far too early for any imposter account especially for someone who is not famous. "Manel Capdevila" is not a common name so it is reasonable to assume that they are the same person. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 30 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 16

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 16th batch of public domain artwork from MSK Gent that I intend to add appropriate licenses. Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

File:昆明南站.jpg

Freedom of Panorama in China. This is a picture of a railway station, as the title suggests.--維基小霸王 (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:昆明南站.jpg, Chinese FoP requires that the creator (architect in this case) of the work be named. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The designer is 中铁第四勘察设计院. I will name after undeletion.--維基小霸王 (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Issue fixed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

It's a historical event in Brazil and São Paulo City's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilmar Fernandes de Souza Junior (talk • contribs) 02:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

No further action required. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


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

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

The owner of the copyright to deleted photos (The National Museum of Agriculture, Prague, Czech Republic) sends the permission to use them to the VRT system. Ticket#2023013110013794 --Gampe (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Gampe: FYI. PS: Interesting images, good quality. --Yann (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Zygmunt F Cybulski 2002.jpg

The proper agreement of the author has been sent to VTRS: ticket:2023012310011873 Polimerek (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Polimerek: FYI. --Yann (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Najiur Rahman Shaown.jpg

This is a Public figure photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrshaown (talk • contribs) 15:09, 31 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose So what. Almost all photographs of public figures are copyrighted. In this case, you claimed in the upload that you were the actual photographer. Now your comment suggests that that is not correct. Also I note that your username is a contraction of the name of the subject. If you are, in fact, the subject, then clearly you were not the photographer. Also, the image appears on Facebook.

In order for it to be restored to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:John F Curry.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:John F Curry.jpg

This file is from the Library of Congress https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2001696693/ and LOC says "no known restrictions" on this photograph created in 1927. Photo is attributed to the Wright brothers and may have been first published in 1982 in a work for the LOC: "Wilbur & Orville Wright, pictorial materials: a documentary guide / Arthur G. Renstrom. Washington: Library of Congress, 1982, p. 27." Abzeronow (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

 Comment The 1982 LOC publication would have been without notice, so if that were the first publication it is PD. If it were published in 1927, with or without notice, it is PD. However, if it were first published from 1928 until the 1982 publication, with notice and renewal if necessary, it is under copyright. I am inclined to restore it, but there is a risk. Thoughts? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we can just use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}, which is one of the "PD per authority" tags we have, i.e. we don't know why it's PD, but the organization declaring it PD is trustworthy enough that we can take their word for it as long as there is no evidence to the contrary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Parks Canada - Parcs Canada logo 2022.svg

A new slightly changed Parks Canada logo has been unveiled in November 2022. It does not make any sense that this file was deleted when the old logo was displayed here on Wikipedia. A simple visit on Parks Canada's website, social media accounts and the Boutique Parks Canada's website will confirm you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alti1996 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 31 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose "when the old logo was displayed here on Wikipedia" -- I don't see the logo (old or new) at Parks Canada. It is certainly under Crown Copyright and will remain so until 1/1/2073. https://www.canada.ca/en/transparency/terms.html permits only non commercial use..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Lords_Institute_Of_Engineering_And_Technology.png

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Rais (talk • contribs) 04:15, 1 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This is certainly about File:Lords Institute of Engineering Technology.png. The uploader claims that he created the logo, but The Institute's web site, which carries this logo has "Copyright © 2023 | All Rights Reserved". User:Mr.Rais should understand that making false claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and can lead to being blocked from editing here.

In order for the logo to be restored, an authorized official of the institute must give a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Complex logo, no permission from the copyright holder. --Yann (talk) 14:27, 2 February 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 17

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 17th batch of public domain artwork from MSK Gent that I intend to add appropriate licenses. Abzeronow (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:DarkDisharmony.png

Hello I am author of this game and this image is screenshot fom this game. I have all rights ang i approve with the sharing and uploading on Wikipedia.

With regards Petr Chroustovsky <email redacted>

✓ Done to allow the 7-day grace period. Following up on user talk. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Paris-Rue de la Butte aux Cailles 1-horror vacui-2017-gje.jpg

Die Fotos auf der Hauswand stammen von mir. Sie bekämpfen den Horror vacui. -Gerd Eichmann (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done COM:AGF, long-term contributor. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Richard Baer and Karl Höcker.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

I cannot see if these are duplicates of other Höcker Album photographs that are on Commons. But according to the precedents of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Auschwitz Solahutte (34750).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg, these should be undeleted if they aren't duplicates that Commons already has. Abzeronow (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We have some of the photographs from that album at Commons right now (Category:Höcker Album). These use the license tags {{PD-Polish}} and {{PD-US-alien property}}. I don't think either of those applies. PD-Polish is applicable for photographs published in Poland before May 23, 1994 or for photographs by Polish authors also published before that date. Accd. to en:Höcker Album, the album was donated to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) in 2007 by an unnamed former US intelligence officer who found and took the album in Frankfurt, Germany in 1945 and subsequently took it to the USA with him. So not anything official, he basically stole the album. Then, in December 2006 (accd. to de:Auschwitz-Album) or January 2007 (accd. to en:Höcker Album) – he must have been at least in his 80s by then – he donated the album to the USHMM. The album contains photographs which were unknown at the time.
So we have an album with private photographs, unknown before 2006/2007. Which means they were not published before May 23, 1994, and the PD-Polish tag does not apply. It was also not officially seized or something like that, but privately taken by this officer who apparently kept it for over 60 years before turning it over to the museum. Which means that its copyright was never “owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian”, and the copyright of the private photographs in the source country was also not “owned by a government or instrumentality thereof”, and the PD-US-alien property tag does also not apply.
Now which tags do apply, if any? The photographs were apparently taken in 1944, but it's not totally clear who took them. Probably more than one person. de.wp claims either Höcker (who died in 2000) or de:Bernhard Walter (SS-Mitglied) (who died in 1979) took the photos. I don't know it that is true or not. Since both are apparently in several photographs, there were probably other photographers as well. Since the photos were not published before May 23, 1994, it does not matter so much if we assume Germany or Poland as the source country, both have 70 years pma or 70 years after publication for anonymous works. So photographs taken by Höcker are still protected until the end of 2070, those taken by Walter until the end of 2049. The photos were finally published (by the USHMM) in or after 2007, but before 2015, so within 70 years after creation. If they had been published more than 70 years after creation (so in 2015 or later), the anonymous photos would be in the PD in Germany, but they were published before, so they are protected for 70 years from publication (until the end of 2077 if publication happened in 2007).
For the US side, the terms for works unpublished before 2003 apply ({{PD-US-unpublished}}). So 70 years pma for known authors with a known date of death (same as in Europe) or 120 years from creation for all other works, including anonymous works. Until the end of 2064 in this case.
All of that means that these photographs are still protected in both Europe and the US. Many will find that hard to accept, especially since in "the real world", most likely nobody will ever sue or claim a copyright, and the USHMM obviously is not bothered by any copyright concerns. And as soon as documents from Nazi times, about the Holocaust etc. are concerned, there are all kinds of claims, like that the works were created by criminals or while committing a crime and that there simply cannot be a copyright for them. That may feel right from a moral standpoint, but it's not like copyright works. And per COM:PCP, such arguments are not permitted here.
So my conclusion is that these photographs are still protected both in Europe and the US for quite some time. Anyone who has a convincing rationale why they should not be please respond here. --Rosenzweig τ 12:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
BTW, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg is about a photo from a different album with a quite different history, so the arguments above do not necessarily apply to that file. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Auschwitz Solahutte (34750).jpg however is about a photo from the Höcker Album. --Rosenzweig τ 12:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis that the country of origin for this is Germany, not Poland. Publication as far as Germany is concerned occurred in 2007 when it was made available to the public. As far as the United States though, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has said in various DRs that "United States case law has sided with "made public" when an image leaves the custody of the creator.", which would mean these would have been published in 1945. Commons:Deletion requests/Russian copyrights. This goes against Commons precedents and obviously should be discussed in COM:VPC before being used here, but that is an argument that I've seen. Following Commons precedent, publication occurred in 2007 so copyright in the United States is as you have said. I listed the Selection Birkenau DR as a precedent because the closing administrator of the Auschwitz Solahutte DR used it as reason to keep it.
As a Polish-American (my paternal grandmother's family came to the US from Poland when it was still part of the Russian Empire) and as someone who has at least one Jewish ancestor (the Ancestry DNA test that I had done at my mother's request turned up 1% of my DNA coming from European Jewish), it's important to me that we handle this right. If keeping the status quo is the best decision from the standpoint of Commons, then I will honor that decision. Abzeronow (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
For some older US photographs, publication might have indeed happened as soon as the photographer sold prints of the photographs to the customer, because courts ruled so according to Common law. About this, see for example Carl Lindberg's lengthy contribution in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. I don't see that this also applies to any non-US photographs though. --Rosenzweig τ 16:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
And as for the Berne Convention, I see that RAN conveniently shortened what the Convention actually says. It's in Article 3: “The expression "published works" means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work.” So: availability of copies, and enough of them to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public. I don't see how handing over one copy to a customer can mean "published" in that sense. We don't even know if there was a (paid) photographer-customer relationship here, they easily could have developed and printed those photographs themselves. It's not like they did not have access to resources. The “published with the consent of their authors” bit is dubious here though, and if we take the 2007 publication (by the USHMM) to not be a "rightful" publication in the sense of the Berne Convention, the analysis above may have to be changed. --Rosenzweig τ 16:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Com:Publication Publication has always meant even a single "discernable copy", remember the original creative work, is the camera negative, it is created when the photographer open the shutter. Making a print from the negative is a "discernable copy". I "conveniently shortened" the Berne definition because "works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work." adds no more useful information, unless the argument is that the images were stolen and the creator never gave their "consent". It is time to update Com:Publication with the relevant case law in the United States. If the argument concerns a daguerreotype, there may be no copies, the image is formed directly on a piece of metal, with no negative involved. This would be for images from the 1840s to 1860s, and would be in the public domain by virtue of their creation date. --RAN (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
    My understanding would also be that the images have presumably never been published with consent of the copyright holders, so we should not be hosting them until 120 years after creation by both US law and the PD-old-assumed convention according to Germany's old system of copyright for anonymous unpublished works. I am rather certain that at least in German law, taking your own film to be developed by a photographic lab for a fee is not "publication" in the legal sense, and the original copyright holders will not have been involved in any further part of the publication history. Felix QW (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:EGyankosh screenshot.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There's nothing above the TOO in this screenshot; {{PD-ineligible}}, {{PD-text}} and {{PD-textlogo}} would apply. Also, India has a similar TOO to the USA, per COM:TOO India, so this wouldn't be protected in India (AFAIK). --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 18:59, 31 January 2023

 Oppose A single sentence usually has a copyright in the USA -- the full paragraph at the top certainly does. The ToO is generally lower in the UK and Commonwealth countries. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: The paragraph at the top isn't a literary work, it's just some boilerplate text with absolutely no creativity involved, so it's below TOO. Also, India has a high TOO per COM:TOO India. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 22:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
"Literary works" must not be taken literally. Basically, anything more than one sentence will almost certainly have a US copyright. USCO Circular 1, Copyright Basics points this out explicitly,
"These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most “compilations” may be registered as “literary works”....".
Instruction manuals, even simple ones, have copyrights. The circular goes on to list items that are not subject to copyright, none of which apply here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The screenshot is available here (at the top of the PDF). If you thought this was a paragraph with actual creativity involved, you're wrong. It's just a generic templated message (not really a paragraph tbh). Even if it was copyrightable, we can easily just blank it out. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 18:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I fully agree that a paragraph can be copyrightable, but the three lines at the top aren't copyrightable. It's like saying the following paragraph is copyrightable:

"Copyright (c) [Insert name]; All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be redistributed in any medium, mechaninal or electronic form. Prior permission must be obtained from the author and publisher before redistribution is permitted."

It's just unoriginal and therefore below TOO. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 18:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Weak  Support. I don't think there is a copyright for this simple sentence. However I find the educational value of this file quite low. Yann (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Yann, it was used on the English Wikisource. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 16:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it was used on enwikisource (and will be in the future), it meets the criteria at COM:EDUSE. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 18:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK, fine then. --Yann (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Escut de Breda

Sol·licito que es tingui en compte l'arxiu, el qual disposa de permisos d'edició, fet d'acord amb la descripció heràldica de la vila de Breda --Xroda (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably about File:Escut original color.svg
@Xroda: You cannot claim Own work authorship for a file copied from Internet. We need an evidence that the rendering you provided is under a free license granted by its copyright holder: please provide a link to the location where the license has been granted. Ankry (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Unités mécanisées Des forces auxiliaires.jpg

File:Unités mécanisées Des forces auxiliaires.jpg --Hirakel (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose COM:NETCOPYVIO, no reason for undeletion. Yann (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio. --Yann (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Henrik-Jonasson.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have permission from the person on the photograph to use the picture, it's hosted nowhere, the image is from a now defunct site. Klipperdipper (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Permission from the person in the photograph is irrelevant to its copyright status. There are two copyrights here that concern Commons. One is for the photograph itself. The other is for the painting in the photograph. The fact that the site where you found the photograph no longer exists does not change the fact that it was marked "© 2022 AlternaMedia". In order to restore the image to Commons we will need a free license from the actual photographer and a free license from the painter, both via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Walter Lantz, 1927.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gmhl

Walter Lantz was an American cartoonist so if this is from a 1927 work of his or a photograph of him, it is likely public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  •  Support - This is not from 1927, as Lantz was born 1899 and is well, well above 28 (1927 - 1899) here. He is, however, under 78 (1977 - 1899), so this would be {{PD-US-no notice}} (there are many examples on eBay and other auction sites of this photograph, autographed, made out to various people, and with front and back depicted bearing no notice). Эlcobbola talk 16:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
This is, however, a terrible version with bogus licensing and filename; why not just upload a new version (or edit out Alarmy copyfraud) instead of undertaking all of the work to remedy this? This evidences it was at latest 1972. Эlcobbola talk 16:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, I'll just uphold a new version from that link you supplied. I couldn't see the file so I only had the file name to go by. Abzeronow (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I completely neglected Woody. This is derivative; what is his status? Эlcobbola talk 16:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't know but I could just do a crop of the photo after upload and request a revdel of the original. (EDIT: I did a lossless JPG crop myself using IrfanView so I could just upload the crop. It would still have Woody's hand but that should be de minimis right?) Abzeronow (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Incidental inclusion would generally be de minimis, yes. Эlcobbola talk 17:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Uploaded File:Crop of a Walter Lantz Photograph from early 1970s.jpg. I withdraw my original request. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural: requestor withdraws per above. --Эlcobbola talk 19:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


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

Ticket#2023011410004219

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2023011410004219 regarding


Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Yann (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Monument to Gastello by Ufa.gif

There is freedom of panorama in Russia. Item 1 Article 1276 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmsav (talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose OK for the copyright, but there is no reason to have this as GIF. It should be uploaded as JPEG. Yann (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted by «No freedom of panorama in Russia»: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monument to Nikolai Gastello in Ufa, not by format. GIF or JPEG, a question to the author @GAndy. Dmsav (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose See my comment below. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim is right. FoP only covers architecture. See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Russia#Freedom_of_panorama. Yann (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
No, not the main object and not is used for profit. There is also a picture of Gastello garden square, where the Gastello monument is installed.
FoP also covers of garden design. Dmsav (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The sculpture is certainly the main object -- it is the only object in the photograph except for a couple of trees. And, Commons requires that images must be free for any use, including commercial use, so, as I noted below, the not for profit restriction makes it impossible to keep Russian images of sculpture here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Памятник Гастелло (Уфа).jpg

There is freedom of panorama in Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmsav (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 February 2023‎ (UTC)

Item 1 Article 1276 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

 Support Yann (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Yann, I haven't seen any change in the law which restricts Russian FoP to architecture. The paragraph cited above reads:
"1. It is allowed, without the consent of the author or other right holder and without payment of remuneration, to reproduce and distribute made copies, broadcast or cable, bring to the public a work of fine art or a photographic work that is permanently located in a place open to the public, with the exception of cases where the image of the work is the main object of use or the image of the work is used for profit."
In this case the sculpture is the main object and, of course "the image of the work is used for profit" is NC, which we do not allow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Ah yes, Jim is right. FoP only covers architecture. See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Russia#Freedom_of_panorama. Yann (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
No, not the main object and not is used for profit. There is also a picture of Gastello garden square, where the Gastello monument is installed. Dmsav (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Again, the sculpture is certainly the main object -- it is the only object in the photograph except for a couple of trees. And, Commons requires that images must be free for any use, including commercial use, so, as I noted above, the not for profit restriction makes it impossible to keep Russian images of sculpture here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 22:31, 3 February 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 18

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 18th and last batch of public domain artwork from MSK Gent that I intend to add appropriate licenses. Abzeronow (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Chloe Piene in her studio.jpg

This photo is in the public domain. There is no copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Presence.standpoint (talk • contribs) 22:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course there is a copyright -- almost all created works have a copyright from the moment of creation. The photograph is apparently licensed CC-0 by the Flickr photographer. but there is no evidence of a license for Ms. Piene's drawings, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chloe Piene in her studio.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Atkinson_Avenue_HD_Final_Report.pdf

This is a public record of the City of Detroit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab5602 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Because records by the City of Detroit are not inherently in the public domain. Bedivere (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Works of the Federal Government and a few states are PD. Michigan is not one of the few, so this will have a copyright until 95 years after publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Bedivere and Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Chinese_women_riding_on_Wheelbarrow..jpg

If this is the postcard I think it is from here then it would qualify as PD-OLD and/or PD-China. If not, well..... --Adamant1 (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose We have no provenance whatever here -- only that it was posted on Flickr by a post card collector. It has a printed caption in English (the filename). It could have been taken anytime between 1870 and 1980. It may have been colorized -- hard to tell. Assuming the country of origin is China, if it was first published after 1945, it has a URAA US copyright. I think it's even money that it is post 1945. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support There is a better image with the back here; it appears from further Google searching as if the Chrom Edit company from Shanghai was active 1907-18, and in any case the back of the postcard supports a pre-war dating. Felix QW (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 Support per Felix's evidence. It looks like it's from an autochrome which would line up with the 1907-1918 dating. Abzeronow (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 Support Good catch, thank you. Clearly PD in China and the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
It's kind of weird that you said there's even money the postcard was created post 1945, but I at least appreciate that you struck out the comment once there was evidence you were wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Lucie Svobodová - socha bohyně Diany Memento.jpg

Lucie Svobodová, author of deleted photos sends the permission to use them to the VRT system. Ticket#2023020310008305 --Gampe (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Procedural close, processed by VRT member. Thuresson (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Junshi omae.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission in ticket:2023011610012644. It looks like the previous license statement was too narrow (Wikipedia only), but now we have CC BY-SA 4.0. The photographer transferred the copyright to the subject, or at least the subject says so and I have no evidence against that. @Túrelio: pinging based on User_talk:Rei_Nakai#File_tagging_File:Junshi_omae.jpg. whym (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Whym: FYI. --Yann (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Rei Nakai

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: permission in ticket:2023011810002553. whym (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Whym: FYI. --Yann (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:MarketoGuys.png

This is a notable brand, undelete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan M. Hartman (talk • contribs) 07:14, 4 February 2023‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose It may be notable, but there is no reason to believe that its logo is freely licensed. Policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright owner must send a free license using VRT. Also note that both your recreating this image after it had been deleted and your claim of {{Own}} work (unless you yourself actually created the logo) are both serious violations of Commons rules. Please don't do either again or you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If the logo I'm thinking of then probably it's above the threshold of originality, or at least close enough to make me think we should air on the side of caution by keeping it deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Not done, not a brand but a company in Bangladesh whose web site has ceased to exist. Thuresson (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Kartmaximum.jpg

99% of the time maximum cards are printed by the postal authority of the country where the stamp is being produced, which I assume is the case here (and there's zero reason to believe it isn't. Especially if the artwork on the card is a copy of the stamp). So PD-RU-exempt stamps would apply to these per "A copyrighted painting can be used on an envelope or such and PD-RU-exempt will apply, without turning the painting into a Public Domain work. Prerequisite is that the Russian post acquired permission from the copyright-holder. We can safely assume that the Russian post has come to an agreement with the copyright-holder of such work."

--Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Adamant1: Could you please reupload the old version of File:Kartmaximum.jpg into a separate file? Also it should be renamed. --Yann (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Tdf2023-parcours.jpg

Hello! I was ordering my talk page and just found that this was deleted one month ago. I don't understand why. Is my own work, just based in other years courses but with a better presentation. AS far as I know, adding lines in a map and using a svg logo that is stored in Commons can't be treated as copyrighted material from a third. @Turini2: proposed the file for deletion, and sorry for coming so late to this, but I can't find the deletion talk. -Theklan (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I have uploaded a similar map to File:Tdf2023-parcours.png. I think that this is even more evident to be free, as it doesn't have the yello-black ribbons with extra information. All the other things are my own work, and the route itself is based on the official one. I think that this is ok, let me know, please. Theklan (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@Theklan It was deleted because it clearly is the official map, uploaded to commons. It's copyright infringement! You uploaded a map in December 2023 that still has the Le Tour branding on it! The one you have uploaded today still directly taken from the [ASO official map], with identical shapes, typography and legend. Removing logos and "yello-black ribbons" does not make it your own work. I will be nominating both for deletion.
Examples of copyright free maps of Le Tour routes would be this or this - clearly not the official ASO map. Turini2 (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, is not the same. The logo is from here: File:Tour de France font.svg, and is stated there that is in the public domain. The background and the map is not the same (there is a physical map in the official one, I used a map of France and the Basque Country (not the same, by the way) and just added some coloring to the back (but is not a physical map, just some extra black in the mountainous parts). The color scheme and the icons are the same that has been previously used in free route images. The typography is named Kolage. I can upload one with another typography if this is the problem, but as far as I know, using a typography can't be subject to copyright here if the typography itself doesn't forbid it. Theklan (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Using the same font? The legend is identical? The shape of the route is near identical.
Recreating a map is still copyright infringement. Notice how the two examples of other maps show the route while clearly not being an ASO map.
(Also, I'm not sure if using TDF logo counts as "public domain"!) Turini2 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, I took the logo from here. It is in articles, in Commons and elsewhere. If using a PD-simple logo isn't allowed, then you should ask for the deletion of that file too. Theklan (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose(Edit conflict) On the one hand, I agree with the deletion (and have deleted File:Tdf2023-parcours.png as a recreation of a deleted file). On the other hand, the reason given for the deletion is wrong. Turini2, if you compare the subject map with the official map you cite above at large size, you will see that the subject map has less detail -- the rivers don't show in white and there is much less relief shading. So, Theklan did not simply take a digital copy of the map from the official site. He apparently sat down with a base map that is not as detailed as the official one and then copied the official map colors and lines -- a lot of work to make it so convincing that at first glance it looks identical. However, in doing that he infringed on the copyright of the official map, creating a nearly identical derivative work which we cannot keep. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I have doubts with this. Showing an itinerary is not a copyright infringement, as we have lots of them. Isn't it? Theklan (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
As above "Examples of copyright free maps of Le Tour routes would be this or this - clearly not the official ASO map."Turini2 (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and we have others. Are you claiming that if I use File:Tour de France base map.svg as a base I'm not breaking a copyright but if I use the simple shapes of svg maps then I'm breaking it? I sincerely don't know where to put the threshold. Theklan (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
You want to be able to look at your map and the official ASO map and notice the difference - even if it shows the same route.
Examples of similarity that could be avoid - icons for start/finish of stage (you could use blobs?), using identical font (use an open source one, does it have to be in capital letters?), using French to label each stage (Other maps use English or just use stage number), placing labels/arrow in different locations to official map, ensuring that the legend is not in the same location or uses different icons etc etc. By having the TDF logo on it, it almost suggests that your map is "the official one" - which is why I'd suggest omitting it - and labelling it "Tour de France 2023" or whatever. Turini2 (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll change it if those are the problems. All the items used are in public domain (lines, arrows, red and blue flags, the svg maps...). Compositing them so they have a good look isn't a copyvio, but I'll go on with the changes if that is so relevant. Theklan (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward Thanks Jim, and for your careful eye! There's also this PDF here. Is my advice above about avoiding copyvio in a similar map correct? Turini2 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, both should be deleted on the same basis. Theklan (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Turini2, yes, good advice. Any time you copy something -- map, painting, whatever, so well that it is difficult to tell the difference even on close examination, you have created a derivative work which infringes on the copyright of the original. If we are to have maps of the Tour de France here -- and we certainly should -- they must be enough different from the original so that one can see at a glance that they are not the same. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tdf2023-parcours.jpg. Anything that took a substantial amount of effort to create should at least get the courtesy of a DR, which will provide a good collaborative environment to discuss changes to the image while having it be visible to non-admins. The old versions can be revision-deleted in the end. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Headingley, 1927 - Olive Middleton at rear (far right with fur stole) of procession of dignitaries including her uncle and aunt, Leeds Lord and Lady Mayoress, following HRH Princess Mary carrying bouquet of carnations.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Headingley, 1927 - Olive Middleton at rear (far right with fur stole) of procession of dignitaries including her uncle and aunt, Leeds Lord and Lady Mayoress, following HRH Princess Mary carrying bouquet of carnations.jpg

I want to do a deletion review on this photograph that was created in 1927. There is a copyright claim by the Thoresby Society, which is a historical society for Leeds. No photographer is credited and the DR has a link to a modified version of the photograph used in the Daily Mail in 2021 where it was called "this newly unearthed picture". Now {{PD-UK-unknown}} states that if a photograph created before 1957 was never made available to the public, it becomes public domain 70 years after creation, which would would have been 1998, after the URAA date. I am a bit fuzzy on this part of UK law but Thoresby Society could be asserting a publication right for something in their archives. @Clindberg: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2967/part/II/crossheading/publication-right/made That is of course assuming this was unpublished until recently. If it was published in 1927, it would have become public domain in 1998 if a reasonable search cannot find who the photographer was. And would have become clear of URAA this year. Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

UK copyright for photos before 1957 used to be 50 years from creation. The restored copyright from 1996 would then just be the current terms of {{PD-UK-unknown}}, which is 70 years from making available to the public, or if that is not done within 70 years of creation, then 70 years from creation. So, this would have been PD in the UK for a while, restored in 1996, and re-expired in 1998. However... the EU (and UK) has a 25-year publication right, similar to copyright, which exists for works first published after the original copyright term had expired. So if this had truly never been made available to the public before, then it is still under that right, which belongs to the publisher. The U.S. copyright term as an unpublished work, created before 1978 and not published until after 2003, is 120 years from creation. So it would still be under copyright in the U.S., as well. The reasoning on the DR looks to be way off, but if truly unpublished, it's still not free in either country. If it *was* published in 1927, it'd be fine. Some of the details on the provenance of the photo (i.e. who owned it, and how it changed hands) could affect the situation in one or the other country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree that the DR is irrelevant. It was twice asserted there "the copyright can be renewed" which is, of course, nonsense for a UK copyright. Given that the Daily Mail thought in 2021 that it was "newly unearthed", I think we have to assume that both the 25 year UK publication right and the US 120 years from creation are still running. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Well, contrary to what is mentioned in the DR, date is important. This seems to be a clear case of PD-UK-unknown + PD-US-expired. Yann (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Yann, I don't understand your reasoning. If the Daily Mail is correct, that this image is "newly unearthed", then its US copyright runs until the earlier of 95 years after first publication (2021, therefore 1/1/2117) or 120 years after creation (1927, therefore 1/1/2048). The UK publication right runs until 1/1/2046. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, there is no information there about the source, so "newly unearthed" doesn't mean anything. One should wrote to the Daily Mail asking for details. Yann (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
This article says the photo was "discovered" by Michael Reed, an Australian historian, who apparently has been researching Middleton-related stuff for several years. A version here just credits "DR". Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, but does it mean? I can downgrade my opinion to "weak keep". Yann (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The French article also says "L’historien australien Michael Reed a retrouvé dans ses archives une photo jamais dévoilée" which basically says that Reed found a never-seen before photo. I'm definitely inclined to believe now that this photograph was unpublished until recently and thereby under publication right and U.S. copyright as an unpublished photo by an unknown photographer until the 2040s. Abzeronow (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, I withdrew my support. Yann (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Georges Lemaître 1930s.jpg

Since 2017, ESA has adopted a creativ Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO) licensing policy and should be taggued :

{{Cc-by-sa-3.0-igo|ESA}}

This image is a crop of this photograph that was sent aboard the ISS in 2014.

More information on the license granted by ESA which states:

Designed for intergovernmental organisations, the Creative Commons IGO licences allow for example (in the case of the CC BY-SA IGO licence) the publication of images in the encyclopaedia Wikipedia and its media library Wikimedia Commons

can be found here.

Best regards, --Madelgarius (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

If the European Space Agency does it and sends this memorial photograph into space, it is not up to you to judge that they had no right to do so... (unless you can prove it) Enforce the commons rules, this is good enough... --Madelgarius (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose The ESA doesn't hold the copyright to the Lemaître photograph. As mentioned above, the photograph is also still in copyright in the United States. Commons rules would have us wait until after it clears URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
place it under the licence they advocate. If they shout, we'll see, but please don't shout for them (or for the heirs), it's pathetic... --Madelgarius (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
As a license reviewer, I could not in good conscience place that photograph under a Creative Commons license. Also "we can get away with it" is not a reason to restore a file to Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
If ESA did not have the right to do so, Commons would not be blamed. So what are you fighting for? The goal remains to pay tribute to a man and to illustrate WP. What is the point for you? --Madelgarius (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
(more) You have a leading European organisation explicitly citing WP and commons as eligible for their creative commons licence... But, no, you have scruples, I don't understand this mental complexion... sorry...--Madelgarius (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
(and more) And why not say: oh, cool, we'll contact them for a long-term partnership... --Madelgarius (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
(now I stop, I get touchy) but no, you're here saying: I didn't know, I have doubts, I'm checking the impact I can still have on Commons... grrr
(a last one) So, @De728631: , @Rosenzweig: , @Abzeronow: , which of you is contacting the European Space Agency for a partnership? (And please don't do the same thing as with the German Federal Archives, which was a resounding fiasco that nobody wants to hear about here anymore). --Madelgarius (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Madelgarius, I suggest strongly that you read the Commons Precautionary Principle. Your comments above run contrary to its clear and explicit requirements. If you do not support our most important rule, then perhaps you should not be editing here.  Oppose .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
And if you want commons to progress, I also strongly recommend to read what I wrote. --Madelgarius (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. This is most probably in the public domain in Europe, that's why the ESA can publish it, although with a misleading license. --Yann (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Irma Carranza.jpg (1949 image)

I took this picture of my own mother Irma Carranza [and father Sergio Rodriguez Reindl] from my family album and cleaned it up. It was never been published before. There are absolutely no false claims attached to it and therefore nor is its licence false as stated by the person who deleted it.--Buligio (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose You claimed that in each case you were the actual photographer (that is what {{Own}} means), That is certainly false. The licenses are also false since a CC-BY-SA can be issued only by the actual photographer. Please remember that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right almost always remains with the photographer or their heirs.

The subject was Mexican, so the country of origin for these is probably Mexico. Mexican copyright term has been extended five times since 1948 (pma 20, 30, 50, 75, 100 years), but it is almost certain that all of these are still under copyright and can be restored to Commons only if the actual photographers send free licenses using VRT. If they have been in a family album and not published, then the US copyright will be in effect until 120 years after creation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


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

Pre-1928 Paul Sibra paintings

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Widlauragais

Paul Sibra died in 1951 so these paintings became public domain in France in 2022. The ones 1927 and before are public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: Please check the license and the description. --Yann (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Nick B&W.pdf

I own this picture and was shot by myself with a timer on my camera. I would like this decision to be reversed. Thank you. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverventures1 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 February 2023‎ (UTC)

  • Setting aside questions of copyright ownership, we don't typically keep photographs that are uploaded as pdfs. Please convert to jpg or another more appropriate format for a photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Riverventures1: As Abzeronow indicates above, images must be in an actual image format such as JPG; PDFs are allowed only for documents. Please reupload the image as a high-resolution JPG with EXIF metadata showing the camera used to take the photo. As long as no such copy of the photo has been published previously on the Internet, we will accept that as adequate proof of your authorship. (Side note: As far as COM:SCOPE is concerned, it is clearly in scope: w:Nick Oram.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:И.С. Блохин, “Инвалид труда - краснодеревец”, 1920-е г.г., Ivan Blokhin, "A Cabinetmaker with Disability Caused by Work", 1920s.jpg

Dear Madam/Sir,

herewith I request to undelete the above mentioned photo. It represents the photograph of old art, which falls under one of the two main exceptions allowing to upload pictures created by others.

The picture "И.С. Блохин, “Инвалид труда - краснодеревец”, 1920-е г.г., Ivan Blokhin, "A Cabinetmaker with Disability Caused by Work", 1920s" represents the photo of the painting by the Russian artist Ivan Blokhin created around 1920s.

In hope for your understanding.

Best regards, SundayMorningCoffee — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundayMorningCoffee (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Artist died in 1954, not public domain yet in Russia. Abzeronow (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:И.С. Блохин, “Забастовка”, 1920-е г.г., Ivan Blokhin, "A Strike", 1920s.jpg

Dear Madam/Sir,

herewith I request to undelete the above mentioned photo. It represents the photograph of old art, which falls under one of the two main exceptions allowing to upload pictures created by others.

The picture "И.С. Блохин, “Забастовка”, 1920-е г.г., Ivan Blokhin, "A Strike", 1920s" represents the photo of the painting by the Russian artist Ivan Blokhin created around 1920s.

In hope for your understanding.

Best regards, SundayMorningCoffee — Preceding unsigned comment added by SundayMorningCoffee (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Artist died in 1954, not public domain yet in Russia. Abzeronow (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Adult demonstrating diaper fetishism by wearing an adult diaper.jpg

I own a photo that was and has been constantly removed that I think is a misunderstanding. A few years ago my image was added with out my permission and in recent years I think is a good representation of the abdl community but since the original dispute the image has always been constantly removed and I have been banned with no way to contact the admin who contently banned me. I want to let them know I am the copyright owner and want it to be on the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdultBaby25 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 7 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose See Special:Contributions/Rabbitfallside and Special:Contributions/JoshrRuff, original uploaders. Both accounts blocked indef. Yann (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: LTA nonsense, indeed per Yann. --Эlcobbola talk 14:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:King George V at his coronation.jpg

hi, present this request undeletion concerning this series of photographs taken in 1911 concerning the coronation ceremony of H.M. King George V by photographer John Benjamin Stone (1838–1914), the source of the photographs is the Royal Collection:

 Comment the author of these photographs, died in 1914, in the file information, the user entered the license (pd-old-100), here I was wondering if this thing was enough, since the copyright for this case would have expired around 2014. or maybe not?? if so, would it be possible to evaluate a temporary restore to look for a license more suited to the author's information?? because in other comons files of the following photo author, I notice that some have a pd-old-70 others pd-old-90. --Drogorian (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support pma 70 for a 1914 death brings us to 1984, well before the URAA date, so assuming these were all published around 1914, they are all PD-Old. They were apparently deleted because the uploader was problematic. Krd, what do you think about this?.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:X1023_Cape_Cod_Logo.png

The file is the correct, current logo for the radio station WGTX, Truro, MA.

Gary Hanna President GCJH, Inc. dba WGTX--Gary.hanna (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Gary Hanna 02/06/2023

 Oppose We have no way of knowing here who User:Gary.hanna actually is and we get many imposters here. Please send a free license from a URL at the station using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File: Aloïs Menu et Grimaud Menu (cropped).jpg

Photo non soumise aux droits d’auteur, photo personnelle. --Nick2048 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Almost all images are copyrighted. This one appears over a copyright notice at https://www.lunion.fr/id379189/article/2022-06-07/le-remois-alois-menu-jour-dans-lupin-sur-netflix-et-donne-la-replique-catherine. Claiming that you were the actual photographer when that is not true, 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) 15:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

D’accord, je comprend je suis désolé. Quelle est la bonne procédure pour ajouter cette photo ? --Nick2048 ([[User talk:Nick2048|

 Comment Either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b} L'union can add a free license to the page on which it appears. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:KrasSezana pac-kraski prsut premium-Rf-600x600.png

Dear Sir or Madam,

I uploaded an image for which we have full copyright license as it was taken by a photographer paid by us - the Kras d.o.o. company. You can find it on our website at the following link: https://www.kras.si/izdelki/kraski-prsut-premium/ Please revise your claim.

--Tina.bole (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Regards, Tina Bole Sales Promotion Manager _________________________________________________ [removed private information]

 Oppose "we have full copyright license as it was taken by a photographer paid by us". Please remember that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph, or paying a photographer to take a photograph rarely gives you the right to freely license it as required by Commons. Also, the web site on which it appears has " 2020 KRAS. Vse pravice pridržane" [2020 KRAS. All rights reserved].

In order to have this image restored to Commons the actual photographer must provide a free license using VRT.

Also note that claiming that you were the actual photographer when that is not true, as you did with this upload, is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again you may be blocked from editing here..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:KrasSezana CEL-kraski prsut zasciten-Rf-600x600.png

Dear Sir or Madam,

First of all, the site you stated my file is taken from is not using the same image at all. Please revise the claim as it is a completely different image than the one uploaded by me. I uploaded an image for which we have full copyright license as it was taken by a photographer paid by us - the Kras d.o.o. company, you can find it on our website at the following link: https://www.kras.si/izdelki/kraski-prsut/ Regards, Tina Bole --Tina.bole (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Sales Promotion Manager e tina.bole@kras.si KRAS, mesnopredelovalna ind. d.o.o., Šepulje 31, 6210 Sežana, Slovenija

 Oppose "we have full copyright license as it was taken by a photographer paid by us". Please remember that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph, or paying a photographer to take a photograph rarely gives you the right to freely license it as required by Commons. Also, the web site on which it appears has " 2020 KRAS. Vse pravice pridržane" [2020 KRAS. All rights reserved].

In order to have this image restored to Commons the actual photographer must provide a free license using VRT.

Also note that claiming that you were the actual photographer when that is not true, as you did with this upload, is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again you may be blocked from editing here...     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Hunar Tv - Making Art Accessible.jpg

undelete this file pls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.45.178 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 6 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose These are all from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jashnetalat. I combined the six similar requests for convenience. No reason is given why the DR was not closed correctly. Aside from the copyright question, there is also the question of whether the subject is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Peter Ascroft, Mayor of Bootle 1900.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Edwin Hale

British photograph. If taken in 1900, it would be old enough for PD-old-assumed (subject was mayor of a northern English town in 1900). Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: Could you please add the source and the author? Thanks,. --Yann (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Fox Sports Radio (desde 2020).png

Este trabajo fue realizado por mi, y mi deseo es aportarlo a wiki commons, no fue sacado de Instagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpunketo (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 February 2023‎ (UTC)

Are you a professional logo designer? Why did you create a blurry logo with JPEG artifacts? And why did you claim that the source is "Twitter oficial de Fox Sports Mexico"? Thuresson (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
A veces diseño logos, cree este logo en base a una propaganda del propio Fox Sports Radio Mexico por eso les doy el credito y por eso un poco borroso, lo que yo hice fue un rediseño del logo como podras ver tuve que convertirlo en transparente y borrar otros apartados pero el trabajo del rediseño es mio, sin embargo me hubiese sentido mal no darle algo de credito a la imagen que use como inspiracion y como soy nuevo pense que debia darle algo de credito. Mira la diferencia: https://mobile.twitter.com/FSRadioMX/photo Elpunketo (talk)

Worth a COM:TOO discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fox Sports Radio (desde 2020).png. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Logo Fox Sports Argentina 2023.png

Este logo ha sido sacado de la pagina web de Fox Sports Argentina y consultado para su uso, Fox Sports Argentina ha dado autorizacion para ello

✓ Done to allow DR to proceed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Fox Sports Argentina 2023.png. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Marta Querol Benèch 01.jpg

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2023020310008565 regarding File:Marta Querol Benèch 01.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Yann (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Shin Ryu-jin (신류진) 220729.jpg

The file is having cc license still the admin added the tag, I asked him to check it but looks he didn't, if you want please check before Undeletion link to the video from where the file was taken [1]--ArmyOnceBlinkMidzy (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to do here. License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Почтовая открытка СССР "С Новым годом", фото Е. Савалова, 1986, лицевая сторона.png

The image was deleted under the assumption that PD-RU-exempt only applies if it's an image of the whole thing, not one side. That interpretation of the law is clearly wrong though. Otherwise, it would be impossible to host any images of Russian stamps without also having images of the backs of every stamp. Same goes for postal cards. Either way, we can assume the artwork is PD-RU-exempt "per A copyrighted painting can be used on an envelope or such and PD-RU-exempt will apply, without turning the painting into a Public Domain work. Prerequisite is that the Russian post acquired permission from the copyright-holder. We can safely assume that the Russian post has come to an agreement with the copyright-holder of such work." The only place where that wouldn't apply if the image is a crop. I assume this isn't cropped though. I'd also like following images undeleted for the same reason:

--Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The first image is a work of art. While it may have been commissioned by the government, ordinarily the copyright would remain with the creator. In the absence of proof that the government has the right to freely license the image, we can;t restore it. Also note, that even if the government did acquire the copyright, there is nothing at {{PD-RU-exempt}} which would make the non-postage side of a post card PD.

For the second item, although it was made as a first day cover, it has no stamp, so it does not have the status of a first day cover. It has a clear and explicit copyright notice printed on the back. I see no reason why it could be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your comment about the first image would be covered by Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia/stamps and the whole "Prerequisite is that the Russian post acquired permission from the copyright-holder. We can safely assume that the Russian post has come to an agreement with the copyright-holder of such work." Otherwise, it's on you to say why you think it shouldn't apply in this case. As far as if the non-postage side of a post card would be PD, it's actually a postal card. Not a postcard. There's a difference. In this case the back side is pre-stamped by the government, the whole thing specifically a work created by the Russian post and therefore PD-RU-exempt. I'd agree with you if it was a postcard with a normal stamp on the back, obviously in that case the front wouldn't qualify for PD-RU-exempt, but that's not the case here. It's not just a random postcard that someone put a stamp on. It was specifically released by the Russian post and it's assumed they come to an agreement with the copyright-holder to create it.
To your second point. Where exactly are the images your basing the opinion on? A lot of the time the existence of a copyright on the back being sound depends on what kind of envelope it is, the image, and who released it. If it was released or created by the Russian post or is pre-stamped then it would be PD-RU-exempt regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: I undeleted the 2 I mentioned above. --Yann (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Klaus Weihrauch.jpg

Ich schlage vor die im Betreff genannte Datei wiederherzustellen. Das Foto stammt aus der Foto-Sammlung des Mathematischen Forschungsinstituts Oberwolfach (MFO). Die Quelle ist hier: https://opc.mfo.de/detail?photo_id=15900 Die Verwendung des Fotos ist durch die Lizenz des Urhebers abgedeckt. Dass das Urheberrecht bei dem MFO liegt, geht aus obigem Link hervor. Eine hochauflösende Datei wurde nicht verwendet, sondern lediglich die Datei von der obigen Webseite. Damit ist die Verwendung auch in Übereinstimmung mit den hier angegebenen Bedingungen: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pictures_from_Oberwolfach_Photo_Collection Eine Vielzahl von Fotos aus dieser Sammlung ist bereits zu gleichen Bedingungen in Wikipedia/Wikimedia übernommen worden (s. letzte Seite). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ ConstructiveContributor (talk • contribs) 09:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support According to https://opc.mfo.de/ images marked "Copyright: MFO", as this one is, are CC-BY-SA-2.0. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


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

Photos of Transaero (Siberian Tiger livery), EI-XLN, Boeing 747-412 by Leukhin Fedor (IRONHIDE)

Deleted by mistake per Yann in this edit.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose and  Support I think we can keep the second one, but the first one is clearly focused on the copyrighted tiger livery. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Jim, I'd  Support the second one as the trucks and the rainbow are the focus of the image just as much as the airplane and it's far enough away to be de minimis. Abzeronow (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done and ✓ Done: Consensus that only the second one is COM:DM. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


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

Re-establecer las fotos autorizadas a ser publiccadas

14:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Favor de re/establecer las imágenes ya que Tengo permiso autorizado por escrito por el autor. Julio César López. Su idea es que con mi trabajo, se difunda su trabajo a través de Wikipedia. Puedo enviar copia de la autorización. Puedo darte los datos del autor para que le preguntes si es cierto o no. La política de Wikipedia dice que si hay autorización, no debe haber problema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacicuri (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose These are screenshots from YouTube. The uploader claimed that he was the author, now he names someone else. In order for these to be restored, the actual author must send a free license directly to VRT. Permission forwarded from the uploader is not acceptable. They will be restored when and if that permission is received, read, and accepted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Norma Shearer - circa 1927.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Michael0986 This 1927 photograph would be public domain in the US now. Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Info According to normashearer.co this is a 1934 photo. I haven't found the same photo on Ebay but there are two promotional photos from Riptide (1934) where it looks like Shearer is sitting in the same couch (notice the wave pattern), photo 1 and photo 2. Her hair style looks the same also.
According to mutualart.com this is a 1934 photo by photographer George Hurrell.
The photo may still be public domain but for some other reason than pre-1928. Thuresson (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not seeing a copyright notice from the Mutualart link but I can't exactly zoom to make sure and we don't have the back of the photo. If restored, the information will have to be fixed and the title changed to be more accurate. Abzeronow (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 Support I checked the renewal catalogue entries relevant to photography for 1961-3 and found nothing that looked like it could possibly refer to our image. So it should be safe as PD-US-not-renewed regardless of notice. Felix QW (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Department of Business and Trade Insignia.png

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Serves as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question. Any derivative work based upon the logo would be a copyright violation, so creation of a free image is not possible. Because it is a non-free logo, there is almost certainly no free representation. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. The use of a low resolution image of an organization's logo in the article about that organization will not impact the commercial viability of the logo.

--Atomix330 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose That might be an appropriate Fair Use rationale for use on Wikipedia, but this is Commons and we cannot accept Fair Use images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Dani Domínguez entrevistado en Furor TV.jpg

La fotografía esta disponible bajo licencia Creative Comons, no entiendo el borrado. Aquí el enlace en el que aparece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco gavira (talk • contribs) 14:11, 8 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Support Este archivo está disponible bajo la licencia Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


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

Request to Undelete: File:LMIRL_-_The_Otherness_(2021).jpg

Hi there -thanks for your consideration.

I request the permission to re-upload and upload the file: LMIRL-The Otherness (2021) as the ticket Ticket#2023020810013791 for the legal use was submitted.

Looking forward to it. Kind regards x The Otherness --DoKang27 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose It is never appropriate to reupload an image. If its status changes, it can be restored easily by any Admin. The VRT has apparently received a permission email and the image will be restored without any action on your part when and if the email is read and approved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done and processed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


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

Request to undelete: File:A_New_Resistance_(The_Otherness).jpg

Hi there -thanks for your consideration.

I request to undelete the following file: File:A_New_Resistance_(The_Otherness).jpg

I own the copyright of "A New Resistance" EP cover as it shows on the ticket submitted to Permissions-Wikimedia Commons: Ticket#2023020810013791

Looking forward to it. Kind regards x Martin Cativa (The Otherness) --DoKang27 (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose It is never appropriate to reupload an image. If its status changes, it can be restored easily by any Admin. The VRT has apparently received a permission email and the image will be restored without any action on your part when and if the email is read and approved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done and processed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Altay Tankı operasyonel test için FNSS Samur'a çıkıyor

Turkish: Fotoğraf kendi kaynağından alınmıştır ve kopya veya vs. bir şey değildir. İsterseniz fotoğrafını alındığı kaynağın iletişim e postasına mail atarak izin alınıp alınmadığını öğrenebilirsiniz. Bu fotoğraf orijinal kaynağından alınmıştır. Silme isteğinin kaldırılmasını talep ediyorum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umut NAZLI (talk • contribs) 19:48, 8 February 2023‎ (UTC)

File:Altay Tankı operasyonel test için FNSS Samur'a çıkıyor.png has not been deleted, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Altay Tankı operasyonel test için FNSS Samur'a çıkıyor.png. Although User:Umut NAZLI suggests above that we contact the source, there is no source or author given in the file description. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: File not yet deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:The gate of Wun Chang Junior High School.jpg

I found this photo from the Internet, and I have wrote a well-known source according to the regulations, but @范 deliberately deleted all the photos I uploaded, and maliciously reported it. --Laithomas 2023.02.09

According to the regulation, you should not upload any image you find online. I've told you to read Commons:Licensing first and clearly you didn't. --GY Fan★ 03:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See COM:NETCOPYVIO. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Robotika-azala.jpg

Hi, as the director of the publiher (UEU, Udako Euskal Unibertsitatea, Basque_Summer_University) I sent yesterday an email providing the CC-BY-SA licence to permissions-es@wikimedia.org (8/2/23, [Ticket#2023020810014138] Confirmación de recepción (Re: File:Robotika-azala. [...]). Thanks --Ksarasola (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: THe file will be restored if and when the license is received, read, and approved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Choc de mémoires (Bernard Doray).jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2023013010013223. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:DESTINATION F. BACON.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2023013110012464. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz ✓ Done BTW, it's in SCOPE or it's ADVERT? Ruthven (msg) 14:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:220716 AndrewLevine playing the Cracklebox.©2022 StephenLevine.jpg

My father Stephen Levine gave me the rights to publish the picture here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.levine (talk • contribs) 07:30, 31 January 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Three problems here:

First, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. That is not correct. Making incorrect claims is a serious violation of Commons rules and can lead to your being blocked from editing here.
Second, "the rights to publish the picture here" is insufficient. Commons requires that images be free for any use anywhere by anybody.
Finally, in order for the image to be restored, your father must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Why not {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}? Yann (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
You may be right, but when I read it, I assumed that his father is living. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@Andrew.levine: Yann (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Socialdemicratass.png

There was no good reason to delete this Public Domain image which was still being used in articles on Wikipedia. CanaCore (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC) 23-02-07

 Oppose User:Jeremias Peñaranda uploaded five logos of Swedish political parties and claimed that he was the creator of all of them. That is obviously not true. There is no reason to believe that any of them is PD. I note that they all appear on https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/ledamoter-partier, which is freely licensed, but there is no reason to believe that the Riksdag actually has the right to freely license the party logos. There is no indication of a free license on the party's own page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if the logos are trademarked, can't they still be on wikimedia? Given that they are correctly sourced in the future. CanaCore (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
These logos consist only of simple geometric shapes and do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and are therefore public domain (until proven otherwise). CanaCore (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The issue here is copyright, not trademark. The logos (and in particular the one that is the subject of this request), are above the ToO in the United States and probably above the ToO in Sweden. Therefore they have a copyright which will probably last into the next century. Note also that the burden of proof lies with you to prove that they are eligible for Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose This logo was not designed by a Wikimedia user but by Spanish artist Javier Mariscal. Fair use at English Wikipedia, en:File:Swedish Social Democratic Worker's Party logo.svg. Thuresson (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I am aware, but can't it be restored if the rightful author and source is listed instead is what I'm asking. CanaCore (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
No, not without consent of the copyright holder. You can probably upload them to some (but not all) of the Wikipedias under their Fair Use rules, but Fair Use is impossible here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:20180127 Landskrona Havsbrisen Borstahusen 0120 (26175585858).jpg

Same as above. High resolution and quality, can easily be cropped or blurred. Yann (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 Support Undelete and blur the advertising board. De728631 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

However, as above there needs to be a check regarding the two different CC licenses at Flickr. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I think this needs a Swedish speaker. Our translation of the Swedish law tells us that there is FoP for 2D artistic works but not for "Information boards and maps" which are considered literature. However, this is an advertising board, not an information board, which suggests that it is covered by the FoP exemption. However the difference is subtle, which I why I suggest that a Swedish speaker look at the law carefully. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I assume this refers to the 1 section, 2 paragraph of the law:
"1 § 2 st. Till litterära verk hänförs kartor, samt även andra i teckning eller grafik eller i plastisk form utförda verk av beskrivande art."
More or less: "... maps and also drawings, graphics [...] of describing character."
I think key here is that they are intended to describe something. Most advertisements wouldn't be describing the product, but rather artistic images. I cannot see the file as non-admin, but perhaps it is obvious to which category it belongs. However, advertisements are seldom intended to be somewhere "permanently". The Swedish word used is stadigvarande, which might have a different nuance, and there is probably literature on what is to be seen as permanently (for the life of the artwork? that would be quite short for a snow sculpture - or an advertisement). –LPfi (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 Info Photo available at flickr.com; as anybody can see this is located at a building site with information and images about buildings under construction. Thuresson (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: I think I understand that information boards are not covered by FoP because the text on them is copyrighted as literature, but there is none of that here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Louis Barnett.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louis Barnett.jpg

1927 photograph by "Stanley Polkinghorne Andrew, died 1964.". This became public domain in New Zealand in 2015. This would appear to have been published in 1927 so it would be public domain in the US now. Abzeronow (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support We have a much poorer version of the same image as File:Louis Edward Barnett.jpg. The file description says it was published in Auckland in 1927. On the other hand, the F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand says that it may not be used without permission. That appears to be incorrect. see https://natlib.govt.nz/records/23016830?search%5Bpath%5D=items&search%5Btext%5D=Louis+Barnett.

The poorer image is in use in several places, so this image should replace it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Twist Cano Azala Susa.jpg

Hi, I had discussed 11 days before about the same picture. I had uploaded the cc-by-sa license in the book (a picture with two pages in the book showing that). Please, seeː File:Twist - Harkaitz Cano novel.jpeg. The user that deleted the picture proposed me yesterday to email the verification team to restore the file. (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ksarasola#File_tagging_File:Twist_Cano_Azala_Susa.jpg) Thanks. --Ksarasola (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The file description gives the source of this image as https://www.susa-literatura.eus/liburuak/narr9309. There is no indication of a free license there. If the copyright holder -- usually the publisher -- has sent a free license to VRT, the image will be restored when and if the license is received, read, and approved. That may take some weeks, as VRT usually has a backlog. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Capra-1927.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Capra-1927.jpg

1927 publicity photograph of Frank Capra. Would be public domain in the US now. Abzeronow (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. It's not a publicity photo -- it's a shot of him on a movie set. According to the file description, it comes out of a 1971 book. There's no evidence of earlier publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, if it wasn't published earlier, we'd have to see if the book's copyright was renewed, and if it was, it would be under copyright until 2067. Abzeronow (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Renewal was not required for works published 1964 through 1977; it had a valid notice. Эlcobbola talk 16:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
You're right. I had forgotten about that. I guess this one will just have to wait until 2067. Abzeronow (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Jay Chua Singapore Singer.jpg

Hi, we are requesting the undeletion of the photo, because the image is linked to the website https://www.jdesignit.com/. The photo is real, and it is not a fake photo. The photo is to let our website viewers know who is the person. The photo is also linked to the schema markup of the website for many years already. Thank you for helping us. ( Jchangchua (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC) )

 Oppose The uploader and the subject have the same name and the uploader claims to be the actual photographer. If they are the same person, then this is probably not true as the image does not appear to be a selfie. I note that the web site cited above has "© Copyright 2015 JDesignIt JAY CHUA. "

In order for this image to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Backrub Logo.jpg

Google wrote, mam should feel free to download it — Preceding unsigned comment added by User12385 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 10 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Pashupati1927.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sanjanbikram

I cannot see if this has a caption or what book is this is from but COM:Nepal says that photographs are Creation + 25 years. The photograph would have been public domain in Nepal in 1953 which is well before 2004, the URAA date. Abzeronow (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Liceo Franco-Costarricense (Aéreo).png

Hi, the file in question is from a public college in Costa Rica, and therefore it’s copyright protection lasts for 25 years, but his use and distribution is permitted for non-comercial use, under the 6683 law. Please restore.

Mito0504 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I think that the requester believes that a public college qualifies as a government work, with a shorter term. That might or might not be true. It would also have to be proven that the photographer was an employee of the college. But most important, the source says this is a 2020 image, so even the 25 year government copyright would have 20 more years to go. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    The school is administered by la Asociación Franco-Costarricense de Enseñanza (AFCE), which is a private law association ("una asociación de derecho privado"). Эlcobbola talk 20:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • The AFCE was founded under an international treaty between Costa Rica and France, in this treaty the subscribers state that all property administered by the AFCE is owned by the Ministry of Public Education, doing of it a government work. But, I didn’t know that Wikimedia doesn’t allow “non-commercial” licenses, that’s why i would like to withdraw the undeletion request. Kind regards,

Mito0504 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Request withdrawn. Thuresson (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Cover 223.jpg

I work for Wanderlust magazine and this is a readily available image of one of our recent front covers. It is copy writed by Wanderlust Travel Media as original and created by them — Preceding unsigned comment added by WanderlustChristina (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Tokyo Skytree light up in US flag for Trump's visit.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: At section 5(6), the policy of Facebook page of the Japanese Kantei is complied with the GJSTU 2.0 license. A1Cafel (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Did it appear on Facebook? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tokyo Skytree light up in US flag for Trump's visit.jpg seems to say it was copied from Twitter. Do they have a similar policy for Twitter? Google Translate of that link seems pretty clear about the photos on Facebook, though -- those should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Carl. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Joseph Prill (1934).jpg

I don;t understand why this pic was removed, but I got the permission of the owner of this site to use it for Wikipedia: https://www.heimat-lohmar.de/exponate/bilder/prof-prill/ So please restore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasvonderDunk (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 December 2022‎ (UTC)

[confidential information removed]

 Oppose A 1934 German image was under copyright in Germany until at least 1/1/2005 and is therefore under copyright in the United States until 95 years after first publication, that is, until at least 1/1/2030. I doubt very much that the person giving permission actually has a written license from the photographer allowing them to freely license the image. Also note that "permission ... to use it for Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP require that an image must be free for any use by anybody anywhere..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, photos of this type can be difficult. First, for photos first published elsewhere on the web, we need a free license directly from the copyright holder, via the process (using private emails) specified at COM:VRT. We have too many photos simply copied from the Internet, and accounts here are essentially anonymous.
If the copyright on the photos has lapsed, then it is OK, but that can be surprisingly difficult to determine (as copyright lasts a very long time). We need works to be public domain in both the country of origin, and the United States. This would appear to have been published in Germany, so that is the country of origin. Since this was definitely still under copyright in Germany in 1996, the U.S. restored any copyright for 95 years from publication, so it will not be public domain in the U.S. until 2030. The German copyright might be even more difficult -- the source states that a Hans Dieter Heimig is the author. If that was the photographer, we would need to find out how long they lived, and add 70 years to that (plus to the end of that year) to know when it will be public domain in Germany. If that name is a modern person, i.e. a contributor but the actual photographer is unknown, we'd need to see how it was credited at the further source. If it was published anonymously, it may have become public domain in Germany 70 years after publication (so, 2005), so then we'd just have to wait for the U.S. copyright to expire. However, for non-simple photographs like these (studio portraits were considered full works of art, not simple photos), they were always supposed to be 70 years from the death of the human author, and not sure the 70-year anonymous term common to the EU shortened that (though that is still a bit nebulous to me). If you subscribe to that theory, or Hans Dieter Heimig actually was the photographer but we can't find how long they lived, you'd have to wait until a reasonable amount of time passes (100 or 120 years) before using it.
If the site owner actually does own copyright somehow (that would need to be explained to the COM:VRT team), then they can license it, though as mentioned not for "Wikipedia only" -- it would have to be for anyone. But if they don't own the copyright, then they can't license it, and policy is to wait out the copyright term, as frustrating as that can be. I think the German Wikipedia has a rule of thumb that allows any work older than 100 years if the author's death date can be determined, though Commons uses 120. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Hans Dieter Heimig seems to be the author of a chapter in the 2016 book in which this image was apparently published. It's unclear if the image had been published before. --Rosenzweig τ 23:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
For anonymous works in German law, see the rather comprehensive COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works. For anything created before July 1 1995, if the author's name became known in any (unspecified) "other way", that was enough for the work to not be an anonymous work anymore, even if originally published without a named author. Which might work somehow for complete books, but is rather crazy for single photographs. Nevertheless it was the law before that was changed in 1995. --Rosenzweig τ 23:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Ah, OK. For photographs then, the situation was similar to now -- if published without attribution to a human author, and the author did not become known in the next 70 years, the term expired then. We'd have to assume anonymous publication in this case, which we don't always do without having some evidence of that. (For simple photos, such as snapshots of everyday life, the anonymous aspect was irrelevant in Germany -- those were at most 50 years from publication, or 50 years from creation if not published, before the 1995 law changes, regardless of author. The 1995 law retroactively changed them to 70pma though, or the anonymous term.). But, the U.S. term seems fairly straightforward. We could undelete in 2030. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The copyright situation in Germany of this photo (and also the US) is still unclear. It is said to be taken in 1934, and it was published in a book in 2016. We don't know if it was first published before 2016. Unlike the situation in the US, where the sale of a print by the photographer to the customer could (at least in some cases) already be publication, publication in Germany required the dissemination of copies to the general public. We also don't know if the 2016 publication (or any other publication) named a photographer or not. If that 1934 photo was first published in 2016 and we don't know the author, we can't tell if it is still protected by copyright in Germany or not. Under the "new" method explained at COM:Germany, the copyright of an anonymous work expires after 70 years, so it would have expired at the end of 2004 in this case. But under the old method, the term of protection would be 70 years pma even if the author is unknown. And the longer term of those two applies, even if we don't know which one is the longer term. Very unsatisfying, but that's what you get when laws don't really fit the subject matter they're meant to regulate, or at least not all aspects of it. Without further information about the first publication and the photographer, I can only see us hosting this with {{PD-old-assumed}} after 120 years, in 2055. Which would also be the US term for works of unknown authorship unpublished before 2003.
Btw, the terms for "simple" photographs in Germany have a rather convoluted history. In 1965, when the distinction between "Lichtbild" (= "simple" photograph) and "Lichtbildwerk" was first introduced in the then new Urheberrechtsgesetz (copyright law), they both had 25 year terms from publication (or creation if unpublished within 25 years after creation). In 1985, photographic works went to 70 years pma, while "simple" photographs stayed at 25 years from publication/creation, unless they were "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" (documents of contemporary history), which got a 50 year term from publication/creation. Then in 1995, that "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" category was eliminated, and all "Lichtbilder" got the 50 year term. Courts then whittled down what can be a "Lichtbild", and now, only images from automated photo booths, x-ray images, satellite imagery, surveillance images (from automated cameras) and similar stuff can be a "Lichtbild", but not a photo taken by a human being. Not by law (there is no clear definition there), but because of court decisions. --Rosenzweig τ 01:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Right, as far as I understand it, the courts changed their interpretation what a "Lichtbild" is due to the EU regulations. So, before the EU regulations, the "documents of contemporary history" type photograph were a 50 year term from publication/creation, then after the EU regulations they were 70pma, or 70 years from creation/publication if anonymous. So there could be no "longer existing term" for those, unlike for anonymous sculptures, which are more nebulous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
As far as this photo, it sure looks like something published in a school yearbook or something like that. The web page source does mention a further source, a "monography" by a Wilhelm Pape from 1993 or something like that. Unsure if that was just for the text, or the photo too. I do see there is some disagreement over whether the old 70 year term required the distribution of copies to the general public, or not. I typically dislike deletions based on extremely delayed publication possibilities, unless there is some evidence which points to that situation actually happening -- most works were made to be published, one way or another. I would not have a problem assuming that it became public domain in Germany in 2005, though there are some uncertainties, though the U.S. status seems clear (if published in 1934, which I am assuming). If it was truly unpublished until recently, it would get more "interesting". Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Stale request; no clear consensus to undelete after 6 weeks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Berliner Fernsehturm November 2013.jpg

Per precedent at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-12#File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 1.jpg, works located in a public place are covered by COM:FOP Germany under a new court ruling. This overturns our previous understanding that the work must be photographed from a public place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2022-12#File:Berlin_Hi-Flyer_Sept14_views04.jpg. The 2020 decision is a single decision by a minor court (Landgericht Frankfurt), while Germany's highest court (Bundesgerichtshof) has affirmed its contrary position in 2017. --Rosenzweig τ 10:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
But the 2017 case was one in which the Bundesgerichtshof ruled in favor of FoP. In fact, the definition of "public" was not even a point of contention (as opposed to the definition of "permanent"), but merely an offhand remark; of course it's not going to take a position that neither side's attorneys asked for. With 17 years having passed between 2003 (the last real time the Bundesgerichtshof was asked to rule on the definition of "public") and 2020, I think this is long enough to consider the decision of the Landgericht Frankfurt more relevant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The BGH ruled that in the AIDA case the images of the ship with the AIDA symbol were covered by freedom of panorama because they could just as well have been taken from the shore. But they also confirmed what they had written in their 2003 Hundertwasser-Haus decision, that was not just an “offhand remark”. That's also what Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Public says: “It is important to note that only the view from the public place is privileged: If, for instance, a statue is located next to a public street, photographs of the statue taken from that street enjoy freedom of panorama, but photographs of the very same statue taken from a non-public spot do not.” And no, I don't think the decision of a lower Landgericht openly contradicting the country's highest court will be more relevant any time soon. If we really care about the precautionary principle and our obligations to re-users, we'll have to wait for the BGH to overturn itself, or for an even higher court (like Germany's constitutional court or the European Court of Justice) to decide differently. --Rosenzweig τ 11:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: It's been over a month. I was the deleting Admin, but reading the BGH decision (in translation) suggest to me that the higher court is OK with images of an object that is in a public space if the image is taken from a public place. This is a drone image and the air is a public space, so it seems to me that it is actually OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:A Szent István-rend megalapítása.png

hi, I would like to submit this request for the restoration of the following portrait done by Franz Anton Maulbertsch (1724 - 1796). in the PDF of the source there are also other portraits made by other artists:

 Commentin the last file looking at the upload LOG, the user had forgotten to enter the artist's name, if maybe the portrait could be restored, I would like to fix it correctly if it were possible.--Drogorian (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Ruthven, I don;t understand this deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward It's A3cb1. Ruthven (msg) 14:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, understood. There's a balance between not allowing socks to edit here and deleting perfectly good images because the uploader is a sock. I'm not sure where I come out on these. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward As you said, it's a difficult balance to find. You must delete copyvios and other images from dubious sources because you don't want to encourage them to come back, and because you don't trust their attribution/source/license. In any case, a lot of them are also of bad quality, cropped from a PDF, and with low resolution. We're not losing much. Ruthven (msg) 20:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, perhaps the best solution to cases such as this one is to suggest to Drogorian that they go to the named source (http://real.mtak.hu/145674/1/219-250_GG80.pdf) and upload the file themselves, using the same filenames. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Turns out Drogorian is also a sock. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Hüseyin Diriöz, Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy and Planning, NATO (7280942204).jpg

The file has been uploaded to Flickr under Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). These rights allow us to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose.

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms.

Iago777 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The deletion alleged license laundering. In order to restore the image it will have to be proven that the Flickr licensor had the right o freely license it. That will be difficult because the image is no longer on Flickr. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. When I called up the image on Flickr yesterday I got a 404 error. I must have messed up the cut and paste -- apologies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Kampung_Likas_Kota_Kinabalu_(Black_Text).png

Hello, I understand that the file listed above has been deleted as a result of being flagged as violating copyright, I am happy to inform you that the content is entirely my creation. The file will not be found anywhere else because it is my creation and I just uploaded it as free content to wikimedia. therefore, I request that the deletion of the file be reconsidered and I hope that the deletion be undone.

--AlexArticleMY (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose It may be entirely your creation, but according to your comment and after a little research, I think that the logo is not actually used anywhere. Therefore it is probably out of scope -- we do not keep personal art from non notable individuals. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:The Hitchhikers Guide to SEO The Answer to Life, The Universe & Search Engines Kindle Edition by Devin Schumacher (Author).jpg

Undeleted request reasons:

This was haphazardly deleted by someone who did not do enough research. Inappropriate conduct.

Here are references of legitimacy:

- LibraryThing (Work ID): 29778545[[5]]
- ISBN-13:‎ 979-8376128060
- Amazon ASIN: B0BTT5YSZS
- Goodreads.com Work ID: 102053125[[6]]

Ds1291 (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ds1291: What is your relationship with Devinschumacher? Thuresson (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@Ds1291, the cover-image was deleted as it was uploaded for advertising, as notified on User talk:Devinschumacher. So, nothing with "haphazardly deleted" and "not do enough research". The "Inappropriate conduct" are your revenge-edits [7] and [8], qualifying your account for a ban. --Túrelio (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The two user accounts here User:Ds1291 and User:Devinschumacher and two others are socks. I have blocked all four indefinitely for vandalism and abuse of multiple accounts. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, see above. --Yann (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Украли содержимое посылки с Computeruniverse.ru. Посылка которая не смогла!).webm

I don't really want to re-litigate the ANU complaint currently going in relation to EugeneZelenko's spurious deletion nominations, but this looks to be more of the same nonsense where he claimed the files were Out of Commons:Project scope and that a long-term, productive user was using Commons as their private video album, which seems to be a pattern. Regardless though, it seems from reading the description of the videos in the DR request from the uploader that they are educational. So I'd appreciate it if they were undeleted. Really, I'm kind of shocked they were deleted in the first place. Since EugeneZelenko deletion rational was clearly bogus. At least it seems to have been.

--Adamant1 (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't speak the language, but these all look like amateur works, with an individual speaking to the camera. We don't generally keep such works. Eugene does speak the language and he calls them "rants". There is also the question of copyright. These were taken from YouTube and license reviewed by the bot. They could well be license laundering. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

According to Gone Postal They are publicly available videos under a free license. Sure it could be license laundering. So could most things on here. Unfounded accusations of potential license laundering isn't a valid reason to not un-delete something though. All we can do is go on the information we have and in this case the information we have points to the videos being freely licensed. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Not done, a man filming himself walking around Sochi and a woman filming herself talking about a dog who is afraid of other dogs. I have the highest regard for EugeneZelenko's judgment when notifying these files for deletion. The third clip is available at File:Моё впечатление о создании видимости работы Почты России! SOCHI-ЮДВ.ogv. Thuresson (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Seventh Heaven 1927 rl.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seventh Heaven 1927 rl.jpg

The 1927 American film is in the public domain now. Movie posters from the US in 1927 would also be public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. Note that we also have a different poster for this film, File:7th Heaven (1927 poster).jpg and that the proper name of the film is "7th Heaven". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per nomination. Now out of copyright in the US. --De728631 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ramona Pageant Poster from 1927.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ramona Pageant Poster from 1927.jpg

As a 1927 poster from the US, it would be public domain now. Abzeronow (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted, copyright expired as per nom. It probably was already out of copyright in 2018 too, because I wouldn't expect such a poster to have its copyright renewed. Source and author information look a bit wonky to me. --rimshottalk 15:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Bronzová soška s nápisem.jpg and File:A.Walles Maison Emile Pingat.jpg

Per @Multichill: (special:Diff/725649685), it looks like both were already licensed by RISD as CC0. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose In both cases, the object in the image is PD, but the image is subject to the policy at https://risdmuseum.org/terms-use which is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States license (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 US). We do not allow NC licenses. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, we have a clear conflict between the Terms of Use page that I cited above, which calls out a CC-BY-NC-SA license, and a much less formal statement which says they allow access for any use. Unless we can get them to clarify this, I think we must assume that the formal NC license is their intent. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  •  Support It's not just an informal statement, but actually "The images on this website can enable discovery and collaboration and support new scholarship, and we encourage their use. This object is in the public domain (CC0 1.0)." An image-specific copyright statement overrides a blanket terms of use. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
User:King of Hearts -- I think you missed the essence of that statement, "This object is in the public domain " (emphasis added). The object in the picture is PD -- that's true, but it says nothing about the copyright status of the photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I think they would have used a PDM to mark an already PD work; the CC0 to me sounds like a license release. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Multichill and KoH. If necessary, please reopen the DR. --Yann (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Cian_O’Connor_Karlswood2020.jpg ,File:Kilkenny and Cian O’Connor_Sunshine_Tour_2022.jpg

Lali. gh

Solicito restaurar el archivo mencionado debido a que es una actualización solicitada por el dueño de la cuenta, se cuenta con los derechos del material dentro del sitio web: https://www.cianoconnor.com/

--Lali.gh (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Comment There are no such files and never have been. The requester's only action on Commons is this request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

 Info This may concern files uploaded by a different user who currently is blocked, User talk:Aliawalsh22. Thuresson (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Peeing video.webm

I request for my video to be undeleted as is it for educational purposes. I had seen no other videos like it uploaded that showed detailes anatomy when a female urinates. There are plenty for male urination in detail and I wanted to upload for a female since there was none. Please undelete my video — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmeyou (talk • contribs)

Regulary deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peeing video.webm. --Túrelio (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Very poor quality. Probably LTA socking. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:A. M. Reasat Ali.jpg

I am an un experienced wiki editor. i have tried to contribute wiki as my leaser time work. and by mistake i, maybe, did not mentioned the source of this picture.

actually I have got this picture from my maternal uncle. since I have not any experience, I can not clarify the source.

if anyone, here, correct me and restore the photo, ill be thankful.

Tariquzzaman3 (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you claim that you got the image from your uncle. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.

The first question is, who is the subject? Unless we can determine that the subject is notable, the image will not be kept.

In order to restore the image, the actual photographer -- your uncle or someone else -- must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:বীরশ্রেষ্ঠ মহিউদ্দিন জাহাঙ্গীর.jpg

hi, I am an unexperienced wiki editor. so I, maybe, did not get the referencing system of wiki.

As far I can remember, I have mentioned the source of the photo from a book. If the photo is not authentic from the book, of course the photo can be removed. Or the photo should be here in wiki.

If anyone please verify that photo from that book, I will be thankful.

Tariquzzaman3 (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Google translation of the image description:

Do you recognize this young man in the picture? Congratulations if you do. But I didn't recognize it. But he is a great hero of our history. This is Bir Shreshtha Shaheed Captain Mohiuddin Jahangir. We are used to seeing a clean shaven image of him. You won't find this picture even by searching Google Images. Captain Mohiuddin Jahangir was martyred on 14th December. His fellow warriors entered the city of Rajshahi on 18th December. They had two poles of the independent Bangladesh flag in their hands and this picture was on another pole decorated with flowers right between the two flags. This is how they honored this brave warrior. But why did this historical picture disappear from the pages of our history? We don't even know that this great warrior had a beard. Why do we skip this familiar image of him and use a clean shaven one in Pakistani army uniform? Is there an answer to this?

As discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:বীরশ্রেষ্ঠ মহিউদ্দিন জাহাঙ্গীর.jpg it is impossible that this is {{Own}} as claimed. It appears to be taken from a recent book which is presumably copyrighted, so I see no reason why we should restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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

file:Screenshot 20221007-203537 Gallery.jpg

Why was my file deleted? Verification was requested, I confirmed the copyright by mail, this is my image, I personally went to the concert and I can prove it, I have a lot of videos from that concert and I still have a ticket, what's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Нейроманьяк (talk • contribs) 13:29, 12 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose VRT received an email, ticket #2022112510005672, but it was not accepted as valid. The email sender was informed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that User:George Mania is a sockpuppet of Нейроманьяк. I have blocked User:George Mania for abusing multiple accounts. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Walkie (rap).jpg

Túrelio, What's wrong with the file? Same CC license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Нейроманьяк (talk • contribs) 13:36, 12 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The stated source, https://youtube.com/watch?v=gxJR5xmO, comes up with "This video isn't available anymore". As noted at license review, when you upload a file from Flickr, Youtube, or other similar sources, you must mark it with {{Licensereview}} to ensure that it is promptly reviewed. Since this image was not reviewed, we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The link was provided by you in the descrition. As per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Masturbation1.ogv

Want to download the file

04:10, 15 February 2011 Dennis Kwaria talk contribs uploaded File:Masturbation1.ogv ({{Information |Description ={{en|1=a process of male masturbation}} |Source ={{own}} |Author =Dennis Kwaria |Date = |Permission = |other_versions = }} Category:Teenagers Category:Sexuality [) (thank)

--Zeamays321 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"likely illegal material" --Trade (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Very poor quality. Probably LTA socking. --Yann (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

La publicación es correcta y pertenece a Alex Gainza Omar, la primera persona en recorrerse el Amazonas descalzo, dicha foto es la prueba que lo acredita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aitordlt (talk • contribs) 09:50, 13 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This is probably about File:Alex Gainza Omar en su aventura en el Amazonas.jpg, which was deleted as a personal photo from a non-contributor. I find nothing in Google about the subject, so I agree that the image has no place here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Gershwin, Three Preludes for piano 1927.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gershowitz

1927 sheet music from Gershwin would be public domain in the US now. Abzeronow (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted, copyright expired as per nom, if this very simple cover was even copyrightable at all. --rimshottalk 16:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:LOGOCGFC2021.png

This logo is the exclusive property of Clermont Gaelic football club, France. It is a entire original creation ; the pattern used for its creation is inspired by a Vercingetorix statue which totally free of rights according to the local French legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablanchamp (talk • contribs) 16:35, 13 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann, needs a free license from an authorized official of the club via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Medierådet For ages 11 and up (Tilladt for børn over 11 år).svg

It came from a legitimate source: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/d/d6/MCCYP_11.svg/revision/latest?cb=20200531144544&path-prefix=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireDragonValo (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 February 2023‎ (UTC)

@FireDragonValo: Where does the Creative Commons license come from? It is not at the web site of the Medierådet. Thuresson (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Creative Commons 1.0 FireDragonValo (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 CommentI can't find any indication of a free license. Note that we also have the identical image as a PNG, File:Medierådet For ages 11 and up (Tilladt for børn over 11 år).png. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support Undelete and change the license to PD-textlogo --Trade (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Harzquerbahn Eisenbahnunglueck 6 7 1927.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harzquerbahn Eisenbahnunglueck 6 7 1927.jpg

1927 German photograph. Would appear to be public domain in the United States since it was likely published in 1927. Nominator suggested it could be {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Comment It's basically this postcard, except without the credit on the lower right: phot. Streich, Charlottenburg. I'm not sure if this photographer based in Berlin is actually the photographer who took the photo of this location which is not exactly near Berlin, but also not too far away. Anyway, apparently it's Oskar Streich (full name Georg Oskar Streich), born 1877-09-28 in Uscikowo, Prussia (now Poland), declared to have died on 1945-12-31 by a court in Charlottenburg on 1959-01-31. So if it's him, he has legally died in 1945. --Rosenzweig τ 09:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Good find, it looks like this became public domain in Germany in 2016. Abzeronow (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Momar NDAO Ascosen.jpg

Hi, everybody.

This file is made by my son who is the author of the photo.

I request the udeletion.

Thanks--Dialdialy (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that when you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you say your son was. Making false claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may get you blocked from editing here. In order to restore this image, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Mona Kasra Headshot.jpg

This is my headshot and and I would like it to be included on the page. I may have chosen the wrong setting when unloading it. It is not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaism (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Almost every created work, including this image, has a copyright from the moment of creation. When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you say something else. Making false claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may get you blocked from editing here.

The image appears on the UVA web site with an explicit copyright notice. In order to restore it here, the actual copyright holder (probably the actual photographer, but possibly UVA) must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Das entsprechende Bild ist direkt von der Person, die im Artikel beschrieben wird. Alle Urheberrechte liegen direkt bei dieser Frau und sie selbst hat dieser Veröffentlichung zugestimmt. Ilumzarr --Ilumzarr (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Service: I think this is about File:Sina Margarete.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 09:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose In the file upload, Ilumzarr claims that they are the actual photographer. Above, they say something else. The subject may have given permission, but the subject very rarely has the right to freely license an image. That right almost always belongs to the actual photographer. This can be restored if the actual photographer sends a free license using VRT or if someone else sends a free license together with a written agreement from the actual photographer giving that person the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - 1) Previously published images require COM:VRT evidence of permission; 2) per Jim, uploader here acknowledges that their self claim was untrue; and 3) copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject; accordingly, obtaining the image from the subject is entirely inadequate, especially as German copyright only transfers through inherence. Эlcobbola talk 17:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Численность славян.png Ошибки с файлом исправлены

Изображение было удалено по ошибке. Разрешение на размещение авторства было получено через запрос VRT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavljenko (talk • contribs) 12:57, 13 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears here with a clear copyright notice. In order for it to be restored, the actual copyright owner must send a free license using VRT. When and if that is received, read, and approved, the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Powerbank 50000mAh.jpg

Bitte um Wiederhesrtellung Es gibt kein Grund für Löschung

Sunshine cali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine cali (talk • contribs) 22:33, 13 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The file description gives the source as

https://battery.network/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Powerbank-60000mAh-scaled.jpg.

That comes up:

"Oops! That page can't be found."

The web site shows "Copyright © 2023" and there is no sign of a free license. In order for the image to be restored, an authorized official of the copyright owner must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Sugiura Hisui Tokyo Subway 1927 poster.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sugiura Hisui Tokyo Subway 1927 poster.jpg Japanese work by an author who died in 1965. Became public domain in Japan in 2016, and the restored U.S. copyright for it expired this year as it is a 1927 poster. Abzeronow (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support The term of copyright was extended from 50 years to 70 years pma in 2018, but that does not affect this work, whose copyright under the old law had expired in 2016. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Andrija_Mandic_2023.png

Request to undelete Andrija_Mandic_2023.png

As the actual photographer of Andrija Mandić's photograph in question, I request that this image be restored. If needed, I will provide the proof of origins of the photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analyst4110 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 15 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Reloading a page that has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again you may be blocked from editing here.

The image appears in a variety of places on the Web with copyright notices. In order for it to be restored here, the actual copyright holder, probably the actual photographer, must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:168577 169219846456988 35997 n(1).jpg

Proszę o przywrócenie tego pliku. Poprzednio załadowany posiadał złą licencję . To rok publikacji 1981 brak autorstwa - domena publiczna. 15.02.2023 (Pamulab (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC) )

 Oppose You uploaded this file as File:Obraz Warta honorowa NJW MSW.png. You claimed that you permission of the author for NC use. It was deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pamulab. You uploaded it a second time under the file name above. Then you requested its deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:168577 169219846456988 35997 n(1).jpg. It was deleted. Now you want it restored. Please stop wasting your time and that of your colleagues here. There is nothing to support the 1981 date and therefore no way to prove that it is out of copyright in both the USA and Poland. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Good Taste Magazine.jpg

This is a freely available copyright-free image, supplied by the publisher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7c:2f50:af00:95e9:33aa:d611:3f53 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 February 2023‎ (UTC)

It certainly isn't copyright free - the publisher will own the copyright to the cover and either the photographer or the publisher the copyright to the photograph. The question is whether they released it under a free license. Do you have any evidence of that? --rimshottalk 15:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


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

Files relating to Ceselli, Giovanni. Giuoco ginnico schermistico di bastone. Livorno, 1902

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Saltan.andre

Files sourced from a 1902 book written by Italian fencer Giovanni Ceselli (whom I cannot find a death date for). The following link gives us the title of the book which is cited as "Ceselli, Giovanni. Giuoco ginnico schermistico di bastone. Livorno, 1902." https://www.martinez-destreza.com/bibliography. It would seemingly be old enough for PD-old-assumed and the book is PD in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: Could you please fix the source, the date, and the author. Probably other files from this DR could be undeleted as well. --Yann (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:About Old Storytellers Core Rulebook.pdf

The Creative Commons license, the authorship, and location of the original file were all annotated on the PDF itself. The file is located at [9]. Since this time, however, I went ahead and created a licensing page [10] for materials Thrill Land, which I am the owner of, make available to Wikimedia either through the Creative Commons or the public domain. User:thrilllander (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Comment The license is fine, but what about the scope? This game has only about 200 hits in the whole Internet... Yann (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure there are probably other creative commons tabletop RPGs out there. I am not sure if any others are available through Wikimedia Commons. Although, the usefulness of this is not necessarily the game itself. It provides elements and a framework, which someone else is free to mold in any way they wish. This applies even if the end result is something that in little way resembles the original form. On my part, occasionally, I release things into the creative commons or the public domain. I typically make these available to the public on my sites as well as third parties such as Wikimedia Commons. This is done in case anyone might find such useful. This reply was simply in response to something taken down for the reasons described. It really is not for me to say what anyone else should or should not do with it and I do not intend to. Merely, if it can be of use to someone there it is for their use. Thrilllander (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope -- no meaningful audience. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:About Old Storytellers Fightin Words.pdf

The Creative Commons license, the authorship, and location of the original file were all annotated on the PDF itself. The file is located at [11]. Since this time, however, I went ahead and created a licensing page [12] for materials Thrill Land, which I am the owner of, make available to Wikimedia either through the Creative Commons or the public domain. User:thrilllander (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope -- no meaningful audience. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:AboutOldStorytellers CharacterSheet ThrillLand.pdf

The Creative Commons license, the authorship, and location of the original file were all annotated on the PDF itself. The file is located at [13]. Since this time, however, I went ahead and created a licensing page [14] for materials Thrill Land, which I am the owner of, make available to Wikimedia either through the Creative Commons or the public domain. User:thrilllander (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope -- no meaningful audience. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Lamp the Movie (That Really Shouldn't Exist); *A Dracula Film.webm

The public domain license and the authorship were both annotated on the film itself. The film is located at [15]. Since this time, however, I went ahead and created a licensing page [16] for materials Thrill Land, which I am the owner of, make available to Wikimedia either through the Creative Commons or the public domain. One may also find the film at Thrill Land's official YouTube account [17] as well as other channels, social media and sites owned by Thrill Land. Additionally, the annotations to the public domain status on the film are located at the 18-second mark and again at 1:16:27. As well, the actual CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication is clearly annotated at 1:16:34 and a brief explanation of usage appears at 1:16:39. User:thrilllander (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Per COM:HOST. 29 Youtube views in 6 months. This has no educational use in a Wikimedia context. Thuresson (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
So the film is in the public domain and was taken down due to uncertainty whether it was in the public domain. I was merely clarifying that it was in the public domain. I made the film to demonstrate that even with an extremely minimal approach to filmmaking feature-length storytelling can still be actualized. To this point the film demonstrates this capacity. However, it was never my intention to assert how the film was to be used only to make it available for public use. It is not a "YouTube film" as asserted. It is simply a film, and, while view counts do not determined the usefulness of film, the film has a few hundred views on the channel it was originally posted not reposted to. The film was made available equally on Wikimedia Commons, Archive.org, YouTube, etc. for free public use. As well, the materials made available on Wikimedia Commons are for public use (as determined by guidelines) not only educational use on Wikimedia. Additionally, I do not understand why COM:HOST was cited. Thrilllander (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope -- no meaningful audience. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Snallygaster cartoon.svg

This file is located at [18]. Since its deletion, however, I went ahead and created a licensing page [19] for materials Thrill Land, which I am the owner of, make available to Wikimedia either through the Creative Commons or the public domain. This image is associated with the Lumberwoods, Unnatural History Museum, which is at lumberwoods.org [20]. Lumberwoods is a property of Thrill Land. This is indicated by the copyright at the bottom of the home and other pages. User:thrilllander (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope -- no meaningful audience. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Snallygater lumberwoods.png

This file is located at [21]. Since its deletion, however, I went ahead and created a licensing page [22] for materials Thrill Land, which I am the owner of, make available to Wikimedia either through the Creative Commons or the public domain. This image is associated with the Lumberwoods, Unnatural History Museum, which is at lumberwoods.org [23]. Lumberwoods is a property of Thrill Land. This is indicated by the copyright at the bottom of the home and other pages. User:thrilllander (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope -- no meaningful audience. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Snallygasyter lumberwoods color.png

This file is located at [24]. Since its deletion, however, I went ahead and created a licensing page [25] for materials Thrill Land, which I am the owner of, make available to Wikimedia either through the Creative Commons or the public domain. This image is associated with the Lumberwoods, Unnatural History Museum, which is at lumberwoods.org [26]. Lumberwoods is a property of Thrill Land. This is indicated by the copyright at the bottom of the home and other pages. User:thrilllander (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope -- no meaningful audience. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:EXFL T1S7 logo.jpg

This imagine is a logo owned by the copyright owners of the image. The owners of the image also added the picture. We didn't violate any copyrights.

The instagram page of the owners: https://www.instagram.com/exf_league/ The YouTube page of the owners: https://www.youtube.com/@exf_league

Thijsvanrijnsbergen (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thijsvanrijnsbergen, please closely follow the procedure described on VRT to show you are the owner of the copyright. If succesfull the image will be undeleted. Ellywa (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per ellywa. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Theresa Feodorowna Ries in her studio.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Theresa Feodorowna Ries in her studio.jpg

A 1902 photograph is old enough for PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support Accd. to [27], the photographer is de:Charles Scolik, who died in 1928. --Rosenzweig τ 17:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Since I couldn't see the photograph I didn't know of the possible issue of sculptures, if those are the sculptures of Theresa Feodorowna Ries, those wouldn't be public domain yet since she died in 1956, unless you think they're de minimis Abzeronow (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
You're right, I had not thought about that; this is said to be her studio, so those must be her sculptures. How about putting the DR in Category:Undelete in 2027? --Rosenzweig τ 17:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done I put it in the category and wrapped it in noinclude and noted that the photograph itself is public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see above, file will be restored in 2027. --Rosenzweig τ 18:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Weston Hancock attending the Los Angeles Philharmonic Gala.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: source is CC BY-SA 2.0 — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but the uploader is a blocked sock and the puppet master, User:Jamesjones2234, is a bad actor who claims to be Weston Hancock, the subject of the image. His actions include recreating a gallery, creating a sockpuppet, reloading deleted images, and extensive conflict of interest editing on WP (see Draft:Weston Hancock. He also claimed that he was both subject and photographer of half a dozen images that were obviously not selfies. I therefore doubt that WWDH Brands (Weston Hancock's company) actually has the right to freely license this image.

There is also the fact that the subject probably does not meet our standard of notability. Draft:Weston Hancock has been rejected several times, and that was before our colleagues at WP:EN realized that almost all the edits in the article had been made by the subject. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Already undeleted, currently undergoing the COM:VRT process. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Reopened -- the issue here is not whatever the VRT might say, but first, that the subject has been repeatedly dismissed as not notable by WP:EN and, second, as noted above, that he is a serial rule breaker here. According to the record, one of his photographs has four different photographers and a bogus VRT claim, see User_talk:Mdaniels5757#Ticket_2023011210010224. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Il regista Giuseppe Ferlito sul set.jpg

In merito alla contestazione delle foto per copyright File:Il regista Giuseppe Ferlito sul set.jpg ci deve essere stato un errore perchè tutte le foto caricate sono mie e le ho in un secondo momento fornite al Regista Giuseppe Ferlito. Per sistemare cosa devo fare? Grazie per l'aiuto --Valentina Tretti (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Both User:Superspritz and User:Túrelio say that the image appeared on https://www.giuseppeferlito.com yesterday. Perhaps I missed a page there, but I think I looked fairly carefully and I didn't find it. The image is a good size and has full camera exif, so unless it actually does appear on the web site (which page?), I am inclined to assume good faith. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Jameslwoodward do you think this link is not enough? --Superspritz (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
The page whee you found the image is apparently not a public page, which is why I couldn't find it.
Valentina, as noted above, the image appears on the subject's web site without a free license. You can either send a free license yourself using VRT or have the subject put a free license up on his site -- that can be general or specific to this image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jameslwoodward for your kind reply, I'm trying to fix the problem. Thanks for your help, --Valentina Tretti (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Jameslwoodward I uploaded the photo File:Giuseppe Ferlito Regista.jpg on the Flickr site to make the photo free of copyright, but I must have made some mistakes because Superspritz has again flagged it as possible copyright infringement. I want to ask the subject Giuseppe Ferlito to place a free license on his site, a general free license for images. Can you please tell me what I should ask him to write on his site? Thanks for your help --Valentina Tretti (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Logo HSS.png

Hello, my name is Krzysztof Andziak and I've made this file - Logo HSS.png I'm member of Herykowskie Stowarzyszenie w Siemczynie, and I have right to this logo and have no problem to publish it in wikimedia commons. Please about undeletion of this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krzysztof Andziak (talk • contribs) 10:08, 16 February 2023‎ (UTC)

please User:Krzysztof Andziak, closely follow the procedure described on VRT to show you are the owner of the copyright. If succesfull the image will be undeleted. Ellywa (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
This logo is used and published on my websites in public
https://hss.siemczyno.pl
I used it also on my facebook account.
https://www.facebook.com/HSSiemczyno/
and instagram
https://instagram.com/hs_siemczyno Krzysztof Andziak (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and none of those uses have a free license. You must either send a free license using VRT or put a free license up at the bottom of your web site .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:CHAREST Isabelle OFFICIELLE 43e 5x7.jpg

I am Isabelle Charest's political attaché and this is her official picture.

Currently, her Wikipedia page doesn't have a picture of her. I think it is reasonable to use her official picture to upgrade her page. This photography was taken last fall by the official photograph of Quebec's national assembly and we have all the rights to use it.

For further information, you can contact me at [deleted private information]

Julia Girard-Desbiens | Attachée politique

Isabelle Charest, députée de Brome-Missisquoi Ministre responsable du Sport, du Loisir et du Plein air [deleted private information] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaGirard (talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose If, as you say, the image was taken by a government photographer, then the Crown Copyright lasts for 50 years. Restoration here will require evidence of a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Памятник Довнару-Запольскаму в Речице.jpg

Фото было скачано в интернете. Почему я не могу использовать его, если оно и так в общем доступе? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidafkon (talk • contribs) 18:58, 16 February 2023‎ (UTC)

Google translate: The photo was downloaded from the Internet. Why can't I use it if it's already in the public domain?. Thuresson (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Apparently this is a 1997 statue made by V. Yanushkevich. Minimal FOP in Belarus according to COM:TAG Belarus. Thuresson (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 Info Uploaded again as File:Памятник Довнар-Запольскому в Речице.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose There are two copyrights here, one for the photograph and one for the sculpture. This image infringes on both of them -- the page from which the image was taken has a clear copyright notice, "© 2023 Памятники Гомельщины". The sculpture is recent is therefore under copyright. Please note that almost everything on the Web is under copyright, so before you upload anything to Commons there must be a free license on the source page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Fintan Connolly (headshot).jpg

--AlexKL2 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose No reason given. The source page, https://www.universitytimes.ie/2019/11/not-for-the-faint-hearted/, does not have a free license so there is no reason to believe that the image is CC-0 as claimed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Linda G. Mills.jpg

NYU holds the rights to this image and grants them for this purpose.--Jtbknyc (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: VRT 2023021710013523 received. --Эlcobbola talk 19:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Fatih yang Serius dan Kirana yang Cemas.jpg

I don't know if this stupid mistake is done by a bot or human but I'll just assume that this is done by a bot since no way a human can not read such clear information. It's clearly stated there that the source is Own work or do I need to change it into deviantart.com?

File:Fatih yang Serius dan Kirana yang Cemas.jpg

--Ditto-kun (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


File:Percakapan Video dengan Paman Rauzan dan Bibi Triana.jpg

I don't know if this stupid mistake is done by a bot or human but I'll just assume that this is done by a bot since no way a human can not read such clear information. It's clearly stated there that the source is Karya sendiri or do I need to change it into deviantart.com?

These three following illustrations are for my short story at Wikibooks project titled Wajahku Identitasku and they require me to upload the images here in Commons.

File:Percakapan Video dengan Paman Rauzan dan Bibi Triana.jpg

File:Kana dan Lora Berswafoto.jpg

File:Fatih yang Serius dan Kirana yang Cemas.jpg

--Ditto-kun (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 Not done: I don't see any "stupid mistake" here. Your ad hominem remarks are out of place on Commons. The image has not yet been deleted, so there is nothing to do here, but since the source, deviantart, is copyrighted, the image (and the two others) will be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Let it Be Morning Film Poster.jpg

I am trying to upload this photo to Wikimedia commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankirosenthal1002 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 16 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the film production company -- usually the producer -- must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Restored by Krd -- VRT received. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:JToHLogo.webp

I request for the aforementioned file to be undeleted, as it’s necessary for my sandbox project. All rights go to ejobb5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallMeVbuck (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 OpposeThe logo comes from https://jtoh.fandom.com/wiki/Juke%27s_Towers_of_Hell_Wiki. The terms of use for the site are all rights reserved.

Please note that claiming that you were the creator of this logo, as you did here, when that is not the case is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Asysta motocyklowa duży kolor...jpg

Proszę o przywrócenie tego pliku. Poprzedni załadowany z podaną złą licencją. To rok 1986 czyli domena publiczna. (Pamulab (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC) )

 Oppose When you uploaded the image you said:

"Domena publiczna .Autor NN . Osoby publiczne w trakcie służby w miejscu publicznym - (Pion promocji NJW MSW) "
"Public domain.By NN. Public figures during service in a public place - (Promotion Department of the Ministry of Interior and Administration)" translation by Google

Now you claim you were the photographer. That's hard to believe. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Not done, per Jim. OP nominated file for deletion, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Asysta motocyklowa duży kolor...jpg. Thuresson (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:They asked for it... and they are going to get it!.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:They asked for it... and they are going to get it!.jpg

According to John Mark Ockerbloom's Online Books Page https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/washingtonstar The Washington Star did not renew issues although some contributions were. We have a later cartoon by James T. Berryman on Commons File:All Set for a Super-Secret Session in Washington.jpg that notes the copyright was not renewed. This 1943 cartoon could also have had its copyright expire by non-renewal. @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): to check renewal database. Abzeronow (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  • The only renewal for the Washington Star was for the April 2, 1939 excerpt from the book "Tarzan". There are no renewals by James T. Berryman (or anyone with the family name "Berryman") for any works. --RAN (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. I changed the license to "PD-US-no renewal". --Yann (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Bariloche Coats of Arms.svg

This image represented the Municipal Coat of Arms of Bariloche which is free domain under Argentine law (law Nº 22.362, article 3, section f) linked here (Spanish) Gspahr (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gspahr: Are you saying that, since municipal symbols can not be registered as a trademark, they are public domain? What do you think of {{Argentina-Gov-Symbol}}? Thuresson (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I'm saying government symbols are in the public domain for educational purposes. That certainly seems to be the case applied in File:Flag of South Sudan.svg (which cites an almost identical South Sudanese law). If we really don't want to stray away geographically the province where Bariloche is located has its own coat of arms on Wikimedia and it dates to 2009. File:Escudo_de_la_Provincia_del_Río_Negro.svg.
I do not agree with the warning sign as presented in Argentina-Gov-Symbol, as it seems to go against the national law cited above. Gspahr (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose The law cited above covers trademarks, not copyrights. While it seems to be true that national and local symbols cannot be registered as trademarks, that has nothing to do with their copyright status and does not affect whether or not a work can be kept here.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Swami Vivekananda 9 December 1900.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Swami Vivekananda 9 December 1900.jpg

Time for another deletion review. A 1901 photograph would have entered the public domain in India in 1952. We do have some examples of publication in the 1990s as cited in the DR. Since photographs in India were formally protected for 50 years from creation, should we consider the 1901 date to be when it was lawfully released under Berne or do we have a case where under US law, this photograph is under copyright until 2047 per COM:Hirtle? Abzeronow (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support Photographs were under copyright for fifty years after creation until the law changed in 1958. Since the subject died in 1902, this image went out of copyright in or before 1952, long before the URAA date. Use {{PD-India-photo-1958}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Bmajor2022.jpg

The photo is of South African Record Producer B Major who is at a photoshoot in this photo, the Musician has made this photo public on his Verified Facebook page https://facebook.com/bmajor99 (@Bmajor99) and his Instagram https://instagram.com/bmajor99

I linked the verified Facebook page in the original file I uploaded "File:Bmajor2022.jpg" to wikicommons It is a promotional picture. Not album art, or anything with actually license involved. --Defunkedmaster (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Everything is under a copyright by default nowadays. A formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder (usually the photographer) is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:HodHod6 HodHod6.jpg

لم أجد شيء يخالف القوانين بشكل صريح (إذا وجد شيء مخالف للقوانين يرجى تحديده بدقة كي لا أقع في حيرة ) --حسنين طالب جواد (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC) 2023/2/19 1:30p.m

  •  Oppose Everything is under a copyright by default nowadays. A formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder (usually the photographer) is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Source page has explicit copyright notice, Needs VRT per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Bridge SMS1 1A (27985100705).jpg

Trying to import from Flickr and it tells me it was previously deleted following a request from the uploader. I don't know who that was, but this could be useful for Wikidata - its a better image for Streatham Morden and Sutton Line, Wimbledon to Sutton (Q114060068) than we have currently. (it looks like someone uploaded a few of my photos from Flickr in 2016 and then requested them to be deleted.) It's not complex enough to be a copyvio afaik. Secretlondon (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The file name was File:Bridge SMS1 1A (27985100705).jpg, I've restored it. --Rosenzweig τ 22:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Secretlondon, I was the uploader - Presumerably this was a mass Flickr upload and I'm guessing I had no idea what this was, Many thanks for requesting undeletion, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: see above. --Rosenzweig τ 22:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Logo VVF 2022.png

Bonjour, Ce logo est le logo actuel de l’entreprise. Les crédits indiqués sont ceux de la graphiste responsable du logo. Le logo peut être retrouvé sur le site internet de la marque. // Hi, This logo is the current company logo. The credits indicated are those of the graphic designer responsible for the logo. The logo can be found on the brand's website.

 Not done: Not currently deleted, but a permission from the copyright holder is needed. --Yann (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:20180220 Landskrona Image By Me Elvira Lundh 0017 (25550173907).jpg

Hi, These should not have been deleted. These are high resolution and quality, the persons seem to be notable, and the background can easily be cropped or blurred. And also the following:

@EugeneZelenko, Matlin, and Krd: as people involved in the DRs. Yann (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I am leaning towards undeleting and cropping all of these except for File:20180220 Frofabriken Landskrona 0086 (40377811502).jpg. It is not clear to me how that man is notable. However, there are conflicting licenses in Real Estate Oresund images: The description at Flickr grants a CC-by-3.0 licence, but of course the built-in Flickr licence tag is only version 2.0. So, I seem to remember that we go with the custom licensing from the description in such cases?! De728631 (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I would consider both licenses as valid. Ankry (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
De728631, this has been sitting here for two weeks. Please either make it happen as you suggest above, or close it has "Not Done". Thanks, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done with the understanding that any admin can make this happen at any time without needing to reapply here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Paul Hermann Fritz Hennig beim Fotografen.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paul Hermann Fritz Hennig beim Fotografen.jpg

A 1902 photograph is old enough for PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I have temporarily undeleted the file for the discussion. I don't think the 1902 date is correct. The photo is said to show de:Paul Hennig, who would have been ca. 28 years old then, but the man we see in the photo looks quite a few years older than that. The old de.wp article version [28] says the image is from 1900, while the Commons file description page gives a suspiciously specific date of 1902-02-13. Considering the file upload date of 2019-02-13, the year seems to have been randomly inserted. File:Paul Hermann Fritz Hennig beim 1. Mai Fest.jpg, uploaded on the same day by the same uploader, is said to have been taken on a May 1 celebration, but was given a date of 1905-02-13. So I don't trust the accuracy of dates given by this uploader, they seem to be randomly made up. Given the total lack of any sources or evidence, we cannot tell if it was published, and if so when and where, who might have been the photographer, if that person was named or not etc. Reverse image search finds nothing, I also did not have any success searching with the name Paul Hennig. Assuming that the image does show Paul Hennig, the only thing we can be somewhat sure of is that it was taken no later than 1930 (the year he died at the age of 55). That would mean undeletion with PD-old-assumed in 2051. --Rosenzweig τ 07:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the 1902 date is wrong. If we could get some evidence of anonymous publication before 1928, it would be OK. Yann (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I also agree that the 1902 date is wrong. Even before I saw the metadata which gives a title of "1928, Paul Hennig, Verbandsvorsteher", I was thinking that showed a man in his 50s. 1928 means that this would still need at least a year, and possibly as long as 2049. I find 1928 to be much more believable than 1902. Abzeronow (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Born July 16 1874, so he would have been 54 in 1928. Problem is, in the photo he might be 40 or 65, possibly older. So, as Yann says, we need evidence of publication before 1928 to get from under URAA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 08:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Ausschnitt Flötzkarte Antonienhütte.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ausschnitt Flötzkarte Antonienhütte.jpg

A 1902 German map would be old enough for PD-old-assumed Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the file for discussion. Some cartographers are named (Zigelsky, Berger, Grüttner), but finding out when they died will probably be not easy or not possible. --Rosenzweig τ 22:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Found a source that says 1903 https://www.sbc.org.pl/dlibra/publication/78887/edition/74439/content This is apparently a map of an area that is now part of Poland. Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this is a map of coal mines in Silesia. The map itself says updated ("nachgetragen") in 1902 though (bottom left). --Rosenzweig τ 16:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 Support OK for PD-old-assumed. Yann (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: done by Rosenzweig. --Ellywa (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Familie Ten Boom.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Familie Ten Boom.gif

Photograph from the Netherlands created around 1902 that might have an author credit but it's illegible to us. It is sufficiently old enough to qualify for PD-old-assumed Abzeronow (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: indeed now in PD. --Ellywa (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Lucie Svobodova portrét.jpg

Author's consent delivered to the VRT system: ticket number 2023022010011117 --Gampe (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as requested. --Ellywa (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Krell Frank5.jpg

The file Krell-Frank5 was deleted early in February. Our institution, the Denver Museum of Nature & Science which holds copyright, represented by our Archivist, Laura Uglean-Jackson, had completed the permission form on 8 Feb. and on 13 Feb. responded to an email asking how DMNS became the copyright holder. The ticket number was ticket:2023020810012729. So you should have received all necessary permissions and information to re-instate this photo. Please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftkrell (talk • contribs) 02:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Undeleted and {{PP}} added. Uploader notified of still missing license. --Achim55 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: VRTS ticket checked. Ruthven (msg) 08:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Robotika-azala.jpg

The file Robotika-azala.jpg was deleted early in February. The image was the cover of a book published by Udako Eukal Unibertsitatea. On 2023/02/08, as director of Udako Euskal Unibertsitatea (UEU, Basque Summer University), I sent an email providing the CC-BY-SA licence to permissions-es@wikimedia.org. The ticket number was [Ticket#2023020810014138]. So you should have received all necessary permissions and information to re-instate this photo. Please do so. Ksarasola (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The image will be restored when the VRT ticket is read and approved. VRT always has a backlog, so it may be several weeks before that happens. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Университет управления тисби вход со стороны муштари.jpg

--AstrinNaxito (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)I hereby affirm that I represent Alexander Alexandrov, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work: File:Университет управления тисби вход со стороны муштари.jpg This photo was created by a photographer of the University of Management "TISBI" I created a Wikipedia page about the University of Management "TISBI" and added this photo File:Университет управления тисби вход со стороны муштари.jpg This photo File:Университет управления тисби вход со стороны муштари.jpg is used as a way to show the reader one of the main entrances to the University building.

 Oppose The source page has an explicit copyright notice, "2019 © Все права защищены." The copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Twist Cano Azala Susa.jpg

The file Twist Cano Azala Susa.jpg was deleted early in February. The image is the cover of a book published under CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence. I uploaded the image File:Twist_-_Harkaitz_Cano_novel.jpeg that shows that in the book. So it should be the necessary permission and information to re-instate this photo. Please do so. Thanks Ksarasola (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support Apologies -- I missed this on the last request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Anna Fuehring.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Anna Fuehring.jpg

Created in 1891. Old enough to be considered PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a low-quality crop of File:Anna Fuehring als Germania, 1891.jpg, so I don't think we need to undelete it. I can temporarily restore the file if anyone wants to see it. --Rosenzweig τ 17:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, I withdraw my request since we have a better one that exists already. Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Foshan Metro

--Jacky Cheung (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Wcam and Fitindia: as people involved in the DR. Yann (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as China's TOO is very low (c.f. the Gang Heng logo and LY logo examples which are even more simple than any of the logos mentioned above yet still are protected). China's TOO criteria is never about whether something can be made casually or not. There is no new information since the previous DR to change what we already know about China's TOO. --Wcam (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
File:FMetro logo icon.svg is indeed very simple just like a boomerang or deformations of the letter V. The example of the KON logo is more appropriate than the Gang Heng logo or LY logo to be referred to in this case. The participation in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Foshan Metro is extremely low, and the discussion should be reopened and refer to the discussion with high participation such as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of rail transport companies of China, Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-07#Guangzhou Metro logos.--Jacky Cheung (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
FMetro, Anta and LiNing logos contain more irregular curves that KON, LY, or Gang Heng logos do not have. Also, given the examples of LY and Gang Heng, there is no guarantee that a court in China would rule logos similar to FMetro to not be protected by copyright. Per COM:PRP they should not be kept here on Commons. Wcam (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The SKECHERS case and the BIOU case obviously has more complexed curves than FMetro and Anta. TOO criteria is not about whether something contain more irregular curves, it should be determine something lacking originality or not. Also COM:PRP is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, there is no consensus on the so-called significant doubt of this file. Jacky Cheung (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus to restore. --Yann (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Hossein saei.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the photographer of this person and I have the necessary permissions. Even if you look I wrote the source of the file and it was uploaded by me for the first time. Tinaabdollahi (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The image source is here and was post by "Rina". We have no way of knowing whether Rina is User:Tinaabdollahi. There is no free license there. Policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I asked Ms. Reena to write down the name of the photographer, which is me Tinaabdollahi (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Again, we have no way here of knowing who you or Rina actually are, so the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:jan_jimmycarter.png

please note: this photo is in the public domain of flckr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/194776211@N03/52693742747/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penroduntethered (talk • contribs) 13:00, 21 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Probably about File:Jan Cox sits with Jimmy Carter.png. The Flickr file has the Public Domain Mark, which is not a free license. We accept it only when the Flickr user is the image creator, which is not at all clear in this case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Jim. It's not apparent that the Flickr user who has a signed photograph is also the photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


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

CISSP Domain 1 security and Rusk Management.

Best Cyber Security Management Provider - Securium Solution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Securiumsolutions1 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 21 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Probably about File:CISSP Domain 1 security and Rusk Management.jpg It was deleted because it is a pure advertisement. It is also a copyvio as there is no free license on the stated source page. And, there is no reason given why it should be restored..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Five of UP 8444 in Colorado in July 1981 (34047714006).jpg

After further research on this file, I can confirm from other uploads by this author that this photo is part of the collection of Roger Puta. He has uploaded and taken multiple railway pictures before, which now lie in the collection of Mel Finzer. Once/If undeleted, I will add proper parameters. Davidng913 (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support I am familiar with Mel Finzer's holding of Roger Puta's work, see {{Roger Puta}}. Although we normally do not accept the PDM unless it is placed on Flickr by the actual photographer, in this case we have a VRT that tells us definitively that it's OK and we have 5,297 other images that came to us this way (see Category:Photographs by Roger Puta. Great image! .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: There are plenty of Roger's work that I think could be sharing on here, mostly consisting of the Union Pacific steam locomotives. If the undeletion here is successful, and once I get the hang of marking his photos, I may upload some more. Davidng913 (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't imagine that anyone will object -- we have an informal rule that UnDRs must remain open for 24 hours, but this is a done deal. There are, as I said above, thousands of examples of how to mark his images. You could start with the other images in this set -- the photos, not the text and map. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support I am also a little familiar with Roger Puta's work. He took some great photographs of trains. Abzeronow (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:My Phylasophical Thinking.tif

Dear Sir

I need to re open this document.

Best Regards

Chandima Gunasena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandima810 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 22 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose: This raw-text document is obviously out of Commons' project scope. --Achim55 (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Achim55. --Yann (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


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

Davey Jones presenting on recent research findings

The photo has been provided by the Subject to use on the internet. The picture is not under copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afs080 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

This is probably about File:Prof Davey Jones.jpg.
There is a copyright on almost anything nowadays. We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder (usually the photographer). Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Protoplanetary-Disc-Animation.gif

on the site, we can use it, no need of copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P1a9s9c9a9l (talk • contribs) 15:47, 22 February 2023‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Nonsense request. The source you provided says "COPYRIGHT © 1998 - 2023 SCITECHDAILY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" with terms of use that include "you may not: 1. modify or copy the materials; 2. republish material from this website (including republication on another website); 3. use the materials for any commercial purpose, or for any public display (commercial or non-commercial); ...". Эlcobbola talk 15:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Elcobbola. --Yann (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Blackburn Boulevard, (Lancashire), 1902.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blackburn Boulevard, (Lancashire), 1902.jpg A photograph taken in 1902 in the UK would now be old enough for PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK now. --Yann (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Héron au Kinsendael.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2023021610013954. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg This image is mine and I made it and it is not the property of anyone else's rights

This image is made by me and is not copyrighted by anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madiha khaled (talk • contribs) 22:36, 22 February 2023‎ (UTC)

You know, we have approximately 100 million images on Commons and 25,000 Users, and yet people think they can come here and make claims like the one above without naming either the image or themselves. What are we supposed to be? Mindreaders? Fortunately we have tools which help, but not identifying yourself or the image wastes other editors' time.

 Oppose You have uploaded three deleted images:

For two of them you claimed that you were the actual photographer:
and
  • File:EmanElassi.JPG for which you named author=ُEmanElassi. The image appears to be halftone (ie -- in Print) and appears on the Web.
All three are small, which suggest that they were taken from the web.
In order to have them restored, you must either load them again at full camera resolution with full EXIF or send a free license using VRT.
And, by the way, they are all copyrighted by someone -- maybe you, maybe not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpgI think this person is genuiene and a good person

Melvin Pattern is a real award winning film director and a writer he just wants a page here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvin Pattern (talk • contribs) 23:42, 23 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Not a UDR. --Yann (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Guangfo Metro icon.svg

The previous DR keep its bitmap version.--Jacky Cheung (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done and bundled to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guangfo metro.png to guarantee a single outcome. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


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

Files by User:OtuNwachinemere

From COM:VP:

My attention was drawn by user:Didym to a series of file i uploaded as having incomplete licenses which they went on to tag for deletion. I immediately responded by adding all the missing relevant licensing information. However, i have realised the files were still deleted despite carrying the appropriate, now complete licenses. The files include 1, 2, 3, 4.

I would like to request the files be restored. Thanks Wilson (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

--El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The 4 mentioned files are already subject of thread Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:WLA_2023_Climate_vs_Weather.png,_File:IG_Wiki-Commons_Hub_Description_Translation_Project.jpg,_File:WLA_2023_PNG_Banner.png,_File:Test_-_WLA_Newsletter_page.png 2 above.--Túrelio (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: duplicate request, see above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


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

Professor Davey Jones page was marked and deleted as Speedy deletion

Deletion of Page Professor Davey Jones Hello

I am requesting reinstatement of the recently created page Professor Davey Jones, which was then speedy deleted (by Wikipedia)

"I understood that the page was deleted cited copywrite infringement. The picture was given by Davey Jones to be used freely on websites, social media etc. Please REINSTATE THE PAGE. Thank you. Afs080 (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The file was deleted on Commons so you will need to call with it there. -- Whpq (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)"

Please reinstate the above page. There is *no* copywrite infringement. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afs080 (talk • contribs) ‎11:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Not done: Repost of previously declined UDR without any new argument. --Yann (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:LoewyPR.jpg

This photo is owned by the Raymond Loewy estate and was changed by Lewis Schucart, a board member of the estate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lschuc (talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Info According to Getty this is a 1950 photo from Studio Harcourt. It may be possible that the photo is public domain and in that case it is not necessary to credit Lewis Schucart. Thuresson (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "was changed by Lewis Schucart" means -- usually mere retouching of an image does not create a new copyright and in any event the old copyright (if any) remains in effect. The Loewy estate may own copies of the photograph, but owning a paper or digital copy of a photo does not give the owner the right to freely license it. That right is almost always held by the photographer. As Thuresson suggests, the image would be PD if it had been published before 1990 without notice, but that remains to be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Not done, no further information from OP about the provenance. Thuresson (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:رضا قنبری مزرعه نو.jpg

== {{int:license-header}} == {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

Category:دین اسلام شیعه روحانی مجتهدرضا قنبری مزرعه نو (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Probable sock of Dafatermulla (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information). Yann (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope, and probable copyvio. --Yann (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:1902 Hotel Reina Cristina.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Gibraltarpedia images

A 1902 postcard from Gibraltar would be old enough for PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support The law in Spain for works from 1902 was 80 years pma (Algeciras is in Spain, across the bay from Gibraltar). Our 120 years for PD-OLD-Assumed is good for 70 years countries, but maybe not for 80. However, I would be inclined to restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, the text is probably below COM:TOO, so this is just a photo: {{PD-Spain-photo}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Spain had a 60 year from publication term for anonymous works in their 1987 law.[29]. Although, works by authors who died before that law went into effect got the older terms. The transition section near the end said that companies who owned a copyright at that time got a term of 80 years from publication. Was there any author mentioned here? Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Is there any reason why you don't think this would qualify as a simple photo? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Not really, other than not knowing of any court cases over Spain's definition of that clause since the EU directives were applied. I can't see the photo either :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Meloni Franciscus, 10.01.23.jpg

Legal notes says that "Unless otherwise stated, all content published on this Website (text, images, photographs, videos, etc.) is made available under a CC-BY 3.0 licence", and here it was not indicated otherwise unlike the galleries. --Zio27 21:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The page you reference has a "gallerie" link in the top right, and that link has a CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0-it license for those photos. It may be very reasonable to assume that is an "otherwise stated" situation, as it does show that photo came from that gallery. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 OpposeThe site is not a model of clarity, but, as Carl says, the image comes from the gallery page with a CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 IT license. I don't think the fact that it appears on another page with no copyright information can overrule that. If you click on the image in the gallery, it comes up with the NC license in the upper left corner..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Portrait equestre de Cosimo III de' Medici.png

I present the restoration of the equestrian portrait by Stefano della Bella (1610-1664). the artist having died in the 17th century, the correct license of the file should be a (pd-old-100)

 Comment the file was from a puppet of a1cb3, but I see no violations in this regard --2.36.103.26 23:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support: PD-Art images uploaded by socks should not get deleted if they would be kept if it was a different uploader. --Achim55 (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose The IP address 2.36.103.26 comes up with a Username that is very similar to the one the a1cb3 sock used to upload the image, so I suspect that the IP user is actually a1cb3. Although Achim55's argument makes sense on one level, restoring images uploaded by a sock at the request of another sock of the same puppet master basically allows the blocked sock to continue to edit on Commons, circumventing the block. Preventing that is more important than having one more image of the subject -- we already have dozens, see Category:Cosimo III, Grand Duke of Tuscany. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Guangfo Metro logo.svg

The previous DR keep its bitmap version.--Jacky Cheung (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Bundled to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guangfo metro.png as well. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:1966-06 1966年刘少奇访问缅甸 奈温.jpg

The image was deleted for the URAA. However, a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. The photograph has entered PD in China so this photograph should not have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 源義信 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose You misunderstand the policy. While a "mere allegation" is not sufficient, if one is careful to be sure that all of the requirements of the URAA are met, then we must delete the image because of its USA copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I saw on the Copyright rules by territory/Japan page that images that are protected in the US while in the public domain in Japan are acceptable. The note said: "the current policy on Commons is to accept it. This policy may change in the future, depending on the outcome of community discussions. Also, it may be deleted if Commons receive a valid takedown notice". I don't know where to read the policy but I think that if such situation in Japan is acceptable, then the image which was taken in China are equally acceptable. If there is an error in the rule of Japanese copyright, someone should correct it. --源義信 (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
That note apparently dates from before the US Supreme Court decision which validated the URAA. It has been obsolete for ten years. Thank you for catching it. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus to undelete. --Yann (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:1962-07 1962年4月30日 摩洛哥首任驻华大使阿卜杜勒·拉赫曼·兹尼贝尔向刘少奇递交国书.jpg

The image was deleted for the URAA. However, a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. The photograph has entered PD in China so this photograph should not have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 源義信 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose You misunderstand the policy. While a "mere allegation" is not sufficient, if one is careful to be sure that all of the requirements of the URAA are met, then we must delete the image because of its USA copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I saw on the Copyright rules by territory/Japan page that images that are protected in the US while in the public domain in Japan are acceptable. The note said: "the current policy on Commons is to accept it. This policy may change in the future, depending on the outcome of community discussions. Also, it may be deleted if Commons receive a valid takedown notice". I don't know where to read the policy but I think that if such situation in Japan is acceptable, then the image which was taken in China are equally acceptable. If there is an error in the rule of Japanese copyright, someone should correct it. --源義信 (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
That note apparently dates from before the US Supreme Court decision which validated the URAA. It has been obsolete for ten years. Thank you for catching it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus to undelete. --Yann (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Grimms Fairy Tales - Snow White - Anne Anderson.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

The author died in 1952 so it's now public domain in the UK. Snow White is from 1923 https://www.surlalunefairytales.com/oldsite/illustrations/sevendwarfs/andersondwarf.html

Gerda and the Ravens is from 1923: https://www.surlalunefairytales.com/oldsite/illustrations/sixswans/anderson7ravens.html

I cannot find a date yet for The Swineherd Abzeronow (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Support. The Swineherd is from Hans Christian Andersen’s Fairy Tales, Collins, London, 1924 per [30]. --Rosenzweig τ 18:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Rosenzweig. --Yann (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Indian Army WWII.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Indian Army WWII.jpg This photograph is definitely public domain in India as it was created before 1958. Abzeronow (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

    • Indeed, the deletion rationale was wrong (though it was in 2008). Created before 1941 would be the date to avoid URAA restoration, though. If it's a government image, then maybe less sure on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: It should be OK as before 1946. --Yann (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:ScarletSamasFamily Logo.png

I'm the owner of the image and I uploaded it here. I uploaded it a while ago when I was less knowledgable about this site so it's fully possible that I made some mistake in the copyright templates or something like that, but yes, I'm okay with this file being on here under whichever CC licensed I put it under (I can't recall) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaFallon (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose I could find only one hit for Scarlet Samas Family on Google. I doubt that it is sufficiently notable to be allowed here. There is also our policy to require confirmation of the license for logos, but even with that I would not restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ahmed Ezz.jpg

Copyright MBC 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CathyArcher (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 February 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose I find the image at IMDB but nowhere on the web with a free license. The file description doesn't tell us explicitly where it came from. There is no license. In order for it to be restored here, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:A golden skin lady wearing ornamental heads and golden ornaments on her body standing in a lake.jpg

Image deleted despite being INUSE on Hungarian Wikipedia --Trade (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Correct, because this was a copyright issue not a scope issue. The character has a copyright independent of this particular rendering, and this is thus derivative. If I were to draw a picture of Mario, it would be acceptable merely because I personally drew it, or indeed if it were in use on a sister project? Эlcobbola talk 22:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • You need to identify some copied expression. I know nothing about the character, and if they have different appearances in whatever show it comes from... but based on the two images above, I don't really see anything copied at all. I would expect to see some of the same ornaments, or at least *some* small details copied between the two (it's the smaller details which usually create character copyrights). The basic idea in the title of the image is just that, an idea, with many possible expressions -- they would not be derivative of each other. I could well be missing something important here. It may have been inspired by a TV show, but if that's all it was -- they took some basic ideas, but did not copy expression -- then it should be OK. There are some new lawsuits about AI-generated stuff in the first place, whether the engines were trained with copyrighted images and if the result could be considered derivative, or is it just de minimis, or is it fair use. It's hard to predict how those cases will turn out, and I'm sure there will be some years of them, so that could cloud some of the status of AI-generated images, possibly depending on engine. But what I see in Yann's two links does not look derivative of each other, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Whether something is a COM:DW or not is highly subjective, so I'm focusing on whether the close correctly summarized the arguments rather than rearguing the decision from first principles. There are 5 !votes to delete and 4 !votes to keep. Two of the keep !votes solely said "in use" (which did not address the reason for deletion), while one delete !vote said that it was out of scope despite being in use (completely wrong); these arguments should be given little weight. Overall, I think more of the DR participants felt that it was a DW.
As a side note, however, I don't think "either it's close enough to be DW, or it's far enough to be out of scope" is a good argument. The adaptation may have taken only the ideas and not the expression, as in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-10#Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Origin of Races, map 13 (IA B-001-001-289).jpg, making it an adequate substitute of the original work without being DW. Or, as in this case, the image could be used to illustrate something unrelated to the original work (more specifically, it was in use on the Hungarian DALL-E article), making it useful regardless of whether it is an adequate substitute of the original work.
That said, there is a reason I said "endorse" and not "oppose". This is not English Wikipedia DRV, so consensus on the merits is allowed to change at UDR and end up reversing a close that was done correctly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl and KoH. --Yann (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Surya Narte.jpg

File:Surya Narte.jpg --Surya Narte (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose No reason provided for undeletion. Personal image by non contributor, out of scope. See COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


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

Works by Hans-Peter Klie

File:10 philo so und so phie Plakat 2005 klein.jpg

The pictures show the poster for an exhibition of the artist Hans-Peter Klie - i can not see a reason why it can not be shown on his wikipedia entry? Furthermore Hans-Peter Klie designed the poster, so he is the copyright owner. Obviously he agreed to the publication and wants his work to be shown in wikipedia. Can you please put the pictures back into Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blau-7 (talk • contribs)

File:03 Rom - Philosophie der Straße, Digitalprint 2018 ©Hans-Peter Klie.jpg

And also:

The pictures shows artworks of the artist Hans-Peter Klie. Of course he agreed to the publication and wants his work to be shown in wikipedia. Can you please put the pictures back into Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blau-7 (talk • contribs)

Discussion

  •  Oppose In such cases we need a permission by email coming directly from the original artist. Please ask Mr. Klie to send a mail as explained in COM:VRT. Please note also that a permission like "for use in Wikipedia" is not sufficient. All uploads at Commons need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose including commercial activities outside of Wikimedia projects. De728631 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per De728631. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

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

File:GAMA vlag.jpg

The file was deleted by User:Túrelio for alleged copyright violation. The AMU website explicitly states in the footer that "the usage of AMU flag, logo and maps is authorized for all Wikimedia projects with attribution to the AMU". Escargoten (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not really a free license as we define it. We host media that can be used by anyone, for any purpose, including modifications and commercial use, not just by Wikimedia projects. It should be no problem to upload the file to English language Wikipedia with a non-free use rationale, though. --rimshottalk 22:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@Escargoten, "permitted to use on just Wikimedia projects" is not a acceptable release for a file to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The quoted statement is not a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Cloudbusting.png

Image was deleted for being out of scope despite being INUSE when it was deleted. --Trade (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 Question Where exactly was this being used at the time of the DR? The DR mentions Wikiversity but I can't seem to find the article over there where this file was or is being used. De728631 (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
@De728631, the file is likely File:Cloudbusting a UFO.png and it is just used on a draft Draft:Free Energy does not Exist. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose The file has been uploaded to Wikiversity, which is where it belongs. We should not host ridiculous pseudo-science here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nominationApologies. I was unaware the page it was used on was a draft. --Trade (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Basale Regler illustration.jpg

Why did you delete my image? It is my own, I made it, and the website it is "dublicated" from is also mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbitten (talk • contribs)

Hello Hobbitten, the file was deleted due to permission issues. Please contact VRT and send a release. The convenient way to send a release is COM:RELGEN ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per The Aafi. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Some buses photos

File:V6X66 KMB 279X 15-04-2022.jpg File:V6X61 KMB 279X 11-07-2021.jpg File:V6X93 KMB 279X 19-02-2022.jpg

https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:V6X66_KMB_279X_15-04-2022.JPG https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:V6X61_KMB_279X_11-07-2021.JPG https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:V6X93_KMB_279X_19-02-2022.JPG

I uploaded these photos in hkbus fandom first,then upload to here.

I am use same photo license,but I don't know why without license of this photo here. LN9267 (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @LN9267, please sent a permissions-release to VRT using COM:RELGEN. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 Support The images have a CC-BY-SA license at Fandom, no VRT is necessary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts, thanks for looking up for that. I wasn't able to look that up on the fandom links perhaps due to my browser extensions. If that's the case and the files are under a compatible license, I also  Support restoration of these files. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-02&oldid=736634475"