Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2023-12

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.

Files uploaded by Cdfcamions

Les photos publiés sont de nos photographes et sont bien publiés sur notre site internet.

Nous vous demandons de débloquer et publier les photos ci-dessous:


Merci — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdfcamions (talk • contribs) 10:00, 28 November 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the images you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Your claim above makes it clear that was not true. Making false claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. It also makes it difficult to believe anything you say.

These images appear in many places on the Web, some with explicit copyright notices. In order for them to be restored, the actual photographers must send free license using VRT or you must send free licenses together with copies of the written licenses from the various photographers which allow you to freely license the images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. COM:VRT permission is required. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


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

File:No russian.png

No I did not get the original photo from there, no it should not be deleted under the pretext of "copyright" as I have transformed the work myself, which is originally from a fucking video game. Are screenshots from a video game subject to copyright when transformed and used for non commercial purposes? If yes then why can someone on youtube make MONEY by recording FOOTAGE of them playing A DAMN VIDEO GAME??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrusaderChan (talk • contribs) 12:02, 28 November 2023‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose CrusaderChan, one more uncivil word out of you and you will be blocked from editing here. We are all volunteers and we don't have to tolerate your behavior.
This is Commons, not Wikipedia. The nature of this site -- a repository of free images -- does not allow fair use. Commons images must be free for any use by anybody anywhere, not just uses the can pass the fair use test. Wikipedia does allow fair use, but it must be justified for the particular page on which the image is used.
The image you transformed has two copyrights -- one for the original image and one for your changes. You can license only the second copyright, not the first. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. We do not allow fair use at Wikimedia Commons. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Dhiru A. Thadani.jpg

The author has given me permission to use the file in a mail.

https://dthadani.com/hh/ --Hondapolo (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at

https://www.jackgardnerphotography.com/portraits/bocdsyt5phdqugb4dsqxyhuy8a1tj7
with "All Images Copyrighted by Jack Gardner Photography"

Policy requires that Jack Gardner must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Yaroslav-kush-dE6ahChVi2g-unsplash.jpg

Hello! Relatively recently, my photo was removed from the page about the Ruģeli microdistrict (the name is indicated in the title) due to the fact that your employees found the same one on Unsplash.com. I am the author of this photo, so I provide you with a link to the original and to a screenshot with a folder with other photos from the same photo shoot. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dPlCuIw2mGaGB9sIRZ507l0b5Tlsl3oi/view?usp=drive_link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZkRBM75GiKMXWvewwNLEcgLrOIqLTy2Q/view?usp=drive_link

--Jaroslav KUSH (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: There is little doubt that the Unsplash and Commons users are the same. --Yann (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Muliaage Front view.jpeg

Falls under PD-USGov-CIA. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 18:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The fact that it came from a CIA web site does not necessarily make it a free image. The source page

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/photo_gallery/mv/images/MV_007.JPG

comes up as a 404 error, so we can't do {{License review}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The photo can be found at https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/maldives/images/ (direct link https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/static/30475b97fc87cd6b2708f15f494ff5f4/MV_007_large.JPG). Licensing at the bottom of the first page states "Factbook images and photos — obtained from a variety of sources — are in the public domain and are copyright free." Licensing info in full can be found at https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/copyright-and-contributors/. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 19:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support Right you are, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: The factbook is in PD, see https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/copyright-and-contributors/. --Ellywa (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Ariel Schnabel.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ariel Schnabel, the person assumably in the image, is an active journalist covered by an hewiki article and by Category:Ariel Schnabel and therefore in the scope of the project (the reason the image was previously deleted was "Out of scope - unused personal image"). DGtal (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay with me. Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ariel Schnabel.jpg. Appears to be a selfie. No copyright issue. Ellywa (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Sombattour (Wiangping).jpg

--Khxwklong (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

My Image I Capture In My Phone Camera I didn't Copyright Anything Khxwklong (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 Support HR with EXIF data. I don't see any reason to doubt own work. Yann (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate of File:Sombattour Best Friend Companion (Wiangping Bus) 18-32.jpg. --Yann (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Laurent Lairy.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2023120110007943. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs (xkcd).png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is available under a free license, see here * Pppery * it has begun... 16:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per nomination. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Association of Football Federations of Azerbaijan - Logo 2010.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I take this file froo the official Facebook page of AFFA, where there's no indication or evidence about any terms like "all rights reserved"; also, the file isn't a particular work - consist in a simple text and shapes -, not sufficiently "original" to infringe COM:TOO imho — danyele 17:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We need an explicit free license and the Facebook source doesn't provide us with that. I don't see any guidance on the ToO in Azerbaijan but for countries like the UK which have low ToO that would definitely be above it. Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I don't know how low or high is COM:TOO in Azerbaijan, but it is not a simple shape. It has a ball on fire that in turns resembles the Azerbaijani flag. The logo is also on enwiki under fair-use, so would need to transfer that file instead of restoring this one. Günther Frager (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hal Pearl Publicity Photo.jpg

These were deleted before a reverse image search could be done to determine dates and provenance, and before the registration/renewal databases could be checked. No debate, delete same day as listing. --RAN (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment They were listed on 13 November, but the deletion log says that they were deleted on 23 November. I don't think that the above description of the deletion as being the same day as listing is correct; unless I'm missing something, these were deleted ten days post-nomination. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose "In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days." at Commons:Deletion requests. Thuresson (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
That is awesome, but let them close the ones that have been in queue for six months first. It is the difference between "can" and "should". --RAN (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@GTCC8 and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): The files are temporarily undeleted. Seeing the resolution, they don't seem to be copied from the Net, but rather scanned by the uploader. Yann (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Hossein Vafaei firt title (cropped).jpg and File:Hossein Vafaei firt title (cropped 2).jpg

I created both of these files using the crop tool from File:Hossein_Vafaei_firt_title.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmethystZhou (talk • contribs) 10:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose That file has no EXIF data and a resolution of only 1000 x 669. There are several copies on the Net, notably [1] and [2]. A permission from the copyright holder is needed. @Parsalipour: Original uploader. Yann (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann, VRT needed. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Vijay Dewan.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image of Mr. Vijay Dewan is already available on the Internet as he has been mentioned in several online news portals. So, I have used that photo, and I didn't claim the copyright or ownership of that image. If I have mistakenly done anything wrong when uploading, then kindly guide me to use the correct attributes or tags or process to make corrections. It's a request not to delete several times. Subhamsr24 (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please read Commons:First steps before uploading any more photos. Thuresson (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No evidence of a free license. --Yann (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Spoštuješ vrednote slovenskega narodnoosvobodilnega boja?.jpg

I am the copyright holder for this image--Mladi za vrednote NOB (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Mladi za vrednote NOB

 Oppose For posters, and any content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. I also wonder about the scope of this. Yann (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


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

Depeche Mode singles covers

Please undelete these files:

These non-free covers can be used under fair use. Michalg95 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair use is not allowable on commons. If you are editing an article on a specific wikipedia site that does permit fair-use, you can upload them there subject to their fair-use policy. DMacks (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per DMacks; Commons does not accept files uploaded under claims of fair use.. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request: File:Venus-sex-shop-logo-1623882689.jpg

This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footless5138 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 December 2023‎ (UTC)

@Footless5138: And why is this logo in scope of Wikimedia Commons? Is there an accepted Wikipedia article where this logo is intended to be used? Ankry (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope. --Yann (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Поглед кон Баба Планина од Ластојчин Камен.png

i took the photo, ik back when a lot of my images were tagged for deletion it might've been valid, but some like this were still deleted (care to restore this image? thanks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Big ooga booga mf (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment This appears to be an own work to me. Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@Big ooga booga mf: Can you upload the original, non-PNG version with camera metadata? Ankry (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
here's my upload thing with the metadata (sorry about the f***'d up metadata, i have NO clue how it works whatsoever, might've figured it out do a degree):
File:Поглед кон Баба Планина од Ластојчин Камен.jpg
.
also haven't been here for so long, forgot I had to do the "Big ooga booga mf (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)" Big ooga booga mf (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. Reuploaded as JPEG, which is better for pictures anyway. --Yann (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Armand Rajabpour-Miyandoab.png

This speedy deletion was made on the grounds that "Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1)".

  • this was not the rationale for my upload, of course it is not own work, it was under {{PD-ID-France}}
  • this Le Parisien article and context suggests this is an ID photo dating from his 2018 conviction for terrorism, hence making this rationale valid under {{PD-ID-France}} and TOO:France

may this be reconsidered? ty --NAADAAN (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Support as per request. Yann (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 Question As it is published post-1989, then what about US copyright (US copyright law should be applied here directly per Berne). Ankry (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The fact this work was made for documentarian purposes rather than with artistic intent is enough to make it completely void of copyright protection under French law per legal prescedent. Imo this is still PD in the USA; as the composition, exposure, and format of ID pictures in France are strictly defined by a government decree, (same with police mugshots in France which must follow a standard "Bertillon" photo format). This fits under U.S. law not only "mechanical or routine" (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.) but lacking the originality factor required per U.S. Copyright Office Compendium (308.2) to warrant copyright protection in the United States. NAADAAN (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Benoît Prieur. --Yann (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Artwork by Marcelo Pombo

Please restore

We have permission per Ticket:2023120310005807. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Sia 2023 Pinkdress.png

I really can't understand why you delete my file, i wrote down the copyright correctly but why wikipedia always delete it? I'm so angry at this. Please undelete this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arismauve (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Not done: per Эlcobbola. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik.png

I would like to request for an Undeletion of the file File:Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik.png on commons. It had been recently uploaded by me on commons and deleted due to it having "copyright violations". I had gotten this picture from wikipedia it self on the Egyptian/مصري translation, and I took the picture and made it into a new file as the one on the egyptian translation was not accepted into pages of other languages. So as far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no violation of copyright on this picture, and It was purely from my own work and not collected from a website that would cause a copyright violation. Please revise your decision.

WalkingPie7 --WalkingPie7 (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The copyright violations are a) that your are distributing copies without permission from the copyright owner and b) you claim to be the copyright owner when you are not and c) you inform others that the photo is freely licensed under a Creative Commons license. Thuresson (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  Oppose Your claim that this is "purely from my own work" -- that is, that you were the actual photographer -- appears to be false, as the image appears in several places on the web with copyright notices. Making false claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. I also note that you have uploaded the image several times after it was deleted. This is also a violation of Commons rules. Both of these violations can lead to your being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson and Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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

world's smallest church on route 66

My son and I own this building and there are approximately 100 to 200 people visit this site every day. Please help me get this posted as this is also a memorial for all veterans as well as my husband who was a world war II veteran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tess kenna (talk • contribs) 04:05, December 5, 2023‎ (UTC)

It appears this is about Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Worlds smallest church on Route 66.pdf . PDF files are often not in scope on Wikimedia Commons, as we are a media repository and pure text normally does not go here, unless it's a source document for Wikisource. Furthermore, contained photographs would need a very liberal copyright license from each photographer. I can't see it, but the deletion reason seemed to include both of those two points. I think we do have a couple of photos already here, at Category:Tiny Church of the Mother Road. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Carl above. --Yann (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Comparison of the Runge-Kutta methods for the differential equation (red is the exact solution).svg

Hello, I didn't assign an appropriate license to the file that I've recently uploaded: File:Comparison of the Runge-Kutta methods for the differential equation (red is the exact solution).svg Could you please undelete it that I assign an appropriate license CC BY SA 3.0. The initial version of this file (in German) was under this license, I've simply translated it in English to update the figure on [[3]] page. See discussion on [[4]] Kind regards, Profywld

 Support per request. --Achim55 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Krd. --Yann (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Col Arif Mehmood Shaheed.jpg

File:Col Arif Mehmood Shaheed.jpg Undelete thi media, we have to use in an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.123.86.195 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Yann (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. "We have to use in an article" is not a alid reason for infringing on a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:30 STM - Love Lust Faith + Dreams.jpeg

Reason: Below COM:TOO US: just a grid of dots with text in boxes. Cc. @Taivo, George Ho, and Blackcat. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I disagree. The arrangement of dots shows clear artistic sense. If Mondrian and Pollock works can have copyrights (which they do), this probably does. Three users, including two Admins, agreed with me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I don't know how high is the threshold of originality in the USA. Here in Italy would be rather weak, a work must be very original to be protected as 'original', but I suppose that the USA have a lower threshold. Thus I trust Jim, who for sure knows the American laws and customs better than me. -- Blackcat 23:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know of much record of the copyrightability of Mondrian's works, and Pollock is much more complex. The US Copyright Office hates discussion of "artistic sense", sticking with originality. They usually dodge issues of colorization, but similar to the colorization of movies, which they permitted copyrighting, I think the complexity of the colorization would be enough to permit its copyright registration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 Weak support The dots composition is clearly geometric and in my opinion it cannot be copyrighted in US. Assuming, it was initially published in US (or simultanoeusly in US and elsewhere) we can keep the image. Virgin Music is UK based, unsure about simultaneous publication (in 30 days period as Berne requires), so the support is weak. Ankry (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

"Artistic sense" is not what copyright is based on, at least in the US. Works that are simple but aesthetically pleasing don't get a copyright, even if innovative, and ugly more complex works do. As the Compendium used to give the example that a child's scribble usually has a copyright -- it's the placement of the various items that can get a "selection and arrangement" copyright. Pollack would not have a copyright on the particular shape of any one dot of his (it's whatever nature did with the drop of paint; the exact delineations were not by human hand). But, his selection and arrangement certainly would be copyrightable. The grid itself is not a copyrightable arrangement. The multitude of colors might be for that specific arrangement, plus the juxtaposition with some text may add a bit more even though neither phrase would be copyrightable on its own. The more elements you select and arrange, the more likely a copyright is. If it is copyrightable, someone else can make a grid of colored circles with the colors in a different order, which may give the same visual impression, but would not be a derivative work.
The Compendium isn't too clear where the dividing line on something like this would be -- I would say without the colors, it's not copyrightable. With that many color choices in that exact pattern, maybe it is. Colorizing a motion picture definitely is copyrightable, and making many colorization choices on a black and white photo, would probably be. Just a handful, probably not. The
Merely adding or changing one or relatively few colors in a work, or combining expected or familiar pairs or sets of colors is not copyrightable, regardless of whether the changes are made by hand, computer, or some other process. This is the case even if the coloration makes a work more aesthetically pleasing or commercially valuable. For example, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a visual art work if the author merely added relatively few colors to a preexisting design or simply created multiple colorized versions of the same basic design [...] Likewise, the Office generally will not register a visual art work if the author merely applied colors to aid in the visual display of a graph, chart, table, device, or other article.
The question comes down to if that many color choices, plus the specific placement of those colors, is enough. It's in the area which makes me nervous. It's not an exact similarity, because it involves unusual placement (though many fewer colors), but there was this appeals decision which did grant a copyright registration. They note that Thus, the Office would register, for example, a wrapping paper design that consists of circles, triangles, and stars arranged in an unusual pattern with each element portrayed in a different color, but it would not register a picture consisting merely of a purple background and evenly spaced white circles. That makes pretty clear the pattern here is not copyrightable, so would depend on if there were enough color choice and placement of them to qualify (whether the result shows graphic sense or not) -- that example is far fewer color choices than this one. There seems to be, maybe 15-25 distinct colors in there? And no repeating pattern that I see, so the whole grid would be the "work". Someone could change the positioning of all those colors and likely not be derivative. By itself though, is in the area which makes me nervous, and have a hard time predicting. The Copyright Office does tend to not want to grant copyright on pure color matters, though courts are probably more uneven. It would take a fair number, but this might get there. I guess I'm on the  Weak oppose side, particularly if this is possibly a UK work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim and Carl. Would definitely be above the ToO in the UK, and possibly creative enough in the US to get a copyright. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Interspecies Design.webp

Please restore this file and the links. I am the copyright holder and the file is in the public domain anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svea Kollavainen (talk • contribs) 05:02, 4 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Info Uploader credited this to "Deep Design Lab". Thuresson (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose https://wiki.deepdesignlab.online/ shows Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC). We do not accept NC licenses. I also wonder if this is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: We cannot accept noncommerical licenses here. COM:L. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what I need to do instead or persistently deleting content? This is my image and I am happy for it to be in open use. It does not need an NC license and the image metadataon my second try said "public domain". What does "in scope" mean? What license do you want me to add and where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svea Kollavainen (talk • contribs) 06:15, December 6, 2023‎ (UTC)
If you are the copyright holder of the image, you can either contact COM:VRT to confirm permission for a free license or you could change the license at the Deep Design Lab page. Scope refers to COM:Scope, which basically says that a file needs to have educational use for us to host it at Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Ĉu bicikli - jes nature.jpg

Requesting undeletion. The file was deleted with no discussion and invalid justification "Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing". The file does NOT meet the threshold of originality. If this image cannot exist, then trillions of other images must be deleted, for example File:FC Bayern München logo (2017).svg. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose This is much more complex than the FC Bayern München logo. We need a permission from the copyright holder. And we can't delete "trillions" of images, we only have 100 millions of them ;o). Yann (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
How strange. See also File:Logo des VfR Wormatia 08 Worms e.V.svg. Do you still claim that "Ĉu bicikli" is much more complex than "Wormatia 08 Worms"? Taylor 49 (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
No, but that file has the same issue. I nominated it for deletion. Yann (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosiero:%C4%88u_bicikli_-_jes_nature.jpg is the image here, I believe. That bicycle is marginally too complex, in my opinion, and FC Bayern München arguably slightly below. Wormatia 08 Worms seems clearly too complex. Trying to take random images as guidelines is rarely helpful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

--MinaAzadi0078 (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC) فایل در ویکی خارجی با ذکر منبع همانند من منتشر شده است و مکشلی نداشته است؟

@MinaAzadi0078:  Oppose You didn't provide a file name, and all you uploads were copyright violations. Please read COM:L. Do not upload any more such files, or you might be blocked. Yann (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Keith Lawrence climbing from Spitfire in 1940.jpg

Because this photo belongs to Geoffhl, and he uploaded it, it is not the property of the Government, but instead Keith Lawrence's family's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.59.120 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Lawrence was not the photographer, he is the subject of the photograph and copyright vests with the photographer. If it was taken by a member of the RAF in the course of their duties, it would be a government photograph (and therefore public domain now). Physically possessing a photograph doesn't mean you own the copyright to a photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Gershwin - Rhapsody in Blue (1924).ogg

Please undelete following pages:

File:Gershwin - Rhapsody in Blue (1924).ogg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

File:George Gershwin playing Rhapsody in Blue.ogg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: This composition and sound recordings are from 1924. Thus they are in the public domain, so files should be undeleted. Michalg95 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose. As their respective DRs state: sound recordings published between 1923 and 1946 are protected for 100 years. You can also check COM:HIRTLE. Günther Frager (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose per Gunther. The 1924 sound recordings don't become public domain until January 1, 2025 per the Music Modernization Act. Abzeronow (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Cristian Faro.jpg

Cristian Faro sent me this picture, there isn't copyright problems. thank you, regards, Antonio Balzano --Jack.Parser (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cristian Faro.jpg. Photo taken from Instagram, so only solution is a COM:VRT ticket with authorization from photographer (not the person being photographed). Günther Frager (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:23.10.12_다인님-036_1.jpg

http://www.sisaweek.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=209784

It's a picture of a Korean actor that's already been released, and it's from BIFOM Studio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamg4495 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 7 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose That a picture is available on the Internet doesn't mean it has a free license. The footer clearly indicates: "Copyright © 2023 시사위크. All rights reserved.". Günther Frager (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:قايد محمد حبيب.jpg

--Hindblgrn (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. You can comment in the DR. --Yann (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Celia Cruz 1971.jpg

Image was speedy deleted for Source is reddit, and the image there has a watermark from an archive website. Said archive site is from a Peruvian site known as "Arkiv Peru" and the same watermark appears in 1 and 2. Image is PD in Peru according to {{PD-Peru-photo}}. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

So when was the first copy disclosed to the public? Which is the publication history? Thuresson (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@Thuresson: The Reddit post dates the image as 1971 with the actual image on the original site likely deleted or lost as a reverse image search only brings up the former. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The Reddit post likely dates the photo, not its publication. This seems to be a scanned photo printm not a halftone from a newspaper or a magazine. And the Reddit post itself (from 2021) is far too recent to apply {{PD-Peru-photo}} (if considering the post as the initial photo publication). Ankry (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@Ankry: We're applying the original photo publication as usually many older images in Peru are usually derived from a magazine or photo archive released around the same time. Given that the original date of publication and source is known, I really don't see why the template can't be applied. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@SuperSkaterDude45: The date Thuresson asks about is crucial for applying {{PD-Peru-photo}}. Ankry (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done, relevant information not forthcoming. Thuresson (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden.ogg

This work is public domain in Germany (in the rest of European Union), with no authorship per {{PD-anon-70-EU}}, also public domain in the US per {{PD-US-alien property}}. --49.150.12.134 23:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above, but there is a problem: "None of the codecs used in this file are recognized." So this should be reuploaded, but I can't find it at the source. --Yann (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Zooxantela.jpg

The author has published the work under a cc by 4.0 license at source. --0x0a (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 Support undel per https://www.oist.jp/ja/news-center/photos/11325. --Achim55 (talk) 07:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Zarif March 2 2007.png

The file is in public domain as the copyright for the org that published it was only between 2011-2016.

https://www.us-iran.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by IranianDiaspora (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright lasts for a longer time than a decade, and sometimes outlasts the companies that created them. Also when you uploaded it, you claimed it as an "own work" which obviously wasn't true. Abzeronow (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:006+Iran-US+Relations+Iranian+Parliament+r113.jpg

The file is in public domain and not protected by copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IranianDiaspora (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose No evidence presented that this is public domain in either Iran or the United States. Was claimed as an own work on upload, is a very low resolution photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Senator Joe Biden AIC 2002.png

The file is in public domain and not protected by copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by IranianDiaspora (talk • contribs) 19:37, 8 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose, No evidence presented that this 2002 photograph was a U.S. government photograph. Biden is pictured behind a microphone at an event by some organization and is presumably a speaker there. Uploader claimed it as an own work on upload. Abzeronow (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Alex Cooper portrait by Vijat Mohindra.jpg

This photo was given full release for use as long as it is credited. Please provide detail as to why this was taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadmeliora (talk • contribs) 08:35, 9 December 2023‎ (UTC)

Not done, OP has not provided any evidence of a free license. Thuresson (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:La dama del abanico (1916-1918).jpg

Creator (Spanish painter María Blanchard (Q443779)) died in 1932. The work may have been painted in France, though. Anyway, it would satify both French and Spanish legislation (70 p.m.a. & 80 p.m.a). Since it is a 1910s-painting, it's most likely in the public domain in the United States too. Wikimedia Commons already have a photograph of this painting: File:Woman with a Fan, by Maria Blanchard, 1916, oil on canvas - Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía - Madrid, Spain - DSC08510.JPG (different tone & reflections). Strakhov (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

 Support Clearly it is PD in Europa, and the Reina Sofia Museum [7] states it as created in 1916, making it also PD in the US. Günther Frager (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Gunther. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


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

The drawn rectangles prove that A.Savin has parallelized the verticals of his photo, artificially.

This image is an adaption of A.Savin's File:Storkow (Mark) asv2022-08 img10 Stadtkirche.jpg, which is a revised image itself.

Due to the rules of geometry, in an unrevised photo, no matter if taken by wide-angle lens or not, a presented distance (within an object) of equal extent, seen from a farer distance (eye to object), has to look smaller. Therefore, parallel lines have to appear convergent.

Drawing rectangles on the tower shows that its vertical lines (that unrevisedly should appear convergent) have been parallelized, artificially.

My adaption has tried to restore the unrevised state of Savin's image. I have not overwritten A.Savin's photo, but uploaded my adaption as a separate file – which has been deleted on A.Savin's request.

My adaption is not forbidden. Therefore, the deletion of the adaption was illegal.--Ulamm (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  •  Oppose undeletion -- clearly out of scope. In original image, there never was any perspective correction, that means the perspective distortion of the "new version" is purely artificial and does not depict the real view of this church. --A.Savin 12:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't have any opinion on the merits of the file in question (having never seen it), but I am quite concerned by the deletion process here. Ulamm uploaded a derivative of a work by A.Savin. A.Savin then speedily deleted the new file with the comment "Exact or scaled-down duplicate (F8): File:Storkow (Mark) asv2022-08 img10 Stadtkirche.jpg". This seems like both a misuse of speedy deletion and a conflict on interest on A.Savin's part. At the very least the deletion should be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator to confirm that it was appropriate and the deletion comment updated accordingly. --bjh21 (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope is out of scope. It can be speedily deleted, it can still be discussed on UDR. --A.Savin 12:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done For regular RfD. --A.Savin 12:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Yamada_Marina.jpg

In order to provide the image of Crocodile's artist (Yamada Marina) photo on Wikipedia to Wikipedia, I was asked by https://www.crocodile-ltd.com/news/post-2806 to upload the image on their behalf with permission under CC BY-SA 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueskyjet (talk • contribs) 02:52, 8 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Note that while Crocodile may have a license to use the image in their publicity, it would be very unusual for a photographer to give them a license which allowed them to freely license the work.

In order for the image to be restored, either the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or Crocodile must send a free license together with a copy of a written agreement from the actual photographer giving them permission to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


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

Ordet 2

[8]

In my danish computer this picture is listed under "free for share and use" ("gratis til deling og brug"):

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=%22carl+th.+dreyer%22+ordet&qft=+filterui:license-L2_L3_L4_L5_L6_L7&form=IRFLTR&first=1

Alexandramander (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Sincerely Alexandramander

 Info Probably about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carl Th. Dreyers film "Ordet". Slutscenen.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose No reason provided. The author died in 1968, and the picture is from 1955. Why this would be OK for Commons? Yann (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Panoramio upload bot

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Files were deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/Random streets by Panoramio Bot. However, I contest the deletion because of the following reasons:

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by User:Eyes Roger

Bugdroid is available under a Creative Commons license. [9], File:Android robot.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly The Angel (talk • contribs) 09:33, 9 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Support As noted at File:Android robot.svg, the web site: https://developer.android.com/distribute/marketing-tools/brand-guidelines has," The green Android robot can be reproduced and/or modified as long as the following Creative Commons attribution line is included in the creative: "The Android robot is reproduced or modified from work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License."" .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request and discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:První dáma českého jazzu.jpg

Author's permission delivered to the VRT system: Ticket#2023120910003638

also: File:První dáma jazzu.jpg, --Gampe (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Gampe: , FYI. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:IRENAIJA.jpg

File:IRENAIJA.jpg--Irenaija (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose We do not keep personal photos of non-notable people -- Commons is not Facebook. See COM:Scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Storkow (Mark) Stadtkirche asv2022-08 img10.jpg

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Ed Bowes 1979 by Beth Cannon.jpg

Hello and thank you! Regarding the fiel: Ed_Bowes_1979_by_Beth_Cannon.jpg

I have permission from Elizabeth Cannon, the author of the photo, to reproduce it on Wikipedia and release copyright. I can ask her to send an email authorizing its use according to the instructions on the Wikimedia VRTS release generator, but I need to attach a URL in order to do so. Since the file was deleted, I can't give the URL. Can you help me?

I don't want to make another mistake!

Thank you.--CoryHReynolds (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @CoryHReynolds. You don't need to fill in the URL as VRT release generator automatically generates it for you. For convenience, I have generated the Email template for you. 0x0a (talk) 07:42, 11 December 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) 14:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Statue of Muqali in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.jpg

Request temporary undeletion to transfer to en.wp under Fair Use. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Temporarily undeleted. Abzeronow (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: Did you delete the file again because it has been transferred? Can this request be closed? Thuresson (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Materialscientist and Abzeronow: sorry I forgot to transfer the file; could you or someone else undelete it again? Sorry! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll try again tomorrow, and when I do so, I'll ping you this time so hopefully it gets done. Abzeronow (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: , please transfer it to enwiki. Ping me when the transfer is done. Abzeronow (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Done. Thanks Abzeronow. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: File transfered. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Wireless power e-textile coil.jpg

This is an original photograph uploaded by the copyright owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:40:70e0::a9ca (talk • contribs) 18:20, 11 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This is clearly from https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_968570_en.html. Since this was previously published before Commons upload, we'd need VRT permission. Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Kinjin Logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Written permission from the copyright holding association has been given through the VRT release generator. However, the file still got deleted. Could the logo be restored? Micker003 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose As you have been informed already, "(It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)". Thuresson (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Wiederherstellungsantrag für File:Mayurasana Variation, Heinz Grill 1992.jpg

Hallo, ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung für File:Mayurasana Variation, Heinz Grill 1992.jpg. Der Fotograf heißt Martin Sinzinger, info@martin-sinzinger.de, und ist mit der Veröffentlichung des Scans des Fotos unter der von mir gewählten Lizenz einverstanden. Gruß --Robert Lindermayr (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the image, you said that the photographer was Heinz Grill. Now you say it was Martin Sinzinger. In any case, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not true: when i uploaded the image, I said that I have the authorisation of the author Heinz Grill for a scan from a yoga book that is no longer in print. How should I have said that the person performing the asana is also the photographer? That's not possible and I didn't say that. I wrote a mail to the photographer M. Sinzinger and asked him to send his consent to the licence Robert Lindermayr (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The file description clearly shows:

|author=Heinz Grill

In a Commons file description of a photograph, the person named as "author" is the photographer. However that is not important, as I said, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood "author". If author = photographer, then the information was wrong. I interpreted author = book author of the no longer published work. Robert Lindermayr (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, we use "author" to mean the creator of the media in question, so in this case, we'd mean the photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, today I received information from the photographer M. Sinzinger that he has communicated to permission-wikipedia under the case number: 5527-7dd09d47feb1ab15 [Ticket#2023121210003006] that he has taken the photo and agrees to the licence. Robert Lindermayr (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: by User:Krd. Now has VRT permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:中田敦彦（2023年）.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a copyrighted work of NIRVA Co., Ltd. (the corporation of Atsuhiko Nakata, the person in the photo), and the company has authorized the use of this image on Wikipedia.This is an image posted on the company's website. Reference link: https://info.progress.salon/image/nakataatsuhiko.jpg 安在哉 (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The source site has an explicit copyright notice. In order for the image to be restored, either the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or someone else must send a free license together with a copy of the written agreement with the photographer which allows them to freely license the image. Note that "the company has authorized the use of this image on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Images on Wikipedia and Commons must be free for any use anywhere by anybody. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Grafika promująca akcję edycyjną WikiMatejko bez napisu online.png

There is a proper agreement from Wikimedia Polska, see: ticket:2023110910003176. Polimerek (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Polimerek: FYI. --Yann (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Mausoleo 15.jpg

The file is a picture i took with my camera Nikon Z30. Date and other details into EXIF data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauro Lisanti (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose This is a derivative work (picture of a picture), so we need the permission from the original photographer. Yann (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Leonid Toptunov.jpg

The file was speedy-deleted as a copyright violation, but the source page does show a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. You have to scroll to the bottom of the page. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Support restoration even if a regular DR if necessary. The site does have that license at the bottom and says "all materials are placed under" that license. Abzeronow (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
One question is whether the website (apparently run by the Ukrainian government-affiliated operator of the Chernobyl NPP) is legal "heir" to the previous owners of the plant. Another is whether in the Soviet Union, photographers making photos of employees, when the photographer is also an employee, and the photo was made as part of the job, are passing their copyright on to the company employing them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: DR created: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leonid Toptunov.jpg. --Yann (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Col Arif Mehmood Shaheed.jpg

This picture was deleted from Wiki commons. It was uploaded by many websites and as well as by persons on social media sites. It is belongs to public domain. So i request to undelete it. You can check on these sites [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Thanks:-) 223.123.92.106 17:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose No, it is not in the domain public. Being available on the Internet doesn't mean that the picture is out of copyright. We need the permission from the photographer for a free license. Yann (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry! For my mistake, this file[15] was uploaded on ISPR (Pakistan Army's official website) and the content or pictures on that website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. You can check using this link [16] 223.123.88.89 17:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Public domain doesn't mean publicly available. Public domain is a specific legal definition. See COM:L. Abzeronow (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry! This file or any content on ISPR website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. You can check [17] 223.123.88.89 17:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
There is indeed a free license on ispr.gov.pk. Yann (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Apparently so. Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This image is available in a very small resolution on [18], so could we assume that the CC license applies to any resolution? I am not sure, but I won't oppose. Yann (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I think it's a reasonable assumption that the license applies to any resolution. Abzeronow (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Support There was an extensive discussion of the subject several years ago. It was established that copyright belongs to the image, in whatever resolution it is. If a photographer freely licenses a low res version, then all resolutions are freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Dighe Valmalenco.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I (LIUCAnastasia4) have the permission of the owner of the file, and I sent an email (in Italian) to permissions-commons@wikipedia.org with attached the screen of the message. I asked the owner to sent himself an email to the email address mentioned above. LIUCAnastasia4 (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@LIUCAnastasia4 once the COM:VRT team checks the permission, they will request it to undelete. You don't need to ask for it. Günther Frager (talk) 17:37, 12 December 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) 20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Flag of the Roman Empire (509BC-100BC).png

=={{int:filedesc}}== {{Information |description={{en|1=Flag of the Roman Empire (509BC-100BC)}} |date=2023-12-02 |source={{own}} |author=[[User:Ibrahimkash|Ibrahimkash]] |permission= |other versions= }}

=={{int:license-header}}== {{self|cc-zero}} [[:Category:Flags of the Roman Empire]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahimkash (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Appears to be an ahistorical fictional flag, out of scope for Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Age of Empires videos

Hi, This discussion concluded that there is no reason to believe that the free license at the source of these files is not valid. This also applies to files published by Age of Empires official account under a free license. Idem as above. Yann (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I undeleted File:Age of Empires II DE - May-hem Event!.webm which is available with a CC-BY license at archive.org. I don't have time to search for free licenses for the other +100 videos. Thuresson (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
@Thuresson: OK, thanks for looking at this. I checked the first 10 files in the list, and there were all license reviewed, except two, which had a free license according to Internet Archive. Yann (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I undeleted all files. Some files can't be undeleted due to phab:T291137. Yann (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Yann. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


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

Files in Commons:Deletion requests/Maps of A Song of Ice and Fire

As already noted by most participants in the discussion (myself, 痛, Kmhkmh, etc.), there's value in restoring these files and moving them to en.wiki per fair use. Daniele Fisichella 13:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

English Wikipedia Fair use policy assumes small number of files in precisely specified articles. So please, be more specific: which file(s) do you want to use in which article(s)? Using all files from this DR under fair use policy is extremely unlikely. Ankry (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Ankry: Unfortunately, I don't remember what image corresponds to which name, and I can't see them now. Is there a way to temporarily check them and pick the right ones? Daniele Fisichella 09:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Can you describe the files you want? Temporary undeletion to transfer to a project that uses non-free content only has a 48 hour window and I'd rather not temporarily undelete all of them for 2 days just to help find the few that would fit the fair use policy. Abzeronow (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@Ankry: We had some very accurate world maps, but I don't know which they are among these files:
  1. File:Game of Thrones Complete Map.png
  2. File:Game of Thrones World Map and Cities.png
  3. File:Game of Thrones World Map.png
  4. File:Game of throwns new7 one layer.svg
  5. File:Map of Known World.png
  6. File:Map of Known World.svg
In addition, we also had useful maps of the two main continents, I guess File:Map of Westeros.png or File:Map of Westeros.svg, and File:Map of Essos.png.
I log in very often, so I'd need way less than 48 hours. Thanks. Daniele Fisichella 16:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Game of Thrones World Map and Cities.png looks like a modern map with cities and locations on Westeros and Essos. File:Game of Thrones Complete Map.png shows all of the continents of the world that ASOIAF is located. File:Game of throwns new7 one layer.svg shows the roads that connect various places on Westeros, it's somewhat less useful for Essos. File:Map of Known World.svg is a file you had uploaded, it's a good map that shows Westeros and Essos with its rivers and has no labels on it. Abzeronow (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: Thanks for the insight. If I remember correctly, some of the world maps showed a wrong outline for eastern Essos. The correct outline is shown at World of A Song of Ice and Fire. I'd like to restore and move the correct ones. Daniele Fisichella 17:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've temporarily undeleted the four. Abzeronow (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: I still can't see them, looks like Materialscientist deleted them again overnight. Daniele Fisichella 07:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Ping @Daniele Fisichella: I've undeleted the files again for transferring to other projects. Thuresson (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@Est. 2021: Abzeronow (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: Copied. Thank you! Daniele Fisichella 19:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Closing request after files transferred. Thuresson (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Original Cover Computerspiel.jpg

Ich möchte das dieses Bild wieder hergestellt wird, da man es noch brauchen wird. Denn ich bin der einzige, der dieses Exemplar besitzt.--84.239.49.180 02:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Und wer wird das wofür brauchen? --Achim55 (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done: Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aabbyyee. Uploader has no other edits outside Commons (Accounts) so scope can be questioned. Thuresson (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Request for Restoration and Clarification on Required Information

Hello,

These files were deleted:

Although I provided all the necessary resources and requested information well before the seven days of the speed deletion, could you please restore them or provide an explanation regarding any additional information required?

Thank you. ARamadan-WMF (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

You added the required information without removing the template that the information is missing. And why do you use external links to link to other Wiki pages like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lancering%20Invictus%20Games%202020-7%20(cropped).jpg File:Lancering Invictus Games 2020-7 (cropped).jpg] instead of simply using File:Lancering Invictus Games 2020-7 (cropped).jpg and why did you not use {{CC-zero}} instead of a link like CC0 1.0? This would have avoided the deletion because bad formatted pages are often considered as vandalism and become deleted because of skipped history check. GPSLeo (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
And also do not use the description field for this. Please use the source field for the source information. GPSLeo (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't see that any of these are in scope. What educational purpose do they serve? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. Files they are explaining Mediawiki oder Wikimedia project related software are perfectly in scope. GPSLeo (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Question: If the people at Mediawiki believe that the files are useful in their pages, e.g. there, aren't they automatically in scope per File in use in another Wikimedia project? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. I don't understand why these files were deleted: they had a proper license, source, author, and they were in use. @ARamadan-WMF: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Philippe_Calvario.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2023041310005027. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: , FYI. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


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

Category:Sylvain Durif

Hello,

I found a video in Crative Commons from Sylvain Durif and I uploaded a screenshot in Commons : File:Sylvain Durif, sur une aire d'autoroute, en 2013.png. Would it be possible to reopen the Category, please?--CoffeeEngineer (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@CoffeeEngineer a category is not a file that needs to be undeleted, and it is not protected to require an administrative action. Anyways, I created it for you. Günther Frager (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Undeletion Request File:James_Gordon_Meek_Alexandria_(Va.)_Sheriff's_Department.jpg

Per VA § 2.2-2822 The images of their mugshots are public. EyeLikePictures (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Link to that is https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/2.2-2822/ "A policy granting state agencies the authority over the protection and release of patents and copyrights created by employees of the agency. Such policy shall authorize state agencies to release all potentially copyrightable materials under the Creative Commons or Open Source Initiative licensing system, as appropriate." We'd still need to know which Creative Commons license since we cannot accept noncommercial and/or no derivatives here at Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 OpposeThe cited law requires the Secretary of Administration to establish... "A policy granting state agencies the authority over the protection and release of patents and copyrights created by employees of the agency. Such policy shall authorize state agencies to release all potentially copyrightable materials under the Creative Commons or Open Source Initiative licensing system, as appropriate."

There is no evidence that the Secretary has done this. Also note that the policy, if established, will "authorize state agencies to release...". It does not require their release. Finally, note that the law speaks only of "a state employee during working hours or within the scope of his employment or when using state-owned or state-controlled facilities". The Alexandria Sheriff's department are not state employees. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done, per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Iranian Space Agency.png

This photo is the official logo of a government organization and it cannot be said that it contains copyright. The logo belongs to Iranian Space Agency.

org website: https://www.isa.ir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdar Kiliçarslan (talk • contribs) 23:54, 13 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The mentioned website states: "تمامی حقوق مادی و معنوی محفوظ و متعلق به سازمان فضایی ایران می باشد.", that according to an online translator means "All intellectual and material rights are reserved and belong to Iran Space Organization". Günther Frager (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Kristin Labonte.png

This is the picture my boss, Kristin Labonte sent me to use on her wiki page

--Lauren Clark 10:12 AM 12/14/23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BreakingLimits2023 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Oppose We need the photographer (not from the person depicted in the photo) to send an explicit permission to the COM:VRT. Also, I don't know if the Kristin Labonte is a notable person, currently there is only a draft article in enwiki made by one of her employees. Günther Frager (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Salmo 2017.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: it isn't copyright violation non è violazione di copyright Sconosciuto07 (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't see any reason why these do not infringe on the films's copyright. Please explain why you think they don't. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Kent Tigers Basketball Club Logo.png to undelete.jpg

This file is not copyrighted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart B Edwards (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Mirosław Gucwa (2021).jpg

There is a proper agreement from author sent to VTRS: ticket:2023120510002691 Polimerek (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Polimerek: , FYI. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Commons:TourBusStop

Propose undeletion and marking as {{Historical}}. Reason: This is still referenced on MeatBallWiki and Wikipedia and this should not have been deleted five years ago, breaking incoming links. Aasim (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Links for people like me, who had no idea what that is about: en:Wikipedia:TourBusStop, en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:TourBusStop, File:TourBusMap.png. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:周巧雲.jpg

This picture is my mother, taken by me. She recently passed away, and we are setting up a wikipedia page for her. We have the full copyright of this picture.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the copyright of this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linyi71 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose If that author is indeed "recently passed away", then according to COM:Taiwan#Terms, you have to wait for 1 Jan, (2023+51=)2074 to see its restoration, unless, for very rare possibility, their testament said to *free license* their works. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: I don't understand your comment. Linyi71 says he is the photographer. Yann (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was lifted from Facebook, so we need VRT confirmation of the photographer. This does not look like a recent photograph, so I am skeptical of the {{Own}} claim. I also note that Google does not find any hits for her, so we need some evidence of her notability to show that this is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: photo may be undeleted when an article is available in Wikipedia and appears notable. Uploader is requested to show they made the photo. --Ellywa (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Videos by Bandai Namco

Hi, This discussion concluded that there is no reason to believe that the free license at the source of these files is not valid. This also applies to files published by Bandai Namco under a free license. Yann (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion you linked to had the closing admin specifically say Bandai Namco was not trustworthy. I'd be inclined to undelete the ones which Bandai Namco had complete ownership on but not the others especially given the complexity of Japan's production committee model for animated works. Abzeronow (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
OK, fine with me. Yann (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
AFAICT there were all license reviewed, and they still have a free license at source. Yann (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I undeleted all files. Yann (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: done by Yann. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:CrunchLabs - MrBeast Opened the WRONG BOX!!! (MRus4BCPRyY - 0m28s) (cropped).jpg

It was removed because it was not "under Creative Commons Licensing Attribution on YouTube", but it was previously, and CC licenses are irrevocable. See archived page: https://web.archive.org/web/20230517050046/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRus4BCPRyY Endof (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

 Info File:CrunchLabs - MrBeast Opened the WRONG BOX!!! (MRus4BCPRyY - 0m28s).jpg, from which this image was derived, was also marked with a speedydelete by @G9mmB, but I removed it before the image could get removed and clarified that the image is indeed under a free license.
Endof (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File: Twinks4Trump J in White - Hat text removed.png

This is a derivative of the commons file File:Twinks4Trump J in White.jpg, which is under a CC-BY-SA license. It was deleted for being uploaded without permission, but the terms of the original work’s license allows for derivatives to be shared as long as they are attributed and shared under a compatible license, which my derivative was. Zanahary (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

For context, the original is of a model wearing a MAGA hat. An editor at the enwiki page for Twink raised that it might be a problem to use a political image, so I made a derivative version with the hat text seamlessly edited out (it just looks like a model in a white hat). Zanahary (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of permission from photographer Lucien Wintrich in the original. And this was previously published before upload to Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
It seems that Jvander22 claims to be Lucien Wintrich, but this is not a selfie, so the permission from the photographer is needed. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jvander22. Yann (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Lucian Wintrich is the photographer, at least of J in White. Zanahary (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
And then, who is the guy on the picture? Yann (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
A model with the initial ‘J’. Zanahary (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
OK, but I get some doubt, as he claims "own work" for quite a lot of pictures which aren't. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
There’s doubt that he understands licensing/copyright ownership. But this image was taken by Lucian Wintrich and uploaded to WC under a good license. Zanahary (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
So I have asked him to verify his identity via VRT. Yann (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok, in the meantime my image should be undeleted. Zanahary (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 Support OK, it will probably be undeleted after 24h, unless someone opposes. Yann (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Agustina de Zuzuarregui y de Sotto4.jpg

The copyright term in Spain is 25 years from creation for simple portraits, the URAA date is not applicable. "It affects my interests as a person" is still not a valid reason for deletion. And the WMF and United States copyright law makes no legal distinction between "unknown" and "anonymous". They are both used to designate that due diligence has been performed and no named author has been found to date. --RAN (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Strakhov: I don't know what Spain considers a "simple photograph". And I'm not going to assume that a uploader who hasn't done any research can credibly claim that something is anonymous, but if it is a simple photograph, then claims of anonymity are moot anyway. Abzeronow (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Abzeronow: I don't know either, since I'm no copyright lawyer, but TBH in the past I thought that to be a little more strict. Since 2022 I have taken the result of this deletion request as a Wikimedia Commons standard for simple Spanish photographs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Francisco Goñi.jpg in order to be consistent (that means I have mostly abandoned reviewing or questioning the copyright of Spanish old photographs). Strakhov (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I think we can call this a simple photograph based on Ruthven's close of that DR. But we'd still need to know if this was first published in Spain or Cuba since Cuba measures by publication and not creation. Abzeronow (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Abzeronow: Here it says Agustina and her husband were in Cuba between and 1927-09-27 and 1929-08-09 (not a Communist country yet, though). And she was born in 1892. She looks pretty young, probably less-than-35-years-old? Strakhov (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Can you expand on the legal concept that a simple photograph can never be anonymous? I would love to read the judgments in the cases you have found. We have all the tools we need to perform due diligence to see if an image has an active copyright claimant or a named creator using Tineye and Google Image Search. Tineye by itself searched over 15 billion images. To see an example of a "complex photograph" see: File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg which required elaborate staging, not just pressing the button to release the shutter. --RAN (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
    • I didn't say simple photographs can never be anonymous, I said if this was a simple photograph from Spain, then the question about authorship is moot (i.e. it doesn't matter). I respectfully disagree with the notion that TinEye and Google Image Search are sufficient to establish if a work has a known author, further investigation would be necessary like checking the back sides of works if available and tracking down publishers if known and checking their records. Copyright laws regarding reasonable search were written before the internet, so while internet tools are good at detecting plagiarism, important records that establish authorship may not exist online, and many copyrighted works are not available online or are online behind a paywall which tools cannot penetrate. And so, information that properly establishes where and when this photograph was published is necessary to determine its copyright status. Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 Support a search[19] for Agustina de Zuzuarregui shows that she was born in 1892 in Spain and that she lived mostly in Spain, with a period in Cuba (she returned to Spain in 1929). So the country of origin is either Spain or Cuba. In Spain non-artistic photographs are protected for 25 years since creation (not publication) and regardless of the author. The last valid creation date to avoid restoration is 1970. It is clear she is not 78 years old in that photo (at least what Google cache shows). The protection in Cuba is similar: 25 years since first use. The only chance not to be in the public domain is if it was published for the first time in Cuba at least 41 years after it was taken. This sounds far fetched: a communist regime publishing a photo of an old wealthy business person. The uploader claim is clearly bogus, as it is the argument from the person that opened the DR. I have many differences with RAN when he tries to save files from DRs, but here I find little evidence to claim it is protected by copyright. Günther Frager (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per RAN and Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim.jpg Un delete request

Prof. Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim, the founder of the World Society for Virology Personal picture with permission of its owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim (talk • contribs) 06:55, 17 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Info Re-uploaded as File:Prof. Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: We need the permission for a free license from the photographer, not the subject. --Yann (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:World Society for Virology.png

The picture is uploaded after the permission of the World Society for Virology - Email: (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed S. Abdel-Moneim (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Not done: We need the permission for a free license from the copyright owner. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. --Yann (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Cruise Bonaria 2022 Olbia.jpg RICHIESTA RIPRISTINO

Richiedo ripristino dell’ immagine in quanto non ho violato nessuna regola e l’ho presa dal sito faktaomfartyg.se. Riguardo alle altre opere che mi sono state cancellate alcune sono anche opere mie --InfoNavi (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)InfoNavi--InfoNavi (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The source site does not have any free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

We can't copy other people's photos off the internet -- only the photographers own the copyright and can license them. Which deleted photos were ones that you took? If photos were published elsewhere on the Internet first, such that anyone could copy them, we need separate email verification via the COM:VRT process, unless you can get the Internet source changed to state the free copyright license. Or you could upload a higher-resolution version not available anywhere else, something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Carl above. --Yann (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Gubaidulla-bubi.jpg

I didn't see the original file, but the uploader wrote me that it is from this source, so the photo is PD-old. Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Support Photo is from that source. It's the middle of the three old photos. Abzeronow (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Diniyar Khasanov and Lvova: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Nicki Minaj - Pink Friday 2.png

Please undelete this image because its deletion was erroneus. This image can be used as fair use for visual identification. Michalg95 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose fair use is not allowed in Commons, see COM:L. Günther Frager (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Deletion was proper, we don't allow fair use material like album covers on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose per above. @Michalg95: This does not and cannot belong here. You seem to have completely misunderstood what Wikimedia Commons is about. Please see COM:SCOPE and COM:LICENSE for basic information. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:H Baudu wiki.jpg

c'est une photo personnelle pour illustrer bibliographie de ma page wikipédia en cours de rédaction. Merci hervé Baudu

le 17 décembre 2023— Preceding unsigned comment added by Superka2711 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Personal photo by non-contributor, probably a copyvio. Michalg95 (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read COM:SCOPE and COM:SELFIE. --Yann (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

There are nothing wrong whth the picture I posted. It's myself So please leave it as it is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthssyl (talk • contribs) 05:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose You mentioned file File:Iamthssyl.jpg, which was deleted as personal file. Your only contribution was draft on en.wiki, which was also deleted. Michalg95 (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read COM:SCOPE and COM:SELFIE. --Yann (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:上海市延安初级中学 校徽.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: according to mainland china copyright website https://register.ccopyright.com.cn/query.html?spm=service_hall.25034570.0.0.39373f35dTC0hP this logo is not protected and is free to use in any way YananCoolCD (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@YananCoolCD: I see no information about copyright status of this particular logo on the abovementioned page; can you, please, elaborate? Where did you find information that copyright registration is needed for logos to receive copyright protection? Ankry (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Female barbarian from space vs giant ant.jpg

It is in use and the admin deleting it regardless violated WMC policy.

The image is high-quality and illustrates how some scifi pulp magazines looked like and/or an insectoid / enlarged-insects trope of scifi. It could for example be used to illustrate an article about either if no better image exists if it complements such. Unlike many other images here, it's educationally valuable. File:Ai-generated tarzanide.jpg would be good to undelete as well for the same reason but this request could also focus on the former. In the deletion discussion one user voted to keep that image while one user voted to delete. The nominator specified "gobbledygook text" as rationale but that image does not contain such. --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: Can you show me where the file was in use? I feel like we can better illustrate what pulp magazines looked like with actual examples. The AI art does have a 1950s style to it, but it is essentially a fanart using prompts. Abzeronow (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
People often feel that way but they don't actually go and check the situation which is severe with AI art finally enabling the closing of some major gaps like illustrating what the art genre/movement/style "solarpunk" looks like and is about. Not pulp magazines, but large insectoids as depicted by scifi pulp magazines, that is what I wrote. It was in use here which the admin apparently felt like they can just ignore. I also wasn't saying this is the only image available just that is substantially educationally valuable in that regard, in other cases and especially when only few other images are available we don't just go ahead and delete all the subjectively less good ones. Yes, could arguable be even more reason to keep it. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
No, AI illustrates what it thinks "solarpunk" looks like. The two examples you have there are both fanart. We don't host fanart unless it is notable. And Wikidata is not sufficient by itself for something to be COM:INUSE. Abzeronow (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • No, I engineered it so that it illustrates what I think solarpunk looks like. Moreover, it trained on countless solarpunk images and thereby may even be able to better represent what it looks like than humans on average. Please stop legitimizing grave decisions against established Wikimedia Commons policies by your anti-AI bias and misunderstandings.
  • False, nowhere on that page does it claim that while it does say A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose.
Prototyperspective (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Unused AI-generated fan art, out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Provably false. It's in use and thereby by definition within scope. What makes "fan art" intrinsically educationally not valuable? Is there a policy suggesting that or is that something you just feel like? Out of scope for what reason? That reason seems to be "it's AI-generated fan art" but that's not a reason in itself and the image wasn't even fan art so this is provably even false. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
You should read Commons:Fan art, and stop arguing ad nauseam, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator. Yann (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Actual arguments rather than baseless unsubstantiated claims and allegations are prohibited now?
Okay: that page says unofficial artistic representations of elements or characters in an original work of fiction, I'll ask again since my question at the DR was ignored like most of my points: what is that "original work of fiction"? Even if it is fan art how does that warrant deletion, especially since those files are by definition within scope.
It's a violation of WMC policy and I'd say it would be an important precedent albeit I've seen it before. To make things clear and evade further ignoring of my points: I asked about two things here: what is the original work of fiction and why would the deletion be warranted. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 Support This was COM:INUSE on Wikidata. If we were on Wikidata, I would contest its being in the item, and hopefully come to a consensus as to its inclusion. But we are on Commons. That is not our decision to make -- "Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope". I do not opine on whether the filenames should be changed, whether there should be a more prominent disclaimer in the description, et cetera. If consensus on Wikidata is that the file should not be included in the item, we can delete it then. But not now. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Questions: What was it used for in Wikidata? Who put it there? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
    It was the highest quality image for 'insectoid' the other image was a barely decipherable very-low-quality magazine cover depicting something that looks like nothing or possibly an insectoid. I already linked the wikidata page. It does seem like this place is turning into a totalitarianism of unilateral decisions by admins supported by one or or three refuted opinions even when it goes against established WMC policy. It wasn't the uploader him/herself who put it there. We have basically no other high-quality image of an enlarged known insect like an ant despite it being a notable subject and the deletion nomination does not even affect the image since it does not contain any text, nor do we have many high-quality images of how contents of pulp scifi magazines look like. That it's on WMC doesn't mean it has to be used, it can be educationally valuable. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
    I disagree with your opinion that the Amazing Stories cover was "very-low-quality". It is a 1957 cover by Leo Morey, and historically shows that insectoids were popularly used in 1950s science fiction. The cover is public domain so a higher quality scan could also be done. The deleted insectoid picture is aesthetically pleasing but not historical, and does not increase understanding of what historical pulp scifi magazines actually looked like. Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
    I do see your point but others can see that different, for instance I do and the uploader probably as well. The thing is that cover can be used and this image be valuable in addition to it, because even when not considering the quality and resolution of the cover, it's still a magazine cover with lots of text around – what was missing is an image of the content itself and only; and it does potentially increase that understanding depending on how it's used.
    It would also be valuable if there were few or some images of that type. Images here aren't only meant to be useful for inclusion in Wikipedia, they could also be useful for other purposes…for instance some blog-type post educating about pulp scifi or scifi about enlarged animals or insectoid animals in scifi or large ants in fiction (if there are such which I think there are) where quality is more important and many images can be used with having lots of images being important to make the post interesting; lots of text with too few images is often too boring and repelling to readers. In such a case and especially for uses within Wikimedia projects, it should simply be clarified that this is not a historical image but AI-generated. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

{{Not done}}: We do not keep personal art from people who are not notable artists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of un-closing this so that discussion on the matter, which was ongoing here and below in #Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator, can continue. Cf. Commons:Undeletion requests#Closing discussions (instructing admins to, when there was a debate, only close "[w]hen a debate is settled".) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Agree with above comments. "In use" is a valuable guideline in determining scope, but does not automatically supersede all other considerations (most obviously, that clear copyright violations will be speedy deleted regardless). IMO "in use" arguments such as this should include clear information as to exactly *where* the image was used and *who* put it there. If I were to upload an image that most others thought clearly out-of-scope and place it in some obscure article, wikidata, or other page briefly, my action should not give the image an eternal "Get Out of Deletion Free" card. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    Yes in-use does not override copyright issues.
    But there are no copyright issues with that image, it's not a copyright violation.
    It seems like people just vote out by headcount content they don't like despite that it's clearly in scope because a) in-use b) realistically educationally valuable due to multiple specific realistic use-cases (and I could add more examples). As @Trade: has clarified elsewhere Training AI generation models does not violate copyright. The Patent Office have stated that ad infinitum, we have lots of other txt2img images, and I have also elaborated multiple times why people alleging these are copyright violations without any substantiation are basing that on misunderstandings of how these AI software work. It's like saying all human drawings can't be CCBY because they are based on the visual experience learning by the human which includes consumption of visual non-free media. If AI-software-based images are copyright violations due a societal/legal screw-up, outdated methods, and hyper-commodification, then all images made with AI need to go into some kind of temporary quarantine where they can't be seen anywhere on this site or elsewhere until it's clearer that they are/can be PD/CCBY, but not just recently deleted images in particular. Maybe that will happen to all images made with Photoshop because that software is proprietary code which intellectually protected and leveraged by whoever used Photoshop. One can create copyright violations using txt2img tools, just like one can do so with Photoshop, but not all of it are and these aren't. Images by @Fma12: were also deleted for no good reason despite that many where both high-quality and the only ones for major category/subject; one example was a image looking like this which is now used twice on Wikipedia even though some narrow brief opinionated considerations didn't immediately find it useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 Neutral There are also some LTAs randomly inserted some Commons images as the image (P18) value, so based on this case, it should be discussed that whether COM:INUSE should be modified to exclude Wikidata's usages. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Don't know what "LTAs" is; it's not self-explanatory. They are not randomly inserted but actually educationally useful, I don't know why it's so hard to understand when we keep humorous-softporn with no explanation of educational usefulness and I explain multiple specific realistic educational usefulness cases. Wikidata usages certainly should not be excluded. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I disagree that INUSE would need to be modified to exclude Wikidata completely. I think a better criteria would be looking if someone putting something into Wikidata or elsewhere is used to deliberate attempt to game the system with INUSE as a tool. - or even sincerely intended edits producing the same result. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
INUSE is not a tool but an important principle, exactly like must be realistically useful for an educational purpose :
A media file which is neither:
  • realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor
  • legitimately in use as discussed above
falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons. Even if you for whatever reason think it would be okay, acceptable and within bounds of current WMC policies to ignore and somehow sidestep point #2 as it's described there, point #1 still holds. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled for 10 days, no consensus to undelete. --Yann (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


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

Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator

Deletion discussion is here. Deleted due to per nomination. Unused AI-generated fan art, out of scope. However, the files are in use and thereby by definition within COM:SCOPE.

The admin deleting them once again violated WMC policy by deleting them despite that they are in use. It seems like Wikimedia Commons policies do not matter anymore. Why do we even have WMC policies if admins do not follow them whenever it suits them?

Moreover, I addressed and largely refuted objections in the DR. For example unlike the deleting admin claimed, these are not "fan fiction".

I value these images not for the people depicted in it but the ancient settings, the artistic aspects, and the way they were made, all of which is educational, unlike many other images kept again and again for no good reason other than apparently somehow not being prohibited by current policy (which these images clearly aren't). These images here are high-quality and not just educational but realistically educational. That they are made via AI is marked quite clearly in the file descriptions.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Idem above. Yann (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
If this is not undeleted it means that uses on Wikidata and Wikibooks uses are no longer considered to be COM:INUSE due to the file being in use.
Things are considered fan art once e.g. an admin alleges they are and no "original work of fiction" is needed. Once it is deemed fan art like that, it is sufficient rationale for deletion. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose per GMG on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator "I don't really see how that's meaningfully different than me uploading my kid's drawing of George Washington. Of course you can imagine some use-case if you're willing to get specific enough. Say you for some reason want to write a post about children's drawings of presidents. Of course the fact that George has a mitten for a hand because she's not very good at drawing fingers, can be fixed if we fire up GIMP or Photoshop.
But in this case it's AI, and so you have an infinite number of children drawing an infinite number of pictures. So if you need one, then just go get it. We're not just talking about images that need fixing to be useful, but images that are imminently, literally infinitely replaceable"
Commons is not the place for amateur art attempting to depict the 15th Century when we have real, historical artwork by notable persons that do that. Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
We do not have that for the person in question and those images are high quality, not low quality.
There may a small percentage that features misgenerations but all of those high-quality relatively unique images regarding 'AI-revived historical figures at high resolution' were deleted, not only those with major misgeneration. This was the best depiction available and is low quality and looks similar to the older person in the image. These were not children's drawings but very high-quality images. And no, we don't have a lot of artwork at digital art quality/resolution that does that and even if we do have that doesn't make the image less valuable. I even was told things aren't deleted just because some better images are available, we e.g. have lots of images of the Eiffel tower. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I disagree because you don't have to "imagine some use-case". If you did, I would agree. But there is a use-case, which is why the file was COM:INUSE on a sister project. As long as it's in use, it's in scope; we must not overrule our sister projects on what is useful. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 Support Each image listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator was COM:INUSE on Wikibooks. Per COM:SCOPE: "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." If the images fall out of use (e.g. because of consensus on Wikibooks), they can be deleted then. I do not opine on whether the filenames should be changed, whether there should be a more prominent disclaimer in the description, et cetera. But the deleting admin erred when deleting in-use images as out of scope. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Sure. Weren't they added there by the uploader? Yann (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
They weren't. Further clarification: requiring filename changes for the images in that cat could be a good thing to do, I do not opine on that either and support a more prominent disclaimer in the file description (suggested a auto-added template multiple weeks ago plus other ideas in the DR) as well as a more explicit requirement for it to be there. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The rule that an image that is in use is in scope has limits. For example, a map of the United States showing 60 states would not be in scope even if mistakenly used somewhere. Similarly, images that purport to be of historical figures but that are actually figments of an AI imagination are not in scope even if in use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward Where does that find support in policy? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Common sense. I can't imagine that you think we would keep a map showing the USA with 60 states. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward If it were in use, on purpose, yes. Perhaps the map is on an Wikipedia article about something like w:en:Texas divisionism. Or maybe it's on something less educational. But it's not our choice whether we find it educational, it's our sister projects' choice. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
These images do not show a map of 60 states so the whole point is mute and unclear. I already explained how these images can be useful. One use-case gets clear at the place where it's used; for example if images are meant to illustrate how people imagined things in the past or how an imaginary story describes something, then historical accuracy is not so important. In any case, lots paintings of historical events for example also aren't accurate but they are or can still be valuable for many reasons but simply should not be used to illustrate the historical event at least without disclaimer. These images are not used for that and it's very clear from the file description that they are AI-generated. This is all just opinion of points that are largely irrelevant to the question based on a lot of flawed assumptions. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Admins can just decide when not to and when to ignore policy. I get it. And they can also choose to ignore clear points such as I value these images not for the people depicted in it but the ancient settings, the artistic aspects, and the way they were made, all of which is educational as well as the educational use that becomes evident when looking at the place where the file is in use.
  • Moreover, your claims are provably false images that purport to be of historical figures but that are actually figments of an AI imagination the image very clearly state they are AI-generated.
  • Also by closing the debate above about the pulp scifi enlarged ant image above you violated WMC policy as well as making a false statement not supported by any policy.
Prototyperspective (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I see the claim that the image was in use in Wikibooks. Where? There are no hits in Wikibooks for either "Joanna of Naples" or "Giovanna IV di Napoli". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay, Common sense and because we would not map showing the USA with 60 states according to the opinion of an admin is why WMC policy can just be ignored and things be deleted despite a) invalid deletion rationale with no basis in policy b) content being shown educationally valuable c) files being in use.
It's in use here which shows only further not the only educational value these, arguably high-quality, policy-compatible images have. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

As I guessed, the Wikibooks page on which it was in use has only one editor, User:Prototyperspective. Common sense suggests that the "in use rule" laid out at COM:Scope cannot be applied when a file is in use only because its only advocate created a use for it. I also note that the cited page was created after the DR was opened. COM:Scope says, "In the sections below, any use that is not made in good faith does not count." It seems to me that this falls under that rule. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  1. It is common sense to not delete a file which is clearly educationally valuable and within scope and for which multiple specific use-cases where elaborated as well as one being implemented. Especially if you keep all kinds of educationally useless files of which there already are hundreds of photos and the photo is the only or one of very few of its kind. So much for common sense.
  2. Why would that be the case. The file of the ant and many (or all) of the high-resolution digital art medieval scenes featuring 'Ferrandino d'Aragona' are in use and people who used such files are very much allowed to also have a say regarding the deletion discussion; I'd even argue that they should do so if they somehow take note of the DR.
  3. Re "any use that is not made in good faith does not count" – why do you think it's not in good faith? The use is not a talk page and very clearly shows how these images can be educationally valuable and used. The images are perfectly suited for what they're used for and again I already listed further specific educational use-cases so it falls under realistically useful for an educational purpose anyway.
Prototyperspective (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mdaniels5757 that COM:INUSE mostly overrides other scope considerations. COM:SCOPE is pretty clear on that. When "out of scope" fails, the "copyright violation card" always sticks around, though. Good luck playing that one with AI-art... Strakhov (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose. Agree with other oppose statements above: Repeating my comment above: "In use" is a valuable guideline in determining scope, but does not automatically supersede all other considerations (most obviously, that clear copyright violations will be speedy deleted regardless). IMO "in use" arguments such as this should include clear information as to exactly *where* the image was used and *who* put it there. If I were to upload an image that most others thought clearly out-of-scope and place it in some obscure article, wikidata, or other page briefly, my action should not give the image an eternal "Get Out of Deletion Free" card. This seems rather gaming the system. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it does not overrule copyright issues; but these images do not have such. It's clearly in scope because a) in-use b) realistically educationally useful due to explained multiple specific realistic use-cases (and I could add more examples despite that one is not just specified but also also proven due to being implemented). See comment in discussion above. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 Neutral Same concern as above case. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled for 10 days, no consensus to undelete. --Yann (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Programmheft Rodauner Sommernachtstraum 2022 - Seite 2 und 3.pdf

Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung. Die Datei ist ein Original PDF des Programmhefts der Theaterproduktion "Sommernachtstraum" des Rodauner Theater Sommers 2022. Alle Fotos und Texte in diesem Heft wurden von mir erstellt. Leider gibt es genau von der Innenseite dieses Programmhefts keine weitere Kopie, alle übrigen Flyer gingen bei einem Wasserschaden 2023 verloren. Ich bitte daher um Wiederherstellung der PDF Datei. Danke und lG Marcus Marschalek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xob (talk • contribs) 06:10, 14 December 2023‎ (UTC)

@Xob: But how is this useful to a Wikimedia project? Thuresson (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Xob: Willst du die Datei nur selbst runterladen, weil du selbst keine Kopie mehr hast (dann könnten wir sie für eine kurze Zeit, damit du sie runterladen kannst, wiederherstellen), oder willst du die dauerhaft wiederhergestellt haben? --Rosenzweig τ 19:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done, no response from OP. Thuresson (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Tsem Tulku Rinpoche.jpg

hello, the picture used was retrieved from the individuals own public blog, it is free to be used and distributed by anyone! in fact it is common practice to distribute images of the guru/lama freely to anyone as blessing, please undelete, i thought it was quite a charming photo of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kombucha Babucha (talk • contribs) 11:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose That's not how copyright works. Copyright © 2023 Tsem Rinpoche. Yann (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

so what i can't upload one of his photos onto his own wikipedia page? sorry i am a regular person i have no idea how internet photos of public figures are supposed to be get uploaded so people can see what he looks like man ! like its blank what is supposed to happen?Kombucha Babucha (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kombucha Babucha: Hi,
On Wikimedia Commons, we only accept content in the public domain or under a free license, so we need the permission from the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, not the subject (see COM:VRT if you have such a permission). Otherwise Wikipedia in some languages accept images under a very restricted fair use rationale (in English). Yann (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann, VRT permission is required on Commons. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Everest Climb - Georgios Tsianos.jpg‬

Hello,

the photo was given to me by Mr. Tsianos, and it is also on his official website https://www.georgiostsianos.com/projects/everest. So I was wondering what could I do to restore it and upload it again in my page?

If the author does not want to change their website to note the free license on it, please see Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_VRT?. If permission is received for this image that way, it will be undeleted at the end of that process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Carl. --Yann (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:BrigadierIABakoportrait.jpg

This portrait is of my father, Brigadier Ibrahim Bako. I have the only original physical portrait, which was his last official portrait. I am the sole owner and rights holder of the original portrait which I had scanned and touched up due to age. --Yusbak (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Please follow the instructions at Commons:VRT to submit the legal document that transfers the copyright from the photographer to you. Thuresson (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Yekaterina Duntsova.jpg

Я, Владислав Постников, являюсь автором фотографии - как загруженной на Викисклад, так и загруженной на сайт veved.ru, главным редактором которого я являюсь (что указано на главной странице сайта). Фотография удалена роботом по ошибке, очевидно.

I, Vladislav Postnikov, am the author of the photograph - both uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and uploaded to the site veved.ru, of which I am the editor-in-chief (as indicated on the main page of the site). The photo was deleted by robot by mistake, apparently. Фальшивомонетчик (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You mention that the author is Владислав Постников, but all accounts are pseudonymous here. Anyway, as it was published elsewhere before being uploaded here, the license should be confirmed by email. Yann (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
You are mistaken - by uploading it here, it was NOT published elsewhere. The file without the logo of the publication of which I am the editor-in-chief was uploaded only to Wikimedia Commons. It has not been published anywhere else. Then Vladislav Postnikov is me, which is indicated in the description of the files that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.Фальшивомонетчик (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The image is available at [20], but since it is credited to you there, I  Support undeletion. BTW, do not edit my comment. Yann (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Rishi Khosla Image.jpg

The image is free to download and use as it is currently on this website: https://oaknorth.co.uk/press-resources-brand-imagery/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evcwatts (talk • contribs) 12:13, 19 December 2023‎ (UTC)

 Not done: per Günther Frager. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


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

У меня же все в контроле

Я не поняла в чем проблема обьясните пожалуйста у меня же всё под контролем — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bright estrellas (talk • contribs)

Which file do you wish to undelete and why? Ankry (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Файл про фотографии балерина ,фотографии в камнях ,девочка и бокал вина у меня же всё под контролем хочу бы все могли видеть и пользоваться этими фотографиями Bright estrellas (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@Bright estrellas: You have no deleted files. Please, provide a link to the deleted file or its exact filename. Discussion about not uploaded files or not yot deleted files is out of scope of this page. Note, that per COM:EVID it is the uploader duty to provide an evidence that approptiate files are PD or freely licensed. Mere declaration in this matter is not enough (the only exceptions are unpublished high-resolution original photos made personally by the uploader). Ankry (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Coast Daylight.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: If the license tag on File:SP Daylight.png ({{PD-US-no-notice}}) is correct maybe also the deleted one could be licensed in the same way. ZandDev (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I was the nominator for the DR. The File:SP Daylight.png logo was created by the Southern Pacific around 1937. Its use on passenger trains was almost certainly without notice, so it is PD. The subject logo was created by Amtrak. It does not appear to be registered, so if it was created before 3/1/1989 it is PD as above, but if it was created after that date it will have a copyright until 95 years after first publication. It is up to those who want to restore the image to prove the creation date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I don't get your argument. As ZandDev mentioned above, this is the same logo, so the license applies to both. As you said, this is most probably {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Yann (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 Support Oops, right you are and since it is an SVG we should keep it in addition to the PNG version. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:Aqui d'El-Rock - CACO 1978 (1).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The deleted file is a scan of the original image printed in photo paper, which has been my property since May 1978, given that I am a founding member of the band Aqui d'El-Rock (drummer), and I own several items related to the group, which is allowing me to manage our legacy. Quikaro (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it as required here. That right usually belongs to the photographer. While the band might have a license to use the image in its publicity, such licenses rarely allow the licensee to freely sub-license. The image will be under copyright in Portugal until at least 1/1/2049 and in the USA until at least 1/1/2074 and potentially much longer depending on whether the photographer is known and when it was first published.

In order for it to be restored here, either the actual photographer must provide a free license using VRT or you must provide such a license together with a copy of the written contract from the photographer which allows you to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

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

File:DK1 Metallica 1987.jpg

This photo was taken in Poland in 1987, so it meets {{PD-Poland}}. Full copyright of Polish photos began only in 1994. Michalg95 (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The photographer is the British rock photographer Ross Halfin. Was this photo first published in Poland, and not in the US within 30 days? Thuresson (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose At Commons:Deletion requests/File:DK1 Metallica 1987.jpg we are told, "The photo was taken by Ross Halfin. It was published in the book The Ultimate Metallica (2010). Author of this photo is known and he’s still alive." The publisher is in San Francisco.

In order to use {{PD-Poland}}, you must show that the image was first published in Poland and that the publication was without a copyright notice. So far, neither is proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim and Thuresson. Evidence presented puts UK or US as the country of origin rather than Poland. --Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


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

File:Bae-suzy-comeback-four-years-satellite-2022.jpeg

I downloaded the photo on Google from NME, and owns the copyright to this picture. The correctly depicts South Korean actress Bae Suzy, so I'm requesting for an undeletion of it. Yotrages (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC).

 Oppose No, downloading a picture doesn't give you the copyright. Yann (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

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

My uploads being deleted wrongly

Hi, I am leaving here an email address you can talk to to get confirmation that I was allowed to upload those photos. With those images. The rest of the files I have uploaded to wikimedia were deleted. Which I created. The email address:<redacted> By the way, you could’ve deleted only the controversial photos and not all of them. I worked VARY hard to upload all those and this is not OK I’m not usual to this kind of behavior from Wikipedia. The files that got deleted: Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_אנונימי_06428. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎אנונימי 06428 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Wikimedia Commons only hosts content with a free license. We need the formal written permission from the copyright holder. If you have such a permission, please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Also please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-12&oldid=848998562"