Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

Current requests

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg

There was no consensus in favour of deletion. The larger file from which it was cropped (and the series of which that file was part) remains in place unchallenged. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robin S. Taylor, It would be good of you to link the larger file which you indicate was uploaded while the license was valid, since I can't find that in the file history of the deleted file. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: There may be a basis for discussion, although not for the reason stated in the request. From its logs, it looks like the file "Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg" was uploaded to Commons on 22 June 2024 and was sourced directly from flickr. As such, it was under the CC NC-ND license on flickr. The only argument to keep that was made in the deletion discussion was that seven days before the upload to Commons, the flickr photo had, very briefly, a CC BY license. That could not be a valid argument to keep the file, based only on the facts presented in the DR. The deletion decision is correct based on those facts. However, you mention the larger image "File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg" (currently sourced from the wrong flickr page), uploaded to Commons on 15 June 2024, which brings an interesting aspect, because the chronology gets much more compressed and because it seems to have exif data that are apparently not displayed on the flickr page. The chronology goes like this. Everything happened on 15 June 2024. The photo was taken at 12:19 (UTC or UTC+1 assumed). The photo was uploaded to flickr at some unknown time apparently very briefly under CC BY, the license was almost immediately set to CC NC-ND at 13:40 UTC, and the file was uploaded to Commons at 21:14 UTC. Even with that compressed timeline, the upload to Commons still occurred after the license was already CC NC-ND at the flickr source used. (And the fact that the license was CC BY for only a few minutes suggests that it may not have been intentional.) However the exif data on Commons display these usage terms : "Usage terms: This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form. All images are Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Pictures marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder." That sounds like the restrictions exclude the OGL. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

To closing admin: if the license on the original file was valid when it was uploaded, then this file should be restored, since that one is the source. If not, we should obviously delete that one as well. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 27).jpg

This was the source file.

The copyright on UK Government photographs is often confusing and contradictory, but the impression I've garnered over the past few months is that all the files copied to the Government Flickr Archive are automatically covered by that site's general licence even if the information for a specific image says otherwise, and indeed that the Number 10 Flickr account's general statement on image usage trumps whatever may be applied to individual pictures (hence Wikimedia having a dedicated licence tag for that). My general impression for a long time has also been that once a copyright-holder has released some intellectual property under any Creative Commons (or equivalent) declaration then they cannot revoke said declaration later, so if there are multiple contradictory official notices for the same photograph then we should take the most permissive one as correct.

I agree that it "may not have been intentional" for whichever government employees actually operate the Flickr accounts to initially release under one licence and then change after a few minutes, but then I'm not sure what those people's intentions have ever been because different images on those accounts are under a smorgasbord of different tags with no apparent rhyme or reason behind them. To take one example, a large number of coronation photographs from last year (and a smattering of other ones for many years before that) uploaded to Flickr under the Public Domain Mark rather than the Public Domain Dedication and eventually the community decided to treat them as the same, realising that in many cases the uploaders themselves didn't know the difference. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robin S. Taylor: 1. About the CC license, you may be confusing the notion of "cessation to offer a license at a source" with the notion of "revocation of a license already granted". Please see the Creative Commons FAQ for more details. 2. On principle, the specific conditions trump the general conditions. 3. The mention of a dedicated license tag for Number 10 relates to Template talk:Number-10-flickr, and the previous decisions might be worth exploring to see if you can find something there. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose First please note that

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg is not extracted from

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg

While the two are similar, the pattern of rain drops is different and in the first, the hair is surrounded by white from the opposite window while in the larger image the hair is surrounded by black. On the other hand

File:Trooping_the_Colour_2024_(GovPM_27).jpg, is the source image. This has a CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 license so both the subject image and the larger one cannot be kept here.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You've just unilaterally deleted another image within fifteen minutes of seeing it and with no deletion discussion nor acknowledgement of anything I said about it. This is unacceptable. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robin S. Taylor I am willing to give the benefit fo the doubt, however, those two pictures, while uploaded under a CC-BY license, were changed within a day to the by-nc-nd license. What that tells me is that the license they were uploaded with was incorrect, and they corrected it within a reasonable amount of time. What we don't do here at Wikimedia Commons is play "gotcha" with people who have uploaded under erroneous licenses. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jim, the other one has the same license problems as the ones already deleted. I've put that one in a DR. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Reopened per request. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 21:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving it open for a little while. Although the part about the CC license is settled, it seems that the part about the OGL might need to be addressed, in light of Template talk:Number-10-flickr, listing some keep decisions for other cases. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, apparently the metadata states the OGL, but does that supersede the Flickr license? Does Number 10 know what they are doing? Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 21:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that, considering the metadata is the only actual per-file licensing statement that complies with the UK government licensing framework, it should be taken as an appropriate attribution statement. Some files explicitly change their statement to remove the OGLv3 notice, which shows that there is at least some awareness of the meaning.

A Freedom of Information request and/or a Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations request can always be made if further clarification is needed. It is worth noting that images uploaded recently have made the attribution statement just Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence. For any of those images, a RPSI request can compel them to OGL it anyways. Isochrone (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely sounds like a complicated request. I deleted it since as I said in the closing message that the photograph had an unfree license at the time of upload. I agree with Jim that CC-BY was not the intended license. The OGL question is a tough one, since as mentioned above, it appears Number 10 licenses under OGL unless otherwise stated. CC-NC-ND is not a default on Flickr so it feels to me that it would fall under the otherwise stated. I almost feel like we should ask Number 10 about this. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Freedom of Information request filed. I also note that, as stated here, No 10 has not obtained a delegation of authority to exempt itself from the Cabinet Office licensing framework. Isochrone (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Bastique has now withdrawn his deletion nomination for picture No. 26 based on seeing the outcomes of similar discussions. Logically it follows that No. 27 and its derivatives shouldn't be deleted either. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I withdrew my nomination primarily because I didn't want to separate the point of discussion for what appears to be a larger discussion. Until we come to some consensus about this, this shall remain open. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 00:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

• Previous talk: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-12#File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

This photo was originally uploaded on the “Open Minister's Office”(열린장관실) homepage of the Ministry of Justice. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice three things.

1. “COPYRIGHTⓒ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. REPUBLIC OF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.” — This claim is on every website of the South Korean government, even on the page of the KOGL. This is just a general disclaimer only.
2. Logo of WebWatch in green color — A web standardization certification that has nothing to do with copyright. (It's like W3C or HTML5 logo)
3. The KOGL Type 1 logo ({{KOGL}}, File:KOGL 1.svg) — It is clearly indicates that the entire content of the this subdomain of MoJ is released under KOGL Type 1. Please note “Open Minister's Office” homepage is separated from the original homepage of MoJ. It is only accesiable by click "법무부 소개" > "장관소개" from top menu and it will be open in new tab. You can obviously see that it's separated from the original site with diffrent logo, title and web design.

Average Pennsylvanian mentioned that he couldn't be sure because each photo didn't have the KOGL logo, which is not true. Here's an example of a misuse of the KOGL logo. This is the homepage of the Office of the President. It also displays the KOGL logo(File:KOGL wordmark (Korean).svg at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't say what kind of KOGL it is at all. In this case we cannot use the image unless there is KOGL logo and specified type on each page.--Namoroka (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Meir_Nir.jpg

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to formally request the undeletion of the file Meir_Nir.jpg that was recently removed from Wikipedia. I am the copyright owner of this image and hold the exclusive rights to use and distribute it.

I uploaded the file under a free license to contribute to the Wikipedia project and confirm that I have the authority to do so. If additional documentation or a declaration of ownership is required, I am happy to provide it.

Please let me know if further steps are necessary to restore the file to Wikipedia, and I appreciate your assistance in resolving this matter.

Thank you for your time and support.

Best regards, --Juststreamit (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose EXIF data says "Artist Shay-lee, Copyright Shay-lee". We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:DwightBirdwell.jpg

Hello the photographer of this photo gave permission for this image to be used on Dwight W. Birdwell's wikipedia page. He was notified on December 11 that it would take around 5 days for it to be processed but the image/file was deleted on December 25. This is the file.

--Edbirdwell76 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The problem may be that "permission for this image to be used on Dwight W. Birdwell's wikipedia page" is not sufficient, Both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for any use by anybody anywhere, not just on WP. Please make sure that the photographer has actually sent a free license and not just the limited one you describe above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The photographer said they did send a release to Wikipedia that it was okay to use the photo, this was back on December 11th. Should I forward the email correspondence the photographer had with Wikipedia? Edbirdwell76 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I note that User:Mark Umstot has uploaded the image with a CC-BY-4.0 license. That is the name of the photographer, but we have no way here of verifying that User:Mark Umstot is not an imposter. We see many of them here. Either Mr. Umstot can send a message from umstot.com to VRT verifying that the user is him or he can put a note on https://umstot.com/contact-us/ saying that he is User:Umstot here. In either case we will put a short note on his user page, User:Mark Umstot, confirming the identity. The image can then be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Faisal Dip Portrait

hello dear concern could you undelete this picture ? this public profile faisal dip actor bangladesh. and i have full of rights this copyrights.. so please undelete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisal dip (talk • contribs) 07:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Personal image by non contributor. Please read COM:WEBHOST. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Felix Cziossek - Forsthaus in Bermaringen-Blaustein.jpg and others

July 2024 marks the 70th anniversary of the painter Felix Cziossek's death (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Cziossek). Therefore, his paintings are now in the public domain and can be part of Wikimedia Commons without any issues. For this reason I am requesting the undeletion of the following images:

• File:Felix Cziossek - Forsthaus in Bermaringen-Blaustein.jpg
• File:Felix Cziossek - Schloss Ludwigsburg Nordseite.jpg
• File:Felix Cziossek - Tagblattturm Stuttgart im Bau.jpg
• File:Felix Cziossek - Wurmlinger Kapelle.jpg
• File:Felix Cziossek - Brückenhaus Neckarweihingen.jpg
• File:Felix Cziossek - Schloss Monrepos.jpg
• File:Felix Cziossek - Schloss Ludwigsburg Südportal.jpg
• File:Felix Cziossek - Schloss Ludwigsburg Eingang Mömpelgardstrasse.jpg
• File:Felix Cziosek - Schloss Ludwigsburg Haupteingang.jpg
• File:Östlicher Bodensee, Felix Cziossek 1944.jpg

Thanks and best Konrap (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

---

PD now. @Konrap: Please fix the license and add categories. --Yann (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Reopened. I don't understand. two of these,

• File:Felix Cziossek - Tagblattturm Stuttgart im Bau.jpg
• File:Felix Cziossek - Schloss Ludwigsburg Eingang Mömpelgardstrasse.jpg

are from before 1930 and therefore do not have URAA copyrights. All the rest have US copyrights expiring on dates ranging from next year to the 2040s. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that in such a case, the copyright status needs to be reevaluated for each file. This is best done if the files are undeleted. Then a new DR can be created. Yann (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks everybody! I'll take care of this. We are currently discussing the expiration dates as the paintings have not been published before 1978. There is also the possibility to make them publicly available by the heirs of Felix Cziossek who I am in contact with. Also see here:

Commons:Deletion requests/2025/01/01#Files found with Special:Search/Felix Cziossek

I'll get in touch with the volunteer response team and fix the licenses once it has come clear which one is applicable. Konrap (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: withdrawn. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Sir Frank Mears.jpg

I consider this image should be re-instated, for its value as a visual representation of Sir Frank Mears. As Mears died on 25 January 1953, the image is well over 70 years old and therefore no longer protected by UK copyright by my reckoning.

I consider the claim by Filedelinker.bot that the image was previously deleted by 'community consensus' to be erronious. The record shows that it was removed on the opinion of Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) on 9 May 2022. I have seen no evidence of any attempt to achieve consensus on the matter.Sandy Fortingal (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

First, please note that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir Frank Mears.jpg represents community consensus -- to be sure, only two people commented, but the DR was open for ten days and you were invited to comment.

Second, while you initially claimed to be the actual photographer, you subsequently changed that to "anonymous". The rule in the UK is that copyright for an anonymous work lasts for 70 years after publication. In order to avoid a URAA copyright, the work must have been published before 1930. He was born in 1880 and died, as you say, in 1953. He would have been 50 in 1930. It is possible that he was under 50 in this image, but it seems unlikely. In order for the image to be restored, you must prove that this image was published before 1930. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done per Jim. The source is probably this with the first known publication October 20, 2014, which means that this photo will be copyrighted in the UK until 2085 (2014 + 70 + 1). Thuresson (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Botswana Anthem Music Sheet.InstrumentalSimple.svg

It has been almost seven years since this file got deleted. This file went into public domain on this year's public domain day, and therefore I'm requesting the undeletion of this file. See this. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 11:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Since it was under Botswana copyright until yesterday and was written in 1962, Fatshe leno la rona will have a URAA copyright until at least 1/1/2058 and perhaps later, depending on its publication date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Carter mourning drape.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: Even though the painting is not created by the US Government, it is on Commons with VRT at File:President Carter National Portrait Gallery.jpg. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Done: As noted we have a free license for the painting. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:La Statue de Paris (Kapla).jpg

Hello,

This file is important because we need to add the image named File:La Statue de Paris (Kapla).jpg on the page Draft:La Statue de Paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicreator2562 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose we need the file for a draft article about X is not a valid reason for undeletion. Please wait at least until the article is accepted. Notice that the original uploader was blocked for vandalism in Commons and for creating non encyclopedic articles in frwiki. The requested is currently blocked in mediawiki for vandalism. Günther Frager (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per discussion. --Krd 13:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Porto do Pecém 02.jpg

A foto do Porto do Pecém que foi divulgada em site Oficial do Estado do Ceará foi apagada por supostamente infringir copright de entidade pública em site oficial. Essa não é razão para exclusão visto que a mesma já está liberada automaticamente. Joelkaula (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose source is https://www.ceara.gov.br/2022/01/05/porto-do-pecem-bate-recorde-e-fecha-2021-com-mais-de-22-milhoes-de-toneladas-movimentadas/ and the footer clearly states "© 2017 - 2025 – governo do estado do ceará todos os direitos reservados". Günther Frager (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Per Gunther. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Province of Iloilo.svg

The flag belongs to a Philippine local government. It should be under PD-PhilippinesGov. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Higespike

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Mobilier national, façade principale.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Mobilier national, façade principale, vue serrée.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Mobilier national, façade arrière.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Mobilier national, façade arrière décentrée.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Mobilier national, cour intérieure, vue latérale.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: all files at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mobilier national. In PD in France since January 1, 2025 (public domain day 2025), as the last-surviving architect died in 1954. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll undelete that shortly. We're still working on undeleting works marked for 2025. Abzeronow (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Done: Undeleted now. --Abzeronow (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

All files under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Éxterieur de l'Église Notre-Dame du Raincy

ALl files under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Éxterieur de l'Église Notre-Dame du Raincy. In public domain since January 1, 2025. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This is in the Undelete in 2025 category. Please do not add it here. Yann (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Rohan khan.jpg

• Rohankhan104*

• • Subject**: File:Rohan khan.jpg

• • Request**:

I am requesting the undeletion of the file *Rohan khan.jpg*. The file violates Wikimedia Commons policies because: 1. It is a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph without proper permissions. 2. The uploader has not provided sufficient evidence of license or ownership.

Please proceed with undeletion under the appropriate copyright guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohan khann104 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Personal image by non contributor. Please read COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Sakura Fujimizu.jpg undelete

I was requested to change the photo to the file by the subject herself. So there are no issues with copyright. If I have something to do anymore, please tell me what to do.(This is the first time to edit wiki, so please advise me to success this edit.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOREHOTTER (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The copyright belongs by default to the photographer. And since this is not your own work, a formal written permission from the copyright holder is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:BarbaraZwirs.jpeg

I know the photographer. The photo may be used provided the name of the photographer (Merlijn Doomernik) is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JufHollands (talk • contribs) 10:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Not currently deleted. We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. --Yann (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Kastaños inauteri taldea dantzan.jpg

Please restore this image. Its author is the amateur cultural association named "SALBATZAILE Dantza taldea" (https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salbatzaile_Dantza_Taldea). The photograph shows members of the association dancing at street in Bilbao, is Salbatzaile association. The photograph was published with copyright in the official website of Salbatzaile (http://salbatzaile.org), but one month ago (2024-12-03) the president of this culture association sent an email to assign CC-BY-SA license to this photograph ([Ticket#2024112710004246], permissions-es@wikimedia.org). Last week (2024-12-27), I made corrections about its author (SALBATZAILE) and source (the association's website).

Please, consider that this is the same case for all the ten photographs deleted from the Salbatzaile_dantza_taldea category. Please restore all the ten images.

Noteː Later, (tomorrow, if I had time for it) I am going to add a different undeletion request for the five images deleted from Begoña Arroyo category. They were also mentioned in Ticket#2024112710004246.

Ksarasola (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The permission was never validated. Yann (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Also note that unless each of the photographers has given a written license allowing the association to freely license their works, the association has no right to do so. In order for this or any of the other images to be restored, the actual photographer of each image must send a free license using VRT. Please do not waste your time with more requests here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I am the support agent who processed the above mentioned Ticket:2024112710004246. The questions I asked to the client (on 2024-12-04) were never answered, thus this ticket does not constitute a valid permission. --Mussklprozz (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Prodromos Antonoglou.jpg

own photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro loves wiki (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a 1945 image. While it is possible that it is {{Own}} as claimed, that seems unlikely unless the uploader is 90 years old. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Scp-1471-furry-art.jpg

The file is a drawing of SCP-1471, a character of the SCP Foundation collaborative writing project, a sci-fi wiki site, containing fictional entities and stories. The SCP Foundation text describing the creature, along with the majority of the SCP Foundation work, is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (see here, at the footer of the site).

Consequently, the drawing of the character should also be under the same license, since the original work it is based on is in a ShareAlike License.

In order to avoid further confusion or problems that I may cause, I would like to know if I was correct to assume that the drawing is also in the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, since if I remember correctly, the contagious nature of the license is applied automatically, without the artist needing to precise it.

If I was correct, then the file could be undeleted if needed.

Thanks in advance, and sorry if I caused confusion or problems, Léo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecanautes (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

 Oppose First, the license definition at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ says, among other things,

ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

This implies that the creator of a derivative work (DW) must take the action of applying the license. If the DW creator did not do this, it would give the original creator a cause of action, but the DW would be unlicensed until the creator of the DW added the license.

If, somehow, the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license somehow automatically propagated to the DW, this sentence would be redundant and I would expect to see something like the following in the license definition,

Derivative works of the works licensed under this license are automatically licensed with the same license.

That is clearly not the case in either the summary or the complete license.

Second, it is not clear that a drawing made from a description is a DW. After all, if the description is "Wolf", no one would call any drawing of a wolf a DW of that description. I think that in order to show that the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license applies, you would have to prove that all of the aspects included in the description were included in the drawing and that the creator of the drawing actually used them. I have not seen the description, but the example shown at https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-1471 is very different from the deleted image -- no one could imagine that they had been created from the same instructions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose (As the deleting admin) This is a clear copyright violation. E6 does have cc-by-sa and cc-by tags, and files there should be fine to bring over (if they're in scope and if you verify the license is correct at the original source) but I just checked and there are no images with either of those tags and the SCP-1471 tag. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AVvs_roxxy?wprov=sfla1

Vvs Roxxy

Vvs Roxxy is a young and talented music producer from South Africa. Born in Johannesburg, she was raised in the Ennerdale neighborhood by her mother.

Early Life

Vvs Roxxy's early life was marked by challenges, including the absence of her father, who she has described as a negative influence. Despite these difficulties, her mother played a crucial role in shaping her upbringing, albeit with a strict approach that often left Vvs Roxxy feeling controlled.

Growing up in a low-income household with two siblings, Lebohang Chakane and Thoriso Moletsane, Vvs Roxxy never had the privilege of an affluent upbringing. However, her sister Lebohang proved to be a pillar of support, encouraging Vvs Roxxy's passion for music.

Vvs Roxxy faced additional challenges in her childhood, experiencing verbal abuse both at school and at home. Despite her mother's strictness, Vvs Roxxy kept her music ambitions hidden, fearing judgment and rejection. Her peers also doubted her music abilities, which further fueled her determination to succeed.

Career

Despite facing numerous challenges, Vvs Roxxy's passion for music remained unwavering. She found solace and support in her partners, Edict 181 and 2facedbeast, who welcomed her into the music industry with open arms. They believed in her talent and provided her with the encouragement she needed to pursue her dreams.

With their support, Vvs Roxxy began her music career, releasing her debut single "We Going Up" featuring Edict 181 and Vroy Santana. She followed up with another successful release, "Push", a collaboration with Edict 181. These inaugural releases marked the beginning of her promising career in music production.

Record Label

Vvs Roxxy is currently signed to Groundshakers Media.

Influences

Vvs Roxxy's music style is influenced by knowned producers Metro Boomin and Dr. Dre, whose work has had a significant impact on her production skills. Her favorite artist is Juice WRLD, whose music has been a source of comfort and inspiration during difficult times. Juice WRLD's emotive and often introspective lyrics have resonated deeply with Vvs Roxxy, helping her navigate life's challenges and fueling her own creative expression.

Management

Vvs Roxxy is managed by Lwandle Nxumalo.

References — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvs roxxy (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: Rolled back a deletion of this -- for transparency we should handle it routinely. The cited page is on WP:EN and has not been deleted, so there are two reasons why there is nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Pascal_Mirleau.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2024122910003107. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Mussklprozz: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:logo_of_the_Islamic_Army_In_Iraq.svg

The Islamic Army in Iraq is a known terrorist group. Last time I checked and I am happy to double verify, but terrorist groups do not have rights to their logos as far as public domain is concerned either nationally or internationally and thus this logo would be considered public domain. Imagine of a group such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda (for whatever reason) wished to remain an alleged copyright status for their emblems/logos. Every terrorist and/or organized criminal group in the world would then be able to make such claims.

I am also wondering who originally requested you to take down this logo. My worry is that whoever may have done so may have done it in bad faith. As you may well know unfortunately Wikipedia Vandalism is a known issue, take for example the case of the Wikipedia pages dealing with Scientology which have notoriously underdone cases of cyber vandalism. As I understand this on occasion this may happen as well with articles related to terrorism. I may indeed be mistaken, but I would like your clarification on the reasoning behind this.

I talked to the individual who took the request for deletion at User talk:Krd, and he seems to have only accepted it, but did not request it. But he did indicate to me that the reason for the removal of this icon was for a public domain issue (whether or not this was mistaken or not)

Also if there is something I am not seeing or do not understand than please clarify to me. Thank you for all that are concerned. (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyguy1138 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright law in Iraq applies to terrorists, a fact that the Iraqi government knows and would use to suppress this flag. Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: We've heard the "terrorists don't have rights and therefore this is in the public domain" arguement on this page before. It is, legally, a fantasy. Copyright still applies. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:mirosmajdabio.jpg

This photo is photo of Miro Smajda from promo photoshoot with Miro at Kladno - Poldovka in 2019. I am the owner of the photo rights. I don't understand the reason why the photo was deleted. It is crazy that it's used 12 years old non actual photo of the singer where he has long hair instead of newer actual photo. This guy got his hair cut 10 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Call2nigma (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Illyria 1892.svg

Hi, First of all I would like to apologize for uploading an image that did not respect the project endorsed by Wikimedia Commons. To be fair, I was using a website that basically allows you to create parliamentary diagrams and host them on Wikimedia Commons. There is no indication on this website whatsoever that implies that diagrams cannot be hosted for personal use. I hereby request the possibility of temporarily restoring my diagram in order to find a way to save it on my device. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire&BloodHuhu (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Relevant guideline: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host". Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Illyria 1892.svg. Thuresson (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I know it's not, I was misled by this website, I am simply asking for the ability to rehost my diagram temporarily so that I can recover it and save it to my device, before permanently deleting it again Fire&BloodHuhu (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)