Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2023-06

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

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

File:Aksel Berg envelope.jpg

Can an administrator please look and see if this is an image of the envelope that can be seen here and undeleted it if it is since postal stationery envelopes of the USSR are essentially de-facto in the public domain. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Support Yes, that's the same. Yann (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Nils Holgerssons underbara resa genom Sverige, band 2.djvu

Revsion restoration request, The copyright noted in the original deletion reuqest Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nils Holgerssons underbara resa genom Sverige, band 2.djvu may have now expired. The date of 2018 was noted in the DR, so a review is entirely appropriate.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing that needs to be done here. The original file has been already restored in 2018, see [1]. Note also, that restoring deleted file versions no longer works for DjVu files due to database changes. They need either to be reuploaded or supported by developers. Ankry (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


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

Matheus Gomes

A foto pertence ao Matheus Gomes, que autorizou a publicação na Winkimedia Commons

This probably concerns File:Matheus Pereira Gomes.jpg. Please ask the copyright owner to confirm the license via email. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done A free license permission needs to be sent to VRT. Ankry (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


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

File:DCDR875FM.jpg

This is the official logo of DCDR, and it should be published for the benefit of the reading public and for them to be aware of the identity of Davao City's public radio broadcast station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalinker (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 Info:Re-uploaded as File:DCDR 87.5 FM Logo.jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose No permission. Sock blocked, and duplicate deleted. Yann (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Bizarria

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: VRTS auth in progress .avgas 09:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@.avgas: If the permission validated? Can you provide a ticket number please? Yann (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Obv it's valid. Ticket#2023050510005701. Thanks, .avgas 12:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

File:Elizaveta Khudaiberdieva Egor Bazin in 2022.jpg

The file was deleted by user @User:Krd as «No permission since 21 May 2023». However this file is under the free license CC-BY-4.0 Intl, Com:OTRS is not needed; the description can be found at the source's footer: «Все материалы сайта доступны по лицензии: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International» (All site materials are available under the license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International). — Antko33 (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 On hold the source page does not work for me. Ankry (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok, seems the file was deleted because of this. Pls check archived copy, it should work. Will update after undeletion. Antko33 (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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

File:050221.ポケモンジェット1999.JA8288.767-300.jpg

Other images of Category:Pokémon Jet were undeleted, but this one was forgotten. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Pokémon_Jet for the looong list of DRs concerning this case. Yann (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are keeping these images. Given their looks and even the category name, it is obvious that the Pokemon characters cannot possible be called de minimis. The only possibility I can see is if any were photographed in an FoP country -- there is German case law that FoP applies to art on a cruise ship. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Are the photos focusing on Pokemon, or are they pictures of the entire plane? If the latter case, they could be incidental. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Carl, take a look at Category:Pokémon Jet. Yes, they are the entire plane, but the entire plane is covered with Pokemon material. If it were just on the tail, or nose, I could understand an argument that it was incidental, but given these circumstances, I find that difficult. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
If it's a picture of the entire plane, it may still be that way -- that is what incidental is; the artwork (even if prominent) happened to be there when photographing a larger subject. The courts seem to be trying to draw a line where an artist no longer has derivative rights over every work that includes it. If there is a copyrightable pattern repeated all over a plane, does that make a photo derivative? The harder question is if the photograph is trading off the specific expression in that artwork... not just the trademark, but the specific expression there. It's close enough to borderlines that the answer may be different depending on country -- other countries may define incidental differently (it at all). Or courts themselves could disagree. The recent case on cruise ship artwork in Germany relied on the FoP provision, not any "incidental" argument -- the question is if non-FoP countries will come up with an incidental reason they are OK (France has in the past). I tend to  Support based on the past decisions, and the US incidental rulings, though I can understand discomfort and arguments otherwise. I'm sure we have decisions that go both ways. I'm not sure we can point to a court case where something like that was actually ruled derivative, is an important issue to me when explaining deletions here -- not sure I like deleting stuff where we can't show that. All the photos could be tagged with the {{De minimis}} template, certainly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose There is somewhat similar case law (as the German one) for Japan, so Japanese FoP may apply here (assuming the photo was taken in Japan). But Japanese FoP for artistic works (not for buildings) excludes commercial use and is therefore not suitable for Commons. I also don't see how the characters could be de minimis here by either US or Japanese standards (the characters are not minor components of the photo). --Rosenzweig τ 06:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: We need to be consistent in our decisions. After numerous DRs, it was decided that these pictures are acceptable for Commons. See the link I gave above. Yann (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I would not oppose (re-)nominating those files for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: So please do so. Or even better, create a vote on VPC or a RFC. Yann (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I was just looking at one of the DRs, Commons:Deletion requests/File:JRS-2000-2005.jpg. The only keep vote was based on the artwork on the train in the image being a small part of the image. So I click through to the actual image and the artwork is like 99% of the train. So it at least in that case it seems the DR was closed based on clearly faulty reasoning. Other ones like Commons:Deletion requests/File:JRE-Kiha48-Mangattan01.jpg seem to be the same way though. Personally, I don't think there should have to be a VPC or RFC to figure this out when there was clearly problems with the deletion requests to begin with. Just re-nominate the images and delete them anyway if the same thing happens again. It's not like there's a mandate that a DR has to be closed in favor of a voters opinion if it's clearly wrong and/or goes against the policies. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
These DRs are exactly the same situation as this file. This was discussed many times on Commons over the year. I don't see why this file should be deleted when similar cases were closed as Kept. Yann (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
There should really be a rule that if a certain number of images covering the same topic area and country are closed as keep that similar images can't be deleted anymore. It's not like there's that much grey area or nuance in the law to justify relitigating what are essentially the same exact images and discussions over and over again ad nauseum. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl L. If there is any issue with these files, please create a general discussion and vote. --Yann (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


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

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

This postal card was created by the Ministry of Communication of the Russian Federation as can be seen by the back side of the card which can be found here (at least I assume that's the back of it). Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia "the Ministry of Communication of the Russian Federation, defines the official postage signs concretely and labels postage stamps, souvenir and miniature sheets, stamped envelopes, and postal stationery cards as the postage signs. Even works still under copyright can be used by the Russian post, without altering the copyright status of the work used" (Italics mine). So I'd appreciate it if the image was undeleted since the guideline makes it clear that postal cards created by the Russian post are unambiguously in the public domain, even in cases where the image on them might otherwise be copyrighted. Since it can be assumed that they have received permission from the original artist to publish their art as part of the postal card and under a free license. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Почтовая открытка СССР "С Новым годом", фото Е. Савалова, 1986, лицевая сторона.png. I see no new arguments that justify reopening the DR. Ankry (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not requesting that the DR be reopened so I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you saying you do or don't support the file being undeleted? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I say that we are bound with DR decissions unless DR contents shows that the decission is no longer valid. Reopenning the DR with new arguments is the only way to go on here, IMO. Ankry (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the evidence from what the guideline says shows that the decision isn't valid. Same goes for most of the comments in the DR which seem to have been ignored by the closing administrator BTW. The consensus was already to keep the image. Plus, the guidelines make it clear that the artwork on postal cards are in the public domain. Otherwise I don't know why it would specifically mention that otherwise copyrighted works on postal cards are PD. What actual reason is there to disagree with what the guideline says about it? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 Support as per Adamant. This was discussed here before, and the decision was positive. Yann (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:호날두 "7번이 가장 좋아하는 번호" (GOAL 인터뷰).webm

https://archive.is/qQ0e9 has a cc license info. (HTML code of the archive page screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/65oIxXG) Puramyun31 (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a case where no license review was done while the video was available. It is odd, because it is a video in English apparently posted by a Korean with subtitles in Korean. That raises the question of whether the entity posting the video actually had the right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Grand Theft Auto The Ballad of Gay Tony logo.png

This logo falls under PD-textlogo like every other image in Category:Grand Theft Auto logos--Trade (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I would agree if there is no rainbow shadow with sparks around it. Any coments? Ankry (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Support There's very little here except the letters and there is no copyright for typography in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Alvin Kyer.jpg

Es ist eine Abbildung von mir selbst und das Instagramprofil ist ebenfalls meins. Gerne tausche ich das Bild auch aus, aber bitte löschen Sie nicht meine stundenlange Arbeit einfach so. Selbstverständlich werde ich alles dafür tun, um die Richtlinien in Zukunft strenger zu beachten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinkyer (talk • contribs) 11:02, 31 May 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose There are two issues here. The first is that we do not keep images of non-contributors unless they are notable. I see a few Google hits for Alvin Kyer, so that issue may be OK. However the does not appear to be a selfie, so your claim that you were the actual photographer appears to be incorrect. In any case, since the image has appeared on Instagram, policy requires that the actual photographer provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


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

file:obsequious mister courtier frog.jpg

deleted automatically by AntiCompositeBot; scanned myself using an category:Archivist book scanner from a PD-old book I own. Arlo James Barnes 12:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Support The book was published in Chicago in 1925 so it is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Maldonado Panis 2023.jpg

picture of Manuel Maldonado to which I have rights to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briansoprano (talk • contribs) 14:37, 31 May 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you say "which I have rights to" which implies that someone else was the photographer. That is reinforced by the fact that the EXIF calls out Clément Marin as the photographer. Also, the image appears on Facebook. All in all, we cannot restore the image without a free license from Clément Marin via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Clément Marin is a famous motorsports photographer, web site. Thuresson (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

--RebeccaRwanda (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Kindly restore this files

 Not done: No file and no reason given. User has a large number of deleted edits so it is impossible to guess which file she means. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Lars Boje Mathiesen, 2023.jpg

Sorry for raising the discussion again. I don't want to spam but just didn’t get to respond last time before the discussion was closed. It simply can not be true that I can no longer upload the pictures of politicians. See for instance File:Mikkel Bjørn, 2023.png, File:Sólbjørg Jakobsen, 2023.jpg, File:Henrik Dahl, Deadline.jpg, File:Nye Borgerlige, FT-gruppe 2022.jpg, File:Kim Edberg og Pernille Vermund, Brønderslev Marked.jpg. It is inconsistent that I am allowed to upload those images who I am the owner of but not this file and some other files that have been unrightfully deleted.

If you look at my discussion page, you will see that the first files concern “Nye Borgeliges Ungdom logo”. I didn’t violate the policy out of ill will but had communication with one who would send VRT. This took longer time than planed but was eventually done as you also can see. The same was the problem with File:Mikkel Bjørn Sørensen.png and File:Mette Thiesen-Fotograf Steen Brogaard.jpg, but the VRT was unlike with the logo never send. As I since have stated, I thought uploading the logos of Årsskriftet Critique and Konstrast was alright as the are below the threshold of originality. I also had reason to believe that Buskampagne, "Lev med det".webp would get VTE’ed but never was. File:Minkmassegrav, Nørre Felding.jpg, I did not own which am sorry for having uploaded. I did indeed take the picture Kisser.jpg, but since it was a picture of an election poster with another picture on it was protected by copyright. I hadn’t thought about that. After seeing that the file Ny Alliance, 2007.jpg was removed, which I unlawfully had uploaded, I read though User:Marchjuly’s remarks from 18 May and have since when acted completely in accordance with Wikimedia policies.

What I’m trying to get through with is that I am not as bad as it first appears when looking at my discussion page. I am indeed sorry that I have damaged my credibility. At the end of the day, it is very weird that I with several pictures of politicians, especially but not exclusively from the Nye Borgerlige political party, cannot get to upload an image of Lars Boje with no proof of prior publication. Especially, when I 1-2 months before that image uploaded File:Nye Borgerlige, FT-gruppe 2022.jpg. I the latter case, User:King of Hearts came to the conclusion that the file should be kept. I see absoluty no diffrence betwheen that file and this one and it apperes to me as completly arbeatrary. I would like to clean my name and get this file undelted.--Marginataen (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of the text above is out of scope of this page. As you were notified in the previous request, you need either to upload the original photo with complete EXIF, or send a free license permission to VRT and convince them that you are the photographer. Nothing can be done here. Ankry (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 Support File:Brian Mørk, 2022.jpg was obviously taken at the same event. Yann (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello Yann. As I have uploaded three different portrait images of Lars Boje Mathiesen – one of which is still one Commons (File:Lars Boje Frederikshavn.png) – I relaise by your comment that I have uploaded two different portrait images of Lars Boje with the same name (Lars Boje Mathiesen, 2023.jpg). Really doesn't matter as I am the author of both but the one with the party logos behind him is actually taken at its extraordinary national meeting in Fredericia, not the same as the ordinary annual meeting in Copenhagen where the picture of Brian Mørk was taken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginataen (talk • contribs) 06:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 Comment: Since I was mentioned above, I guess I might as well comment. First, I can't see the deleted file since I'm not a Commons administrator and am happy to defer to their judgment on the matter. Next, lots of people make mistakes when uploading files. Similarly, lots of files are probably mistakenly nominated for deletion. So, making a mistake isn't a problem per se, but making the same mistake over and over again can be seen as either not understanding or ignoring COM:L, particularly when it seems you've (here "you've" is being used in a general context, not in reference to one specific person) been warned multiple times before and your user talk page is filled with image licensing related notifications. Finally, my suggestion for Marginataen is from to try and ensure their future uploads have complete EXIF data and are as high of a resolution as possible, and also make sure they haven't previously been published somewhere else first. They might also consider emailing their COM:CONSENT to COM:VRT and make it known that they will regularly uploading their photos to Commons. For files that they've already uploaded which have been deleted, Marginataen is probably going to need to address them one by one. Marginataen can email their consent to VRT for individual files, but whether this is sufficient is going to depend on VRT. If the files were first published somewhere else before they were uploaded to Commons, perhaps having their en:provenance clarified (if possible) by whomever first published them would been seen by VRT as sufficient proof of Marginataen's copyright ownership. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: If 1) an image is claimed to be own work and 2) there is no evidence of prior publication, then VRT serves no purpose. Any evidence of their authorship they might provide on VRT could also be done publicly. The benefit of on-wiki evaluation is that everyone can now weigh in and come to a consensus on whether to AGF on the own work claim, rather than relying on the judgment of one agent. For the record, I am a tentative  Support unless someone finds evidence of prior publication or some other reason that "own work" should not be believed beyond what is already known. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I understand that, I was only suggesting it as possibly another way for the user to make sure nobody mistakes any future uploads of theirs for copyvios by a sort of quasi-application of item 4 of COM:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. In hindsight, though, that's probably a bit of overkill as you point out. One thing the uploader should be able to do, though, is to archive/blank their user talk page to remove all the previous image related notifications. This won't change the facts that prior uploads had issues, but perhaps it will not serve as a constant reminder to the uploader everytime they look at their user talk page. It will sort of allow the uploader a clean slate with which to move forward from this point on; sort of like shaking an en:Etch A Sketch to start again. Of course, any archiving or removing of posts will be seen as either an acknowledgment by the uploader or at least of the posts in question have being read. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 Support I was myself thinking about deleting them but was afraid that it would been seen as trying to get rid of evidence. I don't quite know how to archive but reckon I can find out and will happily do so. As stated, I uploaded many of the files in advance with the expectation that they would be VRT'ed. This was done by the owner in the case of File:Nye Borgerliges Ungdom.png and should – in my humble opinion – indicate that I had reason to believe that other copyrighted files like File:Mikkel Bjørn Sørensen.png and File:Mette Thiesen-Fotograf Steen Brogaard.jpg would also be VRT’ed but wasn’t. File:Minkmassegrav, Nørre Felding.jpg and Ny Alliance, 2007.jpg were as stated violations that I sincerely regret. Prior to Marchjuly contacting me on 13 March, I had only been contacted once back in June 2021 about the NBU logo. At the time, I didn’t really take it so seriously since I thought the file would be VRT’ed which it was. Following the stupid upload of File:Ny Alliance, 2007.jpg, I thoughougly read through Wikimedia policies and have been abiding to them since then. SHOULD this file be undeleted, I really don’t think it would make sense to go thought every single of my deleted file without prior publication individually. So IF this file is found to be undeleted, I would therefore hope the same would apply to the others of my deleted files without prior publication as there isn't any difference between this one, the other deleted ones and the ones still on Commons. --Marginataen (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Marginatean: I've struck through your "Support" !vote since it's assumed that by requesting undeletion that you naturally support undeletion; so, a separate "Support" !vote from you would be technically !voting twice. As for talk page archiving, there are various ways to do so per COM:ARCHIVE and you can probably figure out which one works best for you just by looking at the talk pages of other users and seeing how they do it. You can also ask for help at COM:HD. Regarding VRT verification, it's not automatic and needs to be requested; in other words, somebody needs to send in an email to be verified. You can, however, use COM:RELGEN for future uploads to help you through the verification process without needing to email VRT if you want. Finally, for files of yours that were previously deleted, you still may need to request their undeletion, if not on a per file basis then maybe in groups of related files. Only an administrator can restore a previously deleted file, and you're going to need to give them a pretty good reason why. Expecting an administrator to go searching through your upload/deletion logs to find files that were perhaps deleted by mistake seems like a lot to expect; you probably should at least make one undeletion request for all the files you want restored with a brief explanation as to why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Marchjuly

I was allowed to vote at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nye Borgerlige, FT-gruppe 2022.jpg, so I just assumed that I could do it here as well. No big deal.

I am now aware of how undeletion technically works. I imagined you could just click a button and restore them. The thing is that there by nature is no difference between this file, the other deleted files, and the ones still on Commons. Therefore, if this file is found to be undeleted, I, for obvious reasons, do not find it reasonable to go through the same long discussions about all of my other works when they all have been deleted for the same reason: a presumption of guilt. When the issue is the same, I would much rather like to make this a discussion about all of them. Is this possible?
The files in question are:
  1. File:Pernille Vermund på valgaftenen 2022.jpg
  2. File:Nye Borgerlige stifterne, 2015.jpg
  3. File:Lars Boje Mathiesen, 2023.jpg (both files named this)
  4. File:Anders Stjernholm, 2017.jpg
  5. File:Pernille Vermund, interview.jpg
  6. File:Pernille Vermund og Peter Seier Christensen, 2015.jpg
  7. File:Vermund og Seier, 2016.jpg
--Marginataen (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
File:VLAK-regeringen præsenteres, 2016.jpg has metadata showing that it comes from Facebook. So at least for this one, a permission via email is necessary. Yann (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh, that's right. Removed it now. When I can't see them it can sometimes be a bit difficult to remember what they contain.--Marginataen (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Marginataen: You didn't start the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nye Borgerlige, FT-gruppe 2022.jpg; it was started by another editor and you joined the discussion after it started. Starting a deletion discussion generally means you think a file should be deleted; so, that's considered your vote so to speak. Similarly, when you request a file's undeletion, that's considered your vote. For reference, the meaning of the word "vote" can be confusing in a Commons sense because discussions aren't really like real-world elections where the side with the most votes typically expects to win. The votes need to reflect relevant copyright laws or at least make a reasonable effort to address them, and administrators then decide what to do. Anyway, only administrators can "see" deleted files. I'm not an administrator, but everone else who has commented above is and they will figure out what to do. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Gotcha - Thanks Marginataen (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Just to make the discussion about the 7 files in question moving, I would just like to outline the 3 main points:
1. No proof of prior publication
2. No difference between them and other work still on Commons
3. Thus: If keept undelted, no consistency on Commons
Have a wonderful day! Marginataen (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Overall, there isn't significant doubt about authorship of these files. If evidence shows otherwise, please create a DR. --Yann (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Kawariha-utiwa.jpg

本画像の著作権は日本古来から（300年以上前）使用されていた紋様でありますので、著作権の所在は無いものと理解しています。 また、該当ページは掲載者本人の依頼に基づいているものであり、今までの「家紋」の誤りを訂正するものです。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocharake oyaji (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 May 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The file description is blank. We cannot restore it without all of the information needed there. Please fill it in below:

== {{int:filedesc}} == {{Information |Description= |Source= |Date= |Author= |Permission= |other_versions= }} .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I can try finding the source, but the file needs to be temporarily undeleted for that. (I'm un-closing this because it seems simpler than submitting the same request twice in a time span as short as 1-2 days.) whym (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Ocharake oyaji: 詳しい名称、出典（この画像が確認できる印刷物の題名と出版年など）などの情報が必要です。 whym (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks. This does seem like a traditional symbol. Specifically, it's a variation of No. 661 of 『紋典』 (1940). (The electronic version of the book is accessible to subscribers in Japan only.) I say variation because it differs in the thickness of lines and reversed black/white, but that's it. I don't think there is a copyrightable change. While we don't know who created it and when (probably centuries ago), it seems to safe to say it's public domain now. whym (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. @Whym: Please add an author and categories. --Yann (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/Montpelier.tab and Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/Juneau.tab

Lengthy discussion at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=769142743#Wrong_deletion. It appears this was deleted largely because people were unfamiliar with Data: space and unaware that Commons is supposed to post tabular data.

To be fair: there might be some issues about sourcing here, but that does not appear to have been the basis for deletion. I would be all for someone improving the information about how this data was sourced. - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  •  Oppose It's been a minute but from what I remember of the original DR there was a consensus to delete the files, but the closing administrator stopped deleting them half way through because there wasn't an easy to do it and they gave up. That has nothing do with if there was a consensus for the images to be deleted though, and they 100% would have been if it was less files and they could have been deleted through the normal processes. Also, there was already an un-deletion for these files that resulted in them staying deleted. Realistically how many times is this going to be rehashed before it's settled? What stops someone from just renominating the files for deletion once they are recreated and then doing another un-deletion request if it results in delete? It's ridiculous that the original outcome isn't being respected just because of what essentially amounts to nitpicking over a minor procedural issue that could have been easily resolved by just giving the closing administrator time to finish the job or allowing someone else to finish it for them. Like if it takes an administrator 10 minutes to delete two files because they have to go to the restroom after they delete first one can we just interject and keep the second file from deleted by crying foul about it? I assume not. Anyway, that's my little rant about it. Honestly, I'm a little miffed about how much flack Jim got over the whole thing when he essentially had nothing to do with it except for trying and failing to close the DR. The failure of which had nothing to do with him. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Adamant1: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather (which is still open) shows nothing like a consensus to delete; in fact, "keep" votes outnumber "delete" logs. As for User:Yann having closed a previous undeletion request, there was almost no discussion there, certainly nothing approaching the later discussion linked above where Yann, who closed that earlier UDR says, after some back-and-forth " Please create another UDR. I won't oppose undeletion, and if there is a consensus I will undelete them." - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I haven't looked at it in at least a week if not longer but it seemed like there was a consensus to delete the files the last time I checked. Fine if it's changed since then though. I think my comment at the bottom of this is more relevant anyway. Although to your point about the undeletion request, I've seen ones with the same amount of participation that were closed, not challenged afterwards, and the challenge probably would have rejected off hand if they were anyway. Same goes for DRs. It's not like there's a rule that X number of users have to participate in a discussion for the outcome to be valid. Probably there should be, but that's another issue. At least the deletion request was open long enough for people to participate in it if they wanted to. If no one wanted to at the time though then that's on them. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Undelete Within scope IMO, even if not codified. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Undelete Files like these are surely exactly what the Data: namespace is for? Jheald (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion noted at d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Tabular data (notice) -- Jheald (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Serious question, but how exactly are .tab (or really any data files) media and what kind of files wouldn't qualify as data or media if tab files do? Like could I upload an editable .html file filled with random facts "because data"? Would that qualify as media? what about things like roms or bios' or random python files? I think these things need to figured out before allowing for data files instead of accepting whatever file format someone wants to upload in the moment because "data." It should follow the mandate that Commons is a media repostery in the meantime to. Which I don't think these files satisfy. Per Commons:Project scope "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips).....Excluded educational content includes Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text." --Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @Adamant1: Obviously a collection of random facts would be out of scope for the same reason an a JPEG composed of random images would be out of scope, but beyond that I don't think a UDR is the appropriate place to discuss this. Feel free to start this discussion elsewhere, either on COM:VP or with a notification there. (FWIW, the passage you are quoting was almost certainly added before Data: space was added to Commons, and apparently was not updated when it should have been.) - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
So wouldn't the answer to be iron out the specifics of the guideline before allowing for the files? In absence of that I think what the guideline says is a perfectly acceptable reason to take issue with image being deleted. Otherwise, it's just doing the process backwards and making the guideline fit the outcome of the undeletion request when it should be the way around. For all we know it might turn out that .tab aren't acceptable or are but under certain conditions that these files don't satisfy. Doing it this way just creates a fait accompli situation though where .tab files are acceptable before there's actually been a discussion about the details or a change to the guidelines. What's the point in even bothering with the guidelines in the first place if that's the case? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, we finally need to properly work out the rules for the data namespace. The results of this UDR may help to make informed decisions for that. El Grafo (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how that happen when this is based on a false premise to begin with, but I guess we will see. Whatever helps get the rules figured out. I'm just not a fan of circular reasoning that doesn't address why the files were deleted to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support COM:INUSE on w:Montpelier, Vermont, so automatically in scope. The fact that the graphs are currently unable to be rendered due to technical issues (cf. w:New York City#Climate for a non-deleted example) does not mean that they do not meet the spirit of the rule. Conceptually these probably belong on Wikidata rather than Commons, but until and unless the WMF does the technical work necessary to make that possible, Commons is the only place that can host these files. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The Common has introduced data systems since 2016, and as long as the data is in the public domain and is educationally useful (by Wikipedia or Wikiversity), it should be kept. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@Sagisavas: How exactly can anyone verify that the data is in the public domain when you entered it manually and there isn't even a source for the original file? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the original reason the files were deleted had less to do with them being out of scope and more to with the fact that aren't referenced, can be edited in real time by anyone to say whatever they want, and/or the original file can't be downloaded from the original sources in the rare cases where it's available because the file on our side is a compposite of multiple data files. Facts that unfortunately are missed in an overly simplisitic undeletion like this one. Regardless, at least IMO the file shouldn't be restored based purely on it being in scope if that wasn't even the reason it was delete to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Most of these concerns are not normally considered an issue for files either. We have many, many maps and figures like File:Smoking age map.svg. El Grafo (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
All files can be changed by anyone. That's not even a valid reason. Theklan (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Images can be cropped using third party plugins. You'd have to agree that's completely different then someone uploading a blank file and drawing the image in real time though. They are completely different things. I could really cares less if someone wants upload an exiting data file that already has the information in it and then maybe make a minor edit to it. The problem comes in when it's an file that they insert information through editing it in real time and without a source for the original file or data. Commons isn't a media editing suite. Nor is meant to be one. It's purely for hosting media. which is why things like the cropping tool aren't even built into the website site and have to be done through off-site plugins. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: Stop responding to everyone. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I think most of my comments were in response to people who either messaged me first or pinged me. Not to mention I was the who nominated the images for deletion in the first place. So it's natural I'd have the most comments. That said, dully noted. I'll try and stay out of the discussion for the foreseeable future unless someone pings me or something. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Ooligan (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: 7 for undeletion, 1 against. --Yann (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:혼천의 (2).JPG

This photo was taken of a signboard with South Korean banknotes, and was deleted because there was no "보기" or "SPECIMEN" mark on the photo.

However, "보기" or "SPECIMEN" marks can be added with a program such as Photoshop.

If this photo is undeleted, I will add "보기" or "SPECIMEN" marks.

There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea, but South Korean banknotes are allowed on Wikimedia Commons per COM:CUR South Korea.

See also: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Which one do we follow in this case?

Ox1997cow (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow and Jmabel: {{Temporarily undeleted}} Please add "specimen" over this file. Yann (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: : Image edited. I believe this should now be acceptable, please look, let me know if more needs to be done. - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:RwandaBurundiP5-100Francs-600915-donatedth f.jpg

Former undeletion request: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-12#File:RwandaBurundiP5-100Francs-600915-donatedth f.jpg

Can {{Belgian franc banknote}} be applied in this image?

Ox1997cow (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Info This note was issued by Banque d'emission de Rwanda et Burundi, which sounds like a different bank than National Bank of Belgium. Thuresson (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 Info Rwanda was Belgian colony, and this banknotes were issued during Belgian colonization. This means that this banknotes are subject to Belgian copyright laws. Ox1997cow (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Facts About Suicide (Please watch).webm

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I requested SD because the current YouTube video are not licensed as cc-by. However, it appears that they have licensed as such in the past. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't see this page. It gets covered by some ad for YT. Yann (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Have you tried using web developer tools to inspect the code for the licensing? - The Harvett Vault | he/him | user | talk - 21:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Ah yes, right. --Yann (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:12479 Suryanagari Express (from Jodhpur to Bandra) passing Basni railway station, -12 July 2022.webm

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: bronpagina --トトト (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Three people, including me, do not see any CC-BY license at the source page. A license review was requested but not done. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  • You must be kidding. Don't you see Licentie Creative Commons-licentie - Naamsvermelding (hergebruik toegestaan) when visiting here? 0NB: URL at the deleted commons file was of Youtube short movie. So visit the URL I have underlined above. I also request the source URL to be changed. The same video by the same author, the difference is only the URL to watch it. --トトト (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
oude URL https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VVf9IrVGHSo
nieuwe URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVf9IrVGHSo

--トトト (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I see the license at the new URL, but that's not what you see when you go to the source in the file description. I'm also not sure that we need a video taken on a gray day when nothing on the train is really visible and the video is tilted 90 degrees. Before the train is completely past, the video is half covered with an ad asking you to subscribe to the uploader's channel. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Crstian de la Luna.jpg

Requesting to have file Crstian de la Luna.jpg reinstated.

Permission information was missing when I uploaded the file.

The file belongs to the organization Regroupement Francophone Artistique de l'Alberta (RAFA) and was provided to me directly by the RAFA explicitly for use on Wiki Commons. Please let me know if I need to provide proof of such ownership and what that proof would look like - I'm happy to have the RAFA contact directly in order to have the file reinstated.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastien CaronRoy (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose As you apparently sort of understand, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a 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) 20:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Kareena-Kapoor-Nude-Indian-actress-Sex.jpg

Please undelete this photo. Can I add some words to this photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Mason Williams (talk • contribs) 07:29, 3 June 2023‎ (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Kareena-Kapoor-Nude-Indian-actress-Sex.jpg

You need to confirm that you have the rights to publish the photo here and also that the people depicted gave their permission to do so. Follow the instructions at COM:VRT. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 Not done Trolling. Thuresson (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Mkmkpdk.jpg undeletion request

It cannot be said with certainty who is the owner of the previous picture and until a complaint is made by the rightful owner the picture should be restored as it gave a better sense of the city skyline of Mumbai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.190.147.228 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 3 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mkmkpdk.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See COM:PCP #1. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Jean Françaix.jpg

The photo file "Jean Françaix.jpg" comes from the composer's family archives. The original photo has been shot in 1994 but it was scanned and digitalised in 2013. So it is compatible with the date of his death in 1997. Thank you to restore it on the wikipedia page of the composer Jean Françaix. Paris, june 3, 2023. Gibou75. Gibou75 (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Owning a digital or paper copy of a photograph does not give one the right to freely license it as required on Commons. That right belongs to the photographer. In order to have this image restored, you must determine who the actual photographer was in 1994. That person, or his heir, must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File: Bernhard_Lang_2007_(c)_Gerlinde_Hipfl.jpg

I am the photographer Gerlinde Hipfl Ge.Hipfl (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Procedural close. Please do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Бальдр-Нитки долі.jpg

Почему вы удаляет файл не спросив разрешения у автора? Вы пишите об авторских правах, так сотресая воздух... А сами их нарушаете. Это мое фото и я имею полные на него права, а вот вы нарушаете их удаляя без выяснений. Why are you deleting the file without asking permission from the author? You write about copyrights, so shattering the air ... And you yourself violate them. This is my photo and I have full rights to it, but you violate them by deleting without asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.77.118.55 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 2 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This is a copyrighted movie poster. Policy requires that an authorized official of the production company must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

As the poster was obviously published elsewhere and its author is not identified as Wikimedia Commons volunteer, the provided {{Own}} declaration is obviously fake or incorrect and qualifies the image for sppedy deletion. Ankry (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim. Obviously not {{Own}}. Ankry (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:RevBishopGilbertBlaizeRego.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Pls note ticket 2023050510002212, already confirmed with Michael Daniels on May 15th and 18th. Fr. S. Fernandes already authorized and confirmed the use of Rev. Rego photos. Thanks Setwikirec0 (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Use Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard instead of wasting your time here. Thuresson (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above, and the very clear instructions at the top of this page: "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." (bold added). --Эlcobbola talk 15:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:LeeYounChinPeiMaySchool51.jpg

Hello VRT editors, Please restore the file:LeeYounChinPeiMaySchool51.jpg This photo was taken in 1951. The Indian copyright act came into effect in 1958. Kindly restore this photo. Thanking you kindly. Setwikirec0 (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  • The VRT team is reachable via e-mail or VRT Noticeboard, not here.
  • Per Indian Copyright Act, 1914, the photo was copyrighted 50 years since publication. This means that it falls under URAA and is copyrighted in US (likely 95 years since publication). Ankry (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Will be under US copyright until at least 1/1/2047. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Isimi Lagos Welcome Centre.jpg

I have written permission from the copyright holder which they submitted via VRT a few weeks ago. Not sure how the process is going. In the mean time, I would like to have the files undeleted, rather than creating entirely new ones as that would create a whole other debacle.

I hope this request can be honoured.--Seyisage (talk) 12:00, 5 June 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) 15:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:LeeYounChin1940s.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello, this old family photographs of Lee was taken in 1940s. It should be good and require no permit/copyright as India's copyright act is applicable from 1958. Pls restore. Thank you kindly. Setwikirec0 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

See w:en:Copyright law of India#Applicable_Copyright_Act_before_1958. Photos published before 1948 were copyrighted in India 50 years since publication. If this term expired before 1.1.1996, the photo is PD in US. So in order to determine the photo copyright status we need an exact publication date. If the date is 1.1.1946 or later, the photo is still copyrighted in US and we need a free license permission from the photographer or (if he died already) from the photographer heirs in order to host the photo in Wikimedia Commons.  Oppose unless the date is provided. Ankry (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Indian pictures from before 1942 are in the public domain in India and in USA. It is the date of creation, not publication which matters. Yann (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Why 1942, not 1946? In each case "1940s" is not precise enough to determine copyright status. Ankry (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The law changed in 1942, and was extended from 50 to 60 years from creation, but not retroactive. So pictures from 1941 became public domain at the end of 1991, before the URAA cut off date, while 1942 pictures became public domain in 2003, after the URAA cut off date. Yann (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The summary cited above is incorrect. The 1914 law says
"Act language is: "the term for which copyright shall subsist in photographs shall be fifty years from the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived, and the person who was owner of such negative at the time when such negative was made shall be deemed to be the author of the work, and, where such owner is a body corporate, the body corporate shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within the parts of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends if it has established a place of business within such parts.")
I read that to mean that the copyright is 50 years from the making of the photograph and that the copyright is owned by the person who owned the negative when the image was taken. Although that will usually be the actual photographer, in cases where Jones lends her camera to Smith to take a picture, Jones will own the copyright, not Smith. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Does this matter here? It is up to VRT team to verify (or not) if the permission sender owns the negative. Ankry (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No date provided. We must assume it has a URAA copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Bjørn Krogstad Dyrehode og fugl.jpg

Please undelete, we have VRT permission in ticket:2023042110003013 (I am a VRT agent for that queue). Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jon Harald Søby: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Mother & Child by Caroline Durieux.jpg

The reason for this undeletion is that the image in question is a photograph of a work of 2D art by Caroline Durieux, thereby falling within US public domain.

--LC Cook (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose While it is possible that the work is PD -- I don't see a copyright notice -- the reason given is not a reason why it would be PD. Unless it can be proven that the work was published without notice before March 1, 1989, we must assume that the photograph infringes on the copyright owned by Durieux's heirs.

Note that User:LC Cook is a sock of the uploader, User:Eretif. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence of PD status provided. Ankry (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:DaMaris-Hill-1.jpg

I initially uploaded these images with the wrong permissions. I was explicitly granted permission by the author, DaMaris B. Hill, to use the photos of herself and her book covers. In fact, I was hired by her to create her Wikipedia page. Please undelete the photos so I can use them for her biography page. Mahal AU (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose There are a variety of problems here.

First, a warning: paid editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. You must disclose your status, see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Second, it is unlikely that Ms. Hill has the right to freely license any of the images above. It is very unusual for a photographer to give a subject the right to freely license images to others. Licenses are almost always limited to the subject's using the image in their own publicity.

In order for the first image, the photo of Ms. Hill, to be restored, the photographer, Beowulf Sheehan, must send a free license using VRT.

In the case of the three book covers, the copyright holder, which is usually the publisher, but may be the designer, must send a free license also using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim. Ankry (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Alan_Walker_&_Gavin_James_-_Tired.jpg‎

此為中文維基百科的Infrobox需求，需要用到整張圖片，煩請維基百科官方協助復原 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casper0517013 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Info Google Translate: "This is the Infrobox requirement of the Chinese Wikipedia, which needs to use the entire picture, please ask the official Wikipedia to help restore it"
 Oppose Fair use from en:File:Alan Walker Tired.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Fair use is not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Alan Walker and Ava Max - Alone, Pt. II.png

此圖為中文維基百科(不孤單第二章)的Infrobox 需求，請求維基百科官方取消刪除 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casper0517013 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 6 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Info Google Translate: "This picture is the Infrobox requirement of Chinese Wikipedia (Chapter 2 of Not Alone), requesting the official Wikipedia to cancel the deletion"
 Oppose Fair use from en:File:Alan Walker and Ava Max - Alone, Pt. II.png. Thuresson (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Fair use is not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:DonitaRoseNewPicture.jpg

Hello! The picture belongs to the person identified in the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donita_Rose . Donita asked me to change her Wikipedia profile picture, for she could not figure out how to do it herself. She is not a Wikipedia technical-editor expert. Donita's Facebook URL is https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=donita%20rose%20palad . She got married in 2022. Here married last-name is "Palad." Her full married name is "Donita Rose Cavett Palad". Donita's personal email address is (Redacted). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloydboucher (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you say that is not the case. Please understand that making false claims is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.

Owning a paper or digital copy of an image very rarely gives one the right to freely license it as required here. That right almost always remains with the photographer. In order for this image to be restored to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: We need a permission coming directly from the copyright holder. See Jim's comment for details. --De728631 (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Royal Standard of New Zealand.svg and others

This is a mess and I'm not sure where to go to start this process, but last year, someone did an improper cut-and-paste move on these files by downloading them and re-uploading them under new names as their "own work," after which the original files, their history, and the correct attributions were deleted as duplicates. Redirects currently exist at these locations.

--Ibagli (Talk) 11:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Support That has happened to me a couple of times (one of which I caught before deletion and fixed). Restore the original uploads/credits. Possibly rename, or just make the newer names a redirect to the original one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
user:Ibagli There's a problem here which I cannot solve -- presumably this needs a "C" in the center, replacing the "E" on Elizabeth's flag. The deletion as a duplicate was, of course, wrong, as the current version of the flag belongs to Charles, not his mother and the two are not duplicates.
I have restored only New Zealand -- is what I did there what you want? If so, I will continue with the other four. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they all need to be undeleted, and then they'll have to be renamed/merged (not sure which would be more appropriate) to the locations where they had been redirecting (there's nothing wrong with the new file names, they were just reuploaded with no history and incorrect attribution).--Ibagli (Talk) 09:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure one of us understands. As I see it, there are two royal standards involved, that for Elizabeth and a new one for Charles, which we don't have. All we have for Charles is the version with the blank center. So there's no rename or merge involved, just taking the history back to just before the redirect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no current royal standard for any of these countries (Canada might be announcing theirs in a week), as they were personal flags for Elizabeth II, who is dead. The "blank center" version is fictitious/speculative and was changed by one user who jumped the gun on deleting E and EIIR cyphers from everything immediately after Elizabeth II died. These speculative, unsourced changes were largely reverted by various users, but this resulted in the the existence of identical duplicate files and and the improper deletion of the older files rather than the newly-uploaded ones. I don't know what the best course of action to remedy this is, but I think it would be one of:
  • Undelete all of these files, delete the newly-uploaded ones, and move/merge these files to the 19XX-2022 names, leaving redirects that can be replaced with the Charles III flags when/if they are announced.
  • Undelete all of these files, leave them at the unchanged names with the E in the center and not the fictitious blank circle until/unless new flags are announced, and simply delete the newly-uploaded ones as newer identical duplicates.
In any case, whatever way it's achieved, the blank center versions shouldn't be on here at all at least until we get an indication that the new reign's flags will follow the old pattern, and the old history should be restored.--Ibagli (Talk) 16:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I assume the files should be at names where the years are specified, and the names without specification should be redirects. I assume they should point to the "E" versions until we have the new versions, not to break uses where using the old one is unproblematic. The history post 8 Sep should probably be moved to the "C" version just before uploading the new version, to keep the file history. –LPfi (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Closing as stalled. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:KOLINLAMIL.png

File:KOLINLAMIL.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

The file was deleted by @Ellywa: as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atara123, whereas he said "per nomination, although a link to Instagram has been provided, this does not show per COM:EVID that these logo's are available with a free license. Therefore the images must be deleted".

However on this particular file, I have personally fixed the problem, added the source (not from instagram) and fixed the license used. I did that to show @Atara123: on how to fix the problem, I also put strikethrough on the file on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atara123 to indicated that this file was no longer have any issue licensing. Therefore it should not be part of mass deletions. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ckfasdf, I looked again at this file. Indeed, you uploaded a different design of the logo then Atara12 did. However, the source you provided, https://kolinlamil.tnial.mil.id/images/misc/kolinlamil_logo.png , is not avaiable now. It can be seen at this youtube channel. Do you have another source which shows this can be freely licensed? Regards, Ellywa (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The fact that you found it on the official Kolinlamil youtube channel and it also can easily be found on images related "Kolinlamil" proves that this is an official logo.
All military unit logo in Indonesia have been authorized to be used by highest command of each respective branches in the form of regulation and always with the same regulation of dictate the formation of that military unit. Refer to Article 42 of the 2014 Indonesia Copyright Act, file comes law acts and regulations are not copyrighted. hence PD-IDNoCopyright will apply. Kolinlamil is formed by regulation of "Skep Men/Kasal No. 5401.16", although that regulation may not be available online, it can still be verified to official Indonesian military source. hence, it should not be deleted.
Actually, this argument is also applies to military logo uploaded by Atara123, but he didn't put correct licensing. So yea.... Ckfasdf (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Closing as stalled. --Yann (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Gloria Decker (1928-2017) and Charles Frederick Lindauer (1919-2005) at Christmas.png

I believe I didn't close one of the brackets on the license. --RAN (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem was missing information: if the author is an "Anonymous family member", how can you know who the heirs are? --rimshottalk 16:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Because it was either my father or my mother, either way the license is valid. The other images in the set have my parents and other family members paired up.
  • The log says it was deleted because of the absence of a license, not a challenge to the validity of the existing license. The template was malformed because I left off a closing bracket "}". Generally we do not require probate lawyers legal testimony for family images. I could see requiring that for well known commercial images, where someone is claiming to be the heir of a famous commercial photographer, not for some holiday snaps of family members. --RAN (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Closing this as stalled. --Yann (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Priyanka Choudhary.jpg

The file was {{Kept}} in this DR, which states that the free license permission from Bollywood Hungama applies to it. Then it was nominated as {{No permission}} by Stifle and deleted without discussion by Krd. This is out-of-process as if there is a new reason to doubt the license from Bollywood Hungama, this should be discussed in DR, not speedily deleted. Pinging @Timtrent, King of Hearts, and Materialscientist: as DR discussion participants. Ankry (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support This was an out of process deletion as Ankry says. Abzeronow (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Kori in 2023.jpg

I want you to undelete it because I want to use it to write a Wikipedia article.

 Oppose For en:User:Kori Mullan/sandbox. You can start by writing a draft and ask an experienced user go through it. Please read the information at en:Wikipedia:Drafts. Thuresson (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Come back if and when the WP article is accepted. Note that the article is about himself. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Public Domain Mark files

These files have the public domain mark licence (PDM) on Flickr. The public domain mark is now acceptable on Commons (COM:PDM). (Note: I have made this request due to a request on my talk page by @Docosong)

146 files
* File:Catalunya - Montenegro (Foto Ricard Rovira - FCBQ) (42302667652).jpg

Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Comment The files were declared PDM by FCBQ, not by the actual photographers. IMO, in order to accept this, we need an evidence that the photographers transferred their copyright to FCBQ or that they declared PD status of the photo themselves. Also, the author of the photos is declared as FCBQ: this probably violates the photographers' moral rights (but this is fixable). Any evidence that Pol Puertas and Ricard Rovira were regular empoyee of FCBQ? Ankry (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Ricard Rovira independent photographer FCBQ (2003-2019).-- Docosong (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support My general approach to copyright transfers is: If an organization is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then we can assume that it sufficiently has its act together with respect to copyright that we don't need to see the detailed terms of the contract it has with its photographers. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support as per KoH. Quite a reasonable criteria. Yann (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I am not convinced here as in my opinion, PDM set by non-author might mean that the uploader is unsure if they own copyright (and can grant any license) or they just have a wide permission to use (and they do not know if any restriction applies). However,  Neutral if there is consensus to undelete. Ankry (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support We support "no known copyright restrictions" via Flickr Commons using the same rationale. --RAN (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I was going to oppose this, as COM:PDM specifically talks about authors marking their own work with the PDM, and the template {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} says "This work has been released into public domain by the author, on the Flickr website ...". I thought we wanted to accept the PDM only in these cases, but now I see that King of Hearts created {{PDMark-owner}} in 2020, apparently based on a discussion consensus, so this would be applicable, I guess. KoH, shouldn't {{PDMark-owner}} also be mentioned in COM:PDM, then? Gestumblindi (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Новогоднаяя почтовая открытка СССР, фото В. Корабельникова, 1990, лицевая сторона.png

This is a follow up to the undeletion request for File:Почтовая открытка СССР "С Новым годом", фото Е. Савалова, 1986, лицевая сторона.png and a few others related to postal cards and/or postal stationery of the Soviet Union where the images were undeleted. What it essentially comes down to is that Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia makes it clear that postal cards published by the Russian Post are in the public domain. Even in cases where they might contain otherwise copyrighted works. There is no stipulation in the guidelines or the law at least from I've seen that the prevision makes an exception depending on which side of the postal card the image is of. The law merely says "postal cards" are in the public domain. So the image should be undeleted since it's clearly in the public domain. The same goes for the following images, which were all deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Postal cards of the Soviet Union with definitive stamp.

--Adamant1 (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Doing… Yann (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: Thanks! --Adamant1 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:IMG-20230522-WA0003.jpg

این عکس های قدیمی برای تایید مطالب داخل صفحه است دلیل حذف آنها کاملا غیر منطقی می باشد--Moghimzenderood (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Google translation:"These old photos are to confirm the contents of the page, the reason for removing them is completely illogical".

 Oppose The image is a certificate from the International Olympic Committee dated 1998. The image infringes on the copyright for the certificate. The IOC is notoriously difficult about its trademarks and copyrights. Please read the Commons policy on derivative works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:IMG-20230522-WA0002.jpg

عکس های بارگزاری شده در این صفحه متعلق به 60 الی 50 سال پیش می باشد و اثبات مطالب داخل متن صفحه می باشد با پاک کردن این عکس ها با توجه به قدیمی بودن اطلاعات و عدم اطلاعات در اینترنت امکان رفرنس دهی وجود ندارد. عکس پروفایل را هم پاک کرده اید لطفا دلیل قانع کننده ارائه دهید تمامی عکس با ذکر توضیحات و مشخصات و سال بوده است واقعا دلیل حذف کردن آن برای چیست ؟؟؟؟--Moghimzenderood (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Google translation:"The photos uploaded on this page belong to 60 to 50 years ago and the proof of the content is inside the text of the page. By deleting these photos, due to the old information and the lack of information on the Internet, it is not possible to refer. You have also deleted the profile picture. Please provide a convincing reason. All the pictures have been mentioned with descriptions, specifications and year. What is the real reason for deleting them????"

 Oppose The image is a diploma dated 1998. The image infringes on the copyright for the diploma. Please read the Commons policy on derivative works.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:New York 1986 License Plate.jpg

This file was deleted because a copyright registration was thought to be found (in Commons:Deletion requests/File:New York 1986 License Plate.jpg). It was the source for File:New York license plate, 1986.png, which was recently kept after its DR demonstrated that the copyright registration was actually for a completely separate graphic (a proposed design which was not used), so the real license plate graphic is PD-US-1978-89. So, the deletion rationale was proven false, so the source .jpg should be undeleted as well. I am particularly interested, as the .png file does not give a license for the photo itself -- I'm hoping the .jpg source does have such a license; if not then it should stay deleted, and the .png re-filed for a DR with a different rationale. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Carl, I recognize that license plates are very slightly embossed for convenience in manufacturing, but I would think that we could apply Bridgeman to them, particularly since this example has very flat lighting. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, but then that tag should be added; the only current license tag on the .png file is for the graphic on the plate itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
IMHO,  minor oppose as most likely, the quality of .jpg format is worse than .png unless someone can take evidence of the opposite. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The two are the same quality (the jpg is the original version). The only question is whether we want people to have the freedom of format. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done since the original rationale for deletion no longer applies. Either image can still be renominated for other reasons, such as being redundant/low-quality or being an unlicensed photo, but that should be a new DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Quire of Westminster Abbey, wo die Krönung von König Edward VII. stattfand.png

Someone wrote me asking if I could help undelete this image from 1902, can it be made visible so I can see what they are referring to. --RAN (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Several wellknown Commons users have received Wiki-mail from Stvg12 or other sock puppets of A3cb1. Ignore any such private communication. Thuresson (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: We do not act on sock requests. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 9 June 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 in Category:Section photographique et cinématographique de l’armée

I believe these meet the requirement of being anonymous/pseudononymous. --RAN (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  •  Oppose In the interaction between you and User:Le Petit Chat in the DR, they explain that there is an accession code which, in most cases, leads directly to the name of the photographer. While a few of them may be anonymous, most are, apparently, not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For anonymous/pseudononymous works copyright expiration term depends on publication date that has not been provided. Ankry (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment At least some photographers are really unknown. It is quite probable that many named photographers died before 1953, but a lot of work is needed to research them. I suggest that some images to be temporarily undeleted if anyone is really willing to do that work. Yann (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm OK with that in theory, but who is going to do it? We have a DR backlog of over 8,000 requests, and I would think those would take precedence for Admin time. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): If you are OK with doing this, please nominate the images you wish to work on for temporary undeletion. This would give you a week for finding the required information (death date for non-anonymous, publication date for anonymous). I don't believe that processing all of them in a week is real. Ankry (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
These weren't taken by professional photographers, but military people given cameras. They will no appear in lists of professional photographers, which is how we usually decipher images in which a mononym is given. --RAN (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
In order to host these images we need to know (1) the named photographer death date or (2) the anonymous publication date or (3) that the photo was made more than 120 years ago. If noone volunteers to find any of them, then we have no option here but closing this as not done. Ankry (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Noone interested in searching for information determining copyright status. Ankry (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Banderas de los Partidos de la Provincia de Buenos Aires


All the files listed above were deleted by CommonsDelinker bot, it must be restored to his original state because the articles linked to these files are broken. Wolfgang 7 (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

How does this justify undeletion? Trade (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Because these flags are from municipalities of the Buenos Aires Province, Argentina, and are publics. Wolfgang 7 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
We need a copyright law reason to undelete. Abzeronow (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done no valid reason to undelete. Ankry (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Credentials of a U.S. Department of State special agent.jpg

was deleted with the reason "Too small resolution to be meaningful therefore unlikely education use." That reason stated is not a valid one at WM Commons (where is the lower limit). The reason was invented by the nominator (low res img are not included here). Of course, a small-sized graphic can serve as an educational matter. I will enlarge it very soon by 1,000 times after undeletion, so everyone is happy. --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Image size 90 × 130 pixels. This file was deleted for being out of scope after a regular deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Credentials of a U.S. Department of State special agent.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mateus2019: The problem of size is not the size itself, but low quality if scalling up. If you have a higher quality image, just upload it, no need to undelete. Note, that you still provided no new arguments that could justify reopenning the DR (which is the right procedure if deletion was per a DR). Ankry (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Nissi Ogulu.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nissi_Ogulu.png

I request for the above file to be undeleted, i never stated that i owned the above image, if i stated such kindly provide evidence. Warm regards!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nissi_Ogulu.png George Nyiam (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Very small, no evidence of a free license by author. [2] is probably Flickr washing. Commons only accepts files under a free license. Yann (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 12 June 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

Solicito la restauración de la imagen en cuestión. No entiendo por qué la eliminan si en la consulta de borrado tiene tres Manténgase. Agradezco su colaboración. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk • contribs) 14:41, 23 May 2023‎ (UTC)

 Support See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ana Torin, 2023 (Toma vertical).jpg. I don't think we need all of the various versions of this image -- but let's restore one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Apparently there is Ticket:2023041310012681 for this image. What does it say? --Rosenzweig τ 21:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig, The ticket mentions three files viz: File:Renny_Manzano_en_Jesús_Villarreal_en_Bogotá,_2019.jpg, File:Ana_Torin,_2023_(Shot_vertical).jpg and File:Ana_Torin,_2023_(Shot_horizontal).jpg. The ticket is open and needs attention from agents who know Spanish. I feel all the files can be restored once the permission is verified and approved. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I suppose the horizontal one should be the one rightly linked on DR. File:Ana Torin, 2023 (Toma horizontal).jpg. Nonetheless, I  Oppose restoration prior to successful VRT verification. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I  Oppose restoring File:Renny_Manzano_en_Jesús_Villarreal_en_Bogotá,_2019.jpg as it is essentially a personal image. Bedivere (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per VRTS ticket. If you wanna nominate a file for deletion on a non copyright basis, feel free to open it. Ruthven (msg) 18:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Keno mini wargame.jpg

I believe this image does not violate the copyrights of Games Workshop because none of the figurines in the image are shown in sufficient detail that one could replicate their designs. In fact, you can barely tell that they're Warhammer 40,000 figurines, only a few of them are recognizable. I think that this image therefore should be permitted under the principle of de minimis. I don't think the fact that the humans have been cropped out should make a difference. Kurzon (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support I agree with above. I think, the photo presents general view of the game (that is not copyrighted), not the individual figurines. They are de minimis here. Ankry (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

To add to this, the Warhammer 40,000 article on Wikipedia currently uses File:Operation Sci-Fi Con 2015.jpg as its lede image. Previously, it used a version of the image where the players' upper bodies were cropped out. That cropped image was deemed a copyright violation because the game pieces on the table then became the central feature of the image, so it got deleted. I then replaced it with the uncropped version. Because you now have a full view of the players, the image is no longer regarded as copyvio, the figurines are de minimis. But the resolution was not changed. Both the uncropped and cropped version show the figurines in the same level of detail. It's absurd that the uncropped version is permissible while the cropped version isn't. The standards by which Wikimedia judges de minimis are flawed. I ask the admins to review the criteria. Kurzon (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. Kurzon, there is no need to review criteria of de minimis. The rules are good enough. Instead, for current file the rules were improperly applied. Taivo (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File: DJ Amir AZ.jpg

File: DJ Amir AZ.jpg And All Of DJ Amir AZ Is Mine And I Get Them And Upload To Wiki Common To Make My Wikidata Page Please Undelete Them Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalijfars900200 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Personal image by non contributor. Please read COM:SCOPE and COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
The photo may be in scope, if an article abbout the subject is accepted in any Wikipedia. Up till now it is not. Ankry (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Also a copyright problem as the photo is not a selfie and false authorship information in description. The author is always the photographer and his or her moral rights cannot be transferred to another person. Ankry (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Ola-Unmasking3-Yokohama-JP.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ola-Unmasking3-Yokohama-JP.png

This was deleted with the reason 'No ticket permission since 12 May 2023', I know the lady who took it and she said she sent permission for it after I had created the file with the PP tag and given her the file name. Are you not able to find it? I can have her resend the permission if so.

She received an email from an Alfred N. asking to verify she was the photographer and she is going to respond to that now.

FellNuisance (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

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) 12:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Matilda_Farjallah.jpg

duplicate done by mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matildafarjallah (talk • contribs) 13:35, 12 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Personal image by a non contributor. Wikimedia Commons is not a social media, or a platform for advertising. Please read COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Blocked LTA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


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

No Angels in Providence (Musical Artist) Wikipedia information was deleted in 2021. The page was created for the first studio album “Rock & Roll No Matter What They Say”. Request for undeletion and/or information with what was wrong with the submission. Thank you.

Greetings. I created a page for the music artist No Angels in Providence. The page described the artist first studio album release, singles released for the album, and recording history. I am the artist, producer, and company owner that has created all music for No Angels in Providence. Many of my artist profiles globally included a Wikipedia link option. I created an account here on Wikipedia to verify the catalogue of official albums, official singles, and other for No Angels in Providence. The first page I created was for the July 20, 2020 release 'Rock & Roll No Matter What They Say' record. I submitted the page after creating my account here on Wikipedia. I logged into my account tonight and found that the page was not accepted. Since the first page submission, I have three more official albums I’d like to post detailing their release and recording information. It would be of great help to understand what was not acceptable in the first page I submitted and how I may move forward to utilize Wikipedia for this purpose. Thank you.

 Not done @CarolinaWhisper: This is Wikimedia Commons, a separate project from Wikipedia. To request content be undeleted on Wikipedia, you must make the request on that project. As for File:Rock & Roll No Matter What They Say by No Angels in Providence .jpg, it was deleted as a copyright violation, but even if you are copyright holder, it will be out of Commons' scope unless the Wikipedia article is restored. If the article is restored on Wikipedia, you can come back here and request undeletion of the album cover. You may be required to provide proof-of-ownership to the Volunteer Response Team at that time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Debussy-At-BOE.png

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Debussy-At-BOE.png

Debussy-At-BOE.png should be un-deleted and restored. My friend uploaded this picture, THAT I PERSONALLY took of Debussy at the Board of Ed. I literally am the creator of this photo, and I said it was okay to be uloaded. It was deleted after being found on a Google Image result, because I sent it to Dorian. (She reposted it to her LinkedIn, and someone "liked" it.) The "evidence" of it being a copyright violation was because someone liked it after she posted it to LinkedIn. But, I'm actually the creator of the image, and I think this is a good shot, so I want to contribute it here. Please un-delete this photo, as this is a really good shot of Ohio trans history in action. You have my permission to post it.

Also, this photo was uploaded to Dorian Rhea Debussy on Wikipedia. Not sure if I needed to share that or not...

-- XqueerlyohioX (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

XqueerlyohioX: You need to verify your release under a free licence we accept by using the form and emailing your consent per the details on the page COM:CONSENT. Just saying we can post it is not sufficient. Ww2censor (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thank you for letting me know! I was so confused... I just sent that form in and super happy this was so easy!!!! XqueerlyohioX (talk) 11:54, 13 June 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) 12:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:HK Sheung Wan Man Wa Lane Wing Lok Street poster Lo Wing Lok July-2012.JPG

The people who delete this image without acceptable reason, this image focal point is the street, not the poster.--Wpcpey (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wpcpey: Feel free to upload a new version of this image with posters cropped out or blured. Ankry (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:HK Kennedy Town 2011年香港區議會選舉 District Council Election posters 張國鈞 Cheung Kwok-Kwan Horace in Sept-2011.jpg

The people who delete this image without an acceptable reason only see the file name and delete it, without considering the picture's focal point.--Wpcpey (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wpcpey: Feel free to upload a new version of this image with the poster cropped out or blured. Note, that maiking non-acceptable accusations against Wikimedia Commons administrators working on DRs is not helpful here. You may be blocked if you continue. Ankry (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:HK Kennedy Town 2011年香港區議會選舉 District Council Election posters 張國鈞 Horace Cheung Kwok Kwan in Sept-2011.jpg

The people who delete this image without an acceptable reason only see the file name and delete it, without considering the picture's focal point. This image also not clear to see the poster since the photo quality is poor.--Wpcpey (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wpcpey: Feel free to upload a new version of this image with posters cropped out or blured. Ankry (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:HK Kennedy Town 2011年香港區議會選舉 District Council Election posters in Sept-2011 (2).jpg

The people who delete this image without an acceptable reason only see the file name and delete it, without considering the picture's focal point is the shop. I also blur those poster, but the administrator without consider my request and delete it, it is non-sense.--Wpcpey (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wpcpey: Feel free to upload a new version of this image with posters cropped out or blured. Ankry (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


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

Permission for several files

We have a VRT Ticket:2023061110004911 for these 37 files. Please restore so they can be reviewed before verification.

Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ww2censor: . —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Main-qimg-ae10d8e695868d368954174fb1ba36db-lq.jpg

== Attention aux droits d'auteur File:Main-qimg-ae10d8e695868d368954174fb1ba36db-lq.jpg ==

Hello I would like to ask the undeletion of the picture. I did this picture in the surgery room a few years ago. You can find it on quora also because I wrote the article about general anesthesia. I can prove the quora author and myself are the same person with an ID card. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CYP3A42D6 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 June 2023‎ (UTC)

CYP3A42D6 (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)CYP3A42D6

I think you should send an email according to the COM:VRT process. Whether they want your ID or something else, I don't know, but that's how we handle photos previously published elsewhere without a free licence. –LPfi (talk) 07:18, 14 June 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) 12:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:NLC471-043021505010006-4091 農產：合作社篇.pdf (1948)

All of them are {{PD-China}}. The deletion reason is "no license tag". I think it is possibly due to some error in template. --虹易 (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@虹易: There is indeed no license. These files use Template:Local Record in the National Library of China which doesn't exist. We need to know the date of first publication and/or the author. Yann (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
It is a typo. The template should be {{Local Records in the National Library of China}}.--虹易 (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Five,  Support three. I have noted the date of publication given in each of the file descriptions. Five of them are after 1946. Since Chinese copyright for anonymous works lasts for fifty years, the five were under Chinese copyright on the 1996 URAA date and therefore are under copyright in the USA until 95 years after publication. The three earlier works are PD and may be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I would like to add: the fourth one "A compilation of decrees of the Northeast People's Government" is an administrative publication by the government. It should be copyright free.--虹易 (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 Support File:NLC471-043021505010012-4099 東北人民政府法令匯編.pdf should fall under {{PD-PRC-exempt}} as it seems to be set of legal acts. Ankry (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
For URAA, WMF does not require a deletion. See https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-acceptance_of_the_rule_of_the_shorter_term#Statement_from_Wikimedia_Foundation . So there is no need to force a deletion of these files. Please restore. 維基小霸王 (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
But this requires a local community decision to host media copyrighted on URAA basis. Commons community did not accept this. URAA is integral part of US copyright law and Commons requirement is that all files must be free in both: the country of origin and in US. Ankry (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: 4 files, as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:L. N. Tolstoy. All in 90 volumes. Volume 84.pdf

It seems to me that the administrator who deleted the file in the discussion of deletion didn't read the argument about keeping the file because it's not in English. To clarify, there is a quote from the preface of this edition, written by the editor-in-chief of the edition. Where he and all contributors to this publication, including the editors, the publisher, the authors of all accompanying materials and notes in the publication, have release their copyrights into the Public Domain. This is a public statement from the publishing team, if you reject it, you are violating their copyright. Could you read the quote and argumentation and restore the file? --Vladis13 (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support at least reopenning the DR. It seems that the preface quoted in the DR contains copyright-related declaration that can be interpreted as a very wide free license. And the closing comment by Ellywa seems to ignore this. @Ellywa: can you comment on this, please?
I also agree with the comment by Xover in this DR that without proper information what the claimant rights are based on, we should not delete this file, leaving the final decission to DMCA-based process. I suspect that the claim is not justified. @Lvova: did any further information appear in ticket:2022102410006086 that may be helpful here? Ankry (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Nope, they just wrote a template letter twice and didn't reply me. Анастасия Львоваru/en 04:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ankry: , can you check the preface of the book on this? If required we can temporary undelete the file. Ellywa (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ellywa: You mean preface to the whole editon, or preface to this volume being only a part of the edition? It is clearly stated that the quoted preface is in vol. 1; if you think that it does not apply to the whole edition, please elaborate why. Ankry (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ankry: I have no thoughts about this. In considering the Deletion reqeust I did not see any evidence the text of other contributors then Tolstoy had been freely licensed. I understood reprinting was allowed free of charge, which is different from the licensing allowed on Commons (I had to translate with Google). Vladis13 wrote in the DR, "in other words, this is the same as Public domain" (which it is not imho). They now write something totally different, e.g. all is definitively in PD. So I think the original text should be checked by somebody able to understand the Russian language, as the VRT ticket did not give a clear answer either. Ellywa (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Vladis13: ^^^^ can you comment on this? Do you still think that reopenning the DR is reasonable? Ankry (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the preface to the entire edition, here is a link to Google Translation. There, the «publication» word means all volumes: «In other words, with the appearance in print of each volume of this publication, it is released from the state monopoly, becomes the Public Domain, and in relation to its content, any restrictive property rights disappear.» (ru. «Другими словами, с появлением в печати каждого тома настоящего издания, он освобождается от государственной монополии, становится всеобщим достоянием, и по отношению к его содержанию отпадают всякие ограничительные права собственности.») In this sentence and the full quote, it is directly stated that the entire publication is transferred to the Public Domain («becomes the Public Domain»).
And further it is written (Google’s translation): «In order that this exemption from literary property may extend to all the contents of the publication, including not only those written by Tolstoy, but also by the editors, they, for their part, also waived, for all subsequent reproductions of this publication, the ownership rights to their work, i.e. to their self notes, explanatory articles, etc.»
I don’t know what can to add to this quote of the editor-in-chief. Vladis13 (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The VRT ticket from "ООО «ВАКО»" looks like a scam or plagiarism, since the VAKO LLC that wrote it is completely unknown. (I barely found it mentioned on Google. This is a modern small publishing house, that specializes in textbooks and notebooks for schools only; does not publish fiction at all.) This has nothing to do with this publication ("L. N. Tolstoy. Complete works: in 90 volumes - M .: Khudozhestvennaya Literature, 1928-1958."), nor with the publishing house w:en:Khudozhestvennaya Literatura that was one of the leading publishing houses in the Soviet Union.
"Vladis13 wrote in the DR, "in other words, this is the same as Public domain"." - I did not see such my words DR. Vladis13 (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vladis13: this wording is from the translation, also in the link you provided. It will be clear I do not agree with undeletion. Ellywa (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. Please reopen the DR if needed. --Yann (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:PEGI Fear annotated.svg

PEGI's content descriptor for "Fear".

{{PD-shape}} {{PD-text}} {{Trademark}}

@Taivo: as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose What? This is not a simple logo!!! Taivo (talk)
 Oppose The spider is neither {{PD-shape}} nor {{PD-text}}. Ankry (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Occupation borders in Slovenia 1941-1945. Border lines and occupied territories.tif

VRT permission received and confirmed (ticket #2023061010004342). — Yerpo Eh? 10:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done @Yerpo: Gbawden (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK now. --Yann (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Colonel Joseph Thoburn.jpg

We have Ticket:2023061310011963 for this file indicating this image in the public domain and {{PD-US-unpublished}} is the licence template. Please restore and I will make sure to create a link to the ticket in case anyone need to follow up. Ww2censor (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ww2censor: Gbawden (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ww2censor: Please complete the source, date, and author. --Yann (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Elizaveta Khudaiberdieva Egor Bazin in 2022.jpg

The second time the file was nominated for deletion by the user @User:Krd as No permission since 15 June 2023. However, links have already been provided earlier that the file is published under the free Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Full can be found at the links «Все материалы сайта доступны по лицензии: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International» (All site materials are licensed: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International) https://minsport.samregion.ru/2022/11/19/30307/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230321185821/https://minsport.samregion.ru/2022/11/19/30307/ GAECHKA (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted. Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Rozz spa.webm

لطفا این فیلم را حذف نکنید چون من برای اموزش پدیکور خشک به این فیلم نیاز دارم و برای ویرایش مقاله ها به این فیلم نیاز دارم --رزیتا عابدی (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Info Google Translate: "Please don't delete this video because I need this video to teach dry pedicure and I need this video to edit articles". Thuresson (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Spam. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rozzspaa. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Malhun -Mal Hatun.jpg

Kindly undo deletion of this image this is my own work and this belongs to a main character in kurulus Osman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesapphire1999 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 15 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This appears to be a screenshot from the TV show Kuruluş: Osman. If that is correct, it cannot be kept on Commons unless an authorized official of the production company (usually the Producer) sends a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Muñecos de peluche de Frailejón Ernesto Pérez.jpg

I request the restoration of this file, Mexico has the total freedom of panorama to take this type of photos, the laws of this country do not require that the objects in question be permanent to be taken and as an example these photos: Mexican FOP cases/undeleted---Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 23:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be from Colombia, not Mexico. Yann (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Yes, and Columbia requires that the copyrighted work be on permanent display, which these obviously are not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:72 HOORAIN POSTER.jpg

Requesting the undeletion of the File:72 HOORAIN POSTER.jpg

This file is the poster for the film 72 hoorain, and it is my own work and this image is important for this article hence i request the undeletion of this file. This file is an important aspect of the article and it must be included back in the article. --Rupakspectra (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Please ask the copyright holder (usually the artist and/or the producer) to send a permission via email. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose. Rupakspectra, while this project does not allow fair-use images, you should be able to upload it on the English wikipedia as a fair-use image. Upload the image there and in the upload wizard, you MUST correctly state that it is a poster in the main upload form. Ravensfire (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:00249-skimmer.jpg

Is a Fluidra product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StocksPiscinas (talk • contribs) 11:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Promotional image, no evidence of a free license. User blocked for uploading such images after warning, e.g. File:71741-luz.jpg (EXIF: Headline xevi f. güell, Online copyright statement www.xevifguell.cat, Author xevi f. güell, Copyright holder: © xevifguell 2019). Yann (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Independent Roads Official Poster (2012).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permissions received on ticket:2023060610004556 ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 15:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Albertoleoncio: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:NLC471-043021505010002-4094 龍城舊聞節刊.pdf

Accroding to Chinese law, organization copyright is only protected for 50 years.“法人或者非法人组织的作品、著作权（署名权除外）由法人或者非法人组织享有的职务作品，其发表权的保护期为五十年，截止于作品创作完成后第五十年的12月31日”. And Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights: "A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion."

So please restore.--維基小霸王 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose "A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion." is widely misunderstood. If it is clear that the URAA actually applies to an image, as it clearly does in these three cases, we cannot keep the image on Commons until the US copyright expires 25 years from now. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

If this does not count "a mere allegation" what count? Two of them are government' afflicats old work. They other is re print of pre 1927 work (not even affected by URAA). Files only affected by URAA without deletion request by copyright holder should not be deleted, as a local decision clearly stated in the cited page and allowed, though not encouraged, by WMF accroding to https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-acceptance_of_the_rule_of_the_shorter_term#Statement_from_Wikimedia_Foundation . 維基小霸王 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@維基小霸王: Concerning File:NLC471-043021505010002-4094 龍城舊聞節刊.pdf: feel free to upload the 1919 version. In order to keep this one someone needs to verify glyph by glyph that the text is identical. So we would need the 1919 version anyway. Ankry (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Type setting rights is only protected for 10 years.
"第三十七条 出版者有权许可或者禁止他人使用其出版的图书、期刊的版式设计。
前款规定的权利的保护期为十年，截止于使用该版式设计的图书、期刊首次出版后第十年的12月31日。" 維基小霸王 (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
You said "[a file] should fall under {{PD-PRC-exempt}} as it seems to be set of legal acts." If you have to force URAA, aren't Chinese legal acts document be banned as well? Their copyright is protected in USA because their author haven't passed away for 70/95 years. The US copyright laws only said those files by American federal government are not protected, it said nothing about Chinese government works. So the sacred copyright of Chinese government are still ridiculously protected by American government under URAA, regardless of whatever Chinese laws says.
I think it makes no sense for an international project like commons to force US copyright law in non-US works, as WMF does not force URAA and local decision to not delete a file merely for URAA, unless complains by copyright holders.--維基小霸王 (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
We apply URAA for private works, but usually not to government works. Yann (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Several national governments -- Canada comes immediately to mind -- have declared that if a government work is PD in Canada, it is PD everywhere. I don't think that is true of China. In the absence of such a declaration, I can't see why a Chinese government work could not be under URAA copyright while PD in China. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Not only US federal acts. The US copyright office declares:

As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.

Ankry (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Objection withdrawn. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Club-Tijuana.jpg

This file needs to be restored, Mexico FoP laws allow this type of photography to be taken, please and calmly check and discuss this issue, because as far as you can see in removal requests this file was not discussed enough .--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 23:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Club-Tijuana.jpg and AB discussion. Yann (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support KoH raised the question in the first DR -- if you can't download the logo from the club's website, why is it that you can upload substantially the same thing from having photographed it in a public place? Copyright doesn't consider provenance. I think the answer to his question is that FoP does not change the copyright status of the work, but only prohibits the copyright holder from exercising their rights against the use of an FoP image. That may seem like splitting hairs, but we do that all the time -- copyright is not logical.

Mexico is one of only six countries in the freest box in my FoP reference matrix. We should take advantage of that whenever we can. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:me at 14.jpg

This picture was actually from me privately because my father had edited it, works in this company Adobe Stock this picture was made on purpose. I would like to have it back on my user page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abby1097 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Abby1097 has made only the one contribution to Commons -- the photo named above. She has made no contributions to WP:EN except one sentence at User:Abby1097. Aside from the copyright question, her image is out of scope. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Jim, I disagree with you. She transferred and translated en:Evil Dead: The Game → de:Evil Dead: The Game. IMO she should be allowed to have a userpage image. --Achim55 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Good catch, thank you. No meaningful contributions on Commons or WP:EN, but a major one on WP:DE. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Andrew Curry headshot 2016.jpg

The photo is not a personal photo; it is a photo of a notable figure that was published as part of a news article in a major publication. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/creative-impact-agency-hires-andrew-929462/ --Lamagedit (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Jennifer Buroughs 06/16/2023

 Oppose Fine, but it doesn't look like a selfie, so the claim that the subject is the photographer is probably not correct and, as you note, it appears in a copyrighted publication. Policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Petr Pavel.jpg

Please undelete File:Petr Pavel.jpg; a valid release came to ticket:2023050410008352. Thank you! --Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: There are 2 portraits of the same person here. The first was uploaded by Barbora.pechackova, and the second by Eliška Michálková. For which one is the permission? Yann (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Yann, thanks for the question. The one uploaded by Eliška Michálková (should be uploaded on 2023-05-04). Thanks, Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Martin Urbanec: FYI. --Yann (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Flavio Fachel BDBR.jpg

VRTS volunteer Albertoleoncio has analysed uploader’s email regarding another upload and has, apparently, proved that uploader is in fact Flávio Fachel, a reputed Brazilian journalist. Therefore, I think his other two uploaded images (which I cannot see, as I am not an administrator) should be undeleted if they are undoubtlessly their own work. Also valid to File:Fachel emmy.jpg. Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not a Flávio Fachel selfie. Ankry (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


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

Ending Theme (Song).jpg

File:Ending Theme (Song).jpg reason=Album cover I actually been a named of legally named of this album so i don't want to copyrighted myself, Thakdanai Le 18 JUN 2023 Thakdanai Le (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose We need the permission from the copyright holder, usually the proceducer and/or the artist. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:মাওলানা ওবাইদুল আকবর.jpg

The photograph was taken immediately after the nomination of AMGM Ubaidul Akbar as an applicant in the election of United Front in 1954. — Preceding unsigned comment added by অরূপ নির্ঝর (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Comment The photograph appears to be public domain in the country of origin but not the United States because of URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Under copyright in India until 2014, therefore under copyright in the USA until 1/1/2050. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Image of Mosque of Bibi Mariam.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image is under PD according to pakistan copyright law as more than 50 years has been passed from the first publication. I mentioned the source and copyright status after deletion request but am unclear why it has been deleted! Wasiul Bahar (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose. I'm not sure why @Krd: deleted this as having no license. But as a 1967 work it was not in the public domain in Pakistan in 1996, and it is therefore copyrighted in the United States. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Mdaniels5757 According to Pakistani copyright laws, all photographs enter the public domain fifty years after they were published
And the image of bibi mariam mosque was published in "East Pakistan District Gazetteers: Dacca" by government of pakistan in 1969 and 54 years have passed after the photograph was published. So, according to Pakistan copyright law, the photograph should be in Public domain now. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct, but they're not public domain in the United States because this photograph was not public domain in Pakistan in 1996. Abzeronow (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Abzeronow Oh, okk.
Maybe I am missing something. :)
Sorry for the question but why the photograph should be public domain in 1996? Wasiul Bahar (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The servers for Wikimedia Commons are in the United States. The US has a law called the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) which restored many foreign copyrights in the US on January 1, 1996. This photograph would have been one of those whose US copyright would have been restored by that. Commons requires files to be public domain in both the country of origin and the US. Abzeronow (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Abzeronow Thanks a lot for the clarification and also sorry for wrong mention in last reply. :) Wasiul Bahar (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Separation of self.jpg

File:Separation of self.jpg

It is an image that was created using a Bing Dall-E AI image generator. Since it has been mentioned as the source/ author and given the proper <<PD-algorithm>> licensing, then I believe it shouldn't have a problem being posted. --EP426 (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@EP426: What's the educational use of this image? Yann (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
It's a representation about the pain of having to disassociate yourself, with either selves torturing the other. It was supposed to visualize an analysis of a theme recurring in "Dream House" by Machado and "No Exit" by Sartre. EP426 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, but please note that personal art by non notable artists is not accepted on Commons, unless there is some educational use. Yann (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Porträt von Erzherzog Ernest von Habsburg.png

present the following portrait made by Josef Ferdinand Fromiller made between the seventeenth and eighteenth century. the author being owed over a century ago, his license is (pd-old-100)--Zekenskly (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment LTA upload. Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 Support undeletion as the copyright has expired. --Achim55 (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. Account blocked. The consensus is that undeletion of uploads by LTA can be requested by users in good standing. Zekenskly is blocked as obvious sock. --Yann (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Stefan aus dem Siepen (C) Susanne Schleyer.jpg

File:Stefan aus dem Siepen (C) Susanne Schleyer to undelete.jpg Einverständniserklärung der Urheberin ging unter der Ticketnr. [Ticket#2023051510006888] ein, ist es daher möglich, die Datei weiederherzustellen? --Hoppelbink (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Hoppelbink

 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) 15:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Restore Files

Hello. I ask you to restore the file photo of a member of the Soviet underground youth anti-fascist organization. I installed a new one yesterday, but it was removed. Restore the old one then. Граф Рауль Валуа (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support as per above. {{PD-Russia}} applies. Yann (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 Question What has changed since Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Members of Young Guard (Soviet resistance) was decided? --Rosenzweig τ 12:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I decided to immediately merge the files I need, if I write, I will still submit requests. Граф Рауль Валуа (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: More precisely: which secttion of {{PD-Russia}} applies in your opinion and why? Ankry (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
@Граф Рауль Валуа: The copyright template used by the uploader claims that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. It cannot be applied if the photographer is unknown. For unknown photographers, we need to know a pre-1946 publication of the photos in order to claim them {{PD-Russia}}. Ankry (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose per lack of explanation. Ankry (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I would accept old orphan works without the need a proof a publication, but it seems I am alone on that. Yann (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I think, we would need a wider community decission if we are going to accept orphan works that are less than 120 years old. Ankry (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, please see Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow old orphan works. Yann (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose. Without evidence, that the photos are work of anonymous photographers, I do not agree to restore them. Also publication data are needed – surely the photos were published somewhere before upload into Commons, but when and where? Taivo (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 Not done No consensus to undelete, no response from OP. Thuresson (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


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

Category:Murals by Arturo García Bustos

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Murals_by_Arturo_Garc%C3%ADa_Bustos It is totally absurd and inconsistent that images of murals in Mexico have to be requested via OTRS when its FoP laws allow it as indicated ARTICLE 148 ITEM VII REPRODUCTION, COMMUNICATION AND DISTRIBUTION BY MEANS OF DRAWINGS, PAINTINGS, PHOTOGRAPHS AND AUDIOVISUAL PROCEDURES OF THE WORKS THAT ARE VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC PLACES. Therefore, it is not necessary to ask for permission from the author or whoever was in charge of the works, this should also be discussed calmly to reach a solution.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 23:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Missvain: You said in the DR "It appears interior murals are covered by COM:FOP." Please explain. Yann (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
At this point, I don't remember. I defer to others to decide to undelete or delete. That decision was made in 2021 and I don't really have the capacity to dig deep into it. (Also would appreciate if users would assume good faith rather than using "absurd" and "inconsistent" to describe administrative decisions. Assuming good faith is preferred.) Sorry can't be of much help at this point! I'm sure someone knowledgeable on Mexico's copyright laws will be able to help. Missvain (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree that Aurelio de Sandoval's use of "absurd" and "inconsistent" is entirely inappropriate. Admins do the best they can. Even among the 25 or so Admins that do the bulk of the work, you must expect some inconsistency, particularly when the issue is subjective.

While Mexican FoP does extend to interiors, it extends only to public interiors. The definition of "public" is not entirely clear. The list at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama shows:

  • Schools, Universities, and every kind of building used for education;
  • Clinics, Hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care;
  • Government offices of all types;
  • Community Centers;
  • Free admission and open places such as parks, green areas and sports centers
  • Places that collaborate in public federal programs.

This UnDel request should be closed as "not done" and a new request opened listing specifically those murals that qualify under that list. Each item should be annotated with its location and how it fits on the list above. I haven't looked at all of them, but I note that several do not say where the mural is.

I also note that a number of the images in the DR come from Mitla and are apparently not the work of the cited artist. They should probably be restored as PD-very-old. At least one of those has a Getty Images watermark. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward So these photographs are allowed because the FoP laws of Mexico allow it. Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 15:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
No, that is not what I said. Photographs of works by Arturo García Bustos may or may not be allowed depending on location. Those that do not have a stated location or whose location is not clearly in a public place as defined in Mexican law cannot be restored. It seems likely that all of the works at Mitla should be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: As I noted above, this should be reopened in at least two different requests. One for the works at Mitla, and one for the Bustos murals whose location is identified as a public place as defined by the Mexican law. In both cases the individual works should be listed.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Tokyo 2020 Olympics logo.svg

I request the restoration of this logo, its elimination was absurd, if you stop to observe the circle is only made up of geometric figures such as rectangles and squares, there is nothing complex to be a reason for its elimination.---Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 16:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The International Olympic Committee is very aggressive enforcing its copyrights and trademarks. Please note that we don't know the country of origin of the logo -- while it is for the Tokyo Olympics, it almost certainly was created elsewhere. probably Switzerland. Swiss copyright law defines works as "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Infrogmation That is why these types of issues have to be discussed in detail. Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 05:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I think that this is probably below COM:TOO Japan based on the examples there (which include the olympic rings). Japan's TOO can be considered to be higher than the USA, however, and the USA TOO is more vague here; en:File:BP Helios logo.svg was deleted following a DMCA, and the square pattern shape seems to be of similar creativity to that design. As this needs to be free in BOTH the USA and Japan, I  weakly lean towards maintaining deletion, but I can see why people would argue the other way. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
As I noted above, we cannot assume that the country of origin is Japan. I think it very likely that it was Switzerland as that is the headquarters of the IOC. In order to restore this, I think we must agree that it is below the ToO in all of the USA, Switzerland, and Japan. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
We deal in "probably" all the time here -- on matters such as ToO there are few certainties. Note, however, that restoring the image requires an agreement "beyond a substantial doubt", which we don not have at the moment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:1919 wassili blücher.jpg

One of User:PlanespotterA320's nominations prior to his blocking for using various sockpuppet accounts. The others in the series were kept. The assumption has been that images without a provenance of remaining with the photographer or remaining unseen in an archive, have been made available to the public (publication in legal terms). --RAN (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support as per RAN. Yann (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 Support Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Er._Ali_Akhtar_Mikrani.jpg

What is the reason for deletion of this image? I can make sure that I have asked for this photo courtesy of the family members of Er. Ali Akhtar Mikrani for contribution to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 49.180.14.17 (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

Very small image with no EXIF data. @Reyaz4u: Who is the photographer? Please log in before posting messages here. Yann (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The image was deleted because of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Er. Ali Akhtar Mikrani.jpg. There was significant doubt about the extent to which the file is available under a suitable free license, so it was deleted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Clearly not the work of the uploader as claimed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:大豊建設株式会社 本社ビル.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: permission confirmed at ticket:2023061410001132. whym (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Whym: FYI. --Yann (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:DenisLimaBonfim.jpg

A foto era do jornal oficial do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de Goiás, sendo portanto de licença pública. Estava corretamente ligado à fonte ao qual a fotografia pertencia, portanto foi uma eliminação completamente descabida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson Júnior GSF (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 June 2023‎ (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Oppose On the contrary, it appears to me to be a completely appropriate deletion. The source claimed in the upload is

https://www.tjgo.jus.br/index.php/institucional/centro-de-comunicacao-social/17-tribunal/2919-em-crime-que-chocou-porangatu-homem-e-condenado-a-25-anos-de-prisao-por-assassinato-de-mulher

and it was claimed that it is cc-by-sa-4.0. However the named source page clearly shows

© 2023 Poder Judiciário
Todos os diretos reservados

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: All rights reserved; no evidence of a free license. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Niccolò Canepa Portrait 2021.jpg

I'm Niccolò Canepa, the subject on the picture, the owner of this picture, I posted on my website niccolocanepa59.com and it's free from copyright.

--Niccolo59 (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Niccolò Canepa--Niccolo59 (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Niccolo59: Are you sure you took this photo yourself? That it wasn't Jean Francois Monier or some other professional photographer? Thuresson (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Sure! As Yamaha riders we have the rights of the pictures. By the way the picture was taken by us Niccolo59 (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
@Niccolo59 Who is us? We either need the name of the photographer and a permission from them, or a proof that the complete and exclusive rights of use have been granted to you. See Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team about it. Mussklprozz (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Clearly not the work of the uploader as claimed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Fayçal Lalioui.png

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2023060610008614. --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: Please add tags etc. --Rosenzweig τ 12:48, 20 June 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 Ayeka9

Rabbis from the 1800s. I don't believe they were eligible for deletion. They are republications of earlier works, and none have a registered copyright. The 120 year rule is for unpublished works, and these are clearly published. --RAN (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The 120 year rule also applies to works in which we believe to be from an author who was not anonymous but we cannot find any information about them. A 1929 publication would still fall under URAA depending on which country it was published in so we should wait until 2025 for photographs published in 1929 unless we have definite proof of earlier publication. Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undelete 2 files from before 1910. No serious doubt about copyright status, clearly published at that time. --Yann (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Przemysław Koperski 2023.png

I have permission to the deleted file "Przemysław Koperski 2023.png". Please update file. This is a file that is commonly used on the official websites of MP Przemysław Koperski and in the media. Examples are provided below

https://www.facebook.com/Posel.Koperski (Copyrighted)
https://twitter.com/KoperskiPrzemek (Copyrighted)
https://klub-lewica.org.pl/okreg-wyborczy-nr-27-bielsko-biala/97-przemyslaw-koperski (© 2022 Left Members' Club)
https://www.eecpoland.eu/2023/pl/prelegenci/przemyslaw-koperski,16411.html (All rights reserved. PTWP SA 2023)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BP PK Bielsko-Biała 2021 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 19 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose As I noted above, all four of the sites you mention are copyrighted. The image can be restored to Commons only if the actual photographer sends a free license using VRT. I also note that when you uploaded the image, you claimed you were the actual photographer. Making false claims is a serious violation of Commons rules and can lead to your being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Statue of Chang Qu.jpg

This is the second time that @Krd has removed the photo/file I uploaded based on the motif of "No permission". I do not see what is his problem here, this is a random photo found on the internet of a random statue that I want uploaded to illustrate the wiki page of the represented individual, Chang Qu. Unless I'm totally mistaken. There is no need to have the permission of the photographer when there is nothing to indicate that the photography was professional or special when it concerns public art.TheWayWeAllGo (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose @TheWayWeAllGo: You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how things work here at Wikimedia Commons. Please read Commons:Licensing as a start. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosenzweig (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 June 2023‎ (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. The source page is clearly marked "Copyright ©2000-2023 SICHUANDAILY NETWORK MEDIA DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD. All rights reserved." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Dr-Farhana-Sultana.jpg

This image is the public headshot from my university. It has been widely used without needing license for over a decade. Please do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFarhanaSultana (talk • contribs) 16:06, 20 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose "© Syracuse University" at [4]. Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr-Farhana-Sultana.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from an authorized representative of the actual copyright holder via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Hamish-harding.jpg

The user who placed the initial copyvio tag on the image stated that EXIF lists commercial photographer Felix Kunze as the copyright holder. Someone needs to verify that the uploader has permission from the copyright holder. I emailed Felix Kunze, and he responded, stating that the copyright of the image was held by Blue Origin and under their license. The email included a link to the gallery page, which at the top states Images available for download. Please credit Blue Origin. To me, while this does mean that the original user wasn't the copyright holder, or granted permission, it does mean that it falls under an {{Attribution}} license. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Available for download isn't the same as a free license. https://www.blueorigin.com/terms-of-use "Blue Origin grants you a limited license to access and view the Sites for personal use only, but not to download (other than page caching) or modify the Sites or any portion of them except with Blue Origin’s prior written consent. This license does not include (i) any resale or commercial use of the Sites or their contents, (ii) any derivative use of the Sites or their contents, or (iii) any use of data mining, robots, or similar data gathering and extraction tools. The Sites or any portion of the Sites may not be copied, reproduced, duplicated, sold, resold, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without Blue Origin’s prior written consent. You may not frame or utilize framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo, or other proprietary information (including images, text, page layout or form) of Blue Origin without express written consent. You may not use any meta tags or any other “hidden text” utilizing Blue Origin’s name or trademarks without Blue Origin’s prior written consent. Any unauthorized use automatically terminates the permission or license granted by Blue Origin. You are granted a limited, revocable, nonexclusive license to create hyperlinks to the home pages of the Sites so long as the links do not portray Blue Origin or its products or services in a false, misleading, derogatory, or otherwise offensive manner. You may not use any Blue Origin logo or other proprietary graphic or trademark as part of the link without Blue Origin’s prior written permission." Abzeronow (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not free at source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Cathy Tie.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo was from Cathy Tie herself and is license-free. It is also a request from her to upload this photo to her Wikipedia profile. I am an authorized representative of Cathy Tie, I can provide a document that proves my partnership with her. Stephthexp (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose This can not be resolved here since a different user claims to own the copyright of this photo (File:RNI-Films-IMG-0FD8934B-15D1-4121-88A2-5A5435270EA3 2.jpg). Please contact the photographer or whoever owns the copyright and ask her och him to follow the instructions at COM:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 21:55, 20 June 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) 12:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ketho King.jpg

We have a permission mail per Ticket:2023061210012142. I need to see the picture to check whether the permission can be trusted, so can it please be temporarily undeleted? --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: Done. Yann (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: done by Yann. --Ellywa (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Trent Tresch Submarine Research Dive.jpg

The original deletion log noted it was an "unused selfie". This file is notable as a submerged photograph taken aboard Cyclops 1 (refer to the corresponding section in the en:OceanGate, Inc. article on English Wikipedia) and further, that it shows the submersible control scheme, which uses a repurposed game controller. This control scheme has attracted significant attention in the wake of the disappearance of OceanGate's successor, Titan.

Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: speedy undone. --Ellywa (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:President Ali Abdullah Saleh (Yemen Arab Republic).jpg

The deleting admin mistakenly made the assumption that the URAA date for Yemen is 1996 like with most other countries. However, according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Yemen, the URAA date for Yemen is April 14, 2008. On that date, Yemen only had a copyright term of 10 years from creation for photographs. While the 2012 law which extended copyright for photographs to 25 years was retroactive, it doesn't restore copyright in the US as the photo was in the public domain on the URAA date. The new 25 year term has also expired by now, so the photo should be free to use. -- 2A02:908:122:55C0:468A:5BFF:FECC:62BA 05:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support In order to restore the photo, we must assume that the photo was published in Yemen before 1998. We are told in the upload that source is

"Old Yemen Arab Republic (now defunct) government brochure from 1980s"

so I think we are OK with it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support Per Jim and requestor. Abzeronow (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim and Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Demiromantic Pride Flag.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Vectorized version of the demiromantic pride flag (File:Bandeira Demirromantica.jpg). Meanwhile used in w:LGBT symbols and w:Pride flag. Luca090902 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to its restoration if there is actually a use for it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Plausible educational use; vector version of a raster file currently in use on EnWiki. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ludvik Čarni.jpg

Permission from the copyright owner received and approved, see VRT ticket #2023061010004342. — Yerpo Eh? 16:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Yerpo: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


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

Brisbane HQ.jpeg

Hi there,

Requesting an undeletion of the image in the subject line. I suspect the problem was insufficient info about the image's source.

Here's the webpage from which it was pulled: https://mammoth.bio/contact/

And here's the terms of use for that page: https://mammoth.bio/terms-of-use/

Per the terms of use, the use of images from the site is expressly prohibited, except as expressly authorized by Mammoth. I do have express authorization from Mammoth to use this photo; let me know what documentation would be sufficient to provide proof of this.

Let me know if this will be sufficient to undelete this photo. --Ebullientemu345 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ebullientemu345: There is no such file as File:Brisbane HQ.jpeg. Yann (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I guess this is about File:Mammoth Biosciences' Brisbane, CA headquarters.jpg. @Ebullientemu345: Permissions should be documented by following the COM:VRT procedure, which involes the author or rights holder sending an e-mail with the permission. Files at Wikimedia must be free to be used by everybody, for every purpose, including commercial ones. --Rosenzweig τ 06:34, 22 June 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) 12:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Cause of death Unknown2.jpg

I have permission to publish this photo but forgot to mention it when uploading. User:RaftFilms/Permission — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliFatehi (talk • contribs) 14:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Ticket:2019103110005196. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Paintings by Allan Ramsay

Hi everyone. I recently created this page listing Ramsay's pictures and it was deleted per “Commons gallery pages are for collections of images, not encyclopedic content”. However, when I read the deletion reason, I was confused as other authors have similar pages and they don't get deleted, Titian, Rubens, Rembrandt or van Gogh are some examples.

After asking the user who deleted the page, he kindly explained that “Commons galleries are for galleries -- that is, collections that are only images, perhaps with a brief caption on each -- and not for encyclopedic content”, although he also acknowledged that “this may not be a stated policy”, and encourage me to ask via this page, full information is here [5].

I've also created a second page for another author's list [6], though for now I only quote it while the Ramsay's list issue is resolved. I hope anyone can help with this to solve my doubts. Thank you to all for your help! Stv26 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm the deleting Admin here and I suggested to Stv26 that he bring it here. I think that the complex type of list which he created belongs on WP, not here. See for example List of works by Titian on WP:EN. Commons galleries should be simple arrays of photos, perhaps with a caption, but without all of the ancillary information presented in this format. I have restored the page for this discussion.

I should add that it's too bad that Stv26 put work into this page based on the examples cited above -- one of the never ending problems on Commons is that we have almost one hundred million pages and many of them have never been seen by anyone except their creators. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support We have similar pages for other artists, e.g. Paintings by Paul Cézanne. Yann (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
My 2 cents: The other examples listed above are created by bots, based on Wikidata, and do not need human effort, after the first making of... I agree with Jim that the English Wikipedia is a better place for such lists. The exposure to the general public is larger, and they can be translated easily into other languages. However, as long as we keep gallery pages on Commons, we can allow this list as well imho (I personally avoid the gallery pages, as they are hand made and not complete in general). Ellywa (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
These pages should not be deleted with the rationale that there is a similar page on the English Wikipedia. If someone is looking for a painting for any project except the English Wikipedia, the normal place to look for is Commons. And these are only about images, there is no text content so they should be allowed here. Yann (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: No real issue with this page. --Yann (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I have restored Paintings by Philip Alexius de László in accordance with this decision. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Domino cookies.JPG

Hello! I would like to temporarily undelete this image, and as such picture will be uploaded to Wikipedia...Allo002 (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Why? Google has many superior images of this package of Domino (cookie) than this blurry photo. Thuresson (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Sher Shah Suri by Breshna.jpg

This should be undeleted. It was deleted at [[7]] when it shouldn't have been. See this discussion which opened it up. [[8]]

User ThethPunjabi believed that the image was in copyright, but I later provided more clarification and he also re-checked it, and came to the conclusion that it was not in copyright. Specifically with this:

"It is not a copyright violation, we can clearly see that the work was made "before 1943" and repeating this: It is a photograph, painting, or other audiovisual work originally published more than 50 years ago, or It is any other form of protected work and more than 50 years have passed since the death of the last surviving author and the date of original publication. It applies under the first category, where the work has been published more then 50 years ago, so it is not a copyright violation under Afghan copyright law. In the case of US copyright, it mentions an important note: "Works of foreign (non-U.S.) origin must be out of copyright or freely licensed in both their home country and the United States in order to be accepted on Commons. Works of Afghan origin that were under copyright in Afghanistan on July 29, 2016 may be copyrighted in the U.S. under the URAA. For more information, see U.S. Copyright Office Circular 38A. Works of Afghan origin that were no longer under copyright in Afghanistan on July 29, 2016 are not copyrighted in the U.S. due to a previous lack of copyright relations between the U.S. and Afghanistan."" Noorullah21 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment The image does not look like a painting; it seems to be either a drawing or a lithography. Do both fall under painting category in Afghan copyright law? Ankry (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. The Afghan law is not clear. At Article 16 we have:

"1 - Works published or broadcast during the life cycle of the author shall be protected fifty calendar years after his/her death unless the author has decided differently.
.
.
6 - Photography and painting works shall be protected fifty years effective from the first year of publication and broadcast."

Note that #1 simply says "works" which implies "all works". I am inclined to believe that #6 is meant to apply only to anonymous works.

The work was made by Abdul Ghafoor Breshna(1907-1974). 50 years after his death would have this under Afghan copyright until 1/1/2025 and US copyright for much longer. If #6 applies, we can restore it only if it can be proven that it was published before 1966, in order to avoid the 2016 URAA date. I glanced at the cited discussion at WP, but WP rules are different from Commons, so I did not read it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward On his wiki page, it said the drawing was dated 1944, and on the file it said (before 1946) if I remember correctly. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
On alamy, it says its out of copyright, linked here saying it was made in the 1930s. [9] Noorullah21 (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: {{PD-Afghanistan}} + {{PD-1996}}. --Yann (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request for File:Altın Gün in 2023.jpg

Hi, I would like to request the undeletion of the file (File:Altın Gün in 2023.jpg).
I am sure that this image belongs to the public domain because it has been taken from a press kit released by the artist management agency EBB Music based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands and it can be used freely in publications. Many blogs and news websites have used it until now. All the photographs that are included in the press kit are taken by Dutch photographer Catharina Gerritsen. I will provide you below the respectable links to the artist page where at the bottom a link can be found to download the .zip file. I will also provide the link to the Instagram post of Catharina Gerritsen where she mentions the press kit.

--Myemirhan (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Myemirhan: Press kit images are under a copyright, unless a specific mention by the copyright holder says the opposite. If you have evidence of such a permission, please ask the copyright holder to contact COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Son des cloches de Vottem (Juin 2023).ogg File:La procession de Vottem au Calvaire (Juin 2023).webm

Hello,

both files are my own work, self recorded. File:Son des cloches de Vottem (Juin 2023).ogg File:La procession de Vottem au Calvaire (Juin 2023).webm Would you restore both files, so that I can add the "SELF" tag?

Thank you

--Jnyssen (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

please ignore the above request. I have uploaded it again. Hopefully now with the appropriate License?

File:Les cloches de Vottem Juin 2023.ogg and File:Halte de la procession de Vottem au Calvaire en Juin 2023 et inauguration du Calvaire rénové.webm --Jnyssen (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Reloading files is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. It wastes both computer resources -- having two saved copies of the files instead of one -- and the time necessary to deal with them.

 Oppose I'm not sure that the movie of the procession is in scope. Most of it is simply a number of people standing around waiting. It might be in scope if it were significantly shortened. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

OK well noted for the procession video. With regards to the church bell sound, I would wish to access the originally uploaded sound file again, so that I can adjust the license info. Jnyssen (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I really don't see any issue with these files. {{Temporarily undeleted}} Yann (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thank you.Is it possible to restore the church bell sound file also, so that I can adjust the license info? Jnyssen (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Yann, I can't imagine any educational use for a file that mostly shows a small crowd milling around waiting..... .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
We could find educational use for such videos. Probably not in Wikipedia, but who knows... Yann (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: If there is a scope issue with these files, a new DR should be created. @Jnyssen: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by IAskWhatIsTrue

AI generated images are not copyrighted as repeatedly stated by Commons:AI and as such they were wrongly deleted.

The images were specifically deleted due to alleged copyright issues. It is possible that other editors believe that the images are out of scope and does not belong to Commons. In that case they should start a deletion request after the images have been undeleted.--Trade (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See my comment above. --Yann (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Il caldèras.jpg

Per {{PD-Italy}} and {{PD-1996}}. Daniele Fisichella 08:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Created in 1988, so PD-1996 doesn't apply. This applies only to files in the public domain in Italy in 1996, which is not the case here. Yann (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Rudolf Carnap (1891 – 1970).jpg

Hello,

I'd like to use this image for the French version of Carnap's page. Indeed, it is currently used for the English version and I don't see the problem to use it again for this version. I'm quoting Jy Houston on Carnap's English page : "This image can already be easily found online. This version is from a digitised journal so the quality will already be reduced. I have cropped it significantly and reduced the remainder in size/resolution to 60%. This small size/small resolution will not in any way interfere with the exercising of any commercial rights that may be still held by the copyright holder. It won't compete with rights re the full resolution version and similar small versions to this can already be readily found".

That's why I'd like to upload this very identic portrait on the French page, so that students will be able to have a direct idea of what Carnap looked like. It makes the page better.

Tisma08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisma08 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 26 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This is presumably in regard to File:Rudolf_Carnap_(1891_–_1970).jpg. All of the arguments made above are valid for Fair Use, which is the image's status on WP:EN. Fair Use is not possible on Commons. I don't know whether it is possible on WP:FR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done OP needs to resolve this at French Wikipedia, not here. Thuresson (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Wicke Logo.svg Release permission has been send in the mean time. Please undelete.

--FF-Design (talk) 14:19, 26 June 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) 21:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Wicke produkte.webp Release permission has been send in the mean time. Please undelete.

--FF-Design (talk) 14:20, 26 June 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) 21:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Wicke Deutschland.jpg Release permission has been send in the mean time. Please undelete.

--FF-Design (talk) 14:21, 26 June 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) 21:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant anthem.ogg

𠱂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allowoeopw (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Not done: No reason given why this should be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:AS-44.jpg

image used to represent the AS-44 Assault rifle on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS-44 — Preceding unsigned comment added by L0maxx2023 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose That might be a good thing, but the image comes from https://warspot.ru/3729-sudba-oruzheynika, which is explicitly copyrighted, "© 2014 — 2023 Warspot". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: There are two different images uploaded under this name, both of which are blatant COM:NETCOPYVIOs. You've not provided evidence either are free and, instead, have contented yourself with reuploading one as File:As44 Assault rifle.jpg a mere 5 minutes after this request (also with, of course, a source with no free license). --Эlcobbola talk 12:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Buildings by architect Borys Zhezherin (with or without co-authors)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Music and Drama Theater, Rivne (4).jpg

All files in this request should be undeleted because they fall under {{Borys Zhezherin}}. The permission was already available when the deletion request was made but somehow nobody made the link. I corrected this by adding the template to the category page so that this does not happen in future. Notifying @Fitindia: — NickK (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support undeletion per nominator. Bedivere (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion requests/File:Рівненський драмтеатр (фасад).jpg

All files in this request should be undeleted because they fall under {{Borys Zhezherin}}. The permission was already available when the deletion request was made but somehow nobody made the link. I corrected this by adding the template to the category page so that this does not happen in future. Notifying @Ellywa: — NickK (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that template with permission. According to {{Borys Zhezherin}} the permission is appliccable only to a list of buildings. Can you please show which of the deleted files corresponds to the files listed on the template. I am not capable to make these connections. More importantly, the list should be checked by a VRT agent as it was added by you (NickK) today. Ellywa (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ahonc: , as you created {{Borys Zhezherin}}, could you please check if the list of buildings on the template corresponds with the VRT ticket? Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ellywa: Just in case, I added the list in {{Borys Zhezherin}} based on the VRT ticket shared by @Ahonc: , but of course a double-check would not harm. Thanks — NickK (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Музично-драматичний театр Рівне.jpg

This file was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Музично-драматичний театр Рівне.jpg. It should be undeleted because it falls under {{Borys Zhezherin}}. The permission was already available when the deletion request was made but somehow nobody made the link. I corrected this by adding the template to the category page so that this does not happen in future. Notifying @Missvain: — NickK (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Музично-драматичний театр площа.jpg

This file was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Музично-драматичний театр площа.jpg. It should be undeleted because it falls under {{Borys Zhezherin}}. The permission was already available when the deletion request was made but somehow nobody made the link. I corrected this by adding the template to the category page so that this does not happen in future. Notifying @Missvain: — NickK (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Музично-драматичний театр (мур.) 1.JPG

This file was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Музично-драматичний театр (мур.) 1.JPG. It should be undeleted because it falls under {{Borys Zhezherin}}. The permission was already available when the deletion request was made but somehow nobody made the link. I corrected this by adding the template to the category page so that this does not happen in future. Notifying @Krd: — NickK (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

File:DSC 0578 Музично-драматичний театр.jpg

This file was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:DSC 0578 Музично-драматичний театр.jpg. It should be undeleted because it falls under {{Borys Zhezherin}}. The permission was already available when the deletion request was made but somehow nobody made the link. I corrected this by adding the template to the category page so that this does not happen in future. Notifying @Missvain: — NickK (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

File:DSC 5856 Музично-драматичний театр.jpg

This file was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:DSC 5856 Музично-драматичний театр.jpg. It should be undeleted because it falls under {{Borys Zhezherin}}. The permission was already available when the deletion request was made but somehow nobody made the link. I corrected this by adding the template to the category page so that this does not happen in future. Notifying @Missvain: — NickK (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Театр 8276.jpg

This file was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Театр 8276.jpg. It should be undeleted because it falls under {{Borys Zhezherin}}. The permission was already available when the deletion request was made but somehow nobody made the link. I corrected this by adding the template to the category page so that this does not happen in future. Notifying @Explicit: — NickK (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Рівненський обласний музично-драматичний театр.jpg

This file was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Рівненський обласний музично-драматичний театр.jpg. It should be undeleted because it falls under {{Borys Zhezherin}}. The permission was already available when the deletion request was made but somehow nobody made the link. I corrected this by adding the template to the category page so that this does not happen in future — NickK (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Rivne theatre.jpg

This file was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rivne theatre.jpg. It should be undeleted because it falls under {{Borys Zhezherin}}. The permission was already available when the deletion request was made but somehow nobody made the link. I corrected this by adding the template to the category page so that this does not happen in future. Notifying @Jameslwoodward: — NickK (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support The sculpture on the roof top is probably de minimis. The posters in front certainly are. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: There is permission: Template:Borys Zhezherin. --Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:中目黒・代官山キャンパス.jpg

この画像は、東京音楽大学が著作権を所有するものです。 削除の取り消しを要求します。

"This image is copyrighted by Tokyo College of Music. Request to undelete." Translation by Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcm201904 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, which means that it cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from an authorized official of the Tokyo College of Music via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Rolf_Lidberg.jpg

Bodil Bergqvist har överlåtit rättigheterna till bilden, julafton den 2004-12-24 till Arne Johansson, Järkvissle Film & Media — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 15:00, 26 June 2023‎ Jarkvisslefilm (UTC)

 Oppose That may be but in order for the image to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. If someone else now has the copyright, they may send the free license, but the email must include a copy of the written agreement from the photographer giving them the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Vagabond.fest.jpg

I have been permitted by this company's boss so I uploaded this logo before. Thus, I don't know why this picture is deleted. I would re-write a statement for this festival a few days later, and I would still need this logo, so please help me to reload it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishhh1122 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 27 June 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image is from Facebook. Policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

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

@Alfred Neumann Permission ist für die nachfolgenden Bilder beantragt. Bitte um Wiederherstellung: File:Wicke Deutschland.jpg File:Wicke produkte.webp File:Wicke Logo.svg

Guten Tag Herr Neumann, die Genehmigung für die nachfolgenden Bilder sind nun Wikimedia beantragt. Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung. Vielen Dank vorab.--FF-Design (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The request is not entirely clear, but I think the requester is saying that a license has been sent to VRT. If that is the case, these images 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) 12:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@FF-Design: Wenn der zuständige Bearbeiter die per E-Mail an COM:VRT geschickte Genehmigung (darum geht es doch?) akzeptiert, beantragt er von sich aus die Wiederherstellung der Dateien. Bis dahin warte bitte, vorab werden in solchen Fällen keine Dateien wiederhergestellt. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 13:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Unter Ticket:2023062710007086 ist tatsächlich eine Freigabeerklärung eingetroffen, zu der allerdings noch eine Frage zu klären ist. Ich (oder Supportkollega) meldet sich, sobald alles geklärt ist. Abschnitt kann hier geschlossen werden. Mussklprozz (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per VRT agent Mussklprozz; files will be restored if and when the permission is accepted. --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Pierre Chazal.jpg.webp

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2023061610007338. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: Please add tags etc. --Rosenzweig τ 16:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Top Rope Promotions Logo.jpg

I work for the company this is the logo for and it was wrongfully deleted from our wiki page. This has been our Logo for a few years now. --MinManDD (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@MinManDD: A legal representative from the company should send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:14, 27 June 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) 13:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Лого Евгеника.jpg

This logo is the official logo of the EVGENIKA singer. The copyright holder is Kostennikova Eugenika Sergeevna (EVGENIKA). This logo is used on all official pages of the singer, including on a verified Instagram account with a confirmed blue check mark

Данный логотип является официальным логотипом певицы Евгеники. Правообладателем является Костенникова Евгеника Сергеевна (Евгеника). Данный логотип используется на всех официальных страницах певицы, в том числе на верифицированном аккаунте в Инстаграме с подтвержденной синей галочкой--Tereschenkoga (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tereschenkoga: The copyright holder should send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:15, 27 June 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) 13:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:MOHAMADTAJ.jpg

عکس های بارگزاری شده در این صفحه متعلق به 60 الی 50 سال پیش می باشد و اثبات مطالب داخل متن صفحه می باشد با پاک کردن این عکس ها با توجه به قدیمی بودن اطلاعات و عدم اطلاعات در اینترنت امکان رفرنس دهی وجود ندارد. حتی عکس پروفیا را هم پاک کرده اید لطفا دلیل قانع کننده ارائه دهید تمامی عکس با ذکر توضیحات و مشخصات و سال بوده است واقعا دلیل حذف کردن آن برای چیست ؟؟؟؟ --Moghimzenderood (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Google translation: "The photos uploaded on this page belong to 60 to 50 years ago and the proof of the content is inside the text of the page. By deleting these photos, due to the old information and the lack of information on the Internet, it is not possible to refer. You have even deleted the profile photo, please provide a convincing reason. All the photos have been mentioned with the description, specifications and year. What is the reason for deleting it???? "

 Oppose

File description: "The meeting between the Isfahan Taj team and the Tehran Maidens and Ladies Association 1348" (Google translation of the entire file description).
File date: 05/23/2023

While this is an old photo (I think 1348 = 1929), there is no evidence that it was published until its upload here, so the copyright may have 30 years to run. Given the other uploads by this editor, I assume that Mohammad Moghim is in the photo, but the image is very blurred and I doubt that he can be identified. In order for it to be restored it must be proven both that it is in scope and that it was published before 1993. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support I don't see any reason to doubt a publication at the time, but 1348 = 1929 is probably wrong. While is certainly pre-Iranian revolution, it looks like from the 1960s or 1970s. {{PD-Iran}} applies here. Yann (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes and no. I assumed the Islamic calendar, but it turns out Iran and Afghanistan use the Jalali calendar. 1348 is 1969. Note that Iranian law starts the copyright term with publication and there is no evidence that this was ever published. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose unless a pre-1993 publication is pointed out. Or, at least, an evidence is provided that a publication prior to 1.1.1993 exists. Ankry (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. No evidence of publication more than 30 years ago. Taivo (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Geometry Dash application icon.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I want this file to be reinstated because I found a vector of the Geometry Dash Logo online. Unfortunately, since I found it on the Geometry Dash Logopedia Fandom website, I am unsure of who the original author is. The site states that "Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted" and the logo itself does not have this notice. Most games and companies have vector logos on their respective Wikipedia pages, however, Geometry Dash did not have its own, despite a high-quality SVG existing. As a result, I performed and edit on the official Geometry Dash Wikipedia article and for these reasons, I request it to be reinstated. Mecholix (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support Free license at source. Yann (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The named source does not actually have the right to freely license this -- it's a fan site. The game was developed by Robtop Games (see Geometry Dash. That web site [10] says:
"You are allowed to create videos of Geometry Dash, upload or stream from YouTube or other video sites, and monetize those videos.
You may not make any other commercial use of any of our Brands or Assets. For example you may not sell any merchandise that uses any of our Brands or Assets and you may not use our Names as keywords or search tags for products that have no relationship with them.
Do not copy or take any assets from our content and distribute them separately (like characters, voices, music, images)."
That's clearly not a set of licensing terms we can accept. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Taivo (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Logo IDEA MAT.png

This was an Italian government public agency, not a private agency, and its logo is in public domain. Daniele Fisichella 08:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Est. 2021: PD-ItalyGov applies to documents published more than 20 years ago. What's the date of first publication for this logo? Yann (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC).
@Yann: That's very interesting, since their national version of Wikipedia itself shows various versions of this logo. What I know for sure about the publication date of this agency logo is that it precedes 26 November 2007, but I don't know if that's its very first publication. Daniele Fisichella 08:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK, fine. --Yann (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:T.K. Godbey.jpg

Deleted the jpg thinking I could re-use it on a paper I'm writing about the person. I need the jpg back, either in commons or in wikepedia so I can put it in his page. T.K. Godbey was a farmer/seller in Waldo, fl in the 1900's. Thanks. Glen A Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenajohnson (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 June 2023‎ (UTC)

@Glenajohnson: Please fix the license, source, date, and author, and add categories. Yann (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I've fixed the file's information. This is from an early 20th Century American seed catalog, it's definitely public domain. Hair style puts it around the 1900s, I've put Before 1914 since that fits the general timeline. I also added two categories to it. Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ahsan Khalil.jpg

File:Ahsan Khalil.jpg

This picture was deleted 2 months ago. Kindly restore it. We have to use it in Urdu Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.113.103.38 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 June 2023‎ (UTC)

Are you the editor who uploaded it? Please log in. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am the editor who uploaded it. 103.113.103.38 18:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Articles about this subject was deleted from simple:Ahsan Khalil and Q115161056. Is up for speedy deletion at ur:احسن خلیل. Thuresson (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope, see above. --Yann (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Шевченко.jpg

it s my own photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grechanyuk.lyubov (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 June 2023‎ (UTC)

Ukraine only has a noncommercial form of FoP which is not acceptable for Commons. Both the building and the monument could cause copyright issues. (I don't know what the previous versions of this file look like) Abzeronow (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-06&oldid=778615886"