Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2023-08

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.

Roberto Jefferson images

 Comment: Roberto Jefferson (2) is here: [1], [2]. The other images are probably somewhere here, but not being able to see them makes everything harder. Template:Agência Brasil applies, as they were produced before 2017. Of course all of them were deleted by A1Cafel. More to come. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I can't find the first one. The third one is at https://memoria.ebc.com.br/agenciabrasil//sites/_agenciabrasil/files/gallery_assist/3/gallery_assist639964/42af5bd2d334a.jpg. The fourth one is https://memoria.ebc.com.br/agenciabrasil//sites/_agenciabrasil/files/gallery_assist/3/gallery_assist639964/42af4065c2a28.jpg The fifth one is https://memoria.ebc.com.br/agenciabrasil//sites/_agenciabrasil/files/gallery_assist/3/gallery_assist639964/42af33bdaf27f.jpg The sixth one is https://memoria.ebc.com.br/agenciabrasil//sites/_agenciabrasil/files/gallery_assist/3/gallery_assist639964/42af33bda2f2c.jpg The seventh one is not there but it's similar to https://memoria.ebc.com.br/agenciabrasil//sites/_agenciabrasil/files/gallery_assist/3/gallery_assist639964/42af4065c785f.jpg from another angle with the same magazine Abzeronow (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Abzeronow, some images simply don’t load to me. Does the same happen to you? RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
If you mean, the source you gave to check these, then yes, some photographs there don't load. Abzeronow (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @RodRabelo7: Please add the source with a {{Information}} template. --Yann (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


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

CASA images

 Comment: Most of those images, if not all of them, can be found here. For example, 128066 is [3], 128086 is [4], and 127981 is [5]. Template:Agência Brasil is valid, as they were produced before 2017. Also deleted by A1Cafel. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I cannot find the first one, it's a bunch of politicians at a table, some facing right and away from the camera, and some facing left towards the camera. Upper right has a waiter with wine bottles. 127951 is https://memoria.ebc.com.br/agenciabrasil//sites/_agenciabrasil/files/gallery_assist/3/gallery_assist640066/433d4f6d4f803.jpg. 127980 is https://memoria.ebc.com.br/agenciabrasil//sites/_agenciabrasil/files/gallery_assist/3/gallery_assist640066/433d5f3d03f81.jpg 128036 is https://memoria.ebc.com.br/agenciabrasil//sites/_agenciabrasil/files/gallery_assist/3/gallery_assist640066/433d611065566.jpg which has that huge map, but it would appear to fall under FoP-Brazil. 128080 is https://memoria.ebc.com.br/agenciabrasil//sites/_agenciabrasil/files/gallery_assist/3/gallery_assist640066/433d71e089202.jpg. I cannot find the last one, it has four maps laid out in foreground with labelled cards for representatives of Peru, Brasil, and Bolivia with the blue image in background noting date and place of 29 & 30 September 2005 in Brasilia, and multiple languages on it stating it is the First Meeting of the Heads of State of the South American Community of Nations. Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @RodRabelo7: Please add the source with a {{Information}} template. --Yann (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Mark Leiren-Young.jpg

This photo has been published under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License by the photographer Jeffrey Bosdet who directly emailed the suggested release form to the required email address (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).--CLStarlet (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@CLStarlet: Current VRT backlog is 11 days. If that was in March 2023 you should ask at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. Thuresson (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The file will be undeleted if and when the permission is validated. If there is any issue, please see the board mentioned by Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Kauppaneuvos_Christian_Trapp.tif

Image is in public domain, as can be seen from the Finna website (see "public domain" mark below the image): https://www.finna.fi/Record/tmk.161070270063100

Picture was taken between 1857-1860. It is over 150 years old. --Virtuus (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Support "Creative Commons public domain mark" is not the same as public domain. Regardless, the photographer is likely Johan Jakob Reinberg who operated a photographic studio in Turku, Finland, from 1857. Thuresson (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

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

File:CASA127981 (cropped).jpeg

Cropped version of an undeleted file. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

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

File:北京师范大学珠海分校校徽.png

北京师范大学珠海分校官网（http://www.bnuz.edu.cn/）提取的文件，不应该被删除

Any idea what is this about? This URL gives a 404. Yann (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Wcam. --Yann (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Logo_Skadik_801.png

Undeletion request File:Logo_Skadik_801.png because license free and uploaded by request from public relations department of skadron pendidikan 801 via whatsapp massage.

Where is the evidence of a free license? Public relations department works are not automatically on the public domain or under a free license. Yann (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Diane Arkenstone Portrait.jpeg

I am the owner of this image and I have the right to distribute it. I have also sent an email to Wikipedia to support this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteadda (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 August 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) 18:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:ROSSA THE LEGENDARY INDONESIAN DIVA.jpg

Rossa The Legendary Indonesian Diva (Queen of Pop Indonesia)

 Oppose Copied from Instagram, no evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Uploaded by a sock, now blocked. --Yann (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Президентський оркестр Гімн.ogg

This audio file is a Ukrainian government work, but it does meet {{PD-UA-exempt}}, see COM:NOP Ukraine. --2001:4451:824F:B700:541B:9433:F4CB:52ED 15:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Which particular exception does apply here and why? Ankry (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Similar to File:Anthem Ukrainian SSR.ogg, this recording by the en:National Presidential Band of Ukraine, also part of the government of Ukraine. 112.204.223.12 21:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but which exception applies? Thuresson (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Per {{PD-UA-exempt}}, it does apply to state symbols of Ukraine, government awards; symbols and signs of government authorities, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations; symbols of territorial communities; symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations. This recording of a national anthem is considered a state symbol, see en:National symbols of Ukraine. 2001:4451:824F:B700:25A0:6908:BDA4:19D 23:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Is the anthem a state symbol by law or only by English Wikipedia? What does the Ukrainian legislative literature say about the definition of state symbols? Is there a Ukrainian copyright bill with any relevant information? Thuresson (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Per sources, according to the English Wikipedia article, the song "Shche ne vmerla Ukrainy" was adopted as the national anthem by the Verkhovna Rada on 15 January 1992,[1] and the official lyrics were adopted on 6 March 2003 by the Law on the State anthem of Ukraine.[2] But no copyright restrictions applied, because it's a national symbol.2001:4451:824F:B700:38BE:1685:C713:2DB1 08:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I already know that Ukraine has a national anthem, but that's not what I asked. Thuresson (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Thuresson: According to the website of the President of Ukraine (https://president.gov.ua/), appears no valid of license information. 2001:4451:8285:B00:6D49:D478:73D:771A 22:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Thuresson: I should correct that, according the archived website of the President of Ukraine (https://web.archive.org/web/20120503042211/http://www.president.gov.ua/content/national_symbols.html), is licensed under Creative Commons license. 2001:4451:8285:B00:6D49:D478:73D:771A 08:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
That web site says: "All rights to materials posted on this site belong to the Administration of the President of Ukraine." Thuresson (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose While https://nationalanthemsong.com/ukraine/ukrainian-national-anthem-lyrics/ does say that the national anthem is a "national symbol". there is no evidence that the site is authoritative in any way -- it is not a government site. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


References

  1. ↑ Про Державний гімн України | від 15.01.1992 № 2042-XII
  2. ↑ Про Державний Гімн України | від 06.03.2003 № 602-IV

 Not done: No consensus to undelete. --Yann (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:香港彌敦道的夜晚.jpg

This picture is upload from commons first. But it is copy by other user in Facebook page. So it may not have copy violation problem.--Wpcpey (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I do not understand the reason given above, but, in any case, the image is slightly blurred. I see no reason to keep it. We have hundreds of better images of Nathan Road, night and day. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:RobAdams2.jpg

Hi, I took this picture and was uploading only to update. I would appreciate an undeletion.--Psycho Motel (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a selfie. Are you claiming to be Rob Adams? Yann (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. I will nominate other files by this user. --Yann (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Tomi Smith.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Danke, dass Sie die Urheberrechte schützen! Das ist eine gute Sache und ist definitiv zu unterstützen. Hier hat mir jedoch der Besitzer und abgebildete Künstler persönlich das Bild per Mail zur Erstellung des Wikipedia-Beitrages geschickt.Bitte lassen Sie mich wissen, wie und in welcher Form ich Ihnen die Genehmigung des Künstlers bestätigen soll. Vielen Dank, mit freundlichen Grüßen, André Pfeiffenberger André Pfe (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis, die Freigabe ist eben per Mail an permissions-de@wikimedia.org geschickt worden. André Pfe (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Impact World Champion, Alex Shelley.png

I uploaded this multimedia file and indicated that the image was not mine, I put the author and the url link from the image, I have permission to upload the file.--AlonsoTav (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)AlonsoTav 31/07/2023

 Oppose First, I think that both images infringe on the copyright for the trophies prominently displayed.

Second, for the images to be restored, the actual photographer(s) must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:For My wikipage.png

All parts of the image are not under any form of copyright and I have zero intention of using it for anything more than my own personal page--StanheDog (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC).

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Sakuramiko2.png

The file from YouTube was licensed under {{YouTube CC-BY}}, credited "Miko Ch. さくらみこ".--Cookai🍪 (💬talk) 15:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Creation of the YouTuber, which is freely licensed. Video has been license reviewed. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Three a Day- Children Having Children in Alaska (IA threedaychildren00week).pdf

That may be an Alaska state (not federal) government file, but I had already created several of its pages on Wikisource, and I even proofread 3 such pages (30, 31, and 32) and part of another (29). I think that file gives us a good idea of how serious teen births were in Alaska in the 1980s, especially since those were the days before people could go online to find information about birth control or safe sex.
As a reviewer of the E.L. James novel Fifty Shades of Grey wrote on LiveJournal (emphasis mine):

[The protagonist] Anastasia Rose Steele was intended to be an Expy of Bella Swan [protagonist of The Twilight Saga]. James is a Twihard [diehard fan of Twilight]. [...]
If you put Ana Steele in the 1970s to 1980s—in a world where the Internet is confined to scientists and military intelligence, where AOL will not exist for thirteen years, where there is no email, no instant messaging, no in-depth research or casually looking things up online, no banking or doing business online, no Wikipedia—then her sexual ignorance and inability to research both make sense. She might have been able to look up a psychological study on BDSM in a card catalog in that era (I did), but she would have had no opportunity to talk things over with people into the Lifestyle on Fetlife.com. And depending on the college’s library, there might not have been much available about sex. She might have read Everything That You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask if it was in the library—though I doubt if she would have dared to take it out—and yet garnered most sexual information from implications and comments in fiction and in magazines.
James was writing Bella Swan through the filter of her own decades-old memories. Ana is a time traveler—and James doesn’t even know it. That may also explain why a lot of the older fans identify so strongly with Ana. She’s the girl they remember being.

See what I mean about how hard it was to find information in those days? And I quote one of the pages I proofread:

[A letter to a newspaper] describes a survey of 70 school friends in which the "vast majority" asked for sex education classes and easier access to birth control.

Sincerely, Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose There is no reason given above why this should be restored. It is an Alaskan state government work from August 1989, so it clearly has a copyright. I don't know what the rules are at Wikisource -- should the uploads cited above be deleted there also? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. Still under copyright. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:CryptogramOneUndelete.jpg

I took this photo myself in the gallery in Austin, Texas. --Avery LeRond (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose This is presumably in regard to File:CryptogramOne.image.jpg. We accept that you have the right to upload the photograph, but the image was deleted because it infringes on the copyright belong to the creator of the sculpture shown. That is also true of all of your remaining uploads. Please read COM:DW. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Krystian Zdrojewski.jpg

Selfie deleted under rule F10 - but I am a contributor. Maybe an occasional one, and not so much on English Wikipedia, but a contributor nonetheless - I am not a person with "no constructive global contributions", which is the criterion for that.

It has taken me this long to appeal because I hadn't noticed that stipulation before. I just saw "selfie deleted" in my talk page and assumed all selfies were against the rules.

Greeny908 (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Info Doubts were raised in the uploader's talk page whether it is indeed a selfie.
but as it is made using iPhone front camera, I believe it is.  Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support User:Greeny908 has 48 total edits -- 20 on EN, 16 on EO, and 12 others. That's not many, but he has a user page on EN from which this was removed. I think restoring this will encourage him to do more while not doing it will discourage that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Greeny908: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:DiarioOficial escravidao35201.jpg

I’m still trying to figure out why exactly this file was deleted… According to this, it is Original do Diário Oficial de 14 de maio de 1888, com a lei 3 353, abolindo a escravidão no Brasil. I cannot see the image, and for some reason these deleted files are the only ones not loading on Wayback Machine, but I’m quite sure a Brazilian Diário Oficial (Government gazette) from 1888 is in the public domain… One may use {{PD-Brazil-Gov}} or {{PD-BR-1935}}, maybe with {{PD-scan}}, but it is certainly in the public domain… This has to be one of Commons most pathetic mass deletions. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I have just found it on Wayback Machine here. Yep, totally in the public domain… RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
There was no information in the description that allows determining the copyright status: no date, no information template, only {{Agência Brasil}}.  Support undeletion if someone declares to add proper information and copyright templates. Ankry (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) ✓ Done by DarwIn. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


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

Lula images

Lula117947 is here ([8]).

Lula117951 is [9].

The others are probably there as well. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The terms of use of the sites which are cited above clearly forbid commercial use:

"O Usuário deverá utilizar o Portal apenas para finalidades de uso pessoal, sem intuito comercial ou lucrativo."

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward, I forgot to mention {{Agência Brasil}} applies. RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support These all predate the 2017 Agencia Brasil cutoff date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @RodRabelo7: Please add the source and the {{Information}} template. --Yann (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Hendrikje Klein 2021 - Ben Gross.jpg

Das bisherige Foto von Hendrikje Klein ist veraltet. Dieses Foto ist eine aktuelle Aufnahme. --Herr Pankow (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Das Bild gab es aber gar noch nicht hier auf Commons, wenn ich das richtig sehe. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Es scheint um das hier zu gehen: File:Hendrikje Portrait digital.jpg, das am 22.11.2022 von Krd gelöscht wurde. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose We cannot host photos without a free license granted by the photo copyright holder. The photo was published here without evidence of free license. Per policy, the photo copyright holder, who is in most cases the photographer, needs to send a free license following this procedure. Ankry (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Vincent Caldwell.jpg

This was deleted for breaking copywrite rules, although I took this picture. There may have been a misunderstanding due to this picture once being used in a news article online. However, that picture was given to that news outlet to use and I took the picture. I hope that clears it up. Thank you Regera02 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Regera02: Do you have the full-resolution original photo with EXIF metadata? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I have found a higher resolution photo, but not the original no. I am not a photographer or anything, this was just taken on my phone a few years ago. Regera02 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


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

Videoleap-C7D5EB05-C727-45EE-9DCC-20E7F8653699_V2F_2023-05-11_09-39-13_500

This photo was uploaded by me under direct request of the writer Luigi Ballerini (1940), who is the person described in the same page. The author of the photo is Robert Banat, New York. Please reupload the deleted image. Thank you Nadia Mondi

--Tradu2010 (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per elcobbola -- The right to freely license an image almost always rests with the photographer, not the subject. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

ashrafazim11.jpg

اريد الغاء حذف صفحتى على العامة واسترجاع الصورة الخاصة بي

 Not done: Abuse of COM:WEBHOST. User blocked. --Yann (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


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

National Assembly of Thailand 2023

ฐานเศรษฐกิจ ส่องเงินเดือนและสวัสดิการ 250 ส.ว. ได้ค่าตอบแทนเท่าไหร่ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.233.68.102 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 4 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Not done: No image named and since request comes from an IP there is no way to find it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Jonteemil

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Below COM:TOO Sweden. At the time of deletion it was thought that Sweden's TOO was lower than it actually was. Jonteemil (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Fairly simple logos, no opposition. --Yann (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Світлана Керимова.jpg

VRTS permission received. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tohaomg: Can you give the ticket number please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: ticket #2023073110002759

✓ Done: @Tohaomg: FYI. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:AsaoKeiichiro.jpg

The subject photo file is the data specified by Keiichiro Asao, his councilor. The photos currently used are not only not official, but have not been authorized by the person in question. Please return them to their original state as soon as possible. If you believe that this claim is unknown, please check directly with the person in question. The e-mail address is <redacted>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.sawado (talk • contribs) 09:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

@T.sawado: It doesn't work that way. If the copyright holder allows to publish this under a free license, please ask him/her to provide the permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


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

file:scholar-vaporwave-logo.png

(Special:Log logid 335126690) Source would be https://scholar.archive.org/static/scholar-vaporwave-logo.png, license would be {{PD-textlogo}} Arlo James Barnes 10:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support This is a US non-profit organization, see scholar.archive.org. The text does not have a copyright under US law and I doubt that the stars come anywhere near the ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done As per Jim. Ankry (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:SebastianKnauer 22Juni2023 FotoOleBader-2746.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2023073010004277. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:AutumnBooks.jpg

I had a look at the history of the es.wikipedia article linked in the section "File:Beach-gb1d422857 1920.jpg" above, and it seems that File:AutumnBooks.jpg, which was in use there, was also deleted today in similar circumstances. Finding the source indirectly through a Google cache of the deleted Commons page (we, non-admins, must use little tricks like that), it indicates that the photo was published on Pixabay on 20 December 2017. Same thing as in the other section. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per referenced conversation above and plausible free license. The license review of "This file, which was originally posted to Pixabay, was reviewed on 26 April 2023 [and] confirmed that it was available on Pixabay on that date" is, however, a demonstrable falsehood and misrepresentation of the April 2023/August 2023 status to our re-users. --Эlcobbola talk 20:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Shahinbushehrlogo1.svg

the file is a logo of Shahin Bushehr FC which is the team i work there as a media manager. this team started at 1950 and is a very old team and one of the first teams in iran.

--Mohammadreza222 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done image not deleted, yet. @Mohammadreza222: There is information in the speedy deletion template how can you contest deletion; you need to provide an evidence of either free license or public domain status. We do not host images with unclear copyright status. Ankry (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Lukas O'Neall.jpg & other images

Request temporary undeletion

For the following files

This file(s) were deleted for the reason "No permission from Flickr account also assuming the account was fake". However, this is not true. The Flickr photo is free for everyone to use, as indicated on the photo page. The Flickr account is real and belongs to a professional photographer who runs a registered business in Texas with his wife. The account is new but that does not mean it is fake. I uploaded the photo to Commons with the correct source information. I did not contact the deleting administrator because I prefer to avoid confrontation. I think this file should be restored because it complies with the project scope criteria.

MP281 (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

What is the educational value of these files, i.e. [10]? Low quality and/or resolution, non notable people... Yann (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done unresponded. Ankry (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:SyroMalabar Seven Cross Flag.png

The image is in public domain. The source I added was just one source, since I am new to WikiCommons. Could you please undelete the file, so that I can use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasrani131 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 4 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The stated source of your original upload, https://syromalabarphila.org/about-syro-malabar/ has "© SyroPhilly 2023". What makes you think the flag is PD?

Note also that uploading an image a second time after it has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules and wastes valuable time. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward - Sorry that I uploaded it again. I am new to Commons and was not aware. As I stated thats not the only source of that image. Please check all these sources -

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=647871188957601
http://thesyromalabarchurch.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
https://www.facebook.com/nasranichurch/photos/the-syro-malabar-marthoma-nasrani-church-is-one-of-the-23-eastern-oriental-churc/1981915018535713/

The flag may appear in many places, but without a free license from its creator or a good reason why it is PD (usually age), we cannot keep it on Commons .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Maryland Fried Chicken logo.svg

I believe the file File:Maryland Fried Chicken logo.svg should be undeleted. It was previously deleted under the reason of CSD G10 (files and pages created as advertisements). However, this image is not an advertisement; the image in question was to be used within OpenStreetMap's Name Suggestion Index, and to be attached to a Wikidata entity representing the brand. The image itself was only vectorized by me; perhaps the ownership/permissions I tagged it with was incorrect? I am not affiliated with Maryland Fried Chicken, nor was I attempting to advertise for them. Apologies for any trouble or misunderstandings, I'm new to using Wikimedia Commons and I'm not too sure of the ropes yet; if there is any information I need to include or change, please let me know!!

--ResistivKai (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@ResistivKai: Which Wikidata item you mean? Usage outside Wikimedia does not make it in scope. Ankry (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Maryland Fried Chicken claims copyright in their logo and there is a registered copyright for "Visual Material" which is probably the logo. In my opinion it is probably above the US ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This makes sense, although does this not apply to other logos, say for example the Shell logo? See: File:Shell Service Station.jpg What differs between these two instances? Sorry if I'm missing something, I just want to make sure I'm fully understanding what is and isn't allowed for future reference!! --ResistivKai (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I wish it were possible to "fully understand" these situations. The question is where the Threshold of Originality (ToO) lies -- is the subject work original enough to qualify for copyright? The question is difficult because the ToO varies widely from country to country and because in many countries there is little or no case law to provide examples on both sides. Even the US, there only a few good examples. COM:ToO shows some of these. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Gotcha, that paints a much better picture, thank you for linking me to that page! So, going forward, is the best approach (in the US, that is) to first search for a copyright entry, and then if there is none search for denied requests of registration to confirm that the visual material in question falls below the ToO? That seems like the most solid approach; I think I'll avoid uploading anything that lies within a grey area without deferring to someone more knowledgeable on the subject.
Aside from that, I believe this request can be archived, as I agree that the logo is likely outside of the copyright scope of Wikidata. Thank you for all your help and all the useful info!!
--ResistivKai (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:2004-GayPrideBrazil-1.jpeg +1

Source. {{Agência Brasil}} applies. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:RealGuri.jpg

File:RealGuri.jpg I'm Musical Artist Please You not Delete My Articles And My Image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real Guri Music (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose: Obviously you are not familiar with our project scope. You are abusing 3 accounts for self-promotion all of which are blocked on enwiki. --Achim55 (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Achim. --Yann (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Dr. Amelia Levinson Gates.jpg

Please undelete Amelia L. Gates.jpg. The picture was taken from a cropping of File:Dr. Amelia Levinson Gates and family.jpg, which was taken before her husband (Howard Baker Gates (1867-1914) died in 1914. Therefore the picture was taken before 1914 and is PD-US-expired. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted. --Yann (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Reopened since the requestor supplied the wrong file name. Abzeronow (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done (procedural): Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr. Amelia Levinson Gates and family.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:GIVMUSICRECORDS.png

no debe de ser borrada la imagen es igual a una anteriormente eliminada pero esta ya cumple con los derechos y tiene la base de donde es sacada la imagen para ser utilizada en un articulo de wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtejeda16 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Beach-gb1d422857 1920.jpg

My recent deletion request seems to have been misinterpreted; I'm looking to restore the newer version of this file (which had some prominent probably non-de minimis copyrighted text blurred) but keep the first version (which had said text unblurred) deleted. Thanks! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - The whole image is a copyvio (Pixabay license is not acceptable, e.g., "You cannot sell or distribute Content (either in digital or physical form) on a Standalone basis. Standalone means where no creative effort has been applied to the Content and it remains in substantially the same form as it exists on our website")--this is not just an issue of the text on the screen. Эlcobbola talk 12:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info - @Elcobbola: Pixabay's universal sitewide license was CC-zero for works uploaded before January 9, 2019 (see here and explanation here). As this image was uploaded in 2018, it was distributed under the Zero dedication which is irrevocable like other CC licenses. That it is no longer distributed under that license does not change that is was, meaning the old Zero dedication still applies. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Be that as it may, I agree with Jim below: blurring of the text (the focus of the image) impairs the educational utility. The license review language of "This file, which was originally posted to Pixabay, was reviewed on 28 July 2023 by reviewer Bobamnertiopsis, who confirmed that it was available on Pixabay on that date" (underline added) is a blatant untruth--this is a circumstance that needs to be addressing outside of this UDR. Эlcobbola talk 20:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a good point. Any file reviewed after January 9, 2019, is not correctly reflected by the text of the template, which I imagine was adapted from the standard external license review template. Better template text might read something like "This file, which was originally posted to Pixabay, was reviewed on [date] by reviewer [name], who confirmed that it had been uploaded to Pixabay before 9 January 2019, when the site changed its license from CC-0 to a noncommercial license. Because Creative Commons licenses and dedications are irrevocable, the work may still be distributed under the former CC-0 dedication." Will bring this up later at Template:PBLR. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Note: this issue has been raised here. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see no reason to restore this image. It shows a tablet with blurred text, with a beach and rocks in the background that are far out of focus. Only the hands holding the tablet are in focus. What possible educational use does it have?
I also do not understand the explanation above. The file history shows the upload at 16:56, 14 November 2022, long after the Pixabay license change. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Separating the two concerns here: COM:SCOPE (is this image useful?) and the licensing question. If this image were not to be restored on the grounds that it's out of scope then I have no particular qualms with that. All I can say to this point is that is was at the time of its deletion being used in one article, w:es:Bookstagram.
To the question of license: the source image was uploaded to Pixabay in mid-2018, meaning it was for a period of time licensed under CC-zero. This of course changed in January 2019 when Pixabay updated the sitewide license. The relevant text of Template:Pixabay that I have been interpreting my passing or failing these files on is: "Therefore, media published on Pixabay from 9 January 2019 onwards is not considered to be freely licensed and can't be accepted on Commons. Files uploaded to Commons after this date should be subject to careful license review, verifying that the publication date on Pixabay is prior to 9 January 2019." To my understanding, this suggests that the relevant information is only whether an image was uploaded to Pixabay before the date the site changed its license, rather than the date the image made its way to Commons. The wording of the template suggests that images may be uploaded to Commons at any point, but may be considered properly licensed by our standards only if uploaded to Pixabay pre-January 9, 2019 (i.e., they ever had a CC-zero license applied to them). Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis. If an image was on Pixabay before 9 January 2019 it is CC-0 and Pixabay cannot change that. However, since the image was not uploaded to Commons until 2022, we have no evidence here of that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, but I'm not sure I understand. The evidence we have is that the image was uploaded to Pixabay prior to 9 January 2019 (per the extant Pixabay source) and the knowledge that at that time the image was distributed under the CC-0 license, as were all files at that time. If Pixabay had allowed users to choose other licenses then we might now be in a more uncertain place, but because they didn't, we can be confident and without ambiguity that the work was licensed as CC-0 and thus the present usage does not contravene the terms of the irrevocable CC-0 dedication. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I agree that the CC-0 license is appropriate, but I still question what possible educational use an image with nothing but the hands in focus can have? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

We haven't got any other photos of someone using the Kobo eReader, so there's a case to be made for it from that angle. But I'm otherwise fairly agnostic on where this falls in COM:SCOPE. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Why is a person using a Kobo eReader of any utility? What do hands add to anyone's understanding, or its suitability for educational use, above and beyond this image? Would we mistake it for lizards in the absence of human hands? Эlcobbola talk 20:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
An amazing question. No, I'm happy for it to stay deleted if there's consensus it's out of scope; I just didn't want it to stay deleted on the Pixabay licensing question grounds. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I guess because es.wikipedia chose it as useful to represent the notion described in the article in which it is used, something that a picture of an isolated device would not convey? I agree that it may not be particularly educational, we can also remark that fr.wikipedia chose different images to illustrate the notion, and we may well be of the opinion that es.wikipedia could have chosen another image, etc., but in the end the question is: is it our role at Commons to substitute our opinion to the editorial choices of the wikipedias? -- Asclepias (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
There are two things to note about its inclusion at Bookstagram. First, it was included there before the text was blurred. I think that was arguably a reasonable educational use. After blurring the text, its use became much less satisfactory. Second, the image was placed in the WP:ES article by its uploader, which means we are putting our judgement against that of the person who created the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: No copyright issue. Scope issue can be discussed in a new DR, if necessary. --Yann (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:BIOS Esports Logo.png

Please don't remove this logo, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.215.201.60 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Complex logo, no evidence of a free license or public domain. Yann (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann, copyrighted logo that is above the threshold of originality. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Mark Loughman Record Release Party at the Viper Room January 2016.jpg

The below is the attached licensing.

I hereby affirm that I, Mark Loughman, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:record-release-party-viper-room-jan-2016.jpeg. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Mark Loughman 2023-08-05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SingeBlack (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Please send a permission via COM:VRT. Please note that the copyright rests by default with the photographer, not the subject, unless transferred by contract. Yann (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File: 校徽.jpg

申請取消刪除校徽，公開學校校徽至學校維基百科上

 Oppose Complex logo, no evidence of a free license. Already deleted many times, so I semi-protected the page. Yann (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:IKATAN PENCAK SILAT BUNGA ISLAM.png

Please return the image I uploaded. there are many similar pictures on the internet because they are the symbols of the organization. I need the image to make an article on wikipeda about the organization bearing the emblem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirsyfdn (talk • contribs) 07:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Complex logo. No evidence of a free license or public domain. Yann (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:FC Bayern 5 Stars.png

Another classic Club crest - which exists on Commons for a long time and thousands of times, which I combined with a public domain "star graphic". (File:General of Armies insignia.svg) Bildersindtoll (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Could you please Undeletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surachet s (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That file is not deleted. What file are you requesting that we undelete? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No file name provided. Other files by this user were deleted as out of scope. --Yann (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Shellyne's_teaching_schedule.pdf and File:Hunter_Final_Exams_Spring_2023.pdf

The files that I uploaded were public domain. They were deleted for the reason that: " Whatever one's opinions about copyright law, in order to have free licensed material only Commons obeys it stringently."

The opinion about copyright law that I quoted was the opinion of the US Copyright Office. In order to have free licensed material, we need a definition of what is copyrightable and what is not. As the US Copyright Office explains in Circular 33, to be copyrightable a work must contain a sufficient amount of creativity. A schedule, like a recipe, is a list of facts. It has no creativity.

The purpose of copyright is to promote arts and culture. If a schedule causes two passenger trains to collide head-on, the railroad company cannot conceal their negligence by calling "copyright" on the schedule. In the case here, CUNY and Hunter College made the schedule freely available to people who targeted a professor and her students. They cannot now conceal their negligence by calling "copyright" on the schedule.

A schedule is a list of facts. It has no creativity. It is public domain.

And in regard to my strong feelings about this matter: Please understand that Shellyne Rodriguez got shamed in newspapers around the world. So if we accept the decision here, then "copyright" prevents her from repairing her reputation.

Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  •  Comment from deleting admin: If all the elements can be shown to be PD, I would not object. I note that File:Shellyne's_teaching_schedule.pdf contains not only "a schedule" but also other elements including logos and visuals without credit; see Commons:Derivative works. Generally all elements within a work must be PD for the whole to be PD. I note also that the "author" is rather improbably listed as "City University of New York". Finally it contains a clear statement "Copyright 2022". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
    A schedule cannot be copyrighted, so the copyright statement is irrelevant. But in regard to the logos and visuals, I see your point. Those can be blurred. If I blur those, would you undelete the files? Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
    Hmm ... You deleted the files quickly. You responded to my undeletion request quickly. But when I propose a way to make sure that all elements are public domain, you're suddenly slow and quiet. Where is your concern for Prof. Rodriguez? You may not have intended to be malicious, but your actions allow others to be malicious towards her. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment It is customary to wait at least 24 hours before closing an undeletion request unless it's a VRT member requesting undeletion for a file that has permission. I agree that the teaching schedule had logos and visuals that made it needed to be deleted. Also, since upholding copyright law is one of Commons concerns, and the reputation of one former professor is not in Commons concerns, copyright by necessity trumps concerns about reputation or local politics. As for myself, if the matter of copyright is addressed, then I have no issues with the files being restored as they would be in scope. Abzeronow (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. And thank you for understanding. Readers need to see what information was available to the people who wanted to harm Prof. Rodriguez.
I created a new pair of files in which the the non-free logos and visuals have been blurred out. The remaining information is her teaching and exam schedule, which (being facts) are in the public domain. I have already uploaded them as new files and incorporated them into the article and talk page, so you can go ahead and close this. Thanks again for your help. :-)
Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Request withdrawn by requestor. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:SC Freiburg Logo.svg

Classic club crest - which exists on Commons for a long time and thousands of times. Bildersindtoll (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The right part is {{PD-textlogo}}, the left part is definitely not. Copyright does not expire due to being violated long time. Ankry (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The crest is exists since 1924: https://www.badische-zeitung.de/was-steckt-hinter-dem-vereinsabzeichen-des-sport-clubs-freiburg--215829586.html Bildersindtoll (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
When did Hans Dettelbacher die? If this cannot be identified, we may need to wait till 2045 to apply {{PD-old-assumed}}. Ankry (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, the protection of such logos are based on the date of their creation and not on the death of the author. Bildersindtoll (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
In the US maybe. Not in Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 22:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hans Dettelbacher was born in 1885 and alive in 1970, I could not yet find out when he died. --Rosenzweig τ 22:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Since I'm sure that this coat of arms (similar to that of St. Pauli) has been in use for a very long time, I checked again. The history of the club shows that the coat of arms with the bird of prey was already documented in 1914. https://www.scfreiburg.com/verein/historie/sc-geschichte/1913-1918/ Bildersindtoll (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
It's not a bird of prey, it's a griffin (Greif in German). The text does not say though if the "griffin symbol" was the same griffin as used later. --Rosenzweig τ 07:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Rosenzweig and Ankry. --Abzeronow (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Universitätsklinikum Magdeburg Transp.png

Logo of an institution under public law and the UKMD itself does not provide any information on a possible restriction: http://www.cdmed.ovgu.de/home/Logo.html Bildersindtoll (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Lack of information about restrictions does not mean lack of restriction. Copyright does not work this way. I do not think that the image in the middle is text or simple geometric shape. If it is old enough for copyright expiration, please provide a publication that proves this. Ankry (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The seal in the middle is created by Hasso Eßbach for the "Medizinische Akademie Magdeburg" in 1954. http://www.cdmed.ovgu.de/home/Logo.html - Third paragraph Bildersindtoll (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hasso Eßbach died in 1992, so it is copyrighted till 1.1.2063. We need a free license permission from the actual copyright holder following VRT. Ankry (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, copyright in Germany in relation to such logos expires 50 years after their creation. Bildersindtoll (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Where did you get that information from? I've never heard of such a thing. You may confuse that with "simple" photographs. --Rosenzweig τ 22:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No evidence of public domain or a free license. --Yann (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:ASAF_ZAGA.jpg

שלום, התמונה נקנתה על ידי אסף זגה מהצלם אילן זכרוב והזכויות יוצרים עברו לאסף זגה אני בן דוד של אסף זגה וקוראים לי אביב

בברכה אביב

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avivyishay (talk • contribs) 16:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

@Avivyishay: :

  • The above statement contradicts your declaration that you are the photo author (photographer). We cannot rely on declarations by people who provided false or incorrect information.
  • If the uploader is not the photographer or the image was published elsewhere before its upload here, the actual copyright holder needs follow the VRT instructions. Note: if copyright has been transferred by the author, a copy of copyright transfer contract may be needed.

Ankry (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs VRT, and the photograph will be restored if and when VRT accepts permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:The initial issue of Dongfang Shaonian.jpg

The deletion reason was that it was not published longer than 50 years ago. This rule may be applicable to the unauthorized use of an article published in this magazine, but I do not think it is applicable to a photo of the cover page of the magazine, which I personally own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 히비네부르크 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose We need the permission from the copyright holder for a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Logo of Shenzhou Xueren.png

The deletion reason is "calligraphy works are copyrighted". But when a calligraphy work has been authorized to be used as a logo of another entity, the picture of the calligraphy work (by Deng Xiaoping) has nothing to do with whether the calligraphy work is copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 히비네부르크 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

@히비네부르크: Permissions restricted for specific use are not accepted here, see COM:L. Can you provide an evidence that the original permission was wide enough to be compatible with the CC BY-SA 4.0 license that you declared? Ankry (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


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

Restore File of Japan Politic

hi, I am writing to ask you if you could please restore these files which include Japanese political figures which license was used PD-Japan-oldphoto and for that I believe they should be restored :

 Oppose Requests related to LTA A3cb1 should not be considered without legitimate reasons. Thuresson (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. --Abzeronow (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Comet Gale.jpg

@Infrogmation: I think I found the source of the photo (it is mirrored). It is a photo of comet II 1894 Gale (and not the periodic comet Gale, as it was missidentified) taken by en:Edward Emerson Barnard (died in 1923) and I have found it to be published in 1913 in USA, so it is in public domain ({{PD-old-70-expired}}). --C messier (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. @C messier: Please check and, maybe, fix the description. Ankry (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:XV Rodowy Wiec Słowian 1132164277.jpg, File:XV Rodowy Wiec Słowian 1204744193.jpg, File:XV Rodowy Wiec Słowian 1718598138.jpg, File:XV Rodowy Wiec Słowian 1734514550.jpg

Hello. I got a permission from the author to share those photos in 2018. At first, the OTRS team didn't responded me in my request to confirm agreement, although I repeated contact few times. In may, I had repeated it once again and then received reply from @Polimerek: , where he stated that "people which are showed on those photos were not agree to be published". I asked how it is possible, while Wikimedia is not the primary place of publishing them, and I pointed that they are still published in that place (link), but I didn't received next answer. In fact, it is absurd that if the original place didn't unpublish photos, we are doing that, while we have proper formal permission to use them, provided by their author. Thus, I request to undelete them and to confirm permission from author. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nat: , you says in previous request from 2020 that "OTRS cannot accept forwarded permissions or proxy statements for legal reasons", but this is not true. According to the official instruction for the volunteers, the permission could be forwarded (Polish: Ostatecznie możesz takie pozwolenie „forwardować” [opcja „prześlij do” w większości klientów poczty] ze swojego konta na ww. adres) and I forwarded other permission multiple times, all copyrighted works for whom I got permissions were confirmed this way. So please do not mislead other users. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
As a general rule we do not accept forwarded permissions -- not for legal reasons, but simply because there are two many bad actors out there who are perfectly willing to forge a permission. Requiring that the actual author send the permission directly allows, in many cases, the VRT volunteer to match the email address from which the permission came to the author. You clearly have established yourself as an honest person, which makes you an exception. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. In Polish instruction is explaned in a way that wasn't maked me aware of that. In that case, I can ask the original copyright holder to re-send this old e-mail to the OTRS team, if it would help to undelete those photos. Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
That would be great. OTRS has since been renamed VRT. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't noticed renaming :) So I want to confirm that the author just re-send the agreement with permissions-pl[at]wikimedia.org as CC. Hope this case would be finalized after 5 years... :D --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done now; waiting for a VRT volunteer action. Ankry (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Pavel Batitsky envelope.png

The postal envelope and stamps are in the public domain in Russia and are free images. The file was deleted because, as I understand it, the user's quibbles about the license. The current community policy is that they are PD-RU-exempt as they have even their own categories (Category:PD-RU-exempt_(stamps) Category:PD-RU-exempt_(postal_covers)).Kursant504 (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I note that the subject image and some of the cards in Category:PD-RU-exempt_(postal_covers) have copyright notices. Is it possible that those with notices are printed by companies other than the postal service and therefore are not free of copyright? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I expect that these that were published by the Soviet government are in the public domain, so even if they subcontracted someone else to print them. But File:Anatoly Papanov. Postal card, Russia, 2012.jpg is dated to 2012, it is most probably not OK. Yann (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose 2010 cover with a copyright claim. We need some evidence that it is in the public domain. Yann (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done as per Yann. Ankry (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:陳思函.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo was taken when SeeHan Chen was preparing for her new album Animal Intuition, and the photo was uploaded with the consent of the artist himself and the photographer. 陳凡卉 (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Tom Demmer.jpg

Original source of image is Illinois state government public .gov website https://www.ilga.gov/house/rep.asp?MemberID=2869 and not the private news website referenced in the deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestil (talk • contribs) 20:45, 7 August 2023‎ (UTC)

@Midwestil: But where does the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license come from? And who should be credited? Thuresson (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose No response to a relevant question. Thuresson (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Files found with Short North Murals

Per the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Short North Murals, several users including myself and @RodRabelo7: identified numerous murals based on Public Domain works, including American Gothic, Cliff Dwellers, Café Terrace at Night, and Mona Lisa. There is insufficient originality in these reproductions of PD paintings, and thus the works labeled as reproductions of these paintings must be undeleted, and should never have been deleted. If Marcel Duchamp's en:L.H.O.O.Q. is PD as a derivative work, then Mona Lisa turned sideways or any of these other reproductions definitely are. ɱ (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose If one makes as faithful as possible a painted reproduction of a PD work, the reproduction has a new copyright. Until the Bridgeman decision that was true even of a photographic reproduction and even that is not the law in several European countries. Therefore any mural has a copyright until it expires. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Excuse me? What? Can you cite your rationale in U.S. copyright law? Reproductions of PD works need to be distinctive or otherwise they are simply a derivative work. See en:L.H.O.O.Q. as an actually remarkably different version of the Mona Lisa that was nevertheless deemed to be in the Public Domain, as not distinctively different enough. All of these murals apply as well. ɱ (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Where did you get L.H.O.O.Q is PD? You can read the copyright notice of a 1964 replica here. The original from 1919 is PD in the US only because it is pre 1928, but it is still copyrighted in France. Günther Frager (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I saw that it is in the Public Domain here. The murals I am discussing above don't even have any changes resembling L.G.O.O.Q., and perhaps it is a bad example. Better might be the recent case over these Andy Warhol prints, which are actually incredibly transformative, yet were still just ruled to be a copyright infringement of the original photographer's rights. Similarly, a painted facsimile of Mona Lisa on a wall still retains whatever copyright status the original holds. ɱ (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The only Duchamp work we have here (the Fountain) is because it was made in the US and the photograph was also taken and published in the US. The case of Warhol is not that his work is not protected by copyright, but that he infringed the copyright of the original photographer in one but not all of his derivative works. These are two different things: fair use vs. being copyrightable. Moreover, the court opinion doesn't use aesthetics to justify their decision. They argued that both images had the same comercial purpose. Günther Frager (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, as I noted above, before the Bridgeman decision even photographs of PD works had a new copyright of their own. It is clear that any painted reproduction of an old master has its own copyright. And, as Günther says, the court decision cited says nothing about the copyright status of Warhol's works, only that they infringed on the originals. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Again I ask where you imagined that reproductions of PD artwork hold their own copyright. The article on Threshold of originality even lays out decorative works that aren't unique and creative enough for a copyright, like the Best Western logo. Similarly it mentions Bridgeman, that reproductions of these PD works are ineligible for a new copyright. ɱ (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The originality needed to ensure copyright protection of derivative works can be pretty low and context dependent. I must point out this non-exact replica of this PD work. The derivative work was copyrighted in 1938 and tested successfully in court [11]. Günther Frager (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why random people are so adamant to delete images when these are old murals of incredibly old paintings that are on a highly-trafficked street and that nobody cares to try to enforce. I incredibly highly doubt these artists would try to stake a copyright claim when they just duplicated these incredibly old paintings. ɱ (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
That line of reasoning is explicitly prohibited by our precautionary principle.
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. decided that photographs of PD works did not have a new copyright. It said nothing about other reproductions. It was important because Bridgeman claimed that its library of photographs of paintings was all covered by copyright. The court decision narrowly decided in favor of Corel, that photographic reproductions of paintings do not have a new copyright. If, until Bridgeman, it was possible to claim copyright in a photograph of an old master, how is it possible that a painted reproduction of an old master does not have a copyright, particularly in cases like this where the artist had to substantially enlarge the work?
I also note that USCO Circular 40 specifically mentions "Reproductions, such as lithographs, collotypes" as having a copyright. If a lithograph of an old master has a copyright, why do you think a manually created painting of one does not? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Cool it can be 'prohibited' all you like, it's just an awful policy to be overly cautious when the rest of the world is instead overly careless. Why do we cause constant headaches and restrict ourselves when the rest of the internet really couldn't give a damn about copyright? ɱ (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Again, I suggest you read our precautionary principle which explicitly prohibits your line of reasoning. While it is certainly true that much of the Web runs roughshod over copyright and gets away with it, that is precisely why we work hard to be an island of safety -- a collection of images that can be freely used without fear of repercussions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. No consensus to undelete. --Yann (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Reza Shah painting.jpg

Good day. I wanted to tell you that the deletion of painting of the past King of Iran is far from freedom of speech as your company and the country that you're living in claim. Because that picture had nothing to do with any illegal or abusive things and the deletion of that picture is actually an insult to the long history of our great country. And I demand you to undelete it if you want to have more users and viewers from our country. Thank you and have a nice day.Gobarn2530 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Gobarn2530, we cannot handle the case without having the exact filename. --Achim55 (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The file name is File:Reza Shah painting.jpg . Gobarn2530 (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 Question Who created the painting, when was the painting created and where was it first revealed to the public? Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Well sir, actually it's not a painting, it's a picture and all I know that this picture was taken in 1942 in Johannesburg in South Africa When His majesty The Reza Shah was in exile. That's all I know. Gobarn2530 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
OK, fixed the heading. It was deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reza Shah painting.jpg. What do we know about this? Was it an original work of the uploader, or copied from somewhere? I see a reference in tineye that predated the upload here. If a painting, when was it made? If based on a photo, what do we know about the source photo? It seems as though it was deleted for lack of information, though I can't see the claimed license. It has since been copied to an article at www.discoverwalks.com, but that just says "unknown author". The country of origin is most likely the United States. I see it in a tweet here as well; perhaps it came from the family -- but that means it would be under copyright, so we'd need to find a source with a free license. While uploading it is most likely not illegal, per site policy we only host works which are "free", which is a very particular criteria (https://www.freedomdefined.org) and call a "copyvio" anything which doesn't match that criteria. As such, we need a license for pretty much any modern work, we can't just copy it. Commons does not allow fair use per policy, either -- the work must be "free". So while not illegal, images must satisfy Commons:Licensing in order to be hosted here -- we certainly support free speech, but we do not ignore copyright either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Well mister, actually it's not a painting and it's picture and as I said up there, it has taken in Johannesburg, South Africa in 1942 when His majesty was in exile and this picture is publicly published anywhere both in internet and in books and The Royal family published so many pictures like that publicly and furthermore, this picture was taken 81 years ago. Although I don't know about copy right issues so much, but I think that the copyright isn't included in this case. Gobarn2530 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
South Africa has been part of the Berne Convention since 1928, so works by a human author there are automatically copyrighted for a term of the life of the author plus 50 years. If South Africa is the country of origin, then the author had to have died before 1973 for it to be public domain there, and for the United States, the author would have needed to have died before 1946 because URAA restored copyrights for South Africa on January 1, 1996. And to be precise, it's a photograph of a painting but since in the US, we follow Bridgeman, we're only concerned about the copyright of the painting. So we'd need to know the name of the artist and when they had died. Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I think that's too hard or even impossible to find the photographer of that picture, and I guess because that picture belongs to Royal family, then it belongs to Iran, not South Africa and the copyright laws of our country will be implemented in this case. In my country, there aren't such copyright laws like the rest of the world, of course there are laws, but it's rare to see that someone obey copyright laws. If you consider it that that picture belongs to our country, there would be no problem for publishing it. Gobarn2530 (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The Berne country of origin is the country of first publication, not necessarily the most common-sense one. That could well be Iran, but if he was living in South Africa, that is also a possibility. Copyright laws can have some exceedingly long terms, which does make it harder to illustrate even 20th century subjects. A lot may depend on whether the artist is known. If we call it an anonymous painting published 1942 in South Africa it would be OK, or assume an official work commissioned by the Iranian government, it would also be OK. But if it was a South African artist who was known and they lived just four further years, then the copyright may still exist in the U.S. at least. It's difficult without knowing more of the provenance. When we know nothing about a work, we wait 120 years ({{PD-old-assumed}}). This is within that window, so we need to find a good rationale where copyright has expired. We will follow the written law, even if it's largely ignored in practice. If Iran is the country of origin, there is no URAA restoration in the U.S. to worry about at least, but it's a question of where it was published first (and if first published in more than one country within 30 days, it gets very weird). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Well Mr. Lindberg, as you said up there, if the photographer is anonymous, that's okey to publish it, and there is no information about the photographer across the web or anywhere else, then we can call the photographer anonymous, and I guess the family of that photographer would be happy and satisfied to make it for public domain for the sake of the late King. And in addition to it, there are sites that published that picture publicly, even a famous site like Pinterest ( https://pin.it/zNAVFnF ). Gobarn2530 (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The image title says it's a painting. If it's a photograph of a painting, the photographic part is basically not relevant (it's just a copy of a painting), so we need to figure the copyright status of the painting itself. If the painting was unsigned, it's probably anonymous, but that's hard to tell. Are there any other images of the original painting? If it's a retouched/enhanced/colorized photo, then the retouching was probably done in modern times, and could well carry its own copyright. "Anonymous" means it was originally published without an author credit, not that the credit has been lost in the meantime. The resolution online makes it hard to see if the painting was signed. If first published in Iran, it's most probably fine. If first published since 1980, the country of origin would almost certainly not be Iran though. I'm on the fence on this one... a portrait done in 1942 seems likely to have been published in Iran at some point between then and 1980. If signed and first published in South Africa, probably not OK, but we don't have evidence for either. Not sure I'm willing to assume a painting is unsigned by the artist, but probably would need some better evidence to assume a country other than Iran as country of origin, and that may be more a theoretical doubt at this point. OK,  Weak support. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, it seems that it leads nowhere. I didn't think that it gets that complicated. These Copyright laws are too excessive and irrational. Anyway, it doesn't make any difference to me, there are other websites out there that published that picture. It was just a little patriotic obligation that I wanted to do. Anyway, thank you folks for the time that you put for helping me. Gobarn2530 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyright laws are indeed excessive and have many odd points, but we can't get around them -- the concept of "free" is core to every Wikimedia project, including this one, and the concept is in turn based directly on copyright law. So we follow it to the letter. There is still lots of gray area, where we have to make our best judgements. Some of it is policy (Commons can not rely on "fair use", part of copyright law), but much is the law. See also Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
It could also be a photo of a painting made after a photo. On the internet, there's a black and white version that shows more of the hands of the subject at the bottom than the image in colour. But the image is not good enough to tell if there's a signature in that part at the bottom of the image or if that version is a photograph. The family might know more information about this image. Gobarn2530 or someone else interested could for example contact the media address mentioned on the website of Farah Diba. That website has a copy of the image in colour. The request for information could link to it. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Well... that's interesting. Where is the black and white version? The 1942 photo would be fine (Iran or South Africa), but a modern painting based on it would not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I didn't dare to link it because it's complicated. You can view it with a google search: [12]. If I go to the linked source webpage, the image doesn't seem to be there. If I try to display by right-clicking the image from the google page, the source website offers me to dowload a copy to my computer, which I didn't do. We can also note that the subject has a similar look and clothes in this other Commons image, of which many other copies, a little less cropped, can be found on the internet, e.g. [13], and it might help for researching the context. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Here: File:Reza Shah in exile in Johannesburg in 1942.jpg. Yann (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
But this Commons version still cuts out the bottom of the image. -- Asclepias (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, I think this picture is all right. I guess we don't need to continue this case anymore. Thanks mister. Gobarn2530 (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
It's not settled yet. We now have two copies of that image instead of one, but we don't have more information about it. Someone still has to decide if the files will be kept or deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The photograph is fine (thanks Yann) -- South Africa's term is still the old UK term, 50 years from creation, with publication/anonymity not mattering at all. Which means it's PD-South_Africa and PD-1996. Iran's term is even shorter so no problem if first published there. But this version has been colorized and enhanced, and maybe a full-up painting, which would carry an additional copyright, and the provenance of that portion seems to be completely unknown and could well be very modern. Any copy of the original photo seems fine, but not this additional one without a lot more information, I don't think. So, changing to  Oppose on this retouched/painted one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 Info Demanding anything from volunteers is not language that would ancourage anybody to help you. Ankry (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Well my dear friend, I didn't mean the things that I wrote up there to you or anybody else who are volunteer. I wrote this to the person or people that deleted it, because in my country are against our late King that served our country and any patriot gets hurt. And as my friend up there said maybe because of copyright issues they deleted it. Anyway, I'm sorry if bothered someone in anyway. Gobarn2530 (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Everyone here is a volunteer, including the admins who delete images. As the source provided by the uploader does not contain information about free license, we must determine first whether this painting originates from Iran or from US period of Reza Shah. This is crucial to which copyright rules we need to apply. Note that in Iran paintings are copyrighted 50 years since the painter death and in US this depends on publication date. The information who was the painter may also be crucial. We cannot host images with unclear copyright status. Ankry (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Reza Shah died in 1944, in South Africa. He was exiled from Iran in 1941, first in Mauritius, then I guess moved to South Africa. Sounds like he was posthumously given an honorary title in 1950 in Iran. Hard to think any portrait of him went unpublished in Iran in all those years. This is not the person currently living in the US (who is a grandson). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@Ankry: We often have non-native English speakers "demanding" things without understanding the connotations of that word. It certainly happens with French, where "demande" just means "request", but it may happen with other languages like Farsi as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for telling this detailed grammatic difference. Yes my friend, in Persian these two words are the same ( درخواست کردن ) and I mostly learned English from movies especially the old one, that's because my English is old fashioned and I'm not really good at grammar, I do know the basic ones, but not all of them.
And about the things that I wrote up there, I didn't mean anything to anyone else in here. I'm not an aggressive person all the time, when I saw that picture was deleted, as a patriot I got angry and I wrote that text immediately. Gobarn2530 (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Request implicitly withdrawn by requestor. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of Wadiya.gif

I believe that this flag is below the threshold of originality. It was created for an American film, and the United States is very demanding when it comes to the threshold of originality (see File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg, which is relatively complex, but was still ruled to be below the TOO). The flag itself features some simple text centered on green and orange stripes. The three stripes are clearly an example of simple geometry (they're literally just colored rectangles) and the text is not complex at all; at the very least, it's definitely less complex than the Cyberpunk logo. There is also a single small green star, which is another example of simple geometry. As such the flag is almost definitely in the public domain. The applicable license tag would be Template:PD-textlogo. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 OpposeThe Cyberpunk logo is an irrelevant example here -- it consists entirely of letters and numbers, neither of which can have a copyright in the USA. In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg it was kept on that basis without consideration of whether it is above or below the very low ToO in Poland, its country of origin. I agree that the subject logo is a close call in the US, but the PRP requires us to delete close calls. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I would say that this isn't a "close call" at all. The flag is from an American movie and it is very clearly below the American TOO. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, if the glif in the middle can be recognized as consisting purely of Arabic letters, then it is probably PD. Otherwise, it is a "close call" as named by Jim. I cannot read Arabic. Ankry (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@Ankry: According to this comment, the text is "Isla" (the name of Sacha Baron Cohen's wife) flipped backwards. So it's real text, it's just flipped. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so  Support for me. Yann (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 Support per discussion. Ankry (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion, consensus to undelete. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Recórcholis, Gran Plaza Mazatlán, 8 de julio de 2023 101.jpg

In scope image

Blurred, low quality photo; why in scope? Ankry (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Blurred, poor quality images, out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Эмблема МООО «РСО».png

Данный медиафайл является эмблемой организации. Законодательство разрешает использование эмблем организаций в статьях некоммерческого характера. С руководством по использованию фирменного стиля также можно ознакомиться: https://xn--d1amqcgedd.xn--p1ai/theme/documents/rukovodstvo-po-ispolzovaniyu-firmennogo-stilya.pdf

 Oppose Non-commercial restriction is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons requirements, see COM:L. Also, nothing here about derivative works, which also must be allowed. Ankry (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Изображение было размещено в карточке организации в верхней части статьи, описывающей данную организацию — предмет общественного интереса. Цель иллюстрации логотипа — помочь читателям идентифицировать организацию, убедить читателей, что они попали на страницу нужной статьи. Так как данное изображение является логотипом, то для него практически точно нет свободной замены. Любая замена, не являющаяся производной работой, не смогла бы передать значение логотипа, а также не соответствовала бы цели идентификации организации. Использование логотипа в статье не вступает в противоречие с политикой добросовестного использования в Википедии [14]. Дмитрий Ткаченко 8 (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
While some Wikipedias accept Fair Use images, they need to be hosted in Wikipedia, not here. Fair Use images are not allowed in Commons, see COM:Fair Use. Ankry (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry, we don't accept fair use or non-commercial licenses on Commons. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:23rd June 2023, Cecilia Lindgren (Director of the BDI 2021-present), the Genetics Society Mary Lyon Award Ceremony, Thomas Lecture Theatre, The Sanger Institute, Cambridge UK. Photograph taken by Duncan Vernimmen.jpg

Permission has been given to upload this picture. 2me1234 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose @2me1234:
  1. permissions "to upload" are not compatible with Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements; see COM:L.
  2. if the uploader is not the author, the permission must be either granted through public website related to the photographer, or the copyrigh holder needs to follow COM:VRT instructions.
  3. the photo was uploaded without a license; it cannot be undeleted until a valid license is declared.
Ankry (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:陳思函宣傳照片.jpg Promotional photo of SeeHan Chen

This photo is not copied from KKBOX, the photos on KKBOX and Wikipedia are uploaded by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 陳凡卉 (talk • contribs) 9 Aug 2023, 10:30 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  • @陳凡卉:
    • First, on-wiki licensing works only for photos made and copyrighted by the uploader which were never published elsewhere.
    • Second, you claimed at upload that you are the photographer, while the above statement suggests that you are not; providing false or incorrect information is serious violation of Wikimedia Commons policies; providing false authorship information is also violation of photographer's moral rights which may be legal issue.
    • Third, for any photo published earlier without evidence of free license, the actual copyright holder needs to follow COM:VRT instructions. If the copyright holder is not the photographer, they also need to prove their copyright (eg. providing a copy of the copyright transfer contract to VRT).
Ankry (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Ankry: The photo is indeed not copied from KKBOX as stated by the requestor, since it is high-resolution with EXIF and the KKBOX version is not; therefore, it doesn't count as "published earlier without evidence of free license". @陳凡卉: Can you please clarify whether you are the photographer or not? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
    The copyright owner of the photo is not the photographer but SeeHan Chen , and I am her employee, uploading this photo on her behalf.
    What should I do to use this photo on Wikipedia?
    @陳凡卉: Then you will need to send an email to COM:VRT. Do you have a copy of the contract from the photographer agreeing to transfer the copyright to SeeHan Chen? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
    @陳凡卉: Per Wikimedia services Terms of Use (see link in the bottom of each page) if you are contributing to Wikimedia as your duty and you are paid for this, you are required to disclose this information. Standard location to do this is the user page. Ankry (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm NewsIndiaOfficial06 (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: requires VRT per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Copenhagen - the little mermaid statue - 2013.jpg

Image of The Little Mermaid staue in Copenhagen. Please restore image of this famous monument. Michalg95 (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Statue is not public domain in Denmark and Denmark doesn't have a FOP for artwork that is acceptable for Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Templo de Kiev.jpg

I wanna publish this image/file File:Templo de Kiev.jpg into https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_templos_d%27A_Igreja_de_Jesus_Cristo_dos_Santos_dos_Últimos_Dias page i downloaded the image/file from https://assets.churchofjesuschrist.org/80/1d/801d8d1f1ea9f1397afc779c61e0a13d4c85f0e7/kyiv_ukraine_temple_lds.jpg

My contact is: [redacted]

  •  Oppose - Verily, that's why it's been deleted. That site says "© 2023 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved." You are neither the author, as falsely purported, nor is there a cc-by-sa license, as falsely purported. Эlcobbola talk 22:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Эlcobbola. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Iris Tseng.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ：本人是此人的公司員工，因此上傳老闆美美的照片，請求不要刪除，謝謝。 Wenwenchiang (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done Should not have been speedied since it is not available at this quality on Instagram. However, tagged as no permission. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:SC Magdeburg Wappen SCM.svg

Another classic Club crest - which exists on Commons for a long time and thousands of times. Bildersindtoll (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hosting an image long time does not make it public domain unless copyright expires during that time. @Bildersindtoll: Please, elaborate why do you think that the castle and the girl above are ineligible for German copyright? Ankry (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
This club crest seems to fall under the Threshold of originality, like most of the club crests of football or handball clubs, has never been doubted and is currently accepted hundreds of times. (exept highly complex or commercial crests - for example the club crest of "RB Leipzig") This also applies to the other club crests, which I have listed here. --Bildersindtoll (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Did you come to this conclusion basing on any of these cases or on another one? If there is lack of evidence where the ToO is, we need to apply COM:PCP. Ankry (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
From my point of view there are two points. On the one hand, that the club coat of arms is a modification of the coat of arms of the city of Magdeburg, which is public domain. On the other hand, that it has been in public use since 1965 and therefore does not fall under any special protection. Bildersindtoll (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
1965+70+1=2036 (for anonymous works). Or, which section of COM:Germany you wish to refer here? Ankry (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Sonny Boy Williamson II montaje.jpg

Researching his biography I noticed the photo that was removed, the photo of his grave is in the public domain because he died in 1965 and the photo never had a copyright label and there is no evidence that it does, he should be to place the licensePD-US-no notice.---Volvo Sueci (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC) ---Volvo Sueci (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support This was almost certainly erected before 1989 and there is no notice. I'm not sure we need both of them, however -- perhaps only the first. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:(Écusson.DSI).png

يا جدك وش صرا — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amnes N El Bayadh (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose There is no file by this name. The file in question is probably File:(Écusson-DSI).png. There is no indication of a free license at the stated source. I also note that the file has been uploaded a third time after being deleted twice. Uploading a file in these circumstances is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Rabnish Kashyap.jpg

This picture belongs the company's founder. And that's why we want you not to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsIndiaOfficial06 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 10 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but the right to freely license it almost certainly belongs to the actual photographer. In order for us to restore it, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or you must provide evidence that you have the right to freely license it, also using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I note that you claimed to be the actual photographer when you uploaded the image. Your statement above suggests that that is not true. Making false statements here is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:News India Official.jpg

This is the company's logo. And that's why we want you not to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsIndiaOfficial06 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 10 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The logo and the company's page was deleted from WP:EN. Complex logos require a free license from an authorized official of the company using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:TRANFER 01.01.23 025.jpg

Undeletion of file "TRANFER 01.01.23 025.jpg" that is my own work/own photo edit--Srinivastheconqueror (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)-

 Oppose No, it is not your own work, and it is out of scope for Commons. Yann (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Capa A Menina da Coluna Torta.jpg

My wife is the author of the book "A Menina da Coluna Torta" and I'm creating a Wikimedia page for this book. That's the reason I'd like to upload her book cover: File:Capa A Menina da Coluna Torta.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldir Rodrigues Junior (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 Aug 2023 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  • Are you the author of the book cover as you declared? If so, how can we verify this? Ankry (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - We are not a host for promoting your wife's book. Verily, the related article you created, pt:A Menina da Coluna Torta, has already been deleted as non-notable (!!!). While copyright is thus moot: authorship of a book (literary work) has nothing to do with authorship of its cover (graphic work)--surely you don't believe JK Rowling illustrated this. Although the US Copyright Office often considers medical imaging to lack human authorship (created by mechanical process), discussion of Brazil status would be needed, and there may be other elements here--selection, arrange, composition--germane to both jurisdictions. Эlcobbola talk 20:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Эlcobbola. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:American_Actor_&_Film_Director_Cam_McHarg.jpg

I have presented the proof of the owner giving the public to use it here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/198904497@N04/53097935290/in/dateposted-public/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyoab (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The cited Flickr page is a 404 error. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: As noted in the ticket, this is blatant Flickrwashing. A much more complete version is here November 2022, well before Flickr upload (August 2023), and attributed there by the subject to Mickey Strider, who is indeed a professional photographer. --Эlcobbola talk 12:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Chhiri.jpg

Probably erroneoous deletion. The file had a permission from Ticket:2023073110005854. --Mussklprozz (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK, but no categories. --Yann (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ensec Solutions logo.png

In what circumstance to delete the logo? Reason is the logo checked is approved by Intellectual Property Department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellokt336 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 11 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose I note that when you uploaded this, you claimed that you were the designer or the logo -- that's what {{{Own}} means. Such false claims are a serious violation of Commons rules and making them will lead to your being blocked from editing here.

Policy requires that an authorized official of the company owning the logo send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File: ReeshmaN.jpg

The deleted photo of Indian Actress and Model. That was she uploaded. I gave the source as link and Author as her name. Source link:https://www.instagram.com/p/CaPVmnQj-Hb/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== --Arumobileworld (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't see any indication of a free license at source. You can ask the photographer to contact COM:VRT and they could confirm permission for a free license. Abzeronow (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Gamer Over Cinemáticos, Gran Plaza Mazatlán, 8 de julio de 2023 04.jpg

De minimis

@Infrogmation: You claimed "Kept" and then deleted it. Could you, please, elaborate what was your intention? Ankry (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Infrogmation. I also don't see this as being de minimis. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:WinHistoryInGIF.gif

modify to file source, it is from pictoline, but i've found it on scratch, at https://scratch.mit.edu/studios/3679126/, and then modified the resolution at https://uploads.scratch.mit.edu/get_image/gallery/3679126_2000x2000.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ok.is.life (talk • contribs) 12:21, 12 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose There is no indication at the original source of a free license. The Scratch version could have been uploaded by anyone who may or may not have had the right to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ösa versicherungen sachsen-anhalt.png

Composition of simple letters and the state coat of arms of Saxony-Anhalt (German state), which is public domain. Bildersindtoll (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support if someone declares to fix the PD rationale. It is not {{PD-textlogo}}. Ankry (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Maybe PD-ineligible? Bildersindtoll (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I think, rather one of these. Ankry (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Then I would say that Template:PD-Coa-Germany could fit. What strikes me is that this template is of course totally logical because it is about a public organization. It refers to the "Corporation of public law" (Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts) - For example: "Deutschlandradio", "Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenversicherung" or "Industrie- und Handelskammer".
But there is another very similar form of public organization in Germany: The "Institution of public law" (Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts) - For example: "Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder", "Technisches Hilfswerk" or "Deutsche Nationalbibliothek".
The only differences are that the Corporation of public law has members and the Institution of public law has users. Legally, both are basically very similar because both serve a public purpose.
The "Öffentliche Versicherungen Sachsen-Anhalt" is very precise an Institution of public law.
I could therefore imagine that it would make sense if there were also a template for the Institutions of public law (Anstalten des öffentlichen Rechts) (If possible) Bildersindtoll (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Bildersindtoll: undeleted, so please do. Ankry (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Done. But does anyone have an idea about the topic I mentioned regarding the Corporation of public law and the Institution of public law? Bildersindtoll (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/AI porn images

I found this DR after it was closed and I have to admit I haven't seen the deleted pictures, but this DR seems abusive to me because:

  1. Commons is not censored and some people on that DR clearly have an anti-nudity censorship agenda (NB: some people actually tend to think that nudity in itself is porn, which is not...).
  2. Commons offers a variety of choice on every subjects : because of the neutral point of view, we may not chose to delete some files just because we already have other files on ant subject. Such arguments are unvalid, we need other reasons (such as bad quality when we already have equivalent files on the same subjects).
  3. Commons covers a wide range of subjects, including crossed subjects, and while we already have examples of porn or AI-generated images, we have none about AI-generated porn since the deletion of those files (therefore there were not out of scope). Which makes the two previous reasons of deletion even more irrelevant.

There may be good reasons of deletion but these 3 aspects lead me to think there was something wrong in that massive DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Agree that nudity and sexual related content should not be censored from Commons if realistically within project scope. These look to me not explicit pornographic (sample I looked at are not sexual activity) but rather a series of nude and partly nude "pin up girl" images - one user's personal fantasy. IMO correctly deleted as OOS. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I reviewed a random selection of these, and agree with Infrogmation that these are mere fantasy images that serve no value to the project. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
    @Infrogmation and Huntster: Can you explain how, mainly because of the rule of neutral POV, we should choose which pin-up images or fantasy images or whatever images we should consider in scope and which ones we should delete? I mean amongst files created by someone not famous. Let me take an example connected to this request: if we want to give people some examples of AI-generated nude images (which is in itself a subject that is not out of scope, as explained above), how do we impartially decide, for instance, that we may keep this file and delete the ones from that DR? Do you see what I mean? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I'd say pretty much how we decide on other media are in project scope. As to AI-generated images, I'd generally say that real images would be better to illustrate most topics, as the AI may look on surface aesthetically pleasing but prone to random inaccuracies. (Topics we have no free licensed images of might be good for AI images, presuming they can be individually reviewed for accuracy.) Someone uploading images that are basically "this is an image I made on my computer of my fantasy sexy nude woman who doesn't actually exist" IMO is out of scope in about the same way as people who upload "this is an image I made on my computer of the flag and map of my fantasy country that doesn't actually exist" - non-notable personal fiction. As to the beach nude AI image you link to, if I'd seen a DR for that I would have voted delete. There are many good places online for such personal fantasy images - IMO Commons is not one. Out of COM:Scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion -- we don't keep personal art. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:HausFaulensee38-09-17.jpg

This photograph was made in 1938 by my father Erwin Friedrich Baumann (1890-1980). I am the heir of his estate. So the photograph is since 1980 in my posession and it is not possible to ask my father if he agrees that I publish it because he is dead since 43 years! Please help me to publish it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HF Baumann (talk • contribs) 07:42, 12 August 2023‎ (UTC)

Photographers who have passed away need not leave a permission, this should be done by the copyright owners instead. Please see Commons:Volunteer Response Team on how to submit a permission. Thuresson (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 Support Probably OK with one of these licenses. Yann (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: I changed the license from "Cc-by-sa-4.0" to "Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs". --Yann (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Fc st pauli logo.svg

Classic club crest - which exists on Commons for a long time and thousands of times. Bildersindtoll (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

But it is not {{PD-textlogo}}: the image in the middle is neither text nor simple geometric shape. Any valid PD or free licensing rationale? Ankry (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The reason for this is that the Hamburg St. Pauli gymnastics club, from which FC St. Pauli emerged, already uses this city coat of arms in its club emblem. This can be read in the book Fußballwappen by Hardy Grüne (ISBN 978-3-7307-0416-5) Bildersindtoll (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
DW of File:Hamburg-symbol.svg. --Achim55 (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. The image in the middle is derived from the Hamburg coat of arms. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Frank Zindler reading one of the many books he has written

I was trying to edit Frank Zindler's Wikipedia page earlier and I uploaded his profile picture. I thought I uploaded it wrong and accidentally deleted the picture. Now, I am unable to reupload it because it to his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustin.lawson1984-2024 (talk • contribs)

Using different accounts is not helpful. User:Dlawson1984 = User:Dustin.lawson1984 = User:Dustin.lawson1984-2023 = User:Dustin.lawson1984-2024. Please provide the exact name of the deleted file. --Achim55 (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  • From the description above, I deduce that this is about File:Frank reading.pdf. 1. PDF is not a format appropriate for pictures. 2. We need the formal written permission from the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Dlawson1984 doesn't exist on Commons, but I blocked the 2 socks. Yann (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Deep_Chambal.jpg

Hi

My uploaded image was deleted. This image is my own image please check and restore my image.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepchambal (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Commons is not a social media. You should not use Wikimedia to promote yourself. Please read COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Egyptian Tech Synthesis A Visionary Blend of Ancient Mystique and Futuristic Innovation.png

Advertisement was not intended as the author was part of the image. Sorry. The description was since updated and the author has no problem making any other updates to ensure compliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hostrooster (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose per (at least) 3 issues:
    1. the image description is not just a description but it has a form of advertisement
    2. we do not host inages of art by non-notable artists; they are considered out of scope. Is there a Wikipedia page about the artist already accepted?
    3. at upload you claimed that you are the exclusive author and the copyright holder of the uploaded work (both: the photo and the art): this is what the Own work declaration mean. Providing false or incorrect statemnts is a serious violation od Wikimedia Commons policies. You may be blocked from contributing here if you do this again.
Ankry (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok I understand. But just to confirm I am the owner and creator of this image. 92.0.92.133 17:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Also thanks for updating me on this policy. 92.0.92.133 17:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
please do remove point 3 as this is incorrect. But agree with the others and will take it as a learning experience. Hostrooster (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
From the image description page:
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:Hostrooster|Hostrooster]]
and
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
You must be more careful what you declare at upload. Ankry (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:ArtAndFeminism 2017 Livrustkammaren 06.jpg

Hello! This file has the license information in the Meta section so it can be undeleted. See structure for example in File:ArtAndFeminism 2017 Livrustkammaren 05.jpg that are from the same occation. Thanks in advanced and with best regards Tore Danielsson (WMSE) (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment The issue was scope - see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kitithat Phengaro Gbawden (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 Support I think this was an errorneous deletion. In the abovementioned DR there is a request to delete only one version of the image. The original image was vandalized and restored. Pinging @Krd: as the deleting admin if he wishes to comment. Ankry (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 Support restoring the original image, I think it's in scope of Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted by Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Lake Name.jpg

Deleted photo was my own photo, made on June, 24, 2018 and edited. Here is original (with all EXIF info):

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4000:2772:48f:b0eb:a0cf:c06e (talk • contribs) 13:53, 14 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Info External link probably means senssoft.com/WP_20180624_15_26_16_Pro.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Hm. Why was it deleted? Google Lens finds several places on the web, but they all appear to have been copied from here, and I don't see any from before it was uploaded in 2018. It was a speedy deletion so not sure what the original reasoning was. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Polarlys: as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The speedy deletion request was based on a link to the Times of India, which credited the municipality's Facebook as the origin of the file. I restored it for further investigation. --Polarlys (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Already ✓ Done by the deleting admin, who has reversed their speedy. Anyone with further doubts may open a DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Shanghai Disneyland welcomes Lunar New Year with eye-dotting ceremony.webm

Unjustified deletion of a file properly licensed with a compatible license.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Failed license review. Thuresson (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Конституции буржуазных стран. Великие державы и западные соседи СССР.pdf

This file is an official Soviet Russian translation of foreign constitutional law. Russian copyright law does not protect translations made for the official use. {{PD-Ru-exempt}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralBabulech (talk • contribs)

 Oppose I don't read Russian, but I don't see any evidence that this is an official work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Even if the translations of constitutions are PD, neither their prefaces nor the enclosed newspaper clippings seem to be PD. Ankry (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry and Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Logo arl13.gif

This logo is coming from our website. And we share it with Wikipedia, as we are owner! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.184.110.119 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose The copyright holder should send a formal written permission for a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Also, I see no reason why we need a GIF and a PNG. The PNG is better and should be the only one restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:PP Rezyklat.jpg

The further use of the image under the following free licence Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (abbreviated CC BY-SA 4.0) has since been made available to Wikimedia by the author Raphael Mecke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christoph Salzig (talk • contribs)

 Oppose The license must be granted by copyright holder, not by anonymous Wikimedia user. Please, provide a link to the official site where the license has been granted by the photographer, or ask the copyright holder (or their official representative) to follow VRT instructions. Ankry (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:John_Huyler,_Paul_Rogers_&_David_Harris.jpg

I have finally been able to contact the photographer and he has agreed to submit the proper permission through the release generator.JohnKent (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The file will be undeleted when and if such a permission has successfully been processed by a VRT volunteer. Thuresson (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Конституции буржуазных стран. Великие державы и западные соседи СССР.pdf

{{PD-Ru-exempt}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralBabulech (talk • contribs) 06:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

Procedural close, already open request. Thuresson (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of Bansko.gif

This image contains File:Banskogerb.jpg and it licensced as {{PD-old}}, how it is deleted with these source? Alexphangia Talk 14:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Because it was published on https://crwflags.com/fotw/flags/bg-bl-ba.html by a contributor who would have the copyright to that drawing of the flag, and which has an explicit non-commercial restriction. https://crwflags.com/fotw/flags/disclaim.html. The other file that you mention was created in or before 2007 by a user on Bulgarian Wikipedia so that would be in the clear. Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:AmosJordan.png

Yes, this image is available on the website listed. However, this is photo that was originally in our family's possession BEFORE it was given to Russon Bros mortuary. It was picked by my relatives to use on the obituary page on that website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollo-de-marco (talk • contribs) 22:06, 17 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose There is reasonable cause to believe that you are uploading other people's photos and incorrectly claiming to be the photographer / copyright owner, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pollo-de-marco. Thuresson (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It is obvious that your claim that you were the actual photographer is false. In order to restore the image, the actual photofgrapher must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:David J. Jordan.jpg

This photo is available on the listed website, but it was originally taken for my uncle (the person in the photo) before he left to live in London, England in 2012. I assume this other website got permission to use it, but they are NOT the original owners of the image; my uncle is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollo-de-marco (talk • contribs) 22:14, 17 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose There is reasonable cause to believe that you are uploading other people's photos and incorrectly claiming to be the photographer / copyright owner, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pollo-de-marco. Thuresson (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It is obvious that your claim that you were the actual photographer is false. In order to restore the image, the actual photofgrapher must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:KalachnikovAA.2013.jpg

Это мои личные фотографии, я сам фотографировал на свой собственный фотоаппарат. И на сайте shashki.com тоже я размещал это фото без каких-либо условий и ограничений на использование.

Not deleted, removed speedy tag. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Raja Harishchandra King.jpg

Raja_Harishchandra_King.jpg This Image belongs to Rastogi Community and with their consent its been uploaded so no copyright claim will be their from our side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YatR2 (talk • contribs) 9:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose There is no need for a copyright claim. Copyright is automatically attributed to the author of a creative work. We need the permission from the copyright holder for a free license. Yann (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann -- needs a free license from the actual copyright holder via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Pesaranekarimlogo.png

this is a pesaranekarim official brand logo according to: www.pesaranekarim.rest www.instagram.com/pesaranekarim t.me/pesaranekarim https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=/g/11t49xscct please undelete it thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesaranekarim (talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This seems sufficiently creative to have a copyright. So we need the permission from the copyright holder for a free license. Yann (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann -- needs a free license from the actual copyright holder via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Photos by City of Detroit

All fit under the following license: {{PDMark-owner}} as they are the work of the City of Detroit and were published by their owner under the proper license for this to apply

105 files

SecretName101 (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Also
SecretName101 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Also
SecretName101 (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Also
SecretName101 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose We accept the PDM only in cases where the Flickr account is owned by the photographer or someone who is clearly the copyright holder. I don't think that applies here -- it's 50/50 whether the City of Detroit actually has a work for hire agreement in places with all of the photographers involved. I also wonder at the numbers -- one or two photos of each event might be in scope, but not ten or twenty. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Stale request, no consensus to undelete. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:AFI AHMED UPC.jpgxample.jpg

File:AFI AHMED UPC.jpg that was genuine photo uploaded by Afi Ahmed, please reupload the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afi Ahmed (talk • contribs) 12:51, 18 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose We do not keep personal images of non-contributors. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. COM:NOTHOST. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


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

Images by Ido Kanter

Please restore

We have permission per Ticket:2023082010001528. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: Please add the license. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:4-methylumbelliferon partly parched.jpg

Despite the original author (Vojtěch Pelikán) replied on the e-mail, there is no update nor undelete.

Despite the original author (David Rouzek) replied on the e-mail, there is no update nor undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milda 444 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose A free license permission needed to be sent to VRT. If you have doubt about processing a VRT ticket, ask at COM:VRTN providing the ticket number. Ankry (talk) 22:03, 20 August 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) 22:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Free Voice of Labor-The Jewish Anarchists poster.jpg

The file comes under fair use, as it is a theatrical poster for a film. --Alastair Alan Percy Warner (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose We don't allow fair use files on Wikimedia Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done as per Abzeronow. Ankry (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Asphidochelone.jpg

Please Do Not Delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Sean Andrae Bueno (talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Not own work, and no evidence of a free license. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:כראמל.jpg

I request temporary undeletion for transferring the file to enwiki and hewiki on Cramel (TV series) and he:כראמל (סדרת טלוויזיה) respectively.

Fair use is allowed on both wikis. --QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 12:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Available at IMdb.com. Thuresson (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@Thuresson: Thank you for helping me find that!
✓ Done and done for uploading non-free versions. (Although unfortunately I uploaded the latter under an incorrect name, but I contacted the embassy about that). QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 15:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


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

Gally.jpg

I took the picture myself and it's me so i don't understand the deletion for copyright violation... File:Gally.jpg Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verogally (talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Verogally: Hello! I don't know about the undeletion request or the context, but please sign your comment next time by adding ~~~~ at the end of your comment. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 12:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose We don't keep personal images, unless you are already contributing to some Wikipedia project(s). Wikimedia is not a social media. Please read COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Total contributions 5 here and 2 on WP:FR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Adv Raj Srivastava.jpg

--Shaileshc956 (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose We don't keep personal images, unless you are already contributing to some Wikipedia project(s). Wikimedia is not a social media. Please read COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Category:Naval_Postgraduate_School_deletion_requests/deleted

The undeletion request here is because in a recent DR, the apparent non-federal status of an author, was apparently over-ruled in favour of a no-notice situation.

Undeletion of items in the category where this situation might also apply is requested. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The specific DR being - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Investigation of the ADA language implementation of the Hellenic command control and information system. (IA investigationofa00kout).pdf
 Comment The 1989 ones in the category are from after March 1989, so no notice is not applicable. The other ones that are dated in the DRs are from after 1989. Abzeronow (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per Abzeronow. Ankry (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:NVIDIA logo.svg

NVIDIA has now freely licensed the logo. Logo: [15] License: [16] The Twitter bird logo was kept in an identical situation. Charcoal feather (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The license cited above is not acceptable to Commons -- it requires that the 2,500 word text of the license be included with every use. While that is fine for a software distribution, it makes print use or using the logo to illustrate a WP article impossible. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

1. That condition is similar to GNU Free Documentation License. Commons:Licensing says that such licenses should indeed generally not be used, but carves out an exception to extracted software logos such as this one.
2. If this is unacceptable, should the Twitter-logo be revisited?
-- Charcoal feather (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment The Thrust repo you linked says that the Apache license only applies to "Thrust's source code". However, the same logo can also be found on the TensorRT repo. The ONNX subdirectory also has the Apache 2.0 text on it. I'm not sure if the Apache license also applies to raster graphics, though... SergioFLS (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support the Apache license is allowed on Commons, if it is not then we need a broader discussion, not an ad hoc decision. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Proper DR is needed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:NVIDIA logo.svg. --Yann (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:PSE 17.svg

File unfairly deleted, claiming that copyright does not exist. However, for simple logos, there is no copyright, plus this is legal in Ecuador, the country where the file comes from. Commons:TOO Andean Community. -- David C. S. 16:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Partido Socialista Ecuatoriano.png. Elements all together seem to push it above the ToO. Abzeronow (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment It is not the same file, it is an updated and simplified version. -- David C. S. 17:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose The "updated and simplified version" may or may not be below the ToO, but it is out of scope because it is not the correct logo of the party. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Miniclip.jpg

I don't understand why it is even marked as a copyright.GreatPersonLikeMe (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the screenshot of a copyrighted website, go figure. Bedivere (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Obvious copyright violation. --Yann (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Anderson headshot 2023.jpg

I would like to request an undeletion of this file. The Deletion request states that “This headshot is from the Ethics and Public Policy Center website. The website has a copyright tag on it. There is no indication that the user who uploaded the image is a representative of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.” I am the Director of Publications at the Ethics and Public Policy Center—I need help understanding exactly what I need to do to provide permission on behalf of our organization to allow this picture to be uploaded; I have tried multiple times now and do not understand what I need to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmccafe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 21 August 2023‎ (UTC)

@Cmccafe: , please contact COM:VRT. They will be able to verify permission. Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 21 August 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) 18:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:MohamedElshahat.jpg

The permission email from the owner was sent 7/21/23. NourhanAbdelfattah (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose @NourhanAbdelfattah: If a valid free license permission has been send to VRT there is no need for any action here until the permission is verified and accepted by a VRT volunteer. Ankry (talk) 15:31, 22 August 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) 13:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:April Kae in Chicago playing at Bass Bash in 2022.jpg

File:April Kae in Chicago playing at Bass Bash in 2022.jpg

Hi there,

I'm requesting un-deletion of the above file. I double checked that the copyright is listed as CC BY-SA so should be shareable for Wikipedia. It was flagged as possible copyright issue but I believe that's an error.

Thanks, --AssistantMim (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment There is EXIF for https://www.flickr.com/photos/198970989@N05/53134173492/ which seems to indicate this was scanned from film. Flickr uploader started account this year and has no followers. Abzeronow (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Converted to DR for further discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:April Kae in Chicago playing at Bass Bash in 2022.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Puyo Puyo logo.png

File was deleted for not having a source.

Assuming the image is exactly the same as w:File:Puyo Puyo logo.png:

  1. The authors seems to be either Sega/Sonic Team, based in Japan
  2. This image seems to fall below COM:TOO Japan. Closest image that I could find with enough similar features that was contested in a DR is File:Naruto logo.svg.

SergioFLS (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Yes, it's the same logo only at a lower resolution. Abzeronow (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose If we decide that this is both in scope and below the Japanese ToO, we should keep the version on WP:EN, which is considerably higher resolution. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Puyo Puyo would definitely be in scope, it's one of Sega's bigger IPs, but yes, I agree, we'd import the Wikipedia version if it were below Japan's ToO. Abzeronow (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Info I imported the logo from the en.WP. --Emha (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: imported logo from en.WP as {{PD-textlogo}}. --Emha (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Tubudd logo.png

I want to undelete this file since I have the license to use this file and this file belongs to me. Please undelete it so I can use this file in my project. Thank you so much --Mikenewyen (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This is probably PD-textlogo, but is it in scope? I see only 8,930 results on Google for Tubudd, so it seems only a confidential project. Yann (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope logo. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


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

1979 stamps of Paraguay

These three files were deleted in 2020 for being non-PD stamps:

However these stamps show PD paintings (see here) and should not have been deleted. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that the works depicted are all PD. However, they all have a Navidad symbol - a shooting star, I think, which is probably above the ToO. However it is very small, so I think we could claim de minimis. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support as per Jim. Yann (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion, these are public domain paintings and the Navidad symbol is de minimis. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

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

1968 stamps of Spain

These two files

were deleted today by @Materialscientist, without prior discussion, as it seems. However last year it was decided to keep them by @Platonides, because these stamps are "clearly based on PD paintings". -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support as this seems to be an ont-of-process deletion. @Materialscientist: can you, please, comment why did you consider the decission is the earlier DR as invalid? Ankry (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose. Stamps based on PD paintings are never simple copies, they are always derivative works that merit additional copyright; they can be kept only if the derivative stamp is out of copyright, which is not the case for a 1968 publication. These two stamps have clear elements of design. Materialscientist (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
They would not "always" merit additional copyright. There are many possibilities (and can vary widely based on country); derivative works are a complex subject such that they are rarely a speedy deletion reason, as criteria F3 says. That criteria is about derivatives of unambiguously non-free works, not where it's derivative of free works, and the derivative part is the only part which may have copyright protection. You may well be right, but these don't sound like a speedy deletion situation, particularly if there was a previous keep in a full discussion. You'd need to bring up arguments which were not presented before, usually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Please create a DR if needed, as per Carl and Ankry. --Yann (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Restauración archivosFile:Teresa Núñez González.jpg File:Nieves Fernández Rodríguez.jpg borrados

Los mencionados archivos fueron marcados como imágenes marcadas para posible borrado por no contener metadatos y generar dudas sobre la propiedad de los derechos de las mismas. Ambas imágenes son un trabajo propio y tengo todos los derechos sobre las mismas. La primera de ellas es una captura de un video y la segunda un recorte de una fotografía de mayor tamaño que contiene otros elementos. En el tratamiento de las imágenes antes de su subida a Wikimedia parece ser que perdieron los metadatos. Para que pudiesen comprobar la veracidad de estos argumentos subí un clip del video de donde se sacó la primera imagen y la imagen original completa de la segunda imagen y dichos archivos se encuentran en Wikimedia para que puedan hacer las comprobaciones que procedan. Taichi (talk) me sugirió que subiera de nuevo las fotos con metadatos, cosa que hice, Pero las imágenes fueron borradas, entiendo que sin hacer nuevas comprobaciones. Puesto en contacto con él, me indica que solicite la restauración de las mismas a través de esta página. Vuelvo a repetir que soy el propietario de los derechos de autor de ambas imágenes. Cualquier cosa o duda, me contacta. Muchas gracias por todo. Wikitiquitoc (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support The two source files are:

I think we can accept that Wikitiquitoc is the creator of both images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Source has been identified for both files that are own works of the uploader. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Dark_Religion.webp

The reason for undeletion is that I can provide sufficient rights and sources for the image now. I was in touch with authors of the book (my image is book cover) and with the chiron publications which created the artwork. First of all the background of the book cover image is from public domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Head_Odysseus_MAR_Sperlonga.jpg Secondly chiron publications granted a licence for distribution of the final cover image, which is a document that I can provide through email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blažek Róbert (talk • contribs) 12:50m 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  • The cover is obviously based on the abovementioned PD photo. While a DW of a PD work is not automatically a PD work, it is disputable whether this DW is creative enough to constitute a new US copyright. It may be below US ToO. I would  Support openning a DR to discuss this. However, a valid copyright status tag is still needed. Ankry (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with Ankry. I didn't know where the photograph on the cover was from when I tagged it as "no license", but it would still need a valid copyright status tag. Abzeronow (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support I see nothing on the cover except the photo that would have a copyright. Since we have a license for that on WP:EN, I think we can safely restore the subject image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. @Blažek Róbert: Please provide a license. Yann (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Peri Minatur.jpg

The photo belongs to Pari Miniatur, a well-known miniature artist of Azerbaijan, although the photo was taken by me, the photo has been deleted. Is it possible to return the image please. Sincerely: --Xayala Mammadli (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support I don't understand why this was deleted. User:Dr.Wiki54 tagged it as {{Nosource}} when it had "source = {{Own}}". Then, Krd deleted it. It seems to be a perfectly straightforward case of own work, properly licensed. What, if anything, am I missing here? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:30, 23 August 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

I really see no reason to keep deleting this file. There is no policy that a small image has to be deleted -- just because it is small-sized -- (unless a larger size has been uploaded with exactly the same motif). Thanks and best greez from Germany, --Mateus2019 (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose While it is certainly true that we keep some small images, they must have an educational purpose. This is so small that all you can read is "Department of State". I don;t see any use for it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - "There is no policy that a small image has to be deleted" is a strawman, and not genuine. This was not deleted because it is small; it was deleted because it was so small as to be devoid of educational utility. That absolutely is policy. If the image were 4x4 pixels, would we be expected to keep the amorphous blob? At some point a subjective determination needs to be made whether resolution is too small to maintain utility. Four users (DR nominator, deleting admin, Jim, and myself) believe that to be the case here. Эlcobbola talk 14:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:The Plantation Agriculture Museum.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is owned by the State of Arkansas, which we are a part of as The Dept of Parks Heritage and Tourism 170.94.168.28 15:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Mr_Broken_Heart_Music_-_Logo.jpg

The file named "Mr Broken Heart Music" has been deleted, I missed to add details in it. I request you to undelete the file so that I can able to add copyright credits details. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quanteri (talk • contribs) 09:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Support PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: It's a clear {{PD-textlogo}} case. --Emha (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Photos-Celebs-attend-the-GQ35-Most-Influential-Young-Indians-909-2.jpg

I wasn't aware of the short discussion that took place at about a template that's mostly used here for Indian celebrities. Although I find this deletion to be hasty without giving much time in scrutinizing the file if it is a copyright violation by Google or TinEye. On the contrary, I'm sure not everyone is aware of the discussion that has took place at Village Pump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejoy2003 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Support License is fine. No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Yann. --Abzeronow (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Official poster of man suang.jpg

hello. the license to the photo was revised to be CC BY SA by the author on flickr. I would like to appeal for the file to be kindly restored.--SilverQuill27 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Flickr account of Silver Quill, bogus license. Please read COM:LL. Yann (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ryoei hattori.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ticket:2023081710004773 is already acceptable for File:Ryoei_hattori.jpg. We are still discussing what to write in the information template, though. Was {{Permission received}} not in place? If so, my apologies. It was my mistake not to add it. whym (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done @Whym:
Gbawden (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I closed the ticket as successful, and I think the file can remain undeleted indefinitely. whym (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: done by Whym per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:NEW BRUNSWICK 1966--- FARM TRUCK LICENSE PLATE and PACKAGING (14689284055).jpg

Deleted 8 years ago, not sure why - I'd like to have it reinstated to use it on w:Vehicle registration plates of New Brunswick. Here's the link to the original image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodysworld1778/14689284055. It has the proper license, it's use is encyclopedically significant to fill in a blank license plate slot, so I'm not too sure why it was deleted in the first place. B3251 (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support It would be in scope. Abzeronow (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@B3251: The reason for deletion is found at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 52#User:Hiku2. In short: The user had been misusing an upload tool by mass uploading thousands of files from flickr without adequate selectivity. You can look at the upload log of the user. The files were simply mass deleted also. Some files may have a potential and it may be ok to request undeletion of some files carefully with an adequate rationale, but not massively, to avoid ending up at the same stake as the original uploader. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense. In this case, I'd like to just have this one reinstated because the image would fill in a blank license plate at w:Vehicle registration plates of New Brunswick. I hope that's reasonable enough to have this one reinstated. I'm not sure if there are any for different years, but I'm just looking for images to add to the New Brunswick license plate article. B3251 (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
It's certainly reasonable when the files have a use in articles. Even if not in use, I suppose images of license plates can be in scope for Commons, if they're adequately selected as part of series and to avoid copyvios etc. Also, I see that another Commons user in 2022 uploaded or reuploaded with different filenames hundreds of those files [17] from the same flickr account. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Conflicto Honduras 1907.png

The author of this image is unknown, so its used free for educational and academic purposes on many universities and highschools, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis Alfredo Romero (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 August 2023‎ (UTC)

@Luis Alfredo Romero: Please do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Procedural close. Please discuss this file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Conflicto Honduras 1907.png. Thuresson (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:E-busse-christophorus.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2023082510002081. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Krd 10:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:DrMohitKhera.jpg

https://www.metadata2go.com/result#j=82bb6596-4207-4c0f-95e1-52220c53944e https://www.drmohitkhera.com/

Grabbed the image from his website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraelot (talk • contribs) 22:54, 24 August 2023‎ (UTC)


 Oppose The site has a clear notice, "© 2023 Dr. Khera ". The terms of service prohibit commercial use..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  •  Oppose We cannot accept files here from sources that don't allow commercial use. As Jim says, there is also a clear copyright notice without any accompanying free license. Abzeronow (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Cooplands Logo.png

This is the updated company logo, the current logo on the wiki is outdated and is using the old branding. Since the EG Group takeover, the company logo has changed to meet the updated and modernised vision of the company- A modern food to go company. The new logo is clearly seen on the Cooplands website with the full logo at the top of the navigation bar and the more condensed logo being used in the footer of the website. This is also the branding that the company uses across all of it's new marketing and packaging. I have worked for the company for three years now and the outdated logo is not aligned to the new vision and values of the company.

--Ghjkloiuyt5678 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment This is a British logo, and the ToO is very low in the UK, the pie theme of it might put it over. Abzeronow (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: copyrighted logo. Please follow the procedure on VRT so the company can give permission to publish the logo with a free license. --Ellywa (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Pay Burman.jpg

saya memiliki hak cipta penuh atas gambar ini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koetailaki (talk • contribs) 02:43, 26 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This is a screenshot from a YouTube video. There is no reason to believe that the requester is in any way related to the YouTube account. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Would need VRT from Youtube account holder. --Abzeronow (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Thumbnail Youtube Musik Video "Tanpa Dirimu" Zealous X Pay Burman.jpg

Ini adalah hasil karya saya sendiri dan tidak melanggar hak cipta.--Koetailaki (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Needs VRT. --Abzeronow (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:"Tanpa Dirimu" Zealous X Pay Burman.jpg

saya memegang penuh hak cipta dari gambar ini, saya sebagai perwakilan dan pembuat dari cover lagu ini.--Koetailaki (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, needs VRT. --Abzeronow (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Bediuzzaman after Russian camp.png

The file is Public domain license — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakikatco (talk • contribs) 04:33, 26 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The Flickr PDM is valid here only when the creator of the image was the Flickr user. That is obviously not the case here. The image may be PD due to its age, but that must be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Jim here. This was a photograph created in 1918, it's too young for us to assume the photographer has been dead for 70 years. We definitely could host it here in 2039, but sooner than that, we'd need some evidence that it is public domain by age. Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: This doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, so Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bediuzzaman after Russian camp.png. --Yann (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


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

/home/isabel/Documents/Art/Ludwig Egidius Ronig/Imker 1949.jpg

I'm the author of the article about Ludwig Ronig and I'm the owner of the picture Imker. I want it to show in the article. Isabel Kestin --I. Kestin (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ludwig Egidius Ronig. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  Oppose The article Ludwig Egidius Ronig shows File:Imker 1949.jpg as deleted. The artist lived 1885-1959. His works will therefore be under copyright in Germany until 1/1/2030 and this 1949 work will be under copyright in the USA until 1/1/2045. The photograph infringes on the copyrights and cannot be kept here without permission from the artist's heir(s). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Owning the painting is not the same as owning the copyright, this painting will have all copyrights expire in 2045 (URAA restored U.S. copyright on this until then). Abzeronow (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Not done, per above. Please do not distribute copies of copyrighted works of art without the consent of the copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


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

HRH John Abejide

REQUEST TO RESORE OR SEND MY CONTENT TO MY EMAIL. I write to request respectfully that my content as written under the User HRH John Abejide should be restored or email to me. It is an important historical document. Thanks

Requests concerns probably these images:

@HRH John Abejide: , the images were deleted because they appeared copyrighted. Please closely follow the procedure described on VRT to show the author of the images gives permission for publication. If succesfull, the images can be undeleted. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

They refer to their deleted user page User:HRH John Abejide. @HRH John Abejide: , please provide an email address. --Achim55 (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your consideration. The email is niconklin.nn@outlook.com or niconklin.nic@gmail.com HRH John Abejide (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Not undeleted but content sent to niconklin.nic. --Achim55 (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Shri Nilkanth Varni moods 02.jpg

Respected sir/ma'am, The file was deleted as I believe it was uploaded by me while my account was not confirmed through my e-mail. The image is not offensive, and is not being used for any other purpose than to provide knowledge to wikipedia users/visitors. However. my account is not registered.

It is my sincere request to undelete the image and allow me to add the image of Tapomurti Shri Nilkanth Vani back to the page I had added it to earlier this year. I'd be immensely thankful. --Sherlockhoelmes (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC) Sincere regards, 'sherlockhoelmes'

Procedural close, double requests. Thuresson (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ajax Crest 1928-1990.png

Not sure why it was deleted exactly, but the copyright starts from 1928 for the image, copyright belongs too the Dutch club AFC Ajax, is it possible to reinstate? Regards. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose 1928 is far too recent to assume that the logo no longer has a copyright. In order to restore it, an authorized official of the copyright owner must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I never said the copyright expired! I said the opposite! And it should have been transferred to wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment IMO original design from 1928 could be undeleted in 2024. Yann (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 Support temporary undeletion for transfer to a wiki that accept Fair Use logos. Ankry (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 Support temporary undeletion so it can be transferred. Abzeronow (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{Temporarily undeleted}}. Yann (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Aaa, didn't know this happened, what do I do now, I've never moved a file from wiki-commons to wikipedia before, is there a process/procedure to following? Govvy (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@Govvy: Please download the image to your local computer and upload it to a relevant other project. Note: The Dutch Wikipedia does not accept fair use, as this is not permitted in the copyright law of the Netherlands, nor in Belgium. Ellywa (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
K, have done that, did try to upload to wikipedia but it said the image name wasn't available due to this one currently holding the same name. Guess it needs deletion first before I can upload what I downloaded. Regards. Govvy (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Deleted again per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Colchester United FC.png

Wasn't transferred to wikipedia, needs to be undeleted and transferred and then deleted after. Can an admin please do that thank you. With "Non-free media information and use rationale" only. Regards. Govvy (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support - it should be in the file extension of .svg in line with other club crests and obviously essential information is also needed as above. Iggy the Swan (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Undeletion for the purpose of transferring the file is not necessary, since the logo is available all over, including here. Thuresson (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Sd-nifl-mens-stacked-master-web.png

Similar to Colchester above, needs to be undeleted and transferred to Wikipedia. The C of E (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: As above, available at https://www.nifootballleague.com/. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Troianotroiani3.jpg

The file was deleted with the rationale F10 (personal photos by non-contributors) that seems quite off as the person depicted in the photo, Troiano Troiani, is a well-known Italian-Argentine sculptor who died in 1963. Notice that I tagged some of the files of the uploader as copyvios, but I used this particular one to illustrate Troiani's Wikidata entry [18] as I didn't see any problem with it because both Italy and Argentina have a short length of copyright protection for photographs (around 25 years). Günther Frager (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd support a DR for this given that it looks like this was published before the 1970s. It is a portrait photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Abzeronow: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Troianotroiani3.jpg. --Yann (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Shri Nilkanth Varni moods 02.jpg

Respected sir/ma'am, The file was deleted as I believe it was uploaded by me while my account was not confirmed through my e-mail. The image is not offensive, and is not being used for any other purpose than to provide knowledge to wikipedia users/visitors. However. my account is not registered.

It is my sincere request to undelete the image and allow me to add the image of Tapomurti Shri Nilkanth Vani back to the page I had added it to earlier this year. I'd be immensely thankful.

--Sherlockhoelmes (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Sincere regards, 'sherlockhoelmes'

 Oppose Source https://www.baps.org/News/2021/Tapomurti-Shri-Nilkanth-Varni-Murti-Sthapan-20225.aspx has a clear copyright notice "© 1999-2023 Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha), Swaminarayan Aksharpith", and the terms and conditions of the site https://www.baps.org/Terms-and-Conditions.aspx don't allow us to host any photographs there without their express permission in writing. Abzeronow (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


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

Requesting to undelete my files.

File:Drill down avail 205 00.png File:Drill down avail 205 05.png File:Drill down avail 205 10.png File:Drill down avail 205 15.png File:Drill down avail 205 25.png File:Drill down avail 205 20.png File:Drill down avail 205 30.png File:Drill down avail 205 40.png File:Drill down avail 205 35.png File:Drill down avail 205 45.png File:Drill down avail 205 50.png File:Drill down avail 205 55.png File:Drill down avail 205 65.png File:Drill down avail 205 60.png File:Drill down avail 205 70.png File:Drill down avail 205 75.png File:Drill down avail 205 85.png File:Drill down avail 205 80.png File:Drill down avail 205 90.png File:Drill down avail 205 95.png File:Drill down avail 205 100.png

They are to use for my purpose only, not understanding why this being deleted day by day. Why this is happening? PLease, let me know. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipeveiga (talk • contribs) 16:38, 27 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Filipeveiga. These are out of scope for Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per DR and Abzeronow. Commons is not your private web host. Commons does not exist to keep images for "[your] purpose only". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request from AlbertHog

File:Main Post Office KR.jpg File:Boat Station KR.jpg File:Union KR.jpg File:Metallurgists Avenue KR.jpg File:Quarter 44 KR.jpg File:City Hall Fountains KR.jpg File:Southern Avenue KR.jpg File:Kalnyshevsky Str Bridge KR.jpg File:Quarter 173 KR.jpg File:City Theater KR.jpg File:Budynok Rad Station Arc KR.jpg File:City Hall Square KR.jpg

An email with permission was sent by the author on Aug22 here: permissions-ru@wikimedia.org. Now it's just Aug27 and today I found out the files had already been deleted. The alert of missing license was put on Aug19, if what. Thank you. AlbertHog (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Tickets are processed by volunteers in their free time. Please use Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard to ask about outstanding tickets. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 27 August 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) 09:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Logo_Colombia_Justa_Libres_CJL.svg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2023082710005968. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted. -- Darwin Ahoy! 09:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Bücherregal und Tauschregal Offenbach Stadtteilbüro Senefelderquartier.jpeg

I took the picture by myself, but I had problems with the licence.

I would like to publish it under the following licence: {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpsoniac (talk • contribs) 11:41, 27 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Support I have undeleted this temporarily for discussion. It is large, but there is no camera EXIF. I am inclined to Assume Good Faith and chalk this up to a new user error. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm thinking similarly. No hits on TinEye and I'm inclined towards thinking it is an own work of a new uploader. Abzeronow (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Official Portrait of King Norodom Sihamoni.jpg

This is the official, used by the government in public display, portrait of HM Norodom Sihamoni, which said portrait also shows up in in several otherfiles here on Wikimedia Commons. TansoShoshen (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment As the deleting administator, I will note that nobody was disputing that this was a government created photograph. However, a photograph is not a law, official document, royal decree, etc. The source had a clear copyright notice. If you have evidence that the Cambodian government has explicitly released the photograph to the public domain, please present it. Abzeronow (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Nino Mancuso.jpg

Salve. Riguardo al file in oggetto, la fotografia Nino Mancuso, il musicista del quale ho creato una voce ancora in bozza su Wikipedia, ritengo che essa sia stata cancellata ingiustamente. Infatti, come ho avuto modo di spiegare nella discussione, il proprietario di essa è Nino Mancuso, non Città Nuova. Nino Mancuso stesso mi ha fornito una delle copie della suddetta foto, che risulta già nella quarta di copertina di una autobiografia dal titolo Una storia in musica già pubblicata nel luglio 2014 presso il centro stampa di Bisacquino. Nel caso in cui fosse necessario, mi impegno ad allegare una dichiarazione di proprietà fornita dallo stesso Nino Mancuso. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Contorno (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose While photographers often license their images to the subject for the subject to use in publicity, it is very rare for photographers to give the subject the right to freely license the image to others. That is so rare that we require proof using VRT.

Also, this image appeared elsewhere with an explicit copyright notice, so policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Players in Ghost Recon- Wildlands.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The deletion is completely baseless. While the software (the game) is paid and copyrighted, taking a screenshot and sharing it doesn't constitute a copyright violation. Accordingly to Wikipedia's own policy, the screenshot is used for identification of the software in question. Moreover, obviously there is no other "free alternative" and the screenshot is stored on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. This is considered fair use. Also, Ubisoft (the developer of the game) is supporting taking and sharing online screenshots of their games. To quote from their own policy: "We are happy to have talented, enthusiastic players who talk about our games, share their experiences and create incredible fan content. We love seeing your contributions out there!". (Source: https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/help/connectivity-and-performance/article/posting-copyrighted-ubisoft-material/000062649). 2A02:2F0F:8002:A600:B5D1:C48D:889C:C295 02:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Also I am the creator of the screenshot. Alex Costache (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose This is Wikimedia Commons, not English Wikipedia. Commons, unlike enwiki, doesn't accept fair use, and your screenshot is a derivative work of copyrighted software. We cannot host it here. Abzeronow (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Map of Britannia Village, original, purchased NAPL, clipped, 1968, spots removed, labelled, aspect ratio, final.jpg

This file was automatically deleted (CommonsDelinker) from the article at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Britannia_Village,_Ottawa

During the last few days, I have been corresponding with Mr. Alfred Neumann about the permission for this photograph. He is still in the process of reviewing the permission letter which is from the National Air Photo Library.

Bob Reichert, August 28, 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Neustadter (talk • contribs) 15:07, 28 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This appears to be a matter for VRT review. Please have a look at the instructions at Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done It is customary to extend the grace period on {{Permission received}} so long as the customer is actively engaging; our lack of response should not result in an image being deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Saurabh-bike.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Earlier, the image was deleted from Commons because of CSD F10, which states that personal photos by non-contributors should be deleted. As I am a global contributor across multiple Wikipedias with more than 7000+ total edits, the image should be undeleted. Saurabhsaha (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose This is only a blurry blob and OP already has a different photo to use for presentation, File:Saurabh Saha.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Although the image is currently blurry, it's worth weighing its context and potential advantages. Abstract images can creatively provoke thought and highlight concepts. If the blurry image connects with the presentation's theme, it might serve as a potent visual tool.
Why I can't use my own image which neither fall in any copyright violation? Saurabhsaha (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Aside from the scope question, on which I agree with Thuresson, it was taken from Instagram, where it no longer appears. There was no license review, so we have no information about its copyright status. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  •  Comment In my opinion, our allowance for personal images is not subject to our usual quality standards; as long as a prolific user wants to use an image on their user page, that is sufficient. @Saurabhsaha: A question on the authorship though. Are you the photographer, the person riding the bike, or neither? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
KoH. Good point, I agree, but there's still the copyright issue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. Uncertain copyright. --Yann (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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

File:이 연애는 불가항력 메인포스터.jpg

이 연애는 불가항력 메인포스터 삭제 취소 요청을 드립니다, 2023년 8월 23일부터 방영중인 수목드라마 이 연애는 불가항력 메인포스터가 인터넷 상에 올라와 있지 않아 포스터를 올렸습니다. 솔직히 저는 드라마 팬의 한 사람으로서 제작사나 방송국 직원은 아닙니다. 하지만 영리를 취한 목적으로 포스터를 올리는 것이 아닙니다. 이 드라마에 대한 정보를 찾기 위해 찾아온 사람들에게 조금이나마 도움이 되고 싶어 올렸을 뿐입니다. 이 점을 감안해주시고 삭제 취소를 요청을 드립니다. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 유블리 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose We don't allow fair use on Wikimedia Commons and this is a copyrighted poster. Abzeronow (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Natalia Bayona.jpg

Image of Natalia Bayona (By Leslie Graham)— Preceding unsigned comment added by MRuRa (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Comment "-they use it for media purposes from WWW.unwto.org". That's not a free license. Please also note the Copyright page https://www.unwto.org/copyright "The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) maintains this web site (the "Site") as a courtesy to those who may choose to access the Site ("Users"). The information presented herein is for informative purposes only. The World Tourism Organization grants permission to Users to visit the Site and to download and copy the information, documents and materials (collectively, "Materials") from the Site for the User's personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute them or to compile or create derivative works there from, subject to the terms and conditions outlined below, and also subject to more specific restrictions that may apply to specific Materials within this Site." Again, not a free license. Abzeronow (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:The Telescopes - Experimental Health Album Cover.jpg

Please undelete the file as permission has been granted to upload it. CyllanWednesday (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) 29th August 2023.

 Comment A member of VRT would come here to request undeletion if permission had been approved. Abzeronow (talk) 16:13, 29 August 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) 13:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Danielle Rose Russell.jpg

The image has been uploaded in the internet various times, especially on TikTok. The file is not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafalafafa (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, it is under a copyright. We need a free license. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done No valid reason given. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Rep._Jules_Walters_Official_ Portrait.jpg

I don’t understand why this picture was deleted when pictures like this https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luz_Rivas_State_Assembly.jpg are not taken down.

--KingTheD (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It's simple, California releases government works to the public domain, and Oregon doesn't. Abzeronow (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done not an undeletion request; out of scope of this page. Ankry (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:logoAPRIscarno.png

This image is property of the A.P.R.I. association. I am an affiliate. I do not understand neither which copyright I must insert, nor where I must insert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavio Sartoretto (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 August 2023‎ (UTC)

You need to have whomever is responsible for handling copyright matters at the association contact COM:VRT to confirm permission for a free license. The logo looks to be above the Threshold of Originality (COM:TOO) Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 29 August 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) 13:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Michał Grodzki.jpg

please restore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.190.141 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 August 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Copied from the Internet. No reason to restore. Yann (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Božo Janković.jpg

I have scanned this photo in myself, it is not from a trading card— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c7:ac30:3701:5407:b03:771b:ebbc (talk • contribs) 12:46, 30. Aug. 2023 (UTC)

 Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Božo Janković.jpg. The file may be the uploader's own scan, but I don't think it's also their own photograph. --Rosenzweig τ 11:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This is obviously scanned from the trading card -- the halftone pattern is visible in the green background. Scanning a copyrighted work does not make it yours. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-08&oldid=797209020"