Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2023-04

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

File:En rad från 1950 talet.jpg

Jag önskar att ni genast återställa bilden som är min egen fotograferad av mig och jag borde därmed äga alla rättigheter till mitt publicerade material och avbildning av mina ägodelar som i det här fallet är mina egna radioapparater. Hur kommer det sig att någon överhuvudtaget kan begära att dom skall tas bort? Vänligen Rolf Bergendorff Svensk medborgare och ägare till allt material som jag tagit bilder på. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiodoktor (talk • contribs) 06:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Ping @Fitindia: . Thuresson (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Radiodoktor: Vänligen läsa Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/sv. Du kan publicera bilden med en fri licens på din webbsida eller sköta ärendet via e-post. --Geohakkeri (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per Geohakkeri. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

File:180825 Ailee performing at 2018 K POP Mega Concert-1.jpg

Reason for deletion was stated as: "Copyright violation, no indication of a free license on the source site (F1)".

The source site is [1] and the license CC-BY 4.0 is noted below the images on the right. It is just a small icon, but it is there. XxakixX (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 Comment The icon is there, yes. What kind of site is this? Are the photos original to them, are they authorized to put them under a free license? It's in Korean, which I don't understand, so I'm a bit hampered trying to answer these questions. --Rosenzweig τ 10:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a blog on Tistory. I think the images are original to them, many Korean photographers publish their images on Tistory. XxakixX (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

We currently have 28539 images from Korean photographers which are sourced from blogs on Tistory. See also Category:Images from Tistory for a list of some photographers. XxakixX (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose It looks like a fan site. An INSPECT on the images leads to an off site source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Tistory is owned by Kakao which used to be called Daum. daumcdn.net is their Content delivery network. XxakixX (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please also see User:-revi/Tistory for more information on Tistory. XxakixX (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the image is hosted on Tistory tells us nothing about whether the blogger actually owns the right to freely license the image. As I said above, it looks like a fan site. Such sites typically lift images from elsewhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you find that image (or any of the other images, some of which are also on Commons and were even license-reviewed) anywhere else? There are images and videos from that concert but they are all from a different perspective (i.e. head on and not from the side of the stage, like here). The images of the other posts are all the same quality and have the same shot composition. That does not look like they just grabbed images from somewhere else. XxakixX (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: This doesn't warrant a speedy deletion. Please create a regular DR if needed. --Yann (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Sasi artean, Elgeta Intxaurrondoko alea.jpeg

This image is a work derived from another CC-BY-SA image. This image consists of two parts, one part of the cover of a comic book and the other part is a picture the author made me as a gift in the public library of Intxaurrondo. The image on the cover of the comic is free (see File:ELGETA-azal.jpg) the other part is mine. Therefore, I think the full picture can be licensed CC-BY-SA. Thanks. Ksarasola (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

̺Irudi hau CC-BY-SA lizentzia duen beste irudi libre baten lan deribatua da. Irudiak bi zati dauzka, Batetik komiki liburu baten azalaren zati bat eta bestetik egileak egin zidan dedikatoria bat opari gisa Intxaurrondoko liburutegian. Komikiaren azalaren irudia libre da (ikus https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ELGETAazal.jpg)), beste zatia nirea da. Beraz, irudi osoak hartzen du CC-BY-SA lizentzia.Ksarasola (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 Info File:ELGETAazal.jpg is currently processed by VRT since February 1, 2023. Please contact the artist and ask her or him to submit license information through Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The author (Dani Fano) sent a second message (better version than the one he submitted previously in Janaury 31) to "permissions-es@wikimedia.org". @Thuresson Thanks. Ksarasola (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The image of the comic book cover may or may not be free. The image on the right side of the deleted page is a drawing of an unidentified person. Neither is {{Own}} as claimed. Even if we get a license for the comic book cover, we would need a free license from the artist who drew the second image. Also, it is not clear that the combination of the two has any educational purpose. Please note that claiming you are the author of any image when in fact you were not is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

ARIOVALDO VULCANO

Sua dedicação à Medicina e à Maçonaria o tornaram celebridade reconhecida nacionalmente e internacionalmente. Esse tributo de eternizá-lo na Wikipedia é mínimo diante de sua importância e notoriedade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario Monteiro Chaves (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 March 2023‎ (UTC)

Procedural close. About pt:ARIOVALDO VULCANO which has been nominated for speedy deletion. Thuresson (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Vítězslav Welsch foto.jpg

Valid release came as ticket:2023033010007791. Can you please undelete the file? I'll add the ticket etc. afterwards (please ping me when undeletion happens). Thanks! --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Martin Urbanec: as requested. --Rosenzweig τ 08:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Border Bosnia Croatia, Grude BIH.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Border Bosnia Croatia, Grude BIH.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: You're wrong. I took the picture myself on my trip to Bosnia. My file is the original. I own it personally. What you find on line are websites who used my own file. Therefore it should be reinstalled straightaway. Stefano Vigorelli (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Support HR with EXIF data. The image on Tripadvisor is most probably a copy from Commons. Yann (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done Same camera in EXIF as user's other uploads. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Seyyed-Sajjad-Mousavi.jpg

My photo was deleted by mistake, please check — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisseyyed1 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 31 March 2023‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose We do not keep personal photos from non-contributors. Commons is not Facebook. Also, this does not appear to be a selfie. If that is correct, then your claim to being the actual photographer is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being banned from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:H.R.H. The Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught in Robes of a Peer.jpg

I resubmit the following request, since I had made a small compilation error concerning the file :).

the following photograph was taken on June 22, 1911 the author would appear to be unknown, is the PD-100 license ok for an unknown author or should it decrease to 80-90 after the artist's death?--46.249.58.134 11:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Uploaded by an LTA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Rotavirus virion.jpg

• and File:Rotavirus genome.jpg

Hello,

It looks like several images had been deleted that I had uploaded from ViralZone. For example:

Rotavirus genome.jpg

Rotavirus virion.jpg

Please note that although there may be a copyright note inside the image, the Viral Zone home page

https://viralzone.expasy.org/

tells on bottom right that all material is licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License."

There has already been a discussion about this contradiction.:

User talk:Ernsts#Notification about possible deletion

The matter has been clarified with Philippe Le Mercier <Philippe.Lemercier(at)sib.swiss> early 2021.

An email correspondence by wikimedia commons admin (User:Invasive Spices) with Philippe and has been documented. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2021020910004221 For details see File:Virus size.png#Summary.

For this reason I kindly ask you to restore the images.

Please let me know if there might be any further questions.

Kind regards. --19:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Ernsts (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• It looks like the person who nominated this for deletion reverted themself within a minute. Not currently nominated for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'm afraid the issue appears not yet been solved. Please refer to

User talk:Ernsts#File:Rotavirus genome.jpg

User talk:Ernsts#File:Rotavirus virion.jpg

Links to the images are still red:

Kind regards, --Ernsts (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ernsts: Hello, It's ok to ask here for advice about what can be done, but please note that the best place to request undeletion of files and have someone actually act on the matter is the page Commons:Undeletion requests. I suggest that you copy your request over there. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks in advance! Kind regards --Ernsts (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If the images are covered by ticket:2021020910004221, an action by VRT permission volunteer is needed. ViralZone pages contain contradicting information, see [2] and [3] and unless this is resolved in public, we cannot go on without a VRT action.  Oppose at this point. Ankry (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Helmut Tribus als Student.jpg

Liebes Team,

ich möchte hiermit um Entlöschung und Wiedereinstellung des oben bezeichneten Fotos in Wikimedia Commons unter freier Lizenz bitten. Die fotografierte Person, Helmut Tribus, war eine Person des öffentlichen Lebens. Er hat mir das Foto aus seiner Studentenzeit vor seinem Tode geschenkt. Beste Grüße! --Goldhähnchen (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose see Helmut Tribus. This image was taken in the late 1940s. It is highly unlikely that it is own work as claimed in the file description. While it is certainly possible that the subject gave a copy of the image to the uploader as claimed above, the subject does not have the right to freely license it and, in any event, an oral license has no effect. The image cannot have been free in Europe before 2010 and therefore will be under copyright in the USA until around 2050.

Note also that making false claims of authorship as in this file description is a serious violation of Commons rules and may result in being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Kuldeep kurmi.jpg

https://instagram.com/kuldeepp_kurmi?igshid=ZDdkNTZiNTM= --Deepakk patel (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons is not Facebook, and we're not here to host files to boost someone's visibility. Abzeronow (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Obviously bot, as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Peter Obi presidential campaign 2023.jpg

It is incorrect to state that there is a copyright violation on the file (picture) File:Peter Obi presidential campaign 2023.jpg. It is also incorrect to state that the picture was taken in March. The picture depicts Peter Obi who ran for the office of the President of Nigeria in the recently held elections. The picture was taken as part of a photoshoot for the campaign and has been widely circulated by the Labour Party of Nigeria for use publicly. There is no copyright violation here, it has been noted accordingly on Flickr. Kindly undelete and restore. --Wordboss58 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wordboss58: So how did it came about you own the copyright of this photo? Thuresson (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Clearly copyrighted. Appearance on Flikr with a PDM is not acceptable here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Fariba Hachtroudi.jpg

I own the copyrights on this picture. I am the photographer. I don't understand why It's deleted this way. It's my first action on Wiki Commons, isn't very pleasant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philodendron38 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 1 April 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose WHy so small? Why no EXIF data? If you are the photographer, please upload the original image with full EXIF data. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done Moot - already reuploaded as File:Portrait Fariba Hachtroudi.jpg in high resolution. While EXIF is missing, I think we can COM:AGF on the claim since I cannot find any full-res versions of the photo online. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Fariba Hachtroudi.jpg

This a picture I took, a portrait of the writer Fariba Hachtroudi. I don't understand why it's erased. Copyright is mine. --Philodendron38 (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC) Laurent PETERS April 3rd 2023--Philodendron38 (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Duplicate of above. --Yann (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Tomoko Fujiwara 1965-.jpg

This picture (Tomoko_Fujiwara_1965-.jpg) is a public domain license free picture for the Japanese government’s publicity. Therefore, this picture can be used anywhere without permission. この写真は画像説明に「厚生労働省公開画像（2020年）」とあったもの。行政の人事広報資料として公開された顔写真は原則として自由に転載できるものであるから削除は間違いと思う。 This photo is a "Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare public image (2020)." In principle, mugshots published as administrative personnel publicity materials can be freely reproduced. I think the deletion is a mistake.

(cf. Apologies, I do not know how to read Japanese. I deleted because the file had no license, and had been tagged on it's image page as missing a license since January. If you think my action was mistaken, please either list at Commons:Undeletion requests, or perhaps contact one of the Commons:Administrators who knows Japanese (list with languages is at that page). Hope this helps. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Please re-consider the deletion of the image "Tomoko_Fujiwara_1965-.jpg"--IyataYada (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose As IyataYada certainly knows, this is not a mug shot but an extreme crop from a group photo at https://www.mhlw.go.jp/kouseiroudoushou/saiyou/tokusetsu/special/omoi/. That page has "Copyright © Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, All Rights reserved." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

:Where did you find the phrase "Copyright © Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, All Rights reserved."?

Down the page you'll find "her individual photo" trimmed from a group photo that you mentioned.

Please read the Japanese text. IyataYada (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Just like US government (17 U.S.C. Sec. 105 http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title17-section105&num=0&edition=prelim), Japanese government's publications are public domain (See ex. https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/terms.html ）. IyataYada (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Support Well, this is not public domain, but it is equivalent to a CC-BY license: The contents may be freely used by anyone in accordance with 1 to 6 below, including duplication, public transmission, translation, modification, etc. Commercial use is also possible. The sections 1 to 6 below require attribution. So the copyright mention is not contradictory with this license. Yann (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be true if it were a simple copyright notice, but the "All Rights Reserved" in the notice at the bottom of the page trumps anything else. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, or this would be meaningless. But the mention I cited above is for "the contents of the website" (of the Prime Minister), not all content created by the Japanese government. And the Terms of Use of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare website specifically cites the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. Yann (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Also at the bottom, there's a Copyright explanation, please click on 「利用規約・リンク・著作権等」(https://www.mhlw.go.jp/chosakuken/), you'll find the same contents of Free Use as in the Prime Minister's office. IyataYada (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: "All Rights Reserved" trumps nothing; it's the equivalent of a copyright notice for the Buenos Aires Convention, and that's all. They can reserve the rights, then license them, just like a copyright notice does. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Yes, but they defines the meaning of the copyrights as, in Japanese, 「本利用ルールは、クリエイティブ・コモンズ・ライセンスの表示4.0国際（https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.ja　別ウィンドウで開く）に規定される著作権利用許諾条件。以下「CC BY」といいます。）と互換性があり、本利用ルールが適用されるコンテンツはCC BYに従うことでも利用することができます。」, i.e., "CC-BY 4.0." From: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/chosakuken/ (Section 7-ウ). Try to read the Japanese text, with tr-tools, if you need, please. Thanks!--IyataYada (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support - per {{GJSTU-2.0}} Syunsyunminmin (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support per IyataYada and Yann. The terms of use of the ministry's website ({{GJSTU-2.0}}) is compatible with CC-BY 4.0. And we have already a bunch of files derived from the website, such as File:Hiroko Otsubo 2015 1.jpg and File:Mitsuru Sakurai and Yasuhiro Tsuji 20121003.jpg and File:Katsuhiro Yamada and Tetsuya Komuro 20160428.jpg, all of them license reviewed by trusted users. Yasu (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Nguyen_Ngoc_Bich_1933_Ecole_Polytechnique_(X31).png

I request the undeletion of this 1933 image, which is in the public domain in France and in the US with the following licenses. Thank you. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC) {{PD-France}} {{PD-1996}} Egm4313.s12 (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No file by that name. Yann (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

---

{{Not done}}: The uploader has several deleted files with similar names, but none of them are PD -- any French origin file from after 1926 became PD in France after the URAA date even if the photographer died the day the photograph was made. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The cutoff date for France is 1936, not 1926. Yann (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yann, I guess I'm confused. France was 50 years pma until 1995, then 70. So, if the 70 was retroactive, then a 1927 work would be under copyright in 1996. If it wasn't retroactive, then it's not 1936, a French work would have have an author who died post 1946 to be under the URAA. What am I missing? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't retroactive, and it was 50 + 7 years for war extension. Yann (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

reopenning as discussion continues. Ankry (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: France was 50pma, plus their wartime extensions, until 1997 (after the URAA date). Works may not have expired on Jan 1 1996 itself, due to the upcoming law change and the transitional note in the 1997 law, but they definitely were still expiring on Jan 1 1995, and those remained PD on the URAA date. So the usual line for French works is 1936 or 1937, given the 8.3-year wartime extension. (It's situations like that is why we don't mass delete everything with a URAA tag, because many made the same 70-year assumption when adding those tags). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Yann,Carl. OK -- this one is moot, because there is no file of that name, but we must still take the position that the only way a 1933 French work is PD is if it can be proven that the photographer died within three years. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Or it was anonymous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Probably reuploaded as File:Nguyen Ngoc Bich 1931 Ecole Polytechnique 2.png. --Yann (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Li Fu Lee, Kuan Tung, and their family in China.jpg

The URAA cannot be the sole reason for deletion per this link. I also added the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} when I uploaded the photo. This is my first Not-PD-US-URAA upload and it got deleted. -.- FunnyMath (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, I didn't say that the photo was taken in 1949, but that it was the latest it could have possibly been taken. It could have been taken in 1945 or before, which would satisfy the URAA requirements. So the proposition that the photo violates the URAA is a mere allegation and thus the photo can be restored per Commons:Licensing#Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act which says "A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion." Li Fu Lee and her husband Kuan Tung returned to China after her graduation from MIT in 1929. So there exists a 16-year window (1929-1945) in which the photo could have been taken such that it complies with the URAA versus the 3-year window (1946-1949) for the contrary. If there was a reliable source saying that Lee and Kuan returned to China in 1946 or later, then it would no longer be a mere allegation. FunnyMath (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support Li Fu Lee was born in 1904 and married in 1925. In order for this image to be subject to the URAA, it would have to be 1946 or later. The eldest of the children in this image appears to be around 12. For this to be a 1946 image, the eldest child would have to be born in 1934, which is later than one would expect, even if they deliberately did not have children until she graduated from MIT in 1929. Also, the youngest child looks to be around 3. If this is a 1946 image, that child would have been born in 1943, when she was 39. That would be a late birth in those times. I think we can safely assume that the image is pre-1946. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't see the image, but if it was most likely from before 1946, then we should should probably keep it. Anything else sounds more like a theoretical doubt to me. China did retroactively restore photographs to 50 years from publication (or creation if not published) in 1991, so that was the term on the URAA date. They non-rectroactively extended the term of photographs to 50pma as of June 2021, but that doesn't change anything for this, seems like. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Carl, It's the family image here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. I'd have to  Support, following your reasoning there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support per Jim and Carl. This looks like it was from before 1946 to me. Abzeronow (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Jim, I'm glad to see you vote for keep/restore for once. I'll definitely make sure that my uploads comply with the URAA from now on. FunnyMath (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Judge Robert A. Kirsch.jpg

Copyright holder is providing written permission to execute the cc-by-sa 4.0 license via email to permissions-wikimedia commons.

--Epercarpio (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Edward Percarpio, 4/3/23

 Oppose This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: Undeleted by KoH. --Yann (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Seb Morgan.jpg

Portrayed person argues in Ticket:2023040310008258 that it is an auto portrait, taken with a tripod. If this seems plausible, can the image be restore? Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ana Torin, 2023 (Toma vertical).jpg

Saludos. Esta imagen fue eliminada por el motivo erróneo. Dice que fue tomada con un iPhone, lo cual, es incorrecto. Esta foto fue tomada por mi celular Honor 7S (cámara DUA-LX3), igual que estas otras dos fotos; File:Ana Torin, 2023 (Toma horizontal).jpg y File:Ana Torin, 2023 (Toma horizontal) (cropped).jpg. Agradecería su restauración y revisión.

---

Converted to DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ana Torin, 2023 (Toma vertical).jpg. @Bedivere: "Uploader used a different camera from before" is not a valid reason for COM:CSD#F1. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Judge Robert A. Kirsch.jpg

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2023022710011015 regarding File:Judge Robert A. Kirsch.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Photos by photographer Andreas Meschke

Please undelete the following files:

How do I collapse this huge list? A div with class="mw-collapsed" would not work.

We have permission per Ticket:2023040210002756. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Mussklprozz, see above. Note the closing double } at the bottom. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Mussklprozz: Please add ticket etc. --Rosenzweig τ 14:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Jensen Interceptor Mk3.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2023040310004716. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:SMK_Krubong_logo.png

Hi, this is a logo for a high school in Malaysia.

This emblem logo consists of simple ornamental leaves graphic, simple shield shape, few easy lines and a diamond. Also, compared with other school logos in the country, its design is fairly simple.

I believe it should be in the public domain--Ong Kai Jin (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The text of COM:TOO Malaysia does not help much. "The threshold of originality situation in Malaysia remains (Purple question mark) Unsure." In case the copyright situation is not sure, we usually delete an image per COM:PRP. Best would be to obtain permission for publication of the logo from the school. Please follow the procedure of VRT to show the school gives permission. If successful, the logo can be undeleted. Ellywa (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: As Ellywa says, unless we knew that the ToO in Malaysia was very high, which we do not, we cannot keep this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Helmut Tribus am Simsee.jpg File:Helmut Tribus.jpg File:Helmut Tribus im Alter von 80 Jahren.jpg

Liebes Team von Commons,

ich möchte um Entlöschung und Wiederherstellung der drei o.g. Fotos unter freier Lizenz bitten. Ich habe alle drei Fotos eigenhändig geschossen. Der jeweils fotografierte Helmut Tribus war eine Person des öffentlichen Lebens.

--Goldhähnchen (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Support for File:Helmut Tribus am Simsee.jpg and File:Helmut Tribus im Alter von 80 Jahren.jpg. The uploader says they took these photos themselves, which seems plausible.  Oppose File:Helmut Tribus.jpg which seems to be a photo of a photo, namely a studio portrait. @Goldhähnchen: File:Helmut Tribus.jpg sieht nicht nach deinem eigenen Foto aus, das scheint mir eher ein abfotografierter Abzug eines Studioporträts zu sein. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 19:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose now since there is no further reply by the uploader despite being asked to. @Goldhähnchen: If these are really your own photographs, please send a permission using the COM:VRT process. Wenn das wirklich von dir selbst aufgenommene Fotos sind, schicke bitte eine Genehmigung per E-Mail gem. den COM:VRT-Richtlinien. --Rosenzweig τ 14:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I agree that it seems plausible that the two images were taken by the uploader as claimed. However, note that he also claimed to be the author of File:Helmut Tribus.jpg which seems unlikely and of File:Helmut Tribus als Student.jpg (see next UnDR) which he now admits was a false claim. That makes it much harder to Assume Good Faith. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Goldhähnchen: Any comment? Was sagst du dazu? --Rosenzweig τ 08:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose mostly per Jim. VRT procedure should be applied here, IMO. Note, that File:Helmut Tribus.jpg is a photo of a photo which raises another doubt. Ankry (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ali Sahib Abushanan Vollyball.jpg

Hello, I do not think that the image should be deleted, especially since the article linked to it is in draft form and under review until it is accepted, and I do not expect that it violates any copyright and standards. Ali.saheb99 (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ali,
As previously explained, the image is in violation of F10 (as it's a personal photo). In addition, someone else other than yourself took the photo, they need to provide consent as they are the copyright holders. The article on enwiki was rejected, and you had yourself blocked from editing it. Another one on arwiki was deleted, with your restore request rejected.
Please stop disrupting the Wikimedia community. Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Ahmed M Farrag. --Yann (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy to both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom.jpg

From here, as well as File:Address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy to both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom 2.jpg (from here) and File:Address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy to both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom 3.jpg (from here). There is currently a discussion on English Wikisource, where these files had been in use, regarding the copyright status of related work. I ask that these files be undeleted temporarily to help with that discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi TE(æ)A,ea., would it be sufficient for the discussion on Wikisource to declare the first file's uploading date:

(change visibility) 21:00, 14 February 2023 . . Ukrainenotes (talk | contribs | block) 1,042 × 695 (113,093 bytes) (Uploaded a work by The Presidential Office of Ukraine from https://www.president.gov.ua with UploadWizard)

We could list the same for the other files, if required. Ellywa (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Ellywa: Is there any more information on the page that would confirm that the file is contemporaneous to the upload? That’s the main question for determining when they are from before the license change. And are these just photographs of the event, or do they contain text for transcription? Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Information from the file page:

=={{int:filedesc}}== {{Information |description={{en|1=President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy addresses both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom}} |date=2023-02-08 |source=https://www.president.gov.ua |author=The Presidential Office of Ukraine |permission= |other versions= }} =={{int:license-header}}== {{cc-by-4.0}} [[Category:Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2023]] .

The images do not show text. Ellywa (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Not done, there is no reason to believe that these photos should be undeleted. The discussion at Wikisource appears to lean towards deletion of the texts. Thuresson (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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

English screenshots of foobar2000 uploaded by User:WubTheCaptain

Request temporary undeletion

• File:Foobar2000 v1.3.12 on Windows 10, empty playlist, simple playlist view, with about window.png (unlikely to be kept, not requested to be undeleted)
• File:Foobar2000 v1.3.12 on Windows 10, empty playlist, simple playlist view.png
• File:Foobar2000 v1.3.12 on Windows 10, with LibriVox audio books in playlist, "visualization + album art + tabs" view.png
• File:Foobar2000 v1.3.12 on Windows 10, with LibriVox audio books in playlist, simple playlist view.png

The consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:English screenshots of foobar2000 was that most of these screenshots do not have copyrightable elements, and that was my explicit intent when self-photographing these screenshots. I won't argue if the small logo element meets a threshold of originality or if they are de minimis.

As the uploader of these screenshots, I intend to take "the effort to remove the (small) graphic elements such as the Foobar logo". After I've uploaded a new version of these screenshots shortly after temporary undeletion, the old version should be RevisionDeleted. WubTheCaptain (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Alternatively, I intend to transfer one of these to enwiki for fair use. The license of foobar2000 doesn't technically permit screenshots of the program or redistribution with modifications (such as removal or blurring of the icons) – a workaround is to only show the copyright ineligible parts and not name it foobar2000. WubTheCaptain (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support two,  Oppose two. The third of the four includes a copyrighted album cover, so cannot be restored. I am inclined to believe that the tiny logo in the upper left corner is far below the de minimis test -- "Would an average observer notice if the copyrighted item were there or not?". Therefore I think we can restore the second and fourth. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

LibriVox recordings are in the public domain ({{CC0}}), and the LibriVox website Public Domain page says: In addition, book summaries, CD cover art, and any other material that goes into our catalog with the audio recordings are in the public domain. All the audio books and cover art in the playlist are from LibriVox. To the best of my memory, there is no copyright issue over the album cover depicted. WubTheCaptain (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll change to  Support three,  Oppose the first one, for the reasons above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Undelete all Per requester's comments, these seem to be okay to be here. --Bedivere (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Bedivere, do you mean all three, or all four? The first one has a very prominent copyrighted Foobar icon right in the middle. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I meant originally the four, however, as you point out, that one would be unacceptable. Bedivere (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

لماذا تم الحذف هذه الصورة ملكى — Preceding unsigned comment added by محمدالتميمي12 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 4 April 2023‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Procedural close, file is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Reopened: The requester has uploaded two files, both now deleted:

• File:محمد التميمى.jpj.jpg
• File:محمد التميمىpng.jpg

Both are personal files of a non-contributor which we do not keep. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Twin tornadoes.jpg

Only two people commented, the nominator (for delete) and myself (for keep). The image was deleted "per nomination", which doesn't seem accurate. One delete and one keep shouldn't be enough to delete an image as that is obviously contested and should require more !votes from others. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose Trent Bosler is the author as per [4], not the NWS. DRs are not decided by majority, but by copyright laws. Yann (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

NWS General disclaimer states, “The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise…”. The image is stored on NWS webservers, so it is public domain. You are correct that DRs are not a majority decision. NWS has already made the choice for us. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Again, DRs are not votes. The closing Admin is required to take into account all of the comments, but must close the request according to the law, which he did here. Note also that both the nominator and the closer agreed that it is a copyrighted image, so the "vote" was two to one. As for requiring more comments, the discussion was open for eight days, a day longer than policy requires. People tend not to bother to add comments when the question is completely obvious, as it is here.

While the thumbnails do not have a copyright notice, the underlying images clearly do, so I fail to see how you can claim that somehow the "unless specifically noted otherwise" clause does not apply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose Deleted at COM:DR for being a copyright violation, as the image was clearly are labeled with a copyright notice—an extremely clear indication that this file is not in the public domain. Deletion requests on Commons are not votes nor are they based purely on consensus—closing administrators are given the task of making the right call based on their understanding of the relevant copyright law and licensing conditions, and the closing admin in this discussion made the right call. While related issues are also being discussed at the Village Pump for copyright, I don't see that discussion's existence as in any way preventing the closure of DRs related to NWS-hosted images, especially so when it is the clear case that the file should be deleted.
  On a separate note, the deletion requests page notes that If you disagree with an admin's decision to delete a file, or not to delete it, you should first set out your reasons on the admin's talk page and ask for reconsideration. Unless I'm missing something in the history of User talk:Mdaniels5757, it does not appear to be the case that this was done prior to this discussion being launched. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That would be the case if that was what I was aiming at. In fact, this discussion is doing what I wanted. I only wanted more comments so it wasn't truly just me and you for the DR. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

So you... don't disagree with Mdaniels5757's decision to delete the file? I'm a bit confused by your response. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with it (if that isn’t already obvious), but I did not feel just us in the DR, with us also in a separate DR for the same issue & us debating in a separate discussion outside of the DR would be ok for a deleted image. I did this to get more comments, because as even you wanted, the topic of what was PD-NWS needed clarification. Deleting this and with the other oppose/delete comments basically sets the precedent here. Well…Time to go tag a bunch of the famous weather images for deletion. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think first turning to the closing admin is the natural path when one doesn't understand their decision or when one thinks there was some kind of mistake. On the other hand, when one clearly sees that one is in disagreement with them, understanding their position, then taking one more round with them is a waste of the time of both. –LPfi (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Fotografia de Daniel Ponce Montuy.jpg

I request the undeletion of this image, it is very important for the wikipedia page of the artist itself (a forgotten artist that I am trying to promote by several means and several years of independent hard work).

When I uploaded the image, I didn't know anything about licenses, wikimedia or wikipedia at that time, I spend several months writing the wikipedia of the artist, and when I finished I use the image (uploaded several months before), the image I found it physically in an archive, where I had access to research, the owner of the only copy of the photo who was the owner of the archive where I researched, was mentioned in the file: Rodrigo Díaz López, I also gave attribution to the Photographer (deceased): Adolfo Patiño (he has a wikipedia page) as the photographer but the photographer didn't have any licensee or let a licenseh over the photo itself. Regarding the portrayed, the artist Montuy, he is deceased too, though I have the permission of the daughter that allows and is aware of the promotion of his father.

I have been researching regarding the life and work of the artist, documenting in different countries his artwork legacy (paintings and murals), in a curatorial aspect. Due that I am a curator of the latin american visual arts.

I think the license should be: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

Hoping to hear the answer very soon! Sofía García Broca --Sofia Garcia Broca (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose You are not allowed to give a CC license for works you didn't create. What's the source? What's the date? The photographer's heirs must provide a permission. Yann (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph, even if commissioned, does not give the right to freely license it. Unless there is a written license providing otherwise, the copyright is held by the heirs of the photographer, Adolfo Patiño and in order for the image to be restored, an heir must provide a free license using VRT.

Note that claiming that you were the actual photographer, as you did here, is a serious violation of Commons rules and may cause your being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim and I above. --Yann (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ritaslaninastackmagazinefeature.jpg

Request to undelete this image. A Wikipedia Commons Copyright Release letter has been acquired for this deleted image, from the original author/photographer(s). See below. Thank you and any further guidance - if needed - is appreciated.

We, hereby affirm that we, Azero and Alicia Shannon Nobel Ambience Photography, are the creator(s) and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work: File:Ritaslaninastackmagazinefeature.jpg I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.   Azero and Alicia Shannon Nobel Ambience Photography 2023-04-04

Office: (Redacted) (Azero Shannon) Office: (Redacted) (Alicia Shannon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritaslaninafanclub (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 April 2023‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose We do not accept forwarded permissions -- it is too easy to forge them. The actual photographers must send the free license using VRT. This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Otto Fried Künstler Paris 1998.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2023011210012151. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:A.A.MILNE STEFAN MILEV The Things That Make Me Different are Things That Make Me.jpg

File:Am See mit Marie Enecita & Alpha Dia - K11.jpg File:DIOR - Black silhouette on yellow – Gem Refoufi , Hamburg 2014.jpg File:Stefan Milev - De Monocerote - Agne Petkute, Munich 2011.jpg File:Stefan Milev - Toros Blumengruss, Munich 2016.jpg File:Briefmarke Dune from the Dutch Serie Stefan Milev.jpg File:Der Tanz, 3rd state – Sarah Mestrovic & Kevin Pouzou - Staatsballett Berlin 03 3.state - Stern Magazin.jpg File:Stefan Milev & Iggy Pop 4x5, Koeln 2011.jpg File:BIRD II Transformation Frederike Holst - Greifswald-Loissin 2018 N1.jpg

Please restore. I have permission per Ticket#2023040610008609 Thanks. --Moamoa22 (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: Already done. --Yann (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Otto_Fried_Künstler_Paris_2004.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2023011210012151. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Кадр из документального фильма "Между отчаянием и надеждой" (2023), режиссёр Анна Барсукова (1).jpg

ticket:2023040310012154 is received and approved. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 14:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ehsan Yarshater voice sample.ogg

In 2018 I asked Wikipedia users if they could extract an audio file from a CC Youtube video. I guess this might be that file. I can review it if you undelete it and ping me. Hanooz 11:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

{{Temporarily undeleted}} @Hanooz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Hanooz 15:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: Why not? Hanooz 12:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hanooz: You said above that you are done with the file. Isn't the case? Yann (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I meant I checked the file. It's fine IMO. Hanooz 12:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Krd: Your opinion as deleting admin? Yann (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Reopening as this is apparently not resolved. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done Official BBC Youtube account, no response from deleting admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Steinen Kriegerdenkmal 6.jpg

selbst erstellte Fotografie {{PD-self}} --Zieglhar 16:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: Tagged as no license, but there was a license. --Yann (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Nudist with a micropenis in erection and tiny balls who likes to do nudism in spite of his erect micro penis.png

This image is my own work and belongs to me I wish to dedicate it to wikimedia.

I hereby affirm that I, Riky tiny, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nudist_with_a_micropenis_in_erection_and_tiny_balls_who_likes_to_do_nudism_in_spite_of_his_erect_micro_penis.png

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Riky tiny 2023-04-07

---

 Not done: DENY, socking. --Yann (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Naturist with a micropenis and tiny balls who likes to do naturism in spite of his micro penis.png

This image is my own work and belongs to me I wish to dedicate it to wikimedia.

I hereby affirm that I, Riky tiny, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naturist_with_a_micropenis_and_tiny_balls_who_likes_to_do_naturism_in_spite_of_his_micro_penis.png

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Riky tiny 2023-04-07

---

 Not done: DENY, socking. --Yann (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Naturist with a micropenis and tiny balls who likes to do naturism in spite of his micro peen.png

This image is my own work and belongs to me I wish to dedicate it to wikimedia.

I hereby affirm that I, Riky tiny, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naturist_with_a_micropenis_and_tiny_balls_who_likes_to_do_naturism_in_spite_of_his_micro_peen.png I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Riky tiny 2023-04-07

---

 Not done: DENY, socking. --Yann (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:ريما يعقوب الشلح روح البابا.jpg

File:ريما يعقوب الشلح روح البابا.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaquob Naji (talk • contribs) 00:22, 8 April 2023‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

---

 Not done: No file by that name. --Yann (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Serhii Babkin.jpg

ticket:2022122610007891 is finally approved. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 09:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Bupati Cornelis Tapatab.jpg

Also:File:Bupati Piet A Tallo.jpg These files are in the public domain in Indonesia, because they are published and distributed by the Government of Republic of Indonesia, casu quo Library and Archive Service of East Nusa Tenggara Province in their website Sistem Informasi Kearsipan Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur, according to Article 43 of Law 28 of 2014 on copyrights but it is my fault that I forget to make the sufficient description and licensing before so pelase undelete the files and I will make sure to fill the proper description and licensing. Thank you. Jordan Diwi (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose That's not entirely clear. {{PD-IDGov}} has an explicit provision (e) which allows for the reproduction of portraits of certain senior officials. These people are not included there. The fact that there is an explicit provision for certain portraits strongly suggests that portraits of other government officials are copyrighted and may not be freely used.

It also has an explicit provision for works "executed by or on behalf of the government", but since Commons is not the government, that does not apply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Public Domain renders of new railway stations

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Kings Heath station artists impression 1.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Pineapple-road-station.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Moseley-village-station-2.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Please restore. Images provided by the local government as part of public information notices and consultation and was therefore placed in the Public Domain. --Oldhamtw (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The source pages have a clear and explicit copyright notice, "© West Midlands Rail Executive 2023". In the UK, government postings are under Crown Copyright for 50 years unless there is an explicit Open Government License. Also note that it is likely that these are the work of an architect or other consultant. If that is the case, they hold the copyrights and the West Midlands Rail Executive would not have the right to freely license them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Portrait photos of Simon M. Rosenthal

Please undelete

• File:Simon M Rosenthal, American public-interest lawyer, in 1975.jpg
• File:Simon Milyus Rosenthal ca 1962.jpg

We have permission per Ticket:2023030310013941. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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

ISS 2003 files

• File:ISS007-E-15118 - View of Switzerland.jpg and
• File:ISS007-E-15119 - View of Switzerland.jpg

Following this, the two files were deleted for probably for quality reasons despite a lack of consensus. Please restore. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

cf. Commons:Deletion_policy#Redundant/bad_quality: "If at the end of the discussion period a deletion is agreed upon .., it can be deleted." Enhancing999 (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose You say "despite a lack of consensus". There were three editors who believed the files should be deleted, the nominator (Draceane), Huntster, and the closing Admin (FitIndia). You were the only voice on the keep side. Looks like a consensus to me, one with which I completely agree. All I see are a few unidentifiable blobs of light. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

In the discussion there were only three participants: the nominator didn't even specifically comment on these two, one who was unsure and myself favoring keep. So my review of the deletion would be that these should be restored. Enhancing999 (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Four people participated in the DR. Only one, you, were clearly in favor of keeping the images. The nominator's comment clearly applies to these two. Also, please keep in mind:

"The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy." (from Commons:Deletion requests) .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This is weird. Nobody raised any copyright concerns. At least, I guess we agree that you didn't participate in the discussion. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done the closing admin applied Commons policies, not copyright law. The images are out of scope. If anyone wants to use it either in Wikimedia or for a certain educational purpose, they can request undeletion providing detainls about planned usage. Ankry (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

PS. the opinions from the DR can now be extended by two more: Jim's and my. Both negative. Ankry (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:south China sea territorial dispute.mp4.jpg

This image file is made by me and I made it in the PicsArt apk , I made this image for a description of the sea area that is being disputed by the countries around the South China Sea --Sejarawan128 (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

File is actually File:South China Sea territorial dispute map.mp4.jpg. Capitalization matters here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sejarawan128: This is most probably a derivative work. What is the source for your map? Yann (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Lukas O'Neall At His Concert.jpg

I have sent a email claiming copyrights and requesting the undeletion of my file. Thank you.

You can find the deleted link here: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lukas_O%27Neall_At_His_Concert.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

---

 Not done procedural closure: image not deleted, nothing to undelete. Ankry (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:莊竣傑.png

This image was nominated for deletion by User:迷斯拉10032号 due to supposedly being "Vandalism and violation of the Biography of Living Persons Clause." Three days later on 9 April at 15:54 I asked the user in ANU complaint why they thought the image was ""Vandalism and violation of the Biography of Living Persons Clause" while citing the fact that there is no "Biography of Living Persons Clause" in Wikimedia Commons. 9 minutes later at 16:05 @Yann: deleted the image and then commented on the ANU complaint. I assume my comment in the ANU complaint was what made him aware of the DR. Unfortunately he closed the DR before 迷斯拉10032号 had a chance to answer my question. Yann has a history of targeting me and my edits and I find it hard to believe that he just randomly decided to close the DR at essentially the same time I asked 迷斯拉10032号 about it unless he was trying to undermined me asking the question. Otherwise, what was the hurry and why did he do it right after I made the comment? Regardless, the DR was only open for 3 days, no one comment on it, and I don't think the image is "Vandalism and violation of the Biography of Living Persons Clause."

To give a little background for the file, the person depicted in it, Zhuang Junjie, is a minor celebrity in Taiwan due to being related to Taiwanese royalty and a military adviser. He used to have a zh.Wikipedia article about him, but it seems to have been deleted. But my guess is that someone transferred the image over to Commons in the process, which is pretty routine. In the meantime there's zero evidence that the upload, or the images existence on zh.Wikipedia had anything to do with vandalism. Its also ridiculous to claim the image is a violation of some nonexistent "Biography of Living Persons Clause." Commons hosts plenty of images of minor celebrities. It's also obvious from the picture that Zhuang Junjie knew they were being photographed. There's plenty of precedent where images of people were kept after being sent to DR by the person depicted in them because the person knew they were being photographed at the time and there was no consensus to delete the purely because they didn't like it being on Commons. In this case it wasn't even Zhuang Junjie who nominated the image for deletion either. It would be ridiculous if people could have images deleted purely because they depicted images of people. Yet that's literally the only justification for why the image was sent to DR and subsequently deleted by Yann. The DR should also have been open for more then 3 days regardless. So I'd appreciate it if the image was undeleted.

 Done and redeleted with fixed deletion reason. I found no evidence at free license in the string "12345" provided as the image source. If you wish, you can request undeletion addressing the image copyright issues at the first point. Ankry (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Gay Magazine "Adventures in..." header image.webp

The picture is materially important to understanding a newsworthy event. It is a piece of journalism. It depicts a subject stealing a work of art, in an article alleging the subject stole a piece of art, allegations which were later disproved. It's important for wikipedia readers to see the picture in order to understand the event more fully. Please give me guidance for how I can include either the picture directly or a screenshot of the article.

Michelmybell (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose On Commons, we only host documents in the public domain or under a free license. So we need the formal written permission from the copyright holder to keep this on here. Yann (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons does not accept works under a fair use rationale like the above (see Commons:Fair use). Other specific Wikimedia projects might, but the work has to be uploaded to that project directly, and conform to the fair use rules on that project. For the English Wikipedia, see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Not done, per Carl. Your starting point for including this image in the English language Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Non-free content. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:PM md. 63.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:PM md. 63.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: As stated in the deletion request, the furthest back I found the file was a 2011 upload on imfdb.org. The site offers a general disclaimer on License Grant and Warranties, where it's stated that "By submitting Materials in any form to us, in addition to other provisions of the Terms, you automatically grant the Company, a non-exclusive, fully-paid, world-wide, perpetual, royalty-free license to publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, and reproduce the Materials in any manner and in any medium, including, without limitation, through physical copies such as still photos, videos, and CDs, by television by any means, on or via the Internet, including, without limitation, the World Wide Web, and any other two-way transmission control protocol / internet protocol (TCP/IP) based distribution network..." So I request this file be undeleted with the proper source and license added. Alin2808 (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose There is nothing in the quoted language by which either IMDB or the person uploading to IMDB freely licenses the material to others. Even if there were, there is also nothing in the quoted language by which the IMDB uploader allows IMDB to freely license the Materials to others. So, IMDB does not have right to freely license on the Materials and it does not do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

So you didn't read the full text from the provided general disclaimer. Fine, I'll copy paste the entire thing, here it goes continuing from where it was left off: "... or similar networks or technologies now known or hereafter to become known, including, but not limited to, delivery via such a network to personal computers, hand-held devices, and television set-top boxes through telephone or cable lines, or wirelessly through broadband, satellite, cellular or terrestrial broadcast networks and other similar networks or technologies whether now existing or hereafter developed. You obtain no rights in any form, media, or technology incorporating the Materials. You represent and warrant that (i) you have the legal right and authority to grant the rights granted herein, (ii) neither the Materials nor exercise of the rights granted to the Company under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the public display, public performance, distribution, or reproduction of the Materials, or portions or derivative works thereof, will violate or infringe upon the copyright, literary, privacy, publicity, trademark, service mark or any other personal, contractual or property right of any person or entity anywhere in the world, (iii) the Materials do not constitute a libel or defamation of any third party, and (iv) you are the sole owner of the Materials and all rights therein, and that the Materials are original to you, or, that you have the express consent of the owner of the Materials to grant the rights contained hereunder." Also from the quoted text in the previous comment, I'll highlight "By submitting Materials in any form to us, in addition to other provisions of the Terms, you automatically grant the Company, a non-exclusive, fully-paid, world-wide, perpetual, royalty-free license to publicly display ..." Alin2808 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a broad "cover your ass" disclaimer. It doesn't mean that the person actually had the right to upload it (see, for example, https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:ONOVZP_DVD.jpg , a DVD cover from a 2000 movie with no legal details) and even if they did, it doesn't give anyone besides the Company any rights.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That is the oldest file I found, if the same image is found to have been uploaded before 2011 with different rights then sure, but otherwise, it has a royalty-free license. You know, royalty-free - material subject to copyright or other intellectual property rights may be used without the need to pay royalties or license fees for each use, per each copy or volume sold or some time period of use or sales. Alin2808 (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Not done, this is a license that allows IMFDB, LLC, a company in California, to do what they like with photos their users upload to their web site. Nothing else. Thuresson (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"to do what they like" is not quite correct. There is nothing in the quoted text above that gives IMDB the right to license others to use the files freely. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Penis 3 days after 5 days everyday sex.jpg

Its my picture against the old persons one in the data-cloud. Whats wrong the other pictures from other users are same there?

---

 Not done: VOA, blocked indef. --Yann (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

PD-AR photos deleted due to URAA reasons

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Wham in 1984.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:The Thompson Twins in 1984.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:The Thompson Twins in 1989.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Freddie Mercury in 1985.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Bronski Beat in 1985.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Bronski Beat in 1988.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Jim Kerr Live Aid 1985.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: I uploaded several images from an Argentinian music magazine a while back. These images are Public Domain according to Argentinian copyright law.
Although these images were marked accordingly, they were deleted solely on the grounds of URAA.
Per: Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, closed as: "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion" & "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice. To date, no such notice has been received under the URAA. We are not recommending that community members undertake mass deletion of existing content on URAA grounds, without such actual knowledge of infringement or takedown notices."

An example of another image that comes from the magazine can be found here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madonna revistapelo 1985.jpg and the image was kept. Of the images I uploaded, there is zero evidence to suggest there is any copyright infringement, and such files should be restored. Thank you. --PascalHD (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Policy (from Commons:Licensing and Commons:URAA) is: Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle. This policy was modified after the link you cite (which was not in effect very long, yet keeps being erroneously cited), and is in line with meta:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department/URAA Statement, which states that files should be removed if they are clearly infringing following an evaluation. So there does need to be some evaluation done, to show that the works were in fact under copyright in their country of origin on the URAA date, and exceptions (like being simultaneously published in the U.S.) do not apply. Additionally, if works never lost their U.S. copyright in the first place (by being published with a copyright notice, or being published March 1989 or later when copyright notices were no longer required) then the U.S. copyright has never been lost in the first place, and the URAA is a moot point. If there was a copyright notice in that magazine, then they are in the latter situation. In looking... I see "All rights reserved", but I don't see a copyright notice. So, they briefly lost U.S. copyright. But given the terms of {{PD-Argentina}}, I don't see any way these could have become public domain in Argentina by 1996, as they were under copyright for at least 25 years from creation. The U.S. copyright term is 95 years from publication, and has a long ways to go. There are some admins that ignore that and keep such works, but it's not policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. But the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} template was edited in 2022 by an administrator. It removed the sentence "Images whose copyright was restored in the U.S. by the URAA are no longer accepted at Wikimedia Commons." [5] If it turns out non-URAA compliant files are not accepted, then I'll abide by that policy. But I don't see a clear consensus. FunnyMath (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned, there are some admins who don't follow it. There has never been much stomach to go through all the files tagged with Not-PD-US-URAA and evaluate them, so many remain. There was a time the URAA was under question at the Supreme Court, so we allowed such uploads for a while, but it was ruled constitutional (and been validated in many court decisions). It is part of U.S. copyright law. The original policy edits made after that above-linked deletion review link (which indeed showed that many files marked Not-PD-US-URAA should not have been marked that way) were rather controversial, and led to Commons:Review of Precautionary principle, which was a proposal to relax COM:PRP in order to allow URAA-only files, but that was rejected. That than led to a long discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_48#Disputes_relating_to_URAA,_policy,_Israeli_images,_and_behaviour, the end result of which was to change to the current wording at Commons:Licensing#Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act, which has been policy since 2014. Using such files in the U.S. is just as much of a copyright violation as those which have never lost copyright, for better or worse. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so as long as there's a sufficient possibility that a file is URAA-compliant, it can be uploaded. But if it's definitely not URAA-compliant, then it can't be uploaded. Wow, this is so confusing. FunnyMath (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

If an image was published solely in Argentina, and expired according to that country's law, it should be okay to stay on the Commons? However, if it was also published in the United States, it should be removed as that would be a clear infringement. Is that correct? PascalHD (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Policy is that works need to be public domain in both the U.S. and the country of origin. We delete many old works which are obviously fine in the U.S., because they are not fine in the country of origin. And, vice versa. The URAA is fairly complicated because the U.S. used all the Berne Convention rules it could to avoid restoration. In particular, that means you need to know the state of law in the country of origin as of the URAA date (1996 for most countries). If a country changed their copyright terms after that date, that could not affect restoration. For example, France, Portugal, and Italy did not implement the EU-mandated retroactive restorations to 70pma until after 1996. Neither did Austria, though they were already 70pma before 1996, except some pre-1932 photographs had expired due to much-earlier Austrian law, which while restored in Austria later in 1996 were not in the U.S. Another complication is terms which are dependent on publication, and not knowing exactly when something was published -- in some scenarios it would have expired before 1996, and other possible scenarios would have expired after. Works which were also published in the U.S. within 30 days also avoided the URAA. This is why the policy does say an allegation that the URAA applies is not quite enough; there should be some specifics brought up as to why the works were indeed restored by the URAA. Argentina has had its minimum 25 years from creation / 20 years from publication term for a while, and that was in effect in the 1980s, so there isn't really any doubt as to these photos' status a short while later in 1996. The answer could be different for other works though -- when were they first created, and when and where they were first published are all important questions. The COM:PRP level is significant doubt, not any theoretical doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I am confused on this. The policy says one thing, but the consensus on the Commons is another. I have seen countless DRs that show these images can be kept even if they are copyrighted in the US. A few examples:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert palmer 1985 retouched.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joan jett revistapelo.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madonna revistapelo 1985.jpg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Billy joel revistapelo.jpg

This DR is also quite lengthy and worth reading: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diablo del Oeste & Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Fma12

These are all recent uploads and discussions. Also, there are 31,000+ {{PD-Argentina}} files, and plenty of which are NOT PD in the US. If they aren't allowed on the Commons, then make that clear with the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag. As FunnyMath mentioned, the warning was removed.

The consensus I have seen on the Commons, is that the image should only be removed if there is knowledge of infringement or a take-down notice from a copyright holder is received. PascalHD (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You will find plenty of other deletions, if you look. As I said, there are some admins who ignore that part of policy, and those DRs found some. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Many of us don't like it much, but the URAA is USA law and Commons rules require us to obey it. The confusion arises from the period before 2012 when the Supreme Court ruled on its validity. While policy is that we will not go through and mass delete pre--2012 files, recent uploads (such as these) that are under copyright in the USA due to the URAA must be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. I'm happy to follow whatever rules are in place, it's just what I've got from all of this is that the community is divided on the URAA and there is no clear consensus - some will keep and others will remove. If that's the case, in regards to the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag, put a warning on it stating images after 2012 cannot be uploaded - why it was removed, I don't know (What it used to say [6]). One could easily be mistaken into thinking it is okay to upload these images by looking at similar files or reading DRs. PascalHD (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That's not unique for the URAA though. In most cases where the threshold of doubt is involved, there may be different views. What uploads of mine claimed as own work could be seen as professional-quality and thus needing VRT clearance? Are my similar uploads proof enough, are they similar enough? You'd certainly be able to find discussions going both ways, depending on uploader, photo, users involved in the discussion and deciding admin. –LPfi (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course. As a music magazine, I'm sure some of the photos published in the Argentinian Pelo magazine were also published elsewhere in the US, with no notice/failed to be registered (Ex. {{PD-US-1978-89}}). Jim clearly stated the policy, that any PD-AR photo that is not PD in the US due to the URAA (post-2012) needs to go, and I will abide by that. Now that I have made myself more familiar with the Argentinian copyright situation, I am going to avoid uploading those images. PascalHD (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

These Argentine photos make me the most uncomfortable, because it's not really the US that's out of step here. 25 years is an amazingly short copyright duration in this age, and they will stay in copyright for 50-70 years after death (an extra 25-45 years if the photographer died immediately) in most countries without the rule of the shorter term. They're also one of the few cases where the URAA may not come into play, because some photographs post 1996 are out of copyright in Argentina.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, 25 years is really out of line. Not sure why Argentina has not got around to extending the terms. PascalHD (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Photos published since March 1989 avoid the URAA entirely -- they never lost U.S. copyright. (That applies to the 1989 photo above, which was from an October 1989 magazine). But yes, the shorter term for photographs can be odd -- Article 7(4) of the Berne Convention allows those shorter term for photographs, but Article 9 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (which Argentina signed in 2002) seems to disallow it. They certainly were the terms in 1996, so photos from before 1971 should be fine (if there was no copyright notice). But just from a overall risk standpoint, it's far more likely to have problems with relatively recent photographs where the photographer is still alive, so I do prefer being more careful about the URAA in situations like this which have very short terms, and which are definite problems in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

All good, I respect your points, and others comments. Copyright should be taken seriously, the Commons is not necessarily a place for risk taking. Possibly a bit careless of me to have uploaded these, but at the time I believed it was okay. Nobody becomes an expert on copyright overnight. Mistakes are made, and one learns from them.
With the evidence I have been provided at this point, these images are not being undeleted - not until the 2080s when US copyright expires. If I'm still around I will happily make a request then. PascalHD (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Implicitly withdrawn by requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:3.5 srd Abilities and Conditions.pdf

File deleted as “Plain text document,” which is obviously incorrect and not a valid reason for deletion. The deletion discussion was considering whether the license of SRD, WotC OGL 1.0a, is acceptable; and consensus was beginning to form in favor of retention. In any case as to the latter point, more discussion should continue to determine whether the license is acceptable. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It IS a plain text document. We usually don't host recent text documents, unless there are notable in themselves. What's the point to have this on Commons? Yann (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yann: As a significant, born-digital document, it is in scope on English Wikisource. This much was stated in the deletion discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think an actual page on Wikisource should be started. This would give an opportunity for whoever believes that it is out of scope for Wikisource to challenge it by nominating it for deletion on Wikisource. I think there is no inherent reason for this to be in scope for Commons, so we defer entirely to Wikisource: we will host a copy if and only if they choose to host a copy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• The entire point of us hosting a copy is so that multiple wikisources don't have to. Source documents are in scope. We don't accept PDF files created specifically for Wikimedia projects (unless for specific formatting purposes) -- that content should go elsewhere, as it will be licensed per normal contributor licenses -- but source works from elsewhere which would be of interest to Wikisource are explicitly in scope. They don't have to actually be used at Wikisource first. As COM:SCOPE says, they are fine if The file would be within the scope of another project of the Wikimedia Foundation if it were to be uploaded in the same format to that project. PDF files of original scans, or PDFs created elsewhere as PDFs (such that the PDF itself is the original source) where the content is of interest to Wikisource are in our scope. The licensing of that document sounds like it is still a question, but  Support on scope grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• IMO Commons scope is more restricted than PDF files [not] created specifically for Wikimedia projects. We don't accept recent personal or commercial documents unless they have some historical or educational use, even if they are under a free license. I asked on WS Scriptorium. Yann (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Of course. They have to be in scope for Wikisource in the first place for it to be in scope here. Advertising (unless included in a large source text) is out of their scope. They say most texts should be published in a medium that includes peer review, such as a newspaper or published book; a Usenet posting or blog entry does not qualify. Since it was a Wikisource editor asking for undeletion, I was figuring that this one qualified for their scope. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a software license and, like most software licenses, it includes a requirement that a copy of the license be included with every use, "10. Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute." Such a requirement makes the material unusable in print and therefore unacceptable here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't allow uploader-originated works to be newly licensed with GFDL/GPL/etc. for reasons like that, but GFDL is still a free license, and works which are "naturally" GFDL from external sources we still allow. The prohibition is more specifically against "a photograph, painting, drawing, audio or video" licensed that way, not other types of works. I can't see exactly what this is, but it seems like a textual work itself so it may be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not a software license, and the argument it's unusable in print is weird, given that at least a thousand physical books have been printed using it, from dozens of publishers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no such requirement in COM:L. Only GFDL is explicitly banned for such a reason, and only for "a photograph, painting, drawing, audio or video". So 1) no licenses similar to GFDL, other than GFDL itself, are banned; and 2) GFDL isn't even banned for text PDFs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• The really questionable clause for me is the one denying the right to claim compatibility with the licensor's product. Is that really free? As for this text, WotC released a pretty book, and then extracted 90% of the text and offered it under the OGL, in RTF format, spilt as chapters, and this is one of those chapters. If the book were free, this would be a no brainer for scope, but these extracts are harder.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose on scope. IMO the license is fine. s:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Works created after 1927: Wikisource only accepts complete works, and this only an excerpt. And no positive answer from the Scriptorium there. Yann (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Chalandamarz Guarda 2017 16.jpg

Warum wurde diese Datei gelöscht? Ich kenne den Fotografen persönlich und habe ihn damals gebeten, seine Bilder hochzuladen. Die Nummern 1–15 wurden akzeptiert, die 16 nicht. Liegt ein Fehler des unerfahrenen Hochladers vor? Dass er selbst der Fotograf ist, daran besteht kein Zweifel. Gruss, --Freigut (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Why was this file deleted? I know the photographer personally and asked him at the time to upload his pictures. The numbers 1-15 were accepted, the 16 was not. Is there a mistake on the part of the inexperienced uploader? There is no doubt that he himself is the photographer. Greetings, --Freigut (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Freigut: No file by that name. Yann (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 Info Probably about File:Chalandamarz Guarda 2017 16.jpeg. No license. Thuresson (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hm. Ok, thanks. --Freigut (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Freigut: It looks like the 15 other uploads are also invalid, because the license was added by you rather than the photographer. Could you ask him to log back into his account and make a statement that Chalandamarz Guarda 2017.jpeg through Chalandamarz Guarda 2017 16.jpeg are available under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose No permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure for providing a permission. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I will ask him, thank you. --Freigut (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of New York Yankees.jpg

While this file was deleted in 2007 as a derivative work, the (assumed) underlying work is the bat-in-a-hat logo, which is in the public domain for failing to have ever been registered with the U.S. copyright office despite being first published no later than 1946. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pennsylvania Yankees Foundation Sample Plate.png for more information on the history of the bat-in-a-hat logo's publication. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support Looks like either no-notice or not renewed to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Al-Nasr FA Cup 2022.jpg

The photo is available for anyone without copyright! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootBallQ8 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 April 2023‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose As noted by the deleting Admin, it was taken from https://www.arabtimesonline.com/news/al-nasr-club-wins-kuwait-football-federation-cup-for-the-first-time/ where there is an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Zain Premier League.jpg

هذا شعار الدوري الممتاز لكرة القدم برعاية شركة زين، يرجى التوضيح لماذا تم مسحه، ف الفكرة مثل باقي شعارات دوري كرة القدم حوالي العالم ولا ارى انه مخالف! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ FootBallQ8 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose This is a copyrighted logo and can not be kept on Commons without permission of the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ford-falcon-sprint-1089413.jpg

La foto es de publico acceso. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luquefv1 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 April 2023‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose: Watermarked source link cropped off. 24 hits on Google image search. Oldest seems to be http://www.todofalcon.com.ar/Fotos/SP47.jpg from 2014 at latest. --Achim55 (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. Everything on the Web is publicly accessible. Very few things on the Web are freely licensed and this is not one of them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Achim55 and Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ludmila Vasileva 2020.jpg

ticket:2023022110013702 is finally approved. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 15:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like done, thank you :) Анастасия Львова^ru/en 16:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

The publication should not or supposed not be deleted because the subject is presenting a track records of hard works and achievements which is serving as a new innovation in the world of professionalism and leadership and it is something anyone else can learn from to improve his learning abilities in becoming a better person and a leader thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linderbalogun (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 April 2023‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

---

 Not done: No file name provided, user only uploaded out of scope images and advertising. --Yann (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Алексей Юрьевич Михайлов.jpg

One more approved ticket: 2023040310008231. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 16:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Ticket#2023040510004356

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2023040510004356 regarding File:PhotoNBH 2020.png. Please temporarily undelete the file in order to verified authorship in EXIF. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Yann (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:M1083 OCS.png

Source:Own work--A proietti (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support Krd, this has {self|cc-by-sa-4.0}. The editor has uploaded a number of similar files and Google reverse search comes up with them on Commons but no hits for this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Fundação Cultural de Curitiba.jpg

Hello! I believe that the person who removed the image I uploaded was mistaken. Is the CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license not accepted on Wikimedia Commons? https://openverse.org/image/98250988-e2f9-41ff-a6ea-bdb5316cd73d?q=Funda%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20Cultural%20de%20Curitiba Editorpedio (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose We don't accept non commercial licenses. All files must be under a free license, which allows any use by anyone, including commercial use. Yann (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Shiuli.jpg

Hello contributers,

The image file named "Shiuli.jpg" is my creation and I am the owner of the file. Therefore I request you not to delete/remove this file.

With regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.kundus123 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose The copyright of posters is usually owned by the publisher. It doesn't matter that you have a copy of the poster. So we need the formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:大西ひろゆき 選挙ドットコム プロフのコピー3.jpg

大西ひろゆき 選挙ドットコム プロフのコピー3.jpg が著作権侵害の可能性があるコンテンツとして削除されましたが、これは大西ひろゆき本人から投稿の許可を得た画像です。 私が代理で投稿しています。証明するにはどうすればいいのか説明してください。 私は後援会のスタッフです。

あなた方が画像を削除している間、大西ひろゆきのwikipediaページに画像がないことになります。急ぎ、画像を戻してください。 選挙ドットコムの大西ひろゆきの画像も私が管理しています。早急な対応を求めます。

大西ひろゆき_wikipedia https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A7%E8%A5%BF%E5%AE%8F%E5%B9%B8

大西ひろゆき_選挙ドットコム https://go2senkyo.com/seijika/68556 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 人間性 (talk • contribs)

In order to undelete the file either you need to point out the webpage where the photographer granted the CC BY-SA 4.0 license for this photo, or the actual copyright holder (or their legal representative - if the copyright holder is a company or an organization) needs to follow VRT process. Alse, an evidence of copyright transfer contract with the photographer may be needed if the copyright holder is not the photographer. In the first case the undeletion may be fast, in the second processing provided documents requires some time. Moreover, the license requires proper information who the author (photographer) is: the photo does not seem to be a selfie. Ankry (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Carl-Fredrik Reuterswärd - Non-Violence im Kanzlerpark, Berlin, August 2017.jpg

Reason: Die angegebene Begründung für die Löschung ist unzutreffend. Es mag ja sein, dass man nur einmal pro Jahr direkten Zugang zu dieser Skulptur hat. Öffentlich sichtbar war und ist sie aber ständig. Siehe Dokument: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/neue-skulptur-am-kanzleramt-enthullt-1250152.html The reason for deletion of this file is completely incorrect. Even though it might be true that direct public access to the object is only possible once a year, the sculpture is freely visible all year round. See attached document!!! --Designkritik (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support Accessible to the public, the law doesn't specify that it should be accessible all the time. Yann (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Addition: Accessibility does not neccessarily, if not at all mean, that one can reach out to the artwork directly or even to be able or allowed to touch it. Accessiblity simply means plain visibility in an open environment. Visibility could also be given through a glass screen or window, through which the work might be publically viewed or photographically documented and published als public domain. Designkritik (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

additional document: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/kunst-mit-knoten-am-kanzleramt-1250140.html Designkritik (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support per Yann and Designkritik, it seems to fall under FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support Certainly the people in the image look like it is accessible to the public from time to time. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose as the deleting admin. The corresponding deletion request is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carl-Fredrik Reuterswärd - Non-Violence im Kanzlerpark, Berlin, August 2017.jpg btw. Per COM:FOP Germany, only photographs actually taken from a public place (a place that is dedicated to the public) enjoy freedom of panorama. Or, quoting COM:FOP Germany#Public: “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.” This photo was however taken from a place that is not dedicated to the public (for security reasons, it's the garden of the en:Federal Chancellery, Berlin) and inaccessible to the general public except on special occasions. --Rosenzweig τ 20:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Our summary of German FoP makes it clear that the place does not have to be accessible to the public at all times. Apparently the park is open to the public occasionally -- is that not sufficient? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: No, case law says the place needs to be dedicated to the public (der Öffentlichkeit gewidmet), so specifically for public use. Such a place may be closed at certain times, the textbook example being cemeteries which are almost always closed at night, but still meant for public use. A place like the one we have here, generally inaccessible to the general public except on special occasions, does not fit in that category. Btw, as far as I know, that sculpture is visible from a public footpath that is located just behind the fence you see in the photo. A photo taken from there would be covered by freedom of panorama. --Rosenzweig τ 20:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The initial reason you gave for your deletion was:

"Deleted: per nomination, FOP is only for views from public places, and that place is only accessible to the public once a year or so."

1. You did not file as a reason for your deletion, the foto could have taken from a non-public point of view. Btw.: German law requires the copyright holder of the photographically documented object/building to prove this. Since this point was never incriminated in the initial request for deletion, the work needs to be uploaded again. If your new point was given / resp. provable, a new request for deletion could be filed with this newly applicable justification.

2. Whether a place is "public" for purposes of § 59(1) does not depend on whether it is public or private property. Instead, the question turns on its actual accessibility, which, according to the prevailing view, needs to be such that one can infer a (sufficient) dedication to the public. ... The status of atria and passages is controversial. On the other hand, the place does not need to be accessible all the time. Designkritik (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you misunderstand the DR process. The closing Admin must consider everything about the image, whether mentioned in the request or not, and apply valid comments from others to reach a decision as to whether the image should be deleted or not. If the request says that the image is out of scope and the closing Admin sees that it is a copyvio, they may delete the image as a copyvio without considering scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Rosenzweig. Also, this statue is in a private park. Which one might think is "public", but according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany "the question turns on its actual accessibility, which, according to the prevailing view, needs to be such that one can infer a (sufficient) dedication to the public.." That citation actually happens to come from a copyright case involving a private park. To quote from that case it "affirmed the higher regional court's holding to deny freedom of panorama on the grounds that the "de facto free access to the park is based on a decision by plaintiff [...] which they may change at any time." So private parks are clearly not considered dedicated enough to the public for images taken in them to be covered by FOP since the owner can modify the park's hours or otherwise deny the public from using it at their whim. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• I don't read German, so it was a mistake for me to take a position on a very technical subject. I withdraw my support. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I will also withdraw my support since I also don't read German and I will defer to the expertise of Rosenzweig here. Abzeronow (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: No consensus to undelete. --Yann (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg AryanAfsharyan4

Hello, I'm Aryan Afsharyan, And Images

• File:AryanAfsharyan2.jpg
• File:ARYANAFSHARYAN3.jpg
• File:AryanAfsharyan4.jpg

are my pictures, Please Undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Afsharyan (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 April 2023‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
•  Oppose Wikimedia Commons is not a social media. We don't keep images of non notable people unless they are really contributors to Wikimedia projects. Please read Commons:Project scope and Commons:What Commons is not. Yann (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I also note that you claim to be the actual photographer in each case. None of them look like selfies. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of our rules and can lead to your being banned from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Demonland.jpg

Request temporary undeletion This is my own work. I request temporary undeletion while I submit permission licenses. Vandermast (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose This will be undeleted if and when a permission is received and validated by the volunteer team. Yann (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Vandermast, please send the permissions. The file can be undeleted upon validation by the VRT team. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ouroboros map.jpg

Request temporary undeletion This is my own work. I request temporary undeletion while I submit permission licenses. Vandermast (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose This will be undeleted if and when a permission is received and validated by the volunteer team. Yann (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Robert-Jacobi.jpg

Request temporary undeletion: The reason given for the deletion is incorrect. There is no copyright infringement as all rights have been transferred to us. I work at Robert Jacobi's company and was commissioned to add his picture to Wikipedia. The company (The Nunatak Group) owns all rights to this image. --VA NUNATAK (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@VA NUNATAK: As for any content not directly created by yourself, a formal written permission is needed from the copyright holder. Please ask a legal representative from your company to send a permission through COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Needs a free license from the actual copyright holder via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Riyadh All Star XI vs PSG.jpg

I did not do anything. I just uploaded the file. I swear.--OsinAharasani12 (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Almost everything you find on the Web is copyrighted, including this. It has an explicit copyright notice in the lower right on the source page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Azure Logo.jpg

I brought this logo up in Commons:Undeletion requests#Sloppy deletions: Files uploaded by ErikGhukasyanam, but it got lost in that thread, and I think it's worth a discussion at least:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azure Logo.jpg is a similar case, but without a Wikipedia article to make it as obvious. I think "no educational value" is not a convincing reply to: "Textlogo, and a web search shows a good deal of media mention of this company. One example: 'Azure Pharmaceuticals, which compiles the Medicine Shortages Index, said manufacturers including companies producing medicines domestically are getting paid up to four times as much for their products abroad than in Ireland.'" Instead, the closing admin should have addressed how the media coverage of the company is somehow so insufficient that the logo couldn't possibly be useful.

Your thoughts?

Best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose If someone decides to write a WP:EN article on Azure, then we can certainly reconsider the scope question. As it stands, there's no good use for the logo here. At the moment that question is moot, because the logo is almost certainly copyrighted -- Ireland, like the UK, has a typographical copyright which applies here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Jim. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I was somehow under the impression that Irish copyright on logos was not as strict as the UK's. But I disagree with a standard that there has to already be an article about a company on Wikipedia for a logo to be in scope. The plausibility of an article being written or the company covered in another article should be sufficient, in my opinion, as Commons is meant to be a repository of plausibly useful images, not only images on topics there are already Wikipedia articles for. But yes, that is presumably moot (of course I can't see the file to remind myself what it looks like) if Irish copyright on logos is as strict as UK copyright. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, is the company plausibly eligible for a Wikidata item? If the logo could be plausibly used there, it would make sense to undelete. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely with "Commons is meant to be a repository of plausibly useful images". However, with more than 60 million articles now, almost all organizations of any significance have at least stub articles, so that I think that having an article on at least one WP is a good test of whether the logo might be useful. In addition to the scope question and the copyright question, there is the fact that simple logos should be SVGs or, failing that, PNGs. They should not ever be JPGs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It's OK that we disagree about that test, but this is not the only instance of an apparently noteworthy company without a Wikipedia article that I've come across. I understand where you're coming from, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I think you are severely mistaken. There are loads of significant companies not covered by Wikipedia. Wikipedia in English seems to have about a dozen articles on companies of Bolivia, Wikipedia in Spanish a few dozen. Are less than a hundred companies in Bolivia notable? (There is probably a significant overlap of subjects covered across languages, and companies are not the main category. Cebuano covers some 6 M organisms and places, I suppose, Swedish 1M organisms and Wikipedia in English some 1 M living people.) –LPfi (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You are certainly correct in general, but Azure Pharmaceuticals is an Irish company and therefore WP:EN is the place to look for an article. We have to have some test to eliminate mom and pop corner stores -- if you don't like this test, suggest a different one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, I did a simple web search and got a lot of separate results for Azure Pharmaceuticals, including a media story which points out that they compile the the Medicine Shortages Index. Do you seriously think some mom-and-pop corner store compiles that index and is thereby covered by organizations like the Independent? Why don't you do a web search under the company's name? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Not done, this is the logo for a pharmaceutical company in New Delhi, India called "Azure Pharmaceuticals" (facebook.com). The Medicine Shortages Index is compiled by a different company in Ireland called "Azure Pharmaceuticals" (web site). I can't seem to find anything relevant to Azure Pharmaceuticals in any Wikipedia project or Wikidata. Thuresson (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Nana Mitch.jpg

I am requesting an undeletion of this image because the photographer who owns the right to the image already uploaded a filled OTRS form, but I think there was a challenge, so I have told him to resend the email to the permission email so this photo must be undeleted. Thank you and I look forward to it. Owula kpakpo (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Please review the instructions at the top of this page, which include "If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed." (underline added) The image will be restored if and when appropriate VRT permission is received. Эlcobbola _talk 21:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: vrt ok Restored by KRD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Riyadh All Star XI vs PSG.jpg

Hello administrator,

I would like to talk about the deletion of File:Riyadh All Star XI vs PSG.jpg. User:BrightRaven deleted it, but please undelete it because I was doing a wiki about a match, so I need to do it, but how without an image. I know I got a copyright violation, but I need it.

Thank You,

--OsinAharasani12 (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Duplicate of request closed yesterday. We cannot keep copyrighted files on Commons without a free license. You must either get a free license from the photographer or find a freely licensed substitute. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Portrait_de_Léa_Lassarat.jpg

Hi, I am making this request because this portrait is the propriety of Lea Lassarat, the subject of a Wikipedia article. She gave me the permission to use this photo in the article. Sincerely --ShiCa92 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose First, the subject of a portrait rarely has the right to freely license it as required here. That right belongs to the photographer unless the photographer has made a written license allowing it. Such licenses are very unusual -- photographers usually license the subject's use of the photograph, but do not allow the subject to license it to others. Second, "permission to use this photo in the article" is insufficient. Commons and WP require that images be free for any use by anyone anywhere. In order for the image to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or the subject must send such a license together with a copy of the written agreement with the actual photographer giving the subject the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Per Jim. Эlcobbola _talk 21:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Doug Thanos.jpg

I am requesting that File:Doug Thanos.jpg be undeleted. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Doug Thanos.jpg was closed as delete by User:Howcheng, but I felt that the discussion was mostly in support of keeping the image. I asked her about the closure at User talk:Howcheng#Doug Thanos.jpg and I disagree with her reasoning. Just because the cropped version might be good enough for some uses doesn't mean we should delete the uncropped version. I won't repeat everything I said in the DR discussion, but I think the image pretty clearly falls under case #4 listed at COM:DM#Guidelines. –IagoQnsi (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose de minimis requires that the average observer would not notice the difference if the copyrighted work were removed or blacked out. Since the copyrighted swimsuit is the major part of this image, that test is plainly not met. As one of the comments said, if he had been wearing a copyrighted tee shirt, there would have been no discussion at all.

Also please note that Deletion Requests are not votes.

"The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of their ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept, it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle. " Commons:Deletion requests

Two of the four people wanting to keep the file have one and 147 edits on Commons, so it is likely that the closing Admin did not give them much weight. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Request by Tacicuri

• File:Pintura_Rupestre_-_Bajada_Carr_Km_57_-_Chamán.jpg.
• File:Pintura_Rupestre_-_Bajada_Carr_Km_57_-_Linea_con_colgajes.jpg.
• File:Pintura_Rupestre_-_Bajada_Carr_Km_57_-_Piedra_con_diversos_Morteros.jpg.
• File:Pintura_Rupestre_-_Bajada_Carr_Km_57_-_Persona_y_objeto.jpg.

Tacicuri (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Duplicate of previously denied request. The copyright holder has to send a permission via COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

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

biograffía de una reconocida escritora de República Dominicana e incluía una foto.

Este texto es una biograffía de una reconocida escritora de República Dominicana e incluía una foto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.84.145 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 16 April 2023‎ (UTC)

---

 Not done: No file named. Request is from an IP user, so we can't look it up. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zelechin

Hello, avoiding the burial of this in the VRT archives. Please undelete the files in this DR per ticket:2010101810011729. The deleting admin missed looking at and contacting VRT, and they admitted it on the VRT noticeboard. Please have a look at here. Best, ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support This looks good to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @TheAafi: Please complete the permission in the file descriptions. File:Sarah Jackson, Dancer, Cloverdale Mall, 1961.jpg is most probably also covered by FoP. --Yann (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Bandeira de Nossa Senhora do Livramento.jpg

Boa tarde, venho através dessa pagina pedir o restauro do ficheiro File:Bandeira de Nossa Senhora do Livramento.jpg para ser restaurado, para manter corrigir as licenças adequadas ao ficheiro e sua devida apresentação no artigo do ficheiro a ser apresentado.--Bruno Luiz (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Please read Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nossa Senhora do Livramento (Mato Grosso) and then explain here why you think it is not a copyrighted work. Note that the named source page has "(c) 2023 - Prefeitura Municipal Nossa Senhora do Livramento Site feito pela MPX Brasil". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Pivot color.jpg

I am not sure why you deleted this file. I own the rights to this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkumar33 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 April 2023‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose It was deleted both because of copyright questions and whether it is in scope. I cannot find it on the Web -- there is nothing to indicate that it is the logo of a significant organization. If you can convince us here that the logo belongs on Commons -- see COM:SCOPE, then you must get the actual copyright holder to submit a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:G. L. Manuel frères

In this deletion request I questioned whether French TOO meant lots of the images shot by a photographic studio were below French TOO. 90% of the photos didn't really have any originality, and were just generic unoriginal portrait photos. France has "a slightly higher threshold of originality in general, and particularly so in the context of photographic works" (quoting from COM:TOO France). See this blog for more info. If there's debate on whether this is original enough in France, then I think it's reasonable to say that most of these photos are below TOO. Also, all the photos I'm linking have a publication date before 1928, so they're PD in the US. In a nutshell, we just have to use {{TOO-France}} and {{PD-US-expired}}.

• File:Anna de Noailles Dornac.jpg
• File:Anna de Noailles Dornac (cropped).jpg
• File:Bernard Zimmer by Studio G. L. Manuel frères.jpg
• File:Camille Bos.jpg
• File:Camille Mauclair 1921.jpg
• File:Eugène Vigo.jpg
• File:Francis Jammes 1927.jpg
• File:Georges Dolley by Studio G. L. Manuel frères.jpg
• File:JB-410-1925-Lieutenant-Colonel-1.jpg
• File:Louis Barthou vers 1925.jpg
• File:Ludmilla Pitoëff by Studio G. L. Manuel frères.jpg
• File:Manuel de Falla by Studio G. L. Manuel frères (cropped).jpg
• File:Manuel de Falla by Studio G. L. Manuel frères.jpg
• File:Raquel Meller by Studio G. L. Manuel frères.jpg
• File:Régine Flory by Studio G. L. Manuel frères.jpg
• File:S. E. M. Arciniegas - 1924.jpg
• File:S. E. M. de Peralta - 1924.jpg
• File:S. E. M. Gonzalo Zaldumbide - 1924.jpg

• As far as I understand it, the threshold question is usually more around snapshot-type photos -- France does not have a "simple photo" term. However, it's been my understanding that studio portraits, where every aspect is under control of the photographer, is pretty much the most obvious example of what a "work" was as opposed to a simple photo. The Hendrix portrait I don't think is a good example, as if I recall correctly the photographer did not show up in court so it was simply a default judgement -- they had to have at least a little evidence of how it reflected the author's personality, and they had none. So... I would not support undeletion on ToO grounds. I can't see most of them, but I presume they are artistic portraits, just in photographic form. Now, the DR does state that It is reasonable to assume that if two photographer brothers have a common studio, they are also the authors of the photographs by this studio. I completely disagree with that. They are only the authors if they participated in the actual photograph. If there were other employees, and the individual photographer was not named, then they were published anonymously. The individual human author had to become known within 70 years of publication for it to get a 70pma term. If it was a one-photographer company, then the company name could be considered a pseudonym with the author becoming known, thus 70pma, but outside of that I don't know. If both brothers were present and contributing to the scene, it would be considered joint authorship. Simply owning the company would not do it though. If the two were the only photographers of the company, it gets a bit harder since you know it would be one or the other, even if you don't know which -- and they could plausibly claim joint authorship, somewhat like Lennon/McCartney or Jagger/Richards songs. If the company employed other photographers though, then no -- works for hire did not become a 70pma term of the one doing the hiring. So I guess that is my biggest question -- did that company employ other photographers, or was it really just the two brothers for 26 years? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: We've already been through all of that, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2023-03#File:S._E._M._de_Peralta_-_1924.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 10:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Derek Williams delivers the Sell Sibelius petition.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Derek Williams delivers the Sell Sibelius petition.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: permission in ticket:2018052510005611 — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@JJMC89:  Done Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @JJMC89: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:HappyGirlXzit.png

Sourced to an AI generation program which claims no copyright on the creations. We have several other images from this program, including this variant that is license reviewed and had a similar false nomination a couple of days earlier. This is most likely the LTA that keeps on attacking Sakura emad (this is an image they used on their user page) --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 13:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Very small image, not present at the mentioned source. Out of scope and uncertain copyright. Yann (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

any hard evidence of copyright infringement? if not i request speedy undeletion as it speedily deleted without discussion. 💖 Sakura Hana 🌸 (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

This can be speedy deleted for abuse of COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Yann. Out of Commons scope. Abzeronow (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Yann and Abzeronow: doesn't this count as a {{User page image}} anyway as it's in use at en:User:Sakura emad and en:User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 (through en:User:Sakura emad/Userboxes/Twinkle)? [delinker] --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 18:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, I withdraw my opposition. @Túrelio: as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose - 1) No support for the claim "which claims no copyright on the creations" is offered; 2) the source site indicates character sets are from disparate sources, only one of which is described as "copyright-free" and there is no evidence this character is from that set (even if there were, that characterisation is contradicted by the terms of that source site which are unambiguously not PD and not acceptable as they are not a specific license and not perpetual ("The terms above are subject to change"); and 3) the license review of another image is OTHERSTUFF and not meaningful when we still have access the the source (license reviews are to guard against linkrot and license changes); verily, as per above the license review is demonstrably erroneous as there is no PD license at the source and uploader's copy-pasted permission statement itself at the time of upload and review (!!!) contradicts the PD claim. Эlcobbola _talk 14:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Derek Williams Portrait (cropped).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Derek Williams Portrait (cropped).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: A conversation with VRT member Emufarmers reveals that this file was likely deleted in error despite a noted VRTS permission for a larger (non-cropped) version of the file (File:Derek Williams Portrait.jpg). Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support This image removes about a third of the original image, all empty black space at the top. I would suggest that we don't need both, but we probably should keep the original to preserve the license trail. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Midjourney- Family in rain.jpg

his image was deleted for being copyvio due to going against Midjourney's ToS. However according to Commons:AI "Per Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, "non-copyright related restrictions are not c|onsidered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons". If a user violates the terms of use of an AI provider, that is a matter between them and the provider. The terms of use do not affect Commons, the rights of reusers, or the works themselves." --Trade (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Based on the prevailing consensus in most of the DRs we've seen, copyright claims by AI image generation providers are considered to be copyfraud, at least in the United States. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Depending on their status on Midjourney, the Flickr uploader may own the copyright to the work or may have an NC license. But, in any case, as KoH says, an image created by AI has no copyright in the USA. The new ToS is at https://docs.midjourney.com/docs/terms-of-service. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: as per Jim and KoH. --Yann (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Jialin Tang 1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Jialin Tang 1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The uploader, in fact, seems to be Detlef Eckert. Geohakkeri (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: No opposition. --Yann (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Karim hassen.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by كريم حسان (talk • contribs) 08:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose @كريم حسان: Wikimedia Commons is not a social media. We don't accept personal images (selfies, etc.) unless people are really contributing to Wikimedia projects. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Mohamed tamimy.jpg

اريد حفظ هذه الصورة — Preceding unsigned comment added by محمدالتميمي12 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose No file by that name. All the 3 deleted images uploaded by you are out of scope. Wikimedia Commons is not a social media. We don't accept personal images (selfies, etc.) unless people are really contributing to Wikimedia projects. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Spartan_3.PNG

Hi!

This is my own work.

Knoppson (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Knoppson: There is no file called File:Spartan 3.PNG, but I do see File:Spartan 2.PNG, which was deleted for having no license tag. I have provisionally restored it, but you must add a license tag such as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} to prevent it from being deleted again. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I am not at all certain this is in scope. There is no file description of any kind and no categories, so it is lost among almost 100 million images. There is also no source information or named author. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Jim for now. I don't see how this file has an educational use, but if the uploader could enlighten us with a file description and some other information, I could change my mind. Abzeronow (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You all suppose that people knows computers by heart. I understand almost nothing of this cyber world and wish only to write books. But yes, it is nice to categorize uploads but how do I firstly do that technically and secondly how do I do it at all? Please stop demanding so much from users because we are not all hackers! Knoppson (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll make it simple for you, please describe here in your own words what the diagram represents. I know very little about electronics. I can categorize it for you once I understand what the diagram means. Abzeronow (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That attitude will get you nowhere. You uploaded it and you claim to have created it. If that's true, then you must know all about it and should be able to write a description which we will all understand. If you did not, in fact, create it, then you should remember that making false claims of authorship here may get you banned from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Sylviabossu.jpg

I'm the author of this picture. Sylvia Bossu is my mother. The photograph was taken in 1994. Alcaios (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Sylvia Bossu had one child, probably the child in this image, who was born in 1993. She died in 1995, so it is extremely unlikely that you are both the author of this picture and her son. Making false claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being banned from editing here. In order for the image to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: This a picture of a picture... I literally took this photo and uploaded on Wikimedia some years ago. That's why I used picture vs photograph in the sentence. The actual photographer is a member of my family. This photograph has been in my bedroom for decades. Alcaios (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the very same picture can found here. I can re-upload it as a non-free image and use it in the article. The very same issue can be risen for File:Bossu_sylvia.jpg (another family picture I had uploaded). Alcaios (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And please avoid unnecessary accusations. My birth year (1993) has been displayed on my profile for years. I'm not trying to fool anyone, and I have helped improve Wikipedia to the point that I received the Editor of the Week award... Alcaios (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"I'm the author of this picture" is sophistry at best and deliberately misleading at worst -- the only author of a photograph is the actual photographer. Putting a paper photograph in a scanner doesn't make you the author of anything. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Per above. Requestor appears unaware of derivative works and the distinction between intangible and physical property ("his photograph has been in my bedroom for decades"). Creation of a slavish copy (i.e., a photograph of a photograph) does not generate a new copyright nor does it dissolve the copyright of the underlying work. Requestor acknowledges not being the photographer (birth year of 1993 versus date of creation of 1995) and offers no evidence of permission from the genuine author. Эlcobbola _talk 22:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm going to contact the genuine author or re-upload it as a non-free image and ask for a third-party review of the WP article on the COI noticeboard. Alcaios (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Not done, per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:São José dos Campos flag (construction).svg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:São José dos Campos flag (construction).svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Per PD-Brazil, as a vector recreation of a work published or commissioned by a municipal government in Brazil in 1960, which is prior to 1983, this work falls into public domain. File was deleted for the stated reason of "no license". Image will be used as base for new version of File:Bandeira de São José dos Campos.svg. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: flag has been uploaded as new version of Bandeira de São José dos Campos.svg. Withdrawing my request. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 14:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: request withdrawn. Ruthven (msg) 09:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

UNDELETE Following file: File:Stefan Bladh.jpg

This is my self portrait file, taken in my studio with remote controlled shutter - please undelete this picture asap --Stefanbladh76 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support HR with EXIF data, while the copy is small. Also this is a good portrait, so it is in scope. Yann (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done Sufficient proof of authorship, high-res version not found online. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:joseph volpicelli headshot.jpg Please undelete; I own this photo

This image is found on instituteaddictionmedicine.org because I run that website! I took this photo with my iphone and edited with my own software. Please undelete so I can continue to edit my draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgriffith10618 (talk • contribs)

•  Oppose, @Lgriffith10618: , please contact VRT and tell the team how you own the photo. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the quick response. As you can probably tell, I am a novice editor. I have never used wiki before so I'm having to youtube or google every step of the way. Would it be more simple to just take another photo that hasn't been used for anything else yet? I visited the VRT page and am feeling like it might be more than I can handle. Lgriffith10618 (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I actually figured it out! VRT was extremely helpful. Loving this community. Thanks again. Lgriffith10618 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: Permission OK now. --Yann (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Dark Side Of The Moon.jpg

I am requesting undeletion on the presumption that this file is a raster rendering of the front cover of the 1973 Pink Floyd album Dark Side of the Moon (if this is not the case, please quickly close this request as misguided). I presume that this has been deleted on the basis that the work is copyrighted in its country of first publication (such was the assumption at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dark Side Of The Moon.jpg), but I don't think that this is actually copyrighted after more closely examining the history of the work and looking through copyright registrations.

The creative portion of the art composing the album cover's key artistic representation is the light refracting through a prism to form a rainbow (see: File:The Dark Side of the Moon Cover.svg for an existing vector version of this on Commons that appears to be mistagged as below TOO). The first time that this artwork was published appears to have been in the United States (the album released in the United States on 1 March 1973 and was only later released in the United Kingdom), so the source country of the work as referred to in COM:LICENSING appears to be the United States rather than the UK (see: COM:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law, which notes that [t]he "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published). Based off what I'm able to find, I don't see a copyright notice for the cover art on the original album's front or back cover, and the artwork for the album cover itself appears in an advertisement published on Page 3 of the February 24, 1973 United States edition of Billboard. The latter would warrant a {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}} tag if that is indeed the first publication of the artwork, while the first publication being considered as the release of the U.S. album on March 1 would render the {{PD-US-no notice}} appropriate.

To confirm that was not missing something obvious, I also did search through copyright records to find evidence of registration of a copyright for the album cover artwork in the United States, but I was not able to find an applicable registration record. The URAA would not restore this artwork's copyright, as this artwork was published in the United States before it was published abroad.

In light of the above, this looks like a work first published in the United States that is not copyrighted in the United States for failure to adhere to copyright formalities, and it should be undeleted on Commons as such.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment it is this Flickr file. --Rosenzweig τ 11:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support A similar image illustrates The Dark Side of the Moon with a fair use tag. According to the article, the original release was in a gatefold cover, so perhaps the copyright notice appeared on the inside? However the appearance in Billboard seems to be definitive.

Note, by the way, that registration was not required in 1973 and, unlike the period 1978-1989, registration did not cure lack of notice, so it is irrelevant to the discussion of a 1973 work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose - The image is famously the work of the London design firm Hipgnosis. The sale from Hipgnosis (U.K.) to Pink Floyd, or related legal entity, (U.K.) necessarily precedes use on the Dark Side of the Moon album and would thus be the first publication. This is a United Kingdom work; {{PD-US-no notice}} is not appropriate. Эlcobbola _talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. COM:L requires that the work be free in "at least the United States and in the source country of the work". It does not further define "source country". I have always assumed that that was the country of first publication. According to the cited article, the work was not a preexisting work -- it was created by Hipgnosis in several versions for Pink Floyd. Although it was created in the UK, its first publication was in the USA. So, which is the "source country"? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"Source country," or country of origin, is the country of first publication per the Berne Convention ("The country of origin shall be considered to be (a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country.") Эlcobbola _talk 13:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The Berne Conventions uses "country of origin" while we use "source country". That suggests to me that they can be different, so that doesn't answer my question. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure it did--"'Source country,' or country of origin, [...]"--they are one and the same. You yourself use them interchangeably. That clause, by the way, was originally rendered as "country of origin" but has morphed since. This is a wiki; language is routinely revised, and not necessarily (and indeed seldom) with reference to source documents or care for linguistic precision. When you read "the United States and in the source country of the work", what precisely do you think "source country" could mean otherwise in context? What did you think "source country' meant here, here, here, here, etc.? Эlcobbola _talk 15:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Эlcobbola, I don't understand. On the one hand you oppose restoration on the grounds that the source country is the UK. On the other hand, you argue that "source country" and "country of origin" are synonymous. Berne defines "country of origin" as the place where first published in most cases and says

""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. [snip] the exhibition of a work of art and [snip] shall not constitute publication." (Article 3 (3)).

Since Hipgnosis created the work for Pink Floyd, it was never exhibited or copied until the album was published in the USA, so how do the facts make the UK the source country? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no contradiction; please reread my initial comment. Publication is the distribution of copies (or copy) of a work by sale or other transfer of ownership. The sale from Hipgnosis to Pink Floyd is publication. The subsequent use of the work by Pink Floyd on the album was with Hipgnosis' consent. "[I]t was never exhibited or copied until the album was published in the USA" is simply untrue, and contradicted by both common sense and the many, many articles on the origin of this work. Per the Copyright Office link I provided above, "When a work is published in a foreign country and then subsequently published in the United States, the publication in the foreign country is considered the first publication of that work." This is a U.K. work. Эlcobbola _talk 20:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not my reading of the Berne definition. It requires sufficient copies "to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public". Mere exhibition is not publication and there is nothing in the Berne definition to suggest that licensing a work is publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The position of the United States Copyright Office is "When a work is published in a foreign country and then subsequently published in the United States, the publication in the foreign country is considered the first publication of that work." Publication is the distribution of copies (or copy) of a work by sale or other transfer of ownership. The US considers this a foreign work, whatever your reading of Berne. Эlcobbola _talk 21:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree -- it was not a normal sale of copies, rather Pink Floyd was licensing the work for use on its cover. Whatever copies were given to let them make that decision, would be considered "limited publication", since Pink Floyd would have had no right to distribute them further. Same thing for a book author -- they will distribute copies to publishing houses in order to get a contract, but that is limited publication. They are not "general publication" until copies were distributed to someone who was free to distribute them further (i.e. copies of the book were sold to bookstores and the like). Movies were not generally published until copies were sent to the distribution company -- a private screening by the production company was not general publication. Pink Floyd licensing the work would not cause a publication right then. It can seem counter-intuitive when this is a British company licensing to a British band, for sure. That fact through means it's more possible there were advertisements in the UK prior to actual release of the album, so the details will come down to what evidence the parties can bring up in court. If they can find where the work was published in the UK more than 30 days before the US, it would be a UK work which got restored in the US. If it was published within 30 days of each other, the lack of notice may have lost US copyright while the UK copyright is still valid, and Europe (now that UK is not part of the EU) would need to use the Berne rules only, which means the country with the shorter terms... which I'm not sure about what would mean in this situation. Maybe the US, which would (without the notice issue) last 95 years from 1971, versus the UK, which would last 70 years from 2013. I am hesitant on this one, just on the possibility that there was publication in the UK in some form earlier, but given the evidence we have, does seem like a US work (or at least simultaneous work) which means the lack of notice still matters in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

A publication is limited if it "communicates the contents of a [work] to a definitely selected group and for a limited purpose, and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale." (underline added)(White v. Kimmell, 193 F.2d 744, 746-47 (9th Cir. 1952)) "And" is not "or." If I purchase a work from Hipgnosis with the objective, and Hipgnosis' knowledge and approval, of using it on my commercial album cover, the plain is fact is that it was with right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale. Эlcobbola _talk 16:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The story goes that Hipgnosis showed several possible designs to Pink Floyd, who unanimously and instantly picked the one which ended up on the cover. But, the final artwork probably wasn't done until later, and it sounds like the band members got involved a bit too (more on the inside), and someone else did the final artwork, so sounds like joint authorship (some of whom are still alive). It was not a design they were selling to anyone who came along who wanted it (which I would agree would be general publication), but a private work made specifically for the album. The area is gray enough to be a little arguable, but it's not like Hipgnosis was selling copies just then. I don't see a US copyright registration for it, though I do see them for several other Hipgnosis covers, and in all of them the copyright was owned by the record company -- so from a US perspective, they most probably just sold the unpublished common-law copyright (possibly to the band instead of the label), and was still unpublished until the copyright owner did something further. If there was a registration, the date on that would rule, but I could not find one. There was apparently a London premiere on February 27, so it was certainly published in the UK by that point. We did find a US advertisement from Feb 24. Odds are, there were also earlier ads in the UK as well -- we may simply not know about them. That chance (along with the gray area on exactly when publication was, and the visibility of this particular work) does make me hesitant. Publication per the Berne Convention (which is what the 30-day window and "country of origin" is based on) though would pretty much require copies available to the public (though ads and billboards would count), so it's probably more the dates of that which matter more. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I always though to "source country" and "country of origin" as to be the same, and as being the country where a work have been firstly "published" or "made available to the public"'. E.g. the photos I take in France, I edit on my computer in my home in France, and that I publish on Wikimedia Commons are firstly published in USA, and are protected in France because of the Berne Convention. That being said, not being a specialist in the many specificities of USA copyright, I am neutral about the Pink Floyd disc cover, but Jim's reasoning seems consistent. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

They are virtually the same thing -- the Berne Convention uses the term "country of origin", and the US URAA law uses the term "source country". They are basically equivalent, except in the case of simultaneously published works (within 30 days); the rules about determining the country differ between the two at that point. But yes, both are the country of first publication for the most part, regardless of nationality of the author. If unpublished, the rules can also be slightly different between the two. In your example, there can be questions on if they were published in France (since you distributed them from France to Wikimedia Commons), or the U.S. (where they became available to others). Or if it means they were simultaneously published in all countries of the world (since all have access to Commons). Some judges can rule on slight differences of interpretation like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: I agree with you that a publication in the UK an indeterminate period before the release of the album would pose a problem here, but I'm not sure we've got evidence that the work was published in the U.K. prior to its distribution in the United States of America. I'm reading the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended by subsequent legislation), which defines "publication" as the issue of copies to the public. It's not clear to me that copies were issued to the public prior to the publication of the cover art in an ad in Billboard; are you saying that unless Pink Floyd/its record company are to be considered "the public" for the purposes of the U.K. statute?

Would you be willing to elaborate more on why you believe the sale of the artwork/grant of a license to use the artwork worldwide to Pink Floyd constituted publication of the album cover under the law of the United Kingdom? Is there relevant case law or U.K. government guidance that I'm missing here, or am I just misreading the statute? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment. I'm looking in a bit more to see if there was publication of something like the design prior to February 1973. This poster appears on several websites as being an ad for Pink Floyd's May 1, 1972 Carnegie Hall performance. The design is similar to this 1973 poster, but I have doubts about the authenticity of the design. The poster isn't in the Pink Floyd Archive, nor does it appear consistent with the style of the other posters, but the archive does confirm that there was a concert on that day in NYC. That led me to this poster allegedly from February 1972 relating to a concert at the Rainbow Theatre in London, England. Similar sort of situation (I'm skeptical of the authenticity), but I did want to share these for transparency sake in case my skepticism is misplaced. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Carl Lindberg's arguments above are pretty convincing, but your link to the archive shows that there was a performance in England on January 20th, 1972. Don't you think that the cover design was shown at that place and time? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

They had some of the songs written by then, and were experimenting during performances, but the actual recording did not start until late May 1972 at Abbey Road, lasting into June, with some more work there in October and then later in Jan/Feb 1973. Possibly some other times, in between their touring. It sounds like Hipgnosis brought their designs to the band in a basement room at Abbey Road, so the design couldn't have existed before then, but not sure exactly when during that recording time it was decided on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: as per Carl essentially. If a earlier UK publication is found, please consider a new DR. --Yann (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Nitrogenoaren zikloaa.png

They have blocked my photo and I would like to appeal, since the only thing I have done has been to translate the image File:Nitrogenoaren_zikloa.jpg of(User:Mulenholaadios) into Basque. I hope it can be fixed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaitzduquee (talk • contribs) 18:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose The source is copied from [7], with no evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Nitrogenoares ziklo irudia.jpg

They have blocked my photo and I would like to appeal, since the only thing I have done has been to translate the image into Basque. I hope it can be fixed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaitzduquee (talk • contribs) 18:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Comment No file by that name, but this probably concerns File:Nitrogenoaren zikloa irudia.png. Yann (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Derivative work from [8]. No evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Nitrogeno finkapena.png

My photo has been deleted and I would like to appeal. What I have done is translate the photo File:Nitrogen fixation Fabaceae en.svg into Basque. The author of this photo is (User:Nefronus), I hope we can use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkaitzduquee (talk • contribs) 13:19, 21 April 2023‎ (UTC)

 Info I have removed the above comment from the request concerning File:Royal Standard of New Zealand.svg and made it into a new request. Thuresson (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: As requested, derivative from work available on Commons. Please, add a source to the original image next time, this is required according to the license. --Ellywa (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Undelete file - Dr. Adil Shamji.jpg

I am the rights holder and photographer. This is the official headshot of the MPP and should be used on this page at his request with my permission. It is provided to the official government sites as well. --PSmithYYZ (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support HR with EXIF. The links mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr. Adil Shamji.jpg are small copies. Yann (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Name of the file to undelete.jpg

I have submitted vario­us files to the Wiki Loves Folklore 2023 contest.​ but 3 of the files I sent have already been delet­ed.​ In my opinion, my deleted files were deleted because the admin users made a wrong decision about my files.​ but I think my files were covered by Wiki Loves Folklore 2023. Plea­se re-examine the de­leted files. If you re-examine my deleted files, you can see that each of the images in the files has elements of folklore.​ I also wrote this in the discussion section of the candidate files for deletion.​ but the user in the management who deleted my files deleted the files without paying attention to them. maybe it would have been one of the winners in Wiki Loves Folklore 2023 if my files hadn't been deleted--Naturalezalover (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose as per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Naturalezalover. Yann (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

it is doubtful that the pictures should be deleted anyway. Naturalezalover (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Rómulo_y_su_banda.jpg

Se ha enviado autorización del autor para ser publicada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacicuri (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose Not own work, and no permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Deleted photos

I uploaded some photos in these pages: https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruffedge https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azan_Addin_bin_Abdul_Wahab https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Farish https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Mohammad_bin_Syed_Abdullah https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sein_Qudsi https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zain_Hamid

but today i found out almost all photos in these links have been deleted. I want to reupload it again because i got the photos from the celebrities themselves. So should be nothing wrong with it. Julia azrina (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Julia azrina: We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: In each case, the actualphotographer or other copyright holder (usually not the subject) must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Joanna Pociask-Karteczka.jpg

A proper agreement of author has been sent to VTRS. See ticket:2023042010004952. Polimerek (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Polimerek: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Request by Roberto Konisberg

The source https://www.regionlitoral.net/2022/08/colonia-alicia-alta-misiones.html has been correctly cited --Roberto Konisberg (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Roberto Konisberg: You didn't mention a file name. All the files you have uploaded are under the wrong license. You must provide the evidence that these files are under a free license, or in the public domain. Please read COM:L. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Lweez, rappeuse et graffeuse.jpg

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2023031910003127 regarding File:Lweez, rappeuse et graffeuse.jpg. Please restore in order to verify the veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Yann (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Request by LéoFatal

• File:Texture fourmi Minecraft 2D Blockbench.png
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 01.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 02.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 03.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 04.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 05.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 06.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 07.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 08.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 09.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 10.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 11.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 12.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 13.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 14.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 15.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 16.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 17.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 18.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 19.jpg
• File:Arraignée Blockbench 20.jpg

Hello, Sorry if my message is writed in French. Je demande la restauration de mes fichiers car c'est moi qui les ait créés. J'ai modélisé de A à Z cet animal sur Blockbench. Je n'ai en aucun cas téléchargé de fichier déjà existant. Merci de votre compréhension. LéoFatal (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Google translate of original request to en: "I ask for the restoration of my files because I created them. I modeled this animal from A to Z on Blockbench. In no case did I download an existing file. Thank you for your understanding." —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood the nature of the files. @LéoFatal Are these models of an actual Minecraft mob (even models you made)? Or are these models of something you made up? Or do they represent something else? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Mdaniels5757,

It's a mob that I made up.

LéoFatal (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I think this is personal art which we do not keep on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose undeletion: I shouldn't have speedily deleted these (should've started a DR instead), but these would have been deleted as out of scope unless in use. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support Undelete and put the images up for a deletion request to determine if they are out of scope--Trade (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LéoFatal. Converting to DR since no speedy criteria are applicable and the deletion is controversial. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:yesil-sol-parti-essozcusu-akin.jpg

silinmesini istemyiroum — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsilKullanıcı (talk • contribs) 12:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose File copied from the Internet. No evidence of a free license. Please read COM:L. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Somni Live First Ave Minneapolis.jpg

I own the rights to this picture, the file was deleted because I waited too long to respond, sorry! --Maxdamage340 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose EXIF shows that it was copied from Instagram. The copyright holder must send a formal written permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Maxdamage340: As an alternative to what Yann suggests, if you are indeed the photographer, you can reupload a full-resolution version of the image with EXIF metadata to prove your authorship. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:asemessut.jpg

I have the rights to this photo. This photo was used in the web before and I included that reference to the info, which was irrelevant and confused the matter. Please, restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutkija8 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose Copied from the Internet without permission. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it was copied with permission by the owner. How can I declare the permission and the license?

-ok, I found the email-template. Since this was deleted, how do I provide the link to the image in the email? By uploading it again? Thanks for helping to solve this.

@Tutkija8: Please sign your message. No, do not reupload deleted files. Just provide the file name, and the image will be undeleted when the permission is validated. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The file should probably be temporarily undeleted, so that the rights owner can see what photo they license. –LPfi (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. We will send the email. Tutkija8 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Awaiting VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Tiehallinto_ampujien_kerho.jpg

This was deleted due to CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. However, the license describes: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. (Wikipedia is non-commercial.) Also the particular photo describes that is can be freely used in education and research. The organization shall be mentioned with the picture. https://finna.fi/Record/mobilia.mobilia.mediafiles.fi:TH_Valokuva%2FTiehallinto%20kuvat__12536?imgid=1&lng=en-gb

Why was this photo not accepted? Please, restore.

Edit: actually this is the issue as the above File:Kalle-Paatalo-1969.jpg case, in which undelete was decided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutkija8 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose the source as linked clearly shows a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license which is not allowed. Wikimedia is non commercial, but we want to enable use for other purposes, including commercial purposes. In addition we enable derivative works. Ellywa (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read COM:Licensing. Ellywa (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I'll contach FHA and see if we can proceed from there. This conversation can be deleted. Understood the issue. Tutkija8 (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Xhejson Isufi.jpg

I have permission by user to create this wiki page and to upload this picture I want to apply for a undelete action Media:Xhejson Isufi.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cawivi2565 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 27 April 2023‎ (UTC)

 Info Refers to en:Draft:21st Digital Century. Thuresson (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Xhejson Isufi.jpg. The file description says:

"This image is given for me from Xhejson Isufi. This image is free to use only on Wikipedia."

So, first, the claim of {{Own}} made by this uploader is false. Making false claims of authorship can lead to your being blocked from editing here. Second, "only on Wikipedia" is unacceptable. Files here must be free for use anywhere by anybody for any purpose. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: File not yet deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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

المخرج حمد النوري

مخرج تلفزيوني وسينمائي، مدرب معتمد متخصص في مجال الإعلام، خبرة أكثر من 17عاما في الإخراج والإنتاج التلفزيوني والسنيمائي، بكالوريوس صحافة واعلام - جامعة البتراء الأردنية اخرج العديد من الاعمال من البرامج و الأفلام الوثائقية والمسلسلات التلفزيونية والاعلانات منها (مسلسل رحى الأيام، الفيلم الوثائقي الإنسانية رحلة إلى الهند، سلسل برنامج روعة الخلق..) وأيضا ترأس واخرج العديد من التغطيات التلفزيونية. مدرب مدربين معتمد من بيتا Bita الأمريكية والمعتمدة بالجهات الرسمية، درب وشارك في العديد من الدورات والمحاضرات. وفي العلاقات العامة ترأس العديد من المناصب الاعلامية والنشاطات النقابية عضو جمعية العلاقات العامة الكويتية و عضو جمعية السنيما الكويتية و عضو نقابة الفنانين والإعلاميين الكويتيين. الموقع الرسمي للمخرج حمد النوري — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamad yousef alnoori (talk • contribs) 04:01, 27 April 2023‎ (UTC)

Google Translate: "Director Hamad Al-Nouri. Television and film director, certified trainer specializing in the field of media, more than 17 years of experience in television and film directing and production, BA in Journalism and Media - University of Petra Jordan. To India, the series of the Rawat Al-Khalq program ..) He also chaired and directed many TV coverages. Certified trainer of trainers from the American Bita, which is accredited by the official authorities. He has trained and participated in many courses and lectures. In public relations, he headed many media positions and trade union activities, a member of the Kuwait Public Relations Association and a member of the Cinema Association"

Procedural close, not an undeletion request. Thuresson (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Susannah Birch.jpg

Please restore this file as we now have a completed VRT permission per Ticket:2022110310002902. Ww2censor (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Ww2censor: FYI. --Yann (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Sloppy deletions: Files uploaded by ErikGhukasyanam

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ErikGhukasyanam was started as "Not used logos of non-notable companies and photos of non-notable people, spam / out of scope" by Xunks. Among the files were File:ArmeniaTV logo.png and files with similar names. Ikan Kekek asked "Is Armenia TV not notable?" Wikipedia says it is "one of the leading TV channels in Armenia". P199 closed the request "Deleted: per nomination. Unused logos are not educational, out of scope".

This is troubling, as IK notes in Commons talk:Deletion requests#"Unused logos are not educational, out of scope" as a deletion reason.

Being in use makes a logo automatically in scope. Not being in used means the assessment must be done on other grounds. How can a company with an article in Wikipedia be regarded not notable by Commons? How can an administrator blankly state that unused logos are non-educational?

Obviously this closure was a mistake. I don't know whether some of the files are out of scope as I cannot read the descriptions or view the images, but if they are, they should be deleted in a new DR with better rationales.

Something is wrong with the procedures when such sloppy nominations can succeed.

–LPfi (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Of all the files mentioned in the linked DR, there are only 2 different logos, one of Armenia TV and one of a "Film factory". The others are (sort of) duplicates, and two show people. A more relevant rationale for deletion might have been the fact that the uploader claimed all these files as own work, which is unlikely, at least for the logos. --Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Logos are obviously almost never going to be own work, but if they are textlogos and therefore DR, they shouldn't be deleted on that account, right? However, I don't remember what TV Armenia's logo looked like and I'm no expert on laws anywhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azure Logo.jpg is a similar case, but without a Wikipedia article to make it as obvious. I think "no educational value" is not a convincing reply to: "Textlogo, and a web search shows a good deal of media mention of this company. One example: 'Azure Pharmaceuticals, which compiles the Medicine Shortages Index, said manufacturers including companies producing medicines domestically are getting paid up to four times as much for their products abroad than in Ireland.'" Instead, the closing admin should have addressed how the media coverage of the company is somehow so insufficient that the logo couldn't possibly be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you all think about that case? Should I nominate it separately? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the DR was not handled perfectly.

1. File:HarutShatyanAraBaghdasaryan.jpg
2. File:Ara Baghdasaryan.jpg
3. File:Film Factory logo corner.png
4. File:FILM FACTORY LOGO crop.jpg
5. File:ArmeniaTV logo.png
6. File:ArmeniaTV.png
7. File:FILM FACTORY LOGO.jpg

1 is two unidentified men. 2 probably should be restored 3, 4, and 7 are the logo of a completely unidentified organization. Depending on the country of origin, it may or may not have a copyright. The logo may or may not be in scope. 5 and 6 are almost certainly in scope, but probably have copyrights and probably are not the work of the uploader as claimed. 1, 3, 4, and 6 have no useful categories. Category:Director and Category:Producer are far too general. Files without categories are useless. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Is 2 in scope as depicting a random person or as depicting Ara Baghdasaryan? In the latter case 1 is probably depicting Ara Baghdasaryan and Harut Shatyan, not two unidentified men. I assume they are from Film Factory in Yerevan. I don't know the notability of that company (or whatever), but I don't think it is hard to find for somebody who read Armenian. Thus most files might be salvageable description-wise, allowing useful categories to be added. However, if the logos are above the threshold of originality and we don't have permission from any copyright owners, then little can be done. –LPfi (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The Armenia TV logos are very likely below TOO in the US, but the legal situation in Armenia is unclear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Six  Not done and one  Done per discussion. This has been open without comments for a month. It's time to move on. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Kalle-Paatalo-1969.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Kalle-Paatalo-1969.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) — released under CC-BY-2.0 license here on December 9, 2020.
• File:Rauli-Badding-Somerjoki-1970.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) — released under CC-BY-2.0 license here on the same day.
• File:Eila-Hiltunen-1970.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) — released under CC-BY-2.0 license here on the same day.

Reason: These photographs were free to use at the time of deletion for two reasons:

§ 1. The lawful copyright holder, Finnish Heritage Agency (FHA), had released them under CC-BY-2.0 license. So there was no copyright violation in the first place. (Although the license at Finna has not been updated, the more lenient license at Flickr is the one to be followed.)

§ 2. These files are Public Domain anyway because these are over 50 years old press photographs from Finland (and PD-Finland50 applies). It is difficult to understand the original campaign against Helge Heinonen’s pre-1972 photographs here. Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Since these are photographs after 1966, URAA would apply. I'd also be inclined to say that we don't follow the Flickr license but rather the license at Finna. This may require COM:VRT anyway because how do we know Heinonen's copyrights were transfered to FHA? Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Reply. A quote from an earlier discussion: “In this particular case the collection was donated to Museovirasto at 2016 [9], [10].”

In a case of conflicting licenses from the same holder, the more recent and the more lenient one must be taken into account, so as to determine their actual intention. (The FHA simply doesn’t have manpower enough to update the licenses into Finna, too.) Heinonen’s photographs were originally published in Finnish magazines, e.g. Apu. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link on Heinosen's donation. Technically, the CC-BY-ND 4.0 is a more recent license than Flickr's CC-BY 2.0 license. But in terms of chronology, both licenses were applied on the same day so you could make the case that either applies. I'll let someone more experienced than I in these matters determine if they can be multi-licensed or not. Abzeronow (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Also note that the file File:Pentti-Saarikoski-1977.jpg was kept because it has CC-BY-2.0 at Flickr but something else at Finna. It seems safe to consider the Finna license obsolete in a case like this, and trust the one at Flickr, given more recently. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

After some thought on the matter, and seeing that other Finna files are passed with a CC-BY license, I have decided that I will  Support this undeletion request. I really hope FHA does update their licenses though so things like this can be avoided in the future. Abzeronow (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment [11] exists currently in Commons. --Geohakkeri (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: Per discussion. I did not restore the second one because, as noted, the image already appears on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Loch Ness Monster in Toilet.jpg

Hello. I can't believe this photo was actually deleted, despite all the valid reasons I gave as to why it should be kept. I highly recommend that it gets restored. For starters, this is MY picture, and other people may have saved it while it was still up, and they may later post it elsewhere, claiming it as THEIR picture. It needs to be restored, so I have proof that I uploaded it here, first... and it is in fact MY picture. I own the copyright to this picture, and any violations caused by others claiming it as their own will be dealt with in (what I consider) a reasonable manner. The photo was posted here on the condition that others may use it in any manner, as long as they credit me. But they cannot try to claim they are the copyright owners. Everyone involved in such a scandal will be forced to make restitution to me.

I just created a gallery page, and I will add this photo to it as soon as it's restored. I just want to say that so far, I've had nothing but negative experiences on Wiki, due to other people sabotaging my work. Do you want helpful contributions or not? Deleting people's submissions for no real reason is disrespectful, and is the fastest way to drive contributors away. I will leave reviews about this site soon. I just hope my mind is changed in time to make the reviews good, and not bad.

In case you were curious, here are the reasons I previously gave for why it should be kept:

1: This is my OWN artwork, and I entered it in the Wiki Loves Folklore contest. Therefore, it very much should stay. I'm really tired of people trying to sabotage my entries. This is the second time. My pictures are here to STAY!

2: An artwork picture of the supposed Loch Ness Monster may well have educational value. I read a book of true stories stating that, long ago, people in MY HOME STATE found a giant water creature resembling the Loch Ness Monster! (I think that's awesome!) The book is called Tulsa's Haunted Memories, written by Teri French. If you do a Google search, you will find a description of the book that says, Tulsa's Haunted Memories explores the forgotten history and lost folklore of "America's Most Beautiful City." That's right... FOLKLORE! Exactly what Wiki loves. The book does not contain a picture of the creature. I simply did my own artwork of what I THINK the creature might have looked like. As for why it's in the toilet, well... that's just for fun! People HAVE found animals in their toilets, so I thought a picture depicting a supposed creature in a toilet would be fun and informative. Obviously, I couldn't take a REAL photo of the Loch Ness Monster (if I had, that picture would have won for sure!), so my only option was to do artwork of it. So again, I say this picture should stay. Thank you so much for your kind understanding, and I look forward to you seeing this beautiful photo here forever!

Okay, bye! (And make the right decision!)

--Most Helpful (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Loch Ness Monster in Toilet.jpg. Yann (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: We do not keep personal art from artists who are not notable. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Filip Lundgren.jpg

The file was deleted in 2022 because it lacked enough information. Now the uploader has answered, stating that the photograph was taken in 1964 at Studio Bernle in Helsingborg (i.e. when Filip Lundgren was about 58 years old). It should thus qualify for {{PD-Sweden-photo}} and {{PD-1996}} (as 1964+25 < 1996) if it is regarded as a "photographic image" (in contrast to "photographic work", which has to pass a high threshold of originality). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nils J Lundgren.jpg, about a photo of his father. –LPfi (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I have little understanding of the subtleties of the Swedish distinction between a photographic image and a photographic work, but this is a high end formal studio portrait. If any photograph of a person qualifies as a photographic work, this certainly does. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The preliminary works for the 1960 law said that "simpler portrait photography" would not exceed the threshold; to my knowledge there are no later authoritative statements, at least there are none in the corresponding PM for the new law. The common rule (which nowadays in principle should apply also to photos) is that to get copyright, a work needs to be original, so that another author wouldn't have arrived at the same result. –LPfi (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"simpler portrait photography" suggests an image that would result from one of us pointing a camera at a person and pushing the button. This image was taken in a studio with studio lighting and deliberate soft focus. As I said above, if any portrait photograph can qualify for "photographic work" this certainly is one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done for further discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Filip Lundgren.jpg; speedy deletion clearly does not apply here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Sarah El Haïry 2023.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2023041710010648. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Mussklprozz: Please add the license. --Yann (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Margot Douaihy headshot 9 Vertical.jpg

Hello,

I am Margot Douaihy, and I took this picture of myself with my own phone on July 3, 2020.

I am the copyright holder of this photo and I want to use it under a free license with WikiMedia Commons.

I am happy to provide any other relevant information that may support my request.

Bishoparchive2001 (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC) --Bishoparchive2001 (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Thank you, Margot Douaihy, April 26, 2023 www.margotdouaihy.com

@Bishoparchive2001: Do you have a copy of the original, full-resolution image with EXIF metadata? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:RAMONA VINSON.CHARCOAL ON PAPER.ca.1927.8.75"x12.5".jpg

Work was made before 1928. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercurioart (talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 April 2023‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Actual file is probably File:0167(a).RAMONA VINSON.CHARCOAL ON PAPER.ca.1920's.8.75"x12.5".FRONT.jpg

Ramona Vinson (1908-2004) does not have much information on the web. One source shows this work as 1920, when she would have been 12, which seems unlikely. Another source shows a work in a similar style with a 1930 date, so the 1928 date is possible. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I also think it's possible that this was created in 1927. (I was the one who created the DR). Abzeronow (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I found very little on the Web about this artist and this picture. Where are you two getting the dates mentioned above? Where did the picture come from? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I filed a DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:0167(a).RAMONA VINSON.CHARCOAL ON PAPER.ca.1920's.8.75"x12.5".FRONT.jpg because there was a lack of information that I could find, but I still don't know if the 1927 date the uploader is now saying is true or not, just that there was a 1920s date in the file name. If uploader can show that this was published in 1927, that would certainly be helpful. Abzeronow (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: Most probably PD-US-expired. --Yann (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Camila-502418258-large.jpg

Hello! using the rules and procedures established by wkipedia, I request the recovery of the deleted file: Camila-502418258-large.jpg.

I base my request on the fact that the image file, object of the blockade, complies with the rules that Wikipedia establishes for its use.

The file in question is a publication registered in Argentina, therefore, protected according to the current legal system: The image corresponds to the official cover of the movie "camila", published in Argentina on May 17, 1984 and therefore is protected by the scope of LAW 11,723 - LEGAL REGIME OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY art. 34 and I quote: For photographic works, the duration of the property right is TWENTY (20) years counted from the date of the first publication.

In accordance with the foregoing, I request that the file be restored and its use allowed, as established by the law in force in the country of origin.

I will appreciate your patience if you see any form errors in this application. It is the first time I use it.

Oscar Antonio (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose There are several things wrong above. First, please remember that this is Commons, not Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's rules and procedures do not apply here. Second, the Argentine term for photographs requires both 25 years after creation and 20 years after publication, see {{PD-AR-Photo}}. Third, even if this were a photo, a 1984 work would therefore have been under copyright until 1/1/2010, long after the URAA date, so it would have a USA copyright until 1/1/2040. Last, and most important, although it contains a photograph, it is not a photograph, it is a poster, which is a graphic work and does not qualify for the shorter term for photographs. Therefore it will be under copyright for 70 years from the death of its creator, which means that it will have an Argentine copyright until at least 1/1/2055 and probably much longer.

It is possible that the image can be uploaded to one or more of the Wikipedias under Fair Use, but that is not possible here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Anna Fidlerová (03).jpg et al.

Hi, please undelete the following three files per ticket:2023042710010291 -- a valid release was received by the VRT.

• File:Anna Fidlerová (03).jpg
• File:Anna Fidlerová (04).jpg
• File:Anna Fidlerová (05).jpg

Thanks! --Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: @Martin Urbanec: FYI. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Reopened -- Yann said  Not done, but the files have been restored. Also note that (03) shows a perfectly legible copy of Pravda from 1968 which is still under copyright. Since it occupies the whole center of the image, it cannot be de minimis. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I don't have access to the ticket, so I need to trust VRT volunteers to check if the permission is sufficient compared to the content, including potential secondary copyrighted elements. If the permission is not sufficient, it is the responsibility of people processing permission to (re)open a DR. Yann (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yann , I reopened it mostly because you said one thing and did the other. I can't imagine that we have a single VRT ticket that both gives permission for the three images and also for Pravda, but Martin can answer the question. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a correct note @Jameslwoodward -- I didn't see the files before making the UR, as I'm not an admin here. I uploaded a new version of File:Anna Fidlerová (03).jpg, with Pravda blurred out. Can one of you please revdel the first version of the file, and we can close this? CC @Yann. Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Afkr GROUP مجموعة افكر.png

afkr Group page blog or page on behalf of the afkr Group The blog provides what's new in the world of technology and clarifications about the Windows and Android operating systems

مدونة أو صفحة باسم مجموعة أفكر تقدم المدونة كل ما هو جديد في عالم التكنولوجيا وتوضيحات حول أنظمة تشغيل Windows و Android عرض أقل — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afkrgroup (talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose Out of scope. @Afkrgroup: Please read COM:SCOPE. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

--Roberto angel Cervantes sanchez (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)--Roberto angel Cervantes sanchez (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: No file named. This request is the user's only contribution to Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Elizabeth Rose, artist.png

I have copyright permission for this image from Rose's mother (her next of kin). Please restore (!!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chopschopschops (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose @Chopschopschops: Please ask the copyright holder to confirm the permission via email. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Yann, this requires a license from the copyright holder via VRT. The image is said to be a selfie and I think the subject is deceased, so the license should come from her heir. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:762 FAL Para R2.jpg

Seems to be fine under CC 2.0. A bot has reviewed several other images from this stream and verified them as acceptable. Flickr source here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/15725582@N08/2769178324/in/photostream/ Podlesok86 (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Info The source is not Flickr but it was uploaded with this permission: User:Koalorka/Email Exchange. Deleted on April 2, 2008. Thuresson (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Please ask the copyright holder to send directly the permission via COM:VRT. We do not accept forwarded emails. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Needs a free license from FN Herstal. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

File:FatimaZibouhBrussels2030.jpg

This picture has been indeed used by several medias, but it's owned by Brussels2030 and thus, free of use for any usage. https://brussels2030.be/

Lemalindor 17:17, 29 April 2023 (CET)

---

 Not done: Although this image will probably be deleted -- see Commons:Deletion requests/File:FatimaZibouhBrussels2030.jpg -- that has yet to happen, so there is nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)