Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-04

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

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

File:Artist Rosa Branson MBE by Michael Shpakov.jpg, File:Professor of Immunology Ivan Roitt FRS by Michael Shpakov.jpg

From the deletion log: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=311063358 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=311064088

Deleted from the Pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Branson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Roitt

I hereby affirm that I am Michael Shpakov, a portrait artist, a creator of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media[3] as shown here: File:Artist Rosa Branson MBE by Michael Shpakov.jpg File:Professor of Immunology Ivan Roitt FRS by Michael Shpakov.jpg [exact URL of the file uploaded on Wikimedia Commons],[4] and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Hollandra (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Michael Shpakov Artist, Creator, Owner and Copyright holder 29.03.2022

 Oppose Please not that we cannot accept on-wiki permissions like this because there is no way to verify your identity through your Wikimedia account. Please send an email with a permission as explained in COM:VRT. De728631 (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ammann Bros. newspaper article.jpg

It is not "nonsense" to include this deleted file...

File:Ammann_Bros._newspaper_article.jpg

...in the Wikipedia article...

List_of_lost_inventions#Questionable_examples

...or, at least include it in the category...

Category:Discovery_and_invention_controversies

...since the deleted file documents a lost invention of questionable character. The deleted file is a scanned newspaper article which uses an original photograph uploaded here...

File:Ammann_brothers%27_original_newpaper_photograph.jpg Vinyasi (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I also do not believe this invention is worthwhile including on en:List of lost inventions any more than the thousands of other free energy claims out there. The only mainstream press coverage was a single agency story that appeared in several newspapers (1, 2, 3). The only other mentions I see are, again pseudoscience sites peddling it as the lost secret to free energy. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I added a {{Factual accuracy}} to File:Ammann brothers' original newpaper photograph.jpg. Feel free to improve. Yann (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, I get it. It's all or nothing. So, if there isn't any article on the topic of this photograph, then... 1. The deleted photograph doesn't deserve to be in Commons without the inclusion of a disclaimer tag (such as that added by Yann), nor... 2. Does the deleted photograph deserve to be included on the en:List of lost inventions, questionable or otherwise. In other words, newspaper clippings are not sufficient documentary evidence for an event (a public demonstration) for having taken place and there is no article on such events having taken place? Then what are newspaper clippings good for? Vinyasi (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
We would indicate if a map had errors, or if an expert had indicated that an artwork was a fake. So yes, we will indicate if a file depicts the subject of a hoax.
Regarding use of the newspaper clipping on Wikipedia, please read en:WP:EXCEPTIONAL and en:WP:FRINGE: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. This article shows that these inventors claimed to have invented a car powered by free energy. It is a short agency article based on hearsay, from an era when such breathless reporting of claims was common in journalism. It is nowhere near the quality of source required to support the incredible claim of a completely new form of energy transmission. (If this invention was real and not a hoax, every scientific journal would have detailed coverage.) A single article also does not establish that the "invention" was notable. Dozens of people have claimed to invent cars powered by free energy; we do not need to include them on any list of inventions - even hoaxes - unless they received substantial press coverage.
Because the article is available on Newspapers.com (see my clipping link above), there is no need to host a copy on Commons even if it is used as a source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Point of order Pi.1415926535 asserts "We would indicate if a map had errors..." Is this actually what we do, or try to do? I have seen lots of maps claiming to show the extent of the colonial empires of European powers, in North America, that are wildly inaccurate. In particular maps of the extent of France's holdings, in North America, show France administering the entire eastern half of the Mississippi basin, all of Rupert's Land, and even the southern coast of Baffin Island. French explorers did document travel from the area of present day Chicago to the mouth of the Mississippi. But the wikipedia article on the Missouri River says the farthest French explorers traveled was to North Dakota. France and the Hudson Bay Company conducted a low level dispute over the control of the mouths of about half a dozen rivers that drained into Hudson's Bay, but there is no way the French empire ever controlled Rupert's Land. I would be surprised if they ever even walked ashore of Baffin Island.
But I know of no one trying to remove these maps, as inaccurate, or to tag them as dubious. I always thought it fell to the judgement of the authors at the individual wikis to determine whether to use these maps, or how to use them.
Don't we have fictional maps, of Narnia, of Tolkien's middle earth?
  • Over on the english language wiki there is a wikidocument, WP:HOAX, which is routinely misinterpreted. Those misinterpreting it routinely claim it says the wikipedia shouldn't cover hoaxes, when what it really says is that the wikipedia shouldn't be abused to trick readers, by propagating hoaxes as if they were real. Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme was a hoax - and a well documented one. Of course it should be covered.

    If, for the sake of argument, these Ammann brothers were hoaxsters, their hoax could nevertheless be covered in a fair and neutral article, or set of articles, so long as reliable sources wrote about it. So, why isn't this an argument to keep the images? If some people think authors on the individual wikis are trying to trick people by using these images in a misleading manner why isn't that a problem to be dealt with by other people on those wikis? Geo Swan (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  •  Support if the license is correct. Commons should only be concerned with the license. We have several projects adding whole runs of newspaper titles and published scholarly titles. --RAN (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


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

file:Konqi plushie, photo by Mario Fux, organizer of KDE even Randa Meeting.jpg

Requesting undeletion to allow template:PP to be applied for the plush (the character itself is libre, contrary to the DR closing comment). Arlo James Barnes 11:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Konqi plushie, photo by Mario Fux, organizer of KDE even Randa Meeting.jpg. Yann (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose There are three copyrights here.

  1. The first is for the photograph, which was taken from https://blogs.fsfe.org/mario/?p=283. There is no indication of a free license there.
  2. The KDE mascot, Konqui, from whom this plush toy was created has a copyright. There is nothing at https://kde.org/ to suggest that it is freely licensed.
  3. The plush toy shown in the image also has a copyright and the image infringes on the creator's rights.

In order for the image to be restored here, it must be shown that all three copyrights are freely licensed. This will usually require that each of the three creators send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the source. I emailed Mario Fux, so hopefully that will end up addressing concern 1; 2 I don't quite understand, as libre art can (and usually does) exist within the context of copyright, and this would be no different. You link to the homepage, but it's not likely info about the mascot would be there; instead I look to https://community.kde.org/Promo/Material/Mascots#Uploading_your_own_artwork which requires showcasing of new Konqi art to be in libre licenses/releases, https://timeline.kde.org && https://community.kde.org/Konqi#cite_note-3 which mentions the original design replaced the former Kandalf mascot (enwiki cites a speculation that there was a risk it might have been restricted by the Tolkien estate), https://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=137&t=109205 && https://web.archive.org/web/20190628004022/dot.kde.org/2012/12/08/contest-create-konqi-krita which require the design refresh be under a free license, https://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=254&t=109758&sid=34926676ac6764376249c370762cbc81 && https://www.deviantart.com/tysontan/art/Konqi-ver-2-494267237 which show the refreshed design is indeed LGPLd... Identifying the artist for concern 3 may be tricky but perhaps Mario knows. I had hoped it would be listed in the (now-deleted) page for the image but I suppose not? Arlo James Barnes 11:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing useful on the deleted page except the link given above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus to restore. --Yann (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


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

Files in Category:The elements of experimental embryology (1963)

The result of the original discussion should stand. This being an authorized reprint, the copyright expires if the work was not renewed; which it was not. The document was simultaneously printed in “New York” and “London,” making it (for purposes of law) a U.S. work not subject to the terms of the URAA. Thus, there was no copyright to restore, because it was not a foreign work; and no copyright remains, because there was no renewal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The elements of experimental embryology (1963) for reference. De728631 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose per Commons:Hirtle chart. This falls into the category "works that were first published outside of the US and later published in the US more than 30 days after publication abroad, without compliance with US formalities, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date." The copyright term is 95 years after the first ever publication, so the reprint is unfree until 1 January 2030. De728631 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  • The issue is rather if a new publication invalidates the copyright of an old one. It doesn't. Even if the reprint doesn't have one, the copyright of the original publication still exists. Yann (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The original publication date determines the copyright term in the United States. So if there was a previous release abroad in 1934, that is what needs to be considered for the 1963 version. The 1963 reprint cannot be considered a standalone publication. De728631 (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Nope, if it's a UK work, the last author died in 1975, so it won't be PD in the country of origin until 2046. The URAA would be pretty much moot for Commons in that case (though it could go to en-wiki and en-wikisource in 2030). If the 1934 publication was UK-only, that would be the status. If the 1934 publication was simultaneous, then the U.S. would be the country of origin I think, and it would be OK if the 1934 version was not renewed. Lack of renewal on a reprint would mean nothing, except for any new expression added in the reprint, if there is any. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The country of origin means several things: what foreign jurisdiction to apply for the URAA date (US or UK depending on history), what jurisdiction to apply for Commons policy (I'd assume US trumps in practice, although for the rational, "the country most relevant for the work" would suit better), and the country of origin as relevant to the jurisdiction of the reuser. For the third, a UK user should apply UK legislation, which would certainly think UK is the country of origin. A user in Egypt would need to check their own laws regardless of any PD templates on Commons. Am I mistaken? –LPfi (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Well yes, any re-user would need to use the laws in the country of intended use. They are UK authors, so the term there is 70pma -- country of origin does not enter into it. Commons policy is to use the Berne Convention "country of origin" definition, and apply that country's laws, and also apply the U.S. term. For other countries which use the rule of the shorter term, the "country of origin" expiration would cause the work to expire there (one reason for the policy). For countries which don't apply the rule of the shorter term, the country of origin is not relevant -- it would use the terms of that country. That is an issue for re-users though, not us -- we only care about the Berne definition. That in turn is the country of first publication (not of the authors), and if published in multiple countries within 30 days, they are "simultaneous", in which case the country of origin is the one with the shortest term (which can get some non-rational results). The URAA technically uses the term "source country", which is the same concept but it does not use the 30 day window -- published one day earlier than another means that is the source country -- and for works first published in multiple countries on the same day, it will use the "greatest contacts with the work" (more of the rational definition). However... if the U.S. is one of the countries in the Berne simultaneous situation, i.e. within 30 days, then it's a U.S. work as far as its law is concerned, and the URAA (along with its definition of source country) does not apply at all. And if the U.S. has the shortest term, then it is the Berne country of origin, which means we only need to use the U.S. expiration. So really, "country of origin" is the Berne definition, which Commons uses to apply their laws. The URAA can come into play when applying U.S. law, which will usually but not always be the same country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Gyldooo

I am a brazilian singer and this file is part of the behind the scenes from my music video "Tremer", which means that it does serve as an educational image about an artistic project for people who wanna know more about my musical career and, as such, must be immediatly undeleted.

(~~Gyldoooo, March 28th 2022~~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyldoooo (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 March 2022‎ (UTC)

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

File:Dideye Dito-Dome.jpg

You know what's funny. Making accusations without doing any research or contacting anyone. If you just take a second and look, the comic that I made, is not even on the website that I'm violating the copyright of. Let alone the fact that it's not copyrighted on that website either oh, but what I love the most is that it's my website I made for my comic. I'm using text-to-speech but if I wasn't didn't you could tell what words I'm emphasizing on. I don't know what kind of bulshit that you expect me to magically produce to prove that this is my own work, but you sure ain't going to get it. And same thing for the motec logo image. 1, a Quick Chek online would show you that the logo is no longer copyrighted or even used. Two, as I've already explained but no response was given to me, it is my own work oh, it's a picture I took and then spent the good while editing so it was all nice and flat since cameras like to give a bit of a fisheye effect.ChiserYT (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@ChiserYT:
1. Do not make wild accusations when you don't know what you are talking about.
2. Please give the real filename.
3. For all documents previously published elsewhere, we need a formal written permission from the copyright holder, and proof online that the file is under the stated license. See COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

One, that is the real filename, two. I never copyrighted any of my comics. Three, look for yourself. You will not find that file anywhere but reddit, where i originally uploaded it. I haven't used my wordpress site for two years. You people could just butt out of other peoples stuff you know, or like i said, do two seconds of scrolling on MY site im "Violating". Why on gods green earth would i write out a paper giving myself consent to use my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiserYT (talk • contribs) 08:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

@ChiserYT: There never was a file by that name of Commons, but the exact name is File:Dideye Dito- Dome.jpg. Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Nowadays, you don't have to do anything to get a copyright on a document. The copyright exists as soon as an original document is created. It is not for us to look for the copyright status of a file, but it is your responsibility to prove that a file is acceptable here. And [1] gives a warning that the connection is not safe. Yann (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Unlikely to be educationally useful for any Wikimedia project, see en:Draft:Dideye Dito. Thuresson (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Corte de unha toddy.jpg Eu exijo a restauração.

Não sei quem fez o mau serviço de excluir uma imagem da página Porquinho-da-Índia ao vê-la em um anúncio na internet. (File:Corte de unha toddy.jpg)

Contudo, a imagem É MINHA, foi eu quem a fiz, inclusive está com o meu nome gravado na imagem no site que vocês pensaram que eu a peguei. É por isso que a Wikipédia está desacreditada.

Aqui está o site que vocês pensaram que eu peguei a imagem, mas ela está com o meu nome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: 

beecost.com.br/cortador-de-unha-roedores-porquinho-da-india-furaochinchilapdi-cuy-cui-guinea-pig-coelho-p.1__5062004739__331491874

Favor, colocar pessoas mais capacitadas para verificar os direitos autorais. 

--Valderifs (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Please note that we cannot verify your identity through your Wikimedia account, and there is no free licence at that website either. Unfortunately we get a lot of false author claims every day, so we need a permission from you sent by email. Please see Commons:Volunteer Response Team/pt-br for instructions. De728631 (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: by KoH. --Yann (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


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

File:SS2 V2 A1 2022-02-19 11.25.02.jpg

hello there! i know that photoFile:SS2 V2 A1 2022-02-19 11.25.02.jpg has been removed due to copyright, but i have to explain why i have to do this. because i didn't contact with them before, and now i did make a contact with them. and the reason why this photo has to be re-uploaded is because the website where I visited to save and re-upload here, has given me permission to be uploaded

i will do the best!

sincerely, LSKIYAPSD --LSKIYAPSD (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Original at https://pindad.com/ss2v2-a1 of which was stated that "Copyright © 2022 Pindad. All rights reserved." If you have a permission, please ask the copyright holder to send it following the instructions at COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


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

Work by Émile V. Schiesser

Please undelete

We have permission both from the artist himself and his photographer per Ticket:2022032110009619.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Кривий Іван Семенович.jpg

I consider deleting of photo a mistake. It was personally copied by me from the family archives and I consider myself as the rightful owner of the copyright.

The problem is that you don't automatically own the copyright just because you own a copy of the photo. You'd need to make sure that you are the heir of the photographer or that the photographer either has transferred their copyright or has given explicit permission to licence it. This is very unfortunate – as the photographer often would approve your licensing it if you were able to ask – but that is the way the copyright laws are written. Search for "orphan works" (Сирітські твори) and you'll find quite some discussion about the problem. –LPfi (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
How old is this picture? Yann (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mahuiztla Oztotlconetl: –LPfi (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Man on the photo died in 1961, so it, probably, was made in late 50-s. Mahuiztla Oztotlconetl (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
What I have to do, if I even don`t know, who was the photographer and he, most likely, dead at this moment, but I am owner of original photo? Mahuiztla Oztotlconetl (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mahuiztla Oztotlconetl: You can't do anything. Being owner of original photo doesn't grant you any right. If the photographer is unknown, then the most important information is the date and place of first publication. But IMO "late 1950s" is too recent in most cases, i.e. the picture still has a copyright. Yann (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
So, there are no way to return this photo into article? Mahuiztla Oztotlconetl (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mahuiztla Oztotlconetl: You need to prove that the image is in the public domain, or the copyright holder needs to send a permission by email. See COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Photos in family archives are mostly anonymous and unpublished. Commons:Ukraine says nothing about unpublished works, but for many European countries copyright in unpublished works lasts 70 years after creation. If this holds and the photo was taken in 1959, it is under copyright in Ukraine until the end of 2029. I assume the law of 1993 extended the copyright term to 70 years pma, in which case the former shorter term would not have been in effect any more at the URAA date. Thus, in the USA, the term is 120 years after creation, in the public domain from 2080. If 70 years pma applies also to unknown photographers, the author is known or the photo was published, other dates come into play.
If it seems clear the photographer is somebody you are the heir of, then you can publish the photo under a free licence. You should probably contact Commons:VRT to sort out what you know about the photo.
–LPfi (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
For using the photo in an article, fair use may apply, depending on what Wikipedia the article is in, see the relevant EDP. –LPfi (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: recent photo by Unknown photographer, no license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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

The following images

The nominator for deletion was User:Savary34 and User:Caux9, who were blocked for disruptive nominations for deletions, among other things, as well as using sockpuppet accounts. I want to peek at these images and make sure they were not under an active copyright. It looks like no one researched them during the deletion process. In the cases for the ones that were saved, I was the only person doing the research, and these three were deleted before I could do any research. If they are still under active copyright I will migrate them to Familysearch which accepts fair-use images. Please ping me. --RAN (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I have temporarily undeleted the images so their copyright status can be researched. De728631 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
At a quick glance, I say delete File:Alain Thomas, chef de file de la peinture naïve-primitive.jpg which is too recent to be out of copyright and can be found here. The others seem to be PD-old though if we can also determine that they are also out of copyright in the US. De728631 (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 Delete also File:Antoine Pierre Étienne de PERIER (1893-1968).jpg. There is a brand new article on French Wikipedia Pierre-Étienne de Perier which matches the lifetime dates given in the original DR and in the file name. This photo is apparently from the 1940s or even from the 50s, so still not old enough. De728631 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Keep The following:
  • File:Antoine Pierre Étienne de PERIER (1893-1968).jpg it would be "PD-EU-no author disclosure" it appears to be from circa 1943 when he was 50 years old. The EU only awards 70 years of protection which would take us up to 1952. --RAN (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Hugues de Perier (1931-1956) portrait.jpg it would be "PD-EU-no author disclosure" according to Ancestry the image comes from his military academy yearbook from 1950 showing the class of 1952. He died in 1956 shortly after graduation. --RAN (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Philippe de Perier.jpg it would also be "PD-EU-no author disclosure" based on the man's age. The image would come from 1950 per the version at Ancestry. --RAN (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I will fix that. --RAN (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
{{PD-1996}} doesn't work either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Those files were not PD in the country of origin in 1996 -- France was 50 years + wartime extensions in 1996, but the wartime extensions mean even the 1943 photo was still under copyright. That in turn means the U.S. copyright is the earlier of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation, neither of which has happened yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Delete File:Alain Thomas, chef de file de la peinture naïve-primitive.jpg Clearly a post 1952 image still under copyright. --RAN (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: All under US copyright per URAA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Bavo Kerk Nuth tot 1922.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bavo Kerk Nuth tot 1922.jpg

1922 postcard so public domain in the US. "Likely photographer died in 1947", it looks like it's public domain in country of origin. Abzeronow (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Support. According to the attribution the photo was made by Joh. Cohnen, who died 1947 per this database record. So the image is now in PD in the Netherlands (70 years after his death). When deleted in 2011 it was still protected by copyright. Ellywa (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Done per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:LWD Color.jpg

This photo of Mr. Dressel is one personally taken by me with his permission. It is not covered by any copyrights.

I have Mr. Dressel's written permission to use this photo and place it into the public domain and put it on Wiki Commons.

I want to put it into Commons because it is a much better, clearer, and representative photo than the several others on the internet.

Walt500 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Size 157 x 203 pixels. Deleted after nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/File:LWD Color.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Mr. Thuresson, I am uncertain, if I can not get this picture into commons, how I could get any photo that I've taken in. Can you help me by letting me know exactly what the problem was with this photo, so that I can submit some others. Thanks you for your help. 50.40.119.3 20:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Tiny images are not useful and are usually taken from the web without permission. Upload an image you took of Lucian W. Dressel at full camera resolution and it probably will be kept. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Printed Shirts.jpg

My image remove from wikimedia.org. It belongs to the clothing category. Url for the one I was messaging https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Printed_Shirts.jpg. please don't delete it doesn't violate Wikimedia rules.

 Oppose Image copied from [2] without proper permission. Yann (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: © 2022 Uathayam. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Nude man outdoor.png

I nominated my own file for nomination. Now I see that the image can stay online. And for me it is not a problem. So I ask to you to undeletion my image . I hope my image is soon back. 2022/31/03 (Etvdv (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC))

 Oppose. Several versions of this image have been deleted earlier, e.g. File:Nude outdoor.jpg on February 11, File:Older nude man.jpg on January 2021. File:Naked man sits in the grass.jpg. Please note deleted contributions of user Etvdv Ellywa (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Of the linked deletions, only Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude man outdoor.png seems relevant. Two of the images were deleted on uploader request, which should have no prejudice for future uploads, one was "personal photos by non-contributor" and one was for being redundant. The latter two are about the utility of the specific photo. I cannot see the photos, so I cannot answer "what new could be added to existing collection", and I don't know whether the uploader has the permission of the subject and photographer, but those are three separate concerns. The deletion request on this file was closed on scope and redundancy, which is what should be addressed here, unless those three other issues enter the scene (which I understood the above hinted at, but an explicit argument is needed). –LPfi (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
this image is my own work. I'm the owner of the work and for me it can stay online.
Etvdv (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope personal image of non contributor and a copyvio as there is no license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Tanki Online Garage.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Im the one that took it of my gameplay 151.197.36.90 16:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose EULA:

7.2. You hereby acknowledge and agree that you will not under any circumstances:
7.2.1. Copy, adapt, create derivative works of, display, distribute, lease, loan, modify, rent, sublicense, translate and/or transfer the Game without obtaining the Company’s prior written consent.

Thuresson (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: copyrighted image without permission. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Luxury Girl 2021.jpg

Прошу восстановить данный файл, поскольку на его использование в Википедии имеется разрешение как автора фотографии Яны Соляник, так и изображенной на ней Полины Марченко (Luxury Girl). С уважением Фэтти (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose. Images on Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/p/CYhJqoWMOqn/) are not free. Also, a permission "for Wikipedia" (only) is not accepted here. So, if the photographer is willing to release the image under the choosen free license, he/she needs to send a confirmation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (ORTS). --Túrelio (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The actual photographer must send permssion using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Files from Museo Virtual "Alto Bierzo" uploaded by Galopax

License has changed per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Galopax&diff=next&oldid=629510730#File_copyright_status , User:Galopax/mv-ab, and https://mv-ab.geo-lab.info/wiki/informacion/licencia (the latter two in Spanish). Please ping me and Galopax.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Info It is unclear to me who should be attributed as the photographer and why the museum is authorised to grant a free license if the author is aunknown. Ankry (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @Galopax as uploader.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
About who should be attributed as the photographer and why the museum is authorized to grant a free license if the author is unknown, it must be taken into account that this's a series of photographs collected by a researcher and director of the Museum "Alto Bierzo", now retired, commissioned by the City Council of Bembibre, photographs, many of them, more than 70 years ago. And, most probably, all of them of unknown author, some of them because of their antiquity, the most modern ones as passport type photographs, and they could even be taken by photo booth type machines, none of them associated with an artistic image or author.
These photographs, which were once presented publicly, as noted in the introduction to this link (in Spanish), are in a space in the building of the City Council itself, as can be seen in this omnioramic image.
Why, how its authorship is attributed, what kind of license, authorization or similar supports this exhibition, this use, are questions that I think it's not appropriate to raise or question that institution, museum or city council.
Yes a management was made, in 2017-03-31, through email, in which it is made participant of the initiative Virtual Museum "Alto Bierzo" to responsible for the said Museum "Alto Bierzo" and, through it, to the Department of Culture of the City Council of Bembibre, a link that is maintained, as communication of 2022-01-26, in which the change of license from GNU to CC BY-SA is commented, a circumstance that, in turn, and for public knowledge, is reflected in the Wiki itself.
The first mail, from 2017, receives a response on 2017-05-11, in which it's stated: "With respect to the project Virtual Museum "Alto Bierzo", from the Department of Culture, Tourism and Festivals of the City Council of Bembibre, its authorization is given so that it can continue with the same", a project in Wiki mode, online, with link submitted and analyzed by these people, and containing specific information on license.
With this background, it has been considered validated the upload to Wikimedia Commons of photographs published in this virtual museum, in some way a reflection of a real one, even if equipped with many other photographs, most of them of own production, and other specific resources (Category:Museo Virtual "Alto Bierzo").
In any case, if there were any other question to raise, I would try to answer it. Best regards.--Galopax (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: "Why, how its authorship is attributed, what kind of license, authorization or similar supports this exhibition, this use, are questions that I think it's not appropriate to raise or question that institution, museum or city council." -- It is precisely this question which must be answered if the images are restored here. As far as I see it, we have a collection of images by unknown photographers. We cannot address all of them in one UnDR. Most of them are too recent to be PD in both the USA and in Spain. A new request should be made for any that are older. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:InaCoolbrith-1926-AnselAdams.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:InaCoolbrith-1926-AnselAdams.jpg

Adams could have published it in the 1920s. Source is a book published in 2008, if that was the first publication, this photograph would have to wait until 2055 for restoration (since Adams died in 1984). Figured now would be a good time to review that. EDIT: The book credits the Oakland Public Library for the photograph so that is something I can also independently follow up on. Abzeronow (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Info Email correspondence with Oakland (California) Public Library is as follows : "I believe you are referring to this photograph [the link goes to https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/tf2c6005tj/ ]. Unfortunely I can't track the full publication history, partly because we have had it in our collection since before we had permission forms, and partly because we are not the only institution that owns a copy. The link is to a print owned by the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley, and based on this finding [link goes to https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c81r6x0v/entire_text/ ] I suspect there may also be a print in the California Historical Society." The California Historical Society page has this info too "Box 1, Folder 2 -Ina D. Coolbrith -Scope and Contents- File also contains a Parmelian Print of Ina D. Coolbrith by Ansel Adams, back cover of print labeled: "This Parmelian Print by Ansel Easton Adams of San Francisco is no. 937. Presented to Ina Coolbrith Circle by Albert M. Bender, Sept. 1934." The email correspondence also mentions that the photograph was published in the 1973 biography of Coolbrith titled Ina Coolbrith: Librarian and Laureate of California by Josephine DeWitt Rhodamel and Raymund Francis Wood (p. 362). Newer biographies of Coolbrith and Adams use a different photograph https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/k6251sck/ So I'll see what inquiries emailing the Bancroft Library and the California Historical Society turn up. Abzeronow (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Bancroft Library says they are unaware of any publication history, and the California Historical Society has no record of them publishing any of the Ina Coolbrith prints by Adams in their collection. So we have 1973 as the earliest known publication so far, unless we decide the 1934 presentation to Ina Coolbrith Circle as publication. Abzeronow (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The only evidence we have of publication is the 1973 book, which almost certainly had a copyright notice. Wihout evidence of early publication, we can't restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:TuS Chlodwig Zülpich logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please check if it was rightfully deleted. Wasn't a real discussion before deletion. The inside of the logo is a simplified version of File:DEU Zuelpich COA.svg. The rest is just text and simple geometric shapes. If a different license than textlogo applies, please feel free to use that. Nordat (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Comment We still have a whole series of logos like this which are based on the official coat of arms of the town. See File:TuS Chlodwig Zülpich.png and other versions. De728631 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion -- it's PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Фабрика Титания в кв. Красно село, София през 1937г.jpg

Hello, this photo was taken by my great-grandfather Ivan Tabakov. It is part of his personal archive that I own and I am his inheritor. By putting it on his wikipedia page, I provide permission for the use of the photo. Please undelete the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NKV55 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

@NKV55: Hi,
Please sign with ~~~~.
Please send a permission for a free license following the instructions at COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: I wonder what asking for VRT would achieve though? These photos are previously unpublished, and so cannot be provably tied to any particular name or email. An assertion by a random Commons user is just as good as an assertion by a random email address IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: That's what we have done for years. I am open to simplify the procedure in such a case, but we need a wider discussion for that. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@Yann: I don't see anywhere on the COM:VRT page that it is necessary for an heir to an unpublished photo to contact VRT? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: May be it is not written there, but AFAIK it is the current practice, for any image not taken by the uploader. As I said, I am really open to change that. Any other opinion? Yann (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, there's a difference between an image taken by the uploader's friend and an image taken by the uploader's late relative - the uploader is the copyright holder in the latter but not the former. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I think we usually do not require VRT for heirs. Still, a random username says little, especially as our logs are deleted after a short period, while e-mail includes the delivery path, and the e-mail provider often has some more information that can be used in case of legal trouble. Another reason to use VRT is that the VRT folks can ask for details about the connection between the author, the works and the heir, questions that a user has no obligation to answer in public – lying is unusual and difficult while misunderstanding copyright is common. –LPfi (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Not done, please follow the instructions at COM:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Aquitania in New York, 1926.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aquitania in New York, 1926.jpg

I'd like for this file to be temporarily undeleted so I might be able to find the actual info on who took the photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, no hits on Tineye. Only match I found on websearch was a French Pininterest page https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/396809417153107906/ which has http://www.maritimequest.com/liners/aquitania/aquitania_15.jpg as the source. Will try digging a little deeper. EDIT: Also here, http://www.maritimequest.com/liners/aquitania_page_6.htm Description is "Aquitania seen off New York in 1926." No photo credit given. I'll email the webmaster of the site and see if I can get a lead that way, but this seems like this could have been a photograph first published after 2003 and might have to wait until 2047 if I can't find biographical info on the photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Two weeks later and still no reply from the webmaster of Maritime Quest to my e-mail. I guess we could probably close this as I don't currently have the means to resolve the copyright questions on the photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No evidence could be found for this photo being in the public domain or otherwise freely licensed. --De728631 (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:1948-books.jpg

See added description and links about book cover author! (designed by I.P. Vtorov The book) --109.252.176.137 12:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment The book on the right would be OK, as {{PD-ineligible}}. For the book on the left, we would need to blurry the pictures. Yann (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose It's very unlikely that all of the images on the cover of the left book are licensed freely. They are almost certainly licensed to the book's publisher only for use on the book's cover and inside the book. In order for us to restore the image we would have to know that all of them are freely licensed by their copyright holders. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I uploaded a new version with blurred pictures and logo. Do you think it is OK? Yann (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: By Yann, after blurring photos. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Испытатели ОКБ МиГ-1993 Л.Попов, В.Меницкий, А.Гарнаев, С.Хазов, П.Власов.jpg

Автор фото Сергей Скрынников — сам погиб в 2002 году, а тогда в 1993 он сделал этот снимок и передал всем изображённым на нём без ограничений на публикации и претензий на авторские права.

The author of the photo, Sergei Skrynnikov, himself died in 2002, and then in 1993 he took this picture and handed it over to everyone depicted on it without restrictions on publication and copyright claims.
translator: Google

 Oppose That may or may not be correct, but in order for the image to be restored to Commons, we must see a copy of the written license which Сергей Скрынников gave or a written license from his heir via VRT.

We must also see evidence that this image meets our scope requirements -- that the persons shown in the image are significantly notable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Tashkent-International-University-of-Education TIUE.jpg

Добрый день! Этот рисунок - логотип нашего университета «Tashkent International University of Education» (TIUE) и является нашей оригинальной и собственной разработкой. Также данный рисунок не является спором и плагиатом.

Good afternoon! This drawing is the logo of our university "Tashkent International University of Education" (TIUE) and is our original and own development. Also, this drawing is not a dispute and plagiarism. --Nosir Khodjaev (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Permission for a free license should be sent by email following the instructions at COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from an authorized official of the University using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Vladimyrov I Capture of Litovsy Castle.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vladimyrov I Capture of Litovsy Castle.gif

The author Иван Алексеевич Владимиров (Ivan A. Vladimirov) died in 1947, and it entered into Russian public domain this year. Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  •  Support The version cited by De728631 above has several obnoxious watermarks, but it is a much better version than the deleted one. I note that the caption of the cited work does not mention "Litovsy Castle" and a five minute effort finds no hits for it, so if this is restored it needs a better file name. Perhaps someone whose Russian history is better than mine (very weak) could look at it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. Ruthven (msg) 12:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:varunpradipdave.jpg

He is an Indian powerlifter

--Nikki710 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The article at the English Wikipedia may soon be deleted for lack of notability and I don't see how this particular portrait would be educationally useful. Fails COM:SCOPE. De728631 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Also note that the uploader is Wiki writer VPD, whose initials are the same as the subject. If the uploader is the subject, it's not "own work" as claimed. Also, the image File:Varunpradipdaveprofile.jpg is the same photograph with a different background, uploaded by Nikki710, who claims it is their "own work", so we have two own work claims for the same image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: NOTHOST/self-promotion nonsense by confirmed sock -- see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VPD7102001/Archive, c:Category:Sockpuppets of VPD7102001, etc. --Эlcobbola talk 15:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Andreas Puff-Trojan 2021.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2022022210011268. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Files of logos of ROC government sectors

These are logos of government sectors, not "state-run businesses"（「國營事業」）. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 14:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a specific license template? --Leyo 14:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
{{PD-ROC-exempt}}, cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Penghu Airport logo.svg. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 14:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. @Jameslwoodward: Do you agree as deleting admin? --Leyo 16:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose No. It is clear reading {{PD-ROC-exempt}} that there is a very fine distinction here. In particular, it says there (in bold) WORKS OF STATE RUN ENTERPRISES ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY FREE OF COPYRIGHT.

Eric Liu says "These are logos of government sectors, not "state-run businesses" -- I'm not sure I understand that correctly -- the word "sectors" is not used in English in this context. "Departments" or "Bureaus" might be better if that is what they are. For example, neither the WP:EN article nor the Museum's own web site tell us whether the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts is a separate corporation or a government department. I note that the Museum's web site is marked (c) All Rights Reserved, which it could not do if {{PD-ROC-exempt}} was applicable.

I think these must not be restored unless, case by case, it can be shown that they are not separate entities..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

But these are really NOT "STATE RUN ENTERPRISES". For example the Academia Sinica belongs to the Office of the President, the National Human Rights Museum belongs to the Ministry of Culture, etc. They're not for profit. Only these count as state-run businesses as for now. The design or content of certain website itself of course could be separately copyrighted (even the Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan websites have that kind of copyright statements, but that does not make them "enterprise" or something), but I believe these were logos of the agencies themselves, which shall not be the subject matter of copyright. (By the way, I personally don't understand how could someone see Academia Sinica as "public utility company" and get away with it, that is just ridiculous, I doubt that they actually do research before nominating the pictures for deletion) —— Eric Liu（Talk） 01:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Ericliu1912. The ridiculous deletions are just results of not trying to understand the department structures and Chinese texts. Sanmosa Outdia 14:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
@Minorax, Mys 721tx, and King of Hearts: Any opinion? Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Is there a court case where the state run enterprise are not in the public domain? The Copyright Law itself does not say anything about it either way. Mys_721tx (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Better to ask @Supaplex and Shangkuanlc: on the actual status of their Taiwanese copyright status. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: In Europe, these organisations would have a separate copyright than governments. In absence of information, we can't be sure what's the status in Taiwan. If you have new information, resend a request. --Yann (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Alfred-Leithaeuser.jpg

Ich bin der Eigentümer dieses Kunstwerkes (siehe beigefügte Rechnung)! MfG, M. Tilly File:Rechnung-Kaufbeleg für Leithäuser "Föhnabend" vom 07.08.2020.pdf

Permission should be sent by email following the instructions at COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Der Besitz eines Kunstwerk beinhaltet in den meisten Fällen nicht das Urheberrecht an dem Werk. In Deutschland, zum Beispiel, kann das Urheberrecht laut Gesetz gar nicht veräußert werden, sondern bleibt immer beim Künstler bzw. für 70 Jahre bei dessen Erben. Wir brauchen daher eine Freigabe der Erben, falls denn welche vorhanden sind. Falls Herr Leithäuser keine Nachkommen oder sonstige Erben hatte, ist dann wohl der Regierungsbezirk Oberbayern zuständig. De728631 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Picture of the official twitter account of the Great Translation Movement.jpg

The permission of using the picture is granted, since the organizer defined the movement as "Decentralized Protest"; usage of the picture is also encouraged, according to the official twitter account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnGalt1984 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Only the copyright holder may select a free licence for use the picture at Commons and elsewhere. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Dreamonita-w1000.jpg

To whom may concern,

I am writing to request undeletion on the File:Dreamonita-w1000.jpg as this is an original image taken and edited by myself and it does not violate whoever's copyright.

Regards, --Henry0709 (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was deleted because it appears here and many other places with an explicit copyright notice. In order to have it restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. I also note that the image is small and has no EXIF. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We need a permission checked by VRT in this case. Ruthven (msg) 13:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:002-resize_-_Copy.jpg

Premier House, Edgware - Start of Development of Erinastar Ltd (charity and owner) by Mr David Reichmann, trustee of Erinastar Ltd and property developer -November 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasedg (talk • contribs) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

@Thomasedg: Why is it so small? Please upload the original image with full EXIF data. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Very small and not sharply focused, no categories, no useful description. Essentially useless. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Not done, per above. No response from OP. I also wonder which equipment was used to create this blurry photo with JPEG artifacts. Thuresson (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:15.ai logo.png

I am the original artist and copyright holder of the image in question. Below is a source to the image on my page, and a link to where I publicly gave permission for it to be uploaded:

https://twitter.com/hattpone/status/1446417002248212482 https://twitter.com/hattpone/status/1495901865359429635

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

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

Hattsy 2022-04-05

[generated using relgen.js]

 Not done: as per KoH. --Yann (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Maison du Peuple Jette 2.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maison du Peuple Jette 2.JPG

Victor Horta died in 1947 so the works in the photo became public domain in 2018. Additionally, Belgium now has FoP. This should be able to be restored to Commons now. Abzeronow (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support Agree. The Maison du Peuple was built in 1896-99, so it is PD-US. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. I doubt anything has ever had a copyright on this image. --Yann (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:JoJo's Pitter Patter Pop! icon.png

This is the cover art for a video game so it falls under fair use. Sorry for the wrong license im new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FishandChipper (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, there is no fair use on Commons. The source page shows "QooApp © 2022". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Im trying to find the Play Store listing for the game but its since been removed. It should have the same fair use policy as this file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JoJo_Diamond_Records_icon.png FishandChipper (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bandainamcoent.jojop3 Is the (now removed) Play store listing for the game FishandChipper (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not on Commons. --Yann (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:SSC_Map.jpg

Hi, I saw this file is nominated as deletion, I request to reconsider this decision as the file represents a political phenomena in Somalia or part of it, as the country takes federal system in 2012 the state of Khaatumo emerges from north western part of the country and wants to depart from Somaliland (self-declared state) and propagates the unity of the One-Somalia. some groups may propose to delete it but it's against those (Khaatumo) people's will and their right of self-determination. ((unsigned3|20:33, 5 April 2022‎| Zakeriye A Ogle}}

That may be, but the map is copyrighted and there is no evidence of permission to license it here. You should comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SSC Map.jpg as it has not yet been deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: File not yet deleted -- nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:6134 NWFB 720 05-04-2022.jpg

Beacuase this file wikimedia said lost of file,so hope to recover the file.

https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:6134_NWFB_720_05-04-2022.JPG

This file also upload to hkbus fandom,I am the file owner.LN9267 (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No file by that name. --Yann (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment File uploaded after this discussion was closed. Yann (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Catgsk.png

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2022033010006462. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Jay Chua Singapore Singer.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Because this image is linked to our website www.jdesignit.com, for the google knowledge panel use. Thank you. Jchangchua (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Out of scope, and no permission from the copyright holder. Please read COM:SCOPE and COM:L. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Maurice2502.jpg

Bonjour,

J'ai récemment vu que la photo Maurice2502.jpg a été supprimé mais je ne comprend pas pourquoi. Normalement tout était en règle je veux donc savoir quel est le motif et comment je pourrais restaurer l'image.

--Thorakas (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thorakas: Selon la demande de suppression, l'image avait été publiée auparavant sur Twitter. Dans de tels cas, une autorisation du photographe sous licence libre est nécessaire. Elle peut être envoyée en français à permissions-fr@wikimedia.org ou en anglais à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Pour l'autorisation, on peut utiliser l'assistant d'autorisation ou le modèle de texte de cet article. Mussklprozz (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: VRT permission needed. Ruthven (msg) 13:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:qamarrazamarkazi.jpg

File:QamarRazaMarkazi.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:5ef9:c18f::2c:6e37 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 6 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: No file by that name. --Yann (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:1901 Constitutional Convention in Alabama.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:1901 Constitutional Convention in Alabama.jpg

This would easily seem to be {{PD-US-expired}}. Abzeronow (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This image is 453×600 pixels. It has 155 portraits of the delegates to the convention. Although their spouses might recognize them, I doubt that many others would. Although each one is named at the bottom of the oval containing their picture, the names are only 3 pixels high and therefore illegible. Useless. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per KoH. --Yann (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Marcos Antonio Cabral.jpg

As depicted person died already in 1903, this image should be in the PD.--OliverDF (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per KoH. --Yann (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Philipp Ackermann deutscher Diplomat.jpg

Confirmation of copyright holder Lena Stahl submitted to you on April 6th via email (Ticket#2022040610011213) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baums A (talk • contribs) 08:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

@Baums A: Please sign your messages with ~~~~. You have to wait for a volunteer to process the permission. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Fa 210810 nicole 172.jpg

This is own by us and is not subject to copyright.

 Oppose The files was moved to File:Nicole Offendal 2021.jpg. It was published on Twitter though without a free licence. This requires that the copyright holder sends an email with permission for the file as explained in COM:VRT. De728631 (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Bryan Adams - Classic to undelete.jpg

File name: Bryan Adams - Classic

This is image is the cover of a music album. It falls under common public-use category, as most album covers do. The artist, Bryan Adams, posted the picture on his Instagram page, which is not a private account and does not carry a copyright warning. Additionally, the picture is also the cover art of videos on the artist’s YouTube page.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cbyr5FmshIz/?hl=en

https://m.youtube.com/user/bryanadams/videos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flynn101 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 7 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose "Common public-use" is not an acceptable license. Copyrighted content from instagram.com. Thuresson (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Contrary to the requester's assertion, all album covers are copyrighted and very few of them are freely licensed. A "copyright warning" is not required for a work to have a copyright. The reverse is true -- in order for a work to be eligible for Commons it must have an explicitly stated free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:My Baggage Logo.png

We have a permission ticket Ticket:2022040410006901 for this file. Please restore for verification. Ww2censor (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ww2censor: . --Yann (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Eri Maeda- Extension XXVI-2018.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022040410001522. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:1999 cavalier with coversion.jpeg

i own the photo that i posted and uploaded, a photo that i took of my own car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E40sick (talk • contribs) 16:52, 6 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose It always helps if you tell us what file you want restored. I have added your only deleted file. The deletion reason is that it appears at http://www.stancenation.com/forums/showthread.php?7489-Loving-my-e46-but-deeply-miss-my-CAVALIER-lol with an explicit copyright notice. That site is down at the moment, but if that is correct, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. I also note that it is a small image. We much prefer to have images at full camera resolution. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: If this is your own work, please upload the original images used to create it with full EXIF data. --Yann (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Pverbica-books-photo.jpg

I'm the intellectual property/copyright owner of this photograph; I give Wikipedia, Wikimedia permission and affiliates of said (a non-exclusive license) to post my photograph. The article to which it is attached is about me. I'm a Candidate for the California State Board of Equalization, District 2, 2022. Sincerely, Peter Coe Verbica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter verbica (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose First, you are clearly not the photographer, so in order for it to be restored either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b) you must send a free license and a copy of the written license from the actual photographer which gives you the right to freely license it. Second, note that permissions limited to Wikipedia are insufficient -- images on Commons and Wikipedia must be free for any use anywhere by anybody. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Kynodesme_image.jpg

This image has been deleted (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kynodesme_image.jpg) for the stated reason that "This file is a copyright violation because PD-Art can't apply since it is a 3D object (pottery)". However, from the image itself it is apparent that the image in question is not an image of a pottery, but an image of the painting (2D) that was painted on a pottery. The image does not show neither the shape, the texture, nor even the curvature of the pottery on which the painting was made. The image is even unrecognizable as a pottery, if not for the fact that the image was properly attributed to as a 2,500-year-old painting made on a pottery. For that, I would argue that the image is a faithful reproduction of a 2D painting and not of an 3D object, and request undeletion.

--トダユウ (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The theory behind Bridgeman is that a photograph or scan of a flat work is trivially easy so the photograph cannot have a copyright. On the other hand, photographing this work was much more complex. As the requester says, "The image does not show neither the shape, the texture, nor even the curvature of the pottery on which the painting was made." Making the curved vase look flat took considerable skill, both in lighting the vase evenly over its curved surface and in picking a focus point that showed the whole thing in focus. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I must say that you misread Bridgeman. It actually says in quote: "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original". So, what makes a photograph "more than a copy of work", that warrants a copyright of its own, is NOT the skill, the effort, or the labor required to produce such photograph. It does not matter whether it was "trivially easy" or otherwise "more complex" work to produce the photography. It is the originality of the photography that warrants itself a copyright of its own. Indeed, "The rule therefore excludes from copyright protection photographs which are intended to be no more than a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art such as a painting. If only technical expertise is involved (to take a faithful and unimaginative picture), the photograph acquires no copyright protection in its own right."
Now to the question of whether "Making the curved vase look flat" constitutes an "originality". Before we get to the point of originality, first I would like to briefly point out (again) that the image in question is NOT an image of a vase, whether it appears curved or flat. The image only shows the painting that is (supposedly) painted on a vase. Three is no clear indication whether any effort or modification was made to make the image appear more flat than it actually appears on the vase.
That being said, whether it "took considerable skill" in any way for the image to appear curved or flat is not of any relevance. The question is, whether or not the creator of this image intended the image to be "a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work", which is the painting, or intended the image to be his/her "original" work, by making it look different from the painting being photographed.
The log [3] of this image indicates the image was used to illustrate the custom of the Greek in the period (circa 480 B.C.), as depicted in the painting. Then the intent of creating such image has been to faithfully represent what is painted there just as it is painted, and not to present the image as an original art work of one's own by making the image appear more flat for its artistic effect.
As the creator of the painting has long been deceased (since the 5th century BC) and the photograph is no more than a copy of the original painting, it could not be protected by copyright. トダユウ (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
We have consistently refused to apply the Bridgeman decision to works that were not flat. That has often included works that included a frame and works such as coins that are almost flat. If you want to argue that we should change that practice, then this is not the place to do it.
I also note that the work was in Germany and presumably the photograph was taken there. Our summary of German copyright law does not discuss whether or not there is a Bridgeman-like practice there. In many places in Europe it does not apply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Well... Bridgeman is not 100% about flat. It's about when there is no creativity in the result. Taking good photos of paintings also requires a fair bit of skill -- so that aspect appears to be meaningless when it comes to threshold of originality, at least in the U.S. Sure it takes skill, but if the goal was a slavish reversing of the functional shape of the surface into 2-D, I'm not sure there is any creativity in that, which would be present in the result. We have most definitely kept photos of say plates which had a design on them, when cropped to the design itself. And in a couple of cases, bas-relief photos taken back. From the Bridgeman decision itself: In this case, plaintiff by its own admission has labored to create "slavish copies" of public domain works of art. While it may be assumed that this required both skill and effort, there was no spark of originality‑‑indeed, the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity. Copyright is not available in these circumstances. From a case that one cited: In Hearn v. Meyer, 664 F.Supp. 832 (S.D.N.Y.1987), Judge Leisure held on the authority of Batlin that "slavish copies" of public domain reproductions of public domain original works of art were not copyrightable despite the great skill and effort involved in the copying process, and minor but unintentional variations between the copies and the works copied. The creativity in a photograph is typically the angle and the crop chosen, and some other aspects. When it comes to a painting, the crop is the whole painting and the angle is straight on. For something like the one described, the angle is also straight on, and I don't think reversing a curved surface back to 2-D is inherently creative, so only the crop is left -- which would imply choosing a slightly different crop would be removing that expression too. I can't see the photo, but it sure sounds like it would follow the Bridgman logic.
Now, the Copyright Office has allowed photographs of picture frames (with no pictures in them) to be copyrighted. So yes, it doesn't take much beyond 2-D reproductions to be a copyrightable photo. But if this image was basically just reproducing the design on a piece of pottery, it sounds like that is all the result is. The amount of skill and effort to get the result may be significant, but it doesn't mean that it's creative, which is the requirement for copyright. I can't see the photo, but would lean  Support based on the description. Germany may be different in this area, since they had the "simple photo" stuff, but a recent EU directive may have clamped down on that. I doubt such a reproduction would be the "author's own intellectual creation" for the EU, but simple photo protections may be a bit fuzzier. A German court did rule in 2016 that a digital reproduction could have its own copyright, however that was before the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which in article 14 says: Member States shall provide that, when the term of protection of a work of visual art has expired, any material resulting from an act of reproduction of that work is not subject to copyright or related rights, unless the material resulting from that act of reproduction is original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation. So it would appear they are trying to allow this type of thing in the EU, too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl L. --Yann (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Trengellick Rising Teaser.png

This is my own work, I created it and it is present on my social media. I wish to enable it for use on wikipedia for all to use in perpetuity.

It's the teaser poster for my film 'Trengellick Rising'.{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trengellick_Rising} --Nalgrenn60 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose We need the formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. Where a work has been published before without a free licence, we need a permission emailed to our team of volunteer responders. --De728631 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Koalicja Odnowy Rzeczypospolitej Wolność i Nadzieja.svg and File:Wolność (political party).svg

  1. I don't really think these are above ToO now that I'm looking back at it.
  2. Either way Polish political parties are now licensed under Template:PD-Polishparty. Piotr Bart (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted, and DRs created to have a wider discussion. --Yann (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Courier 1901 Lausanne Sport LS.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Courier 1901 Lausanne Sport LS.gif

1901 letter makes it old enough that we don't need to know M. Remelet's death date (which I wasn't able to find). Abzeronow (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-old-assumed. --Yann (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Old-Boys-Club-Logo.jpg

My name is Sean Lumley, I am the President-Elect of the Michaelhouse Old Boys' Club. My official email address is [mail address removed]. Here is a link to the Office Bearers page on our website: https://www.michaelhouse.org/old-boys/office-bearers/

.The logo is the property of the Michaelhouse Old Boys' Club and as an official representative, I request that it is reinstated on our Wikipedia page. --QWERTY1896 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. --De728631 (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Jonas Dumke.jpg

Ich möchte das Löschen der Datei gerne widerrufen. Diese Datei wurde von professioneller Seite erstellt und ich habe die Rechte für diese Datei käuflich erworben. Somit sollte es mir zustehen, dieses Bild für den Rest der Benutzerseite frei verwendbar zu machen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a04:ee41:80:f1d0:2099:ae9b:429d:8bb0 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose This contributor does not even use de:Datei:Jonas Dumke.jpeg at user's user page de:Benutzer:JonasDumke. It is not obvious why Wikimedia needs a photo of Jonas Dumke. This contributor has not made a significant number of edits in any Wikimedia project. Thuresson (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Siehe Punkt F10 in Kriterien für die Schnelllöschung. --De728631 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Leonardo Quadrini.jpg

La fotografia è di Leonardo Quadrini che è anche la persona ritratta nella foto. Come bisogna fare per provarlo ? grazie --Sgrinboldo (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Does not look like a selfie and Google Image Search shows that this has been published elsewhere before. Thuresson (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. Please have the copyright holder (usually the original photographer) send a permission as explained in COM:VRT. --De728631 (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

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

FileːATENU770 KMB 109 04-11-2021.jpg

  File:ATENU770 KMB 109 04-11-2021.jpg

I am the photo owner,before I upload this photo to here,I upload this photo to hkbus fandom,use cc-by-sa license.

https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:ATENU770_KMB_109_04-11-2021.JPG LN9267 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No file by that name. --Yann (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Reopened, The second line shows the correct file name. The only difference is that the colon after "File" in the first line is different from a standard colon. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose The photograph infringes on the copyright for the art on the bus. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support OOPS, thanks Jim, but it was decided long ago that art is acceptable on such a case. See Pokemon Boeings. We even have category for these: Category:Pokémon Jet. Yann (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Yann, what's the rationale for that? The art on the planes is clearly far from de minimis and there's no applicable FoP in either Hong Kong or Japan. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: There are many DRs about these, so I am not sure which one is the oldest. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg (2008), Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA B767-381 JA8578 Pokemon-Jet98.jpg (2011), Commons:Deletion requests/Pokemon Jet (2014). Yann (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I also found Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PokemonJA8956.JPG (2007) and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:JR ED79 Kaikyo at Aomori Station.jpg (Pokemon train, 2008). Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA Boeing 747-400 yellow 060318 haneda.jpg should be undeleted, to be consistent with other DRs. Yann (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Oof, yeah, this one is harder. If there is FoP, it's an easier call. It's not de minimis either. On the other hand, it could well be incidental, which is also part of our policy. In the Ets-Hokin decision, a photograph of a bottle is not derivative of the label on the bottle, unless the photo is focusing on the label in particular. So if you are taking a picture of a larger subject, and there is unavoidable copyrightable content in the rest, it does not cause the photo to be derivative of that content (even if that content is prominent). Similar to a photo of the Louvre which contains the (copyrighted) pyramid. In this case, the photo is of the entire bus, and not focusing on any of the artwork. While there is all sorts of gray area in there, the incidental stuff has been part of policy (mentioned on the Commons:De minimis page, though a separate legal theory than de minimis itself). Really, the fact that the bus has advertising on it should not prevent photographers from being able to take photos of a bus -- at some point there is a border between the advertising artists' rights, and the subsequent photographer's rights, and that boundary seems to be in this area. If the photographer deliberately includes expression which was avoidable, that is more of a concern. But I'm not aware of any other type of case where a photograph was ruled derivative, without actually focusing on the copyrighted object in particular. Which this photo is not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl L. --Yann (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Mengistu Haile Mariam 4.jpg

Snice the photograph was taken in Ethiopia under {{PD-Ethiopia}} if 25 years has passed snice it was published (orignally taken in 1978-1979) then it is public domian. And another thing that I've discovered, according to the source[4] this photo is the official potrait of President Mengistu meaning that the entity who published it is the Government of Ethiopia. Hence this photo is undoubtley public domain and for free use. محرر البوق (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK now. --Yann (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:SC Bruehl SG Logo.png

Was soll das? Es gibt eine Freigabeerklärung des SC Brühl!

Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------

Betreff: Re: [Ticket#2022012710003162] Logo SC Brühl St. Gallen 1901 Datum: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:08:37 +0000 Von: Permissions - German Wikipedia <permissions-de@wikimedia.org> Organisation: Wikimedia An: SC_Bruehl [mail address removed] Kopie (CC): [mail address removed], Felix Mätzler [mail address removed], Christoph Zoller [mail address removed]

Guten Tag SC_Bruehl,

wir bedanken uns herzlich für Ihre Freigabe. Auf der Dateibeschreibungsseite wurde ein Hinweis auf unsere Kommunikation mit der Nummer des Tickets angegeben. Es wäre hilfreich, wenn Sie die Angaben zu Beschreibung, Quelle, Urheber und Lizenz noch einmal selbst überprüfen könnten.

Die Datei kann jetzt verwendet werden.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen Alfred Neumann

Wikimedia-Support-Team https://wikimedia.org/

-- Hinweis: Mails an diese Adresse werden von Freiwilligen beantwortet, alle Auskünfte sind unverbindlich. Den Diensteanbieter erreichen Sie unter https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/

Wikipedia ist ein gemeinnütziges Projekt: Bitte spenden Sie jetzt! https://spenden.wikimedia.de/

01/27/2022 07:11 - SC_Bruehl wrote:

> Guten Tag > > Wir erklären in Bezug auf das Bild > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:SC_Bruehl_SG_Logo.png dass wir Inhaber > des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts sind. > > Wir erlauben hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien > Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen > 4.0“ ( <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de). > > Wir gewähren somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das > Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die > Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Uns ist bekannt, dass wir diese Einwilligung > üblicherweise nicht widerrufen können. > > Uns ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter freie Lizenz nur auf > das Urheberrecht bezieht und es uns daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer > Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, > die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, aufgrund der anderen > Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen. > > Gleichwohl erwerben wir keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf > der Wikipedia eingestellt wird. > > 27.01.2022, Sarah Müller > > Freundliche Grüsse > > > > Sarah Müller > > Sekretariat SC Brühl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteremueller (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 April 2022‎ (UTC)


 Oppose VRT status requests should be made at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. Thuresson (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Answer here Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#File:SC_Bruehl_SG_Logo.png. I my opinion, we could close this section here.--Wdwd (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Request closed, issue resolved. Thuresson (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Karolina-Bielawska-miss-world-2021.jpg

I want to use this File:Karolina-Bielawska-miss-world-2021.jpg as a display photo of all Wikipedia articles about reigning Miss World 2021 Karolina Bielawska from Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhesivecobra17 (talk • contribs) 2022-04-11 07:14‎ (UTC)

@Adhesivecobra17: You need to get permission from the copyright owner to upload it under a free licence, such as {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}}. Either they have to tell on the net that you may use the image under such a licence, or they have to e-mail the permission as described at COM:VRT. –LPfi (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per LPfi. --Yann (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Pascal Nordmann Photo.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022040210003775. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Logo del TBRB.jpg

The image it's exactly the same that it's on the English Wikipedia because I translate the page. File:Logo del TBRB.jpg. Jprietf (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair use at en:File:Logo of TBRB.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Tanvir.Hossain.jpg

Please undelete the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourtanvir123 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Not done: Out of scope. @Yourtanvir123: Please read COM:SCOPE and COM:WEBHOST. Thanks,. --Yann (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Maurice2502.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022040710007968. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: Should be renamed, description and categories need a fix. --Yann (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Bad Neuenahr Synagoge 520.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bad Neuenahr Synagoge 520.JPG

1901 file from Germany with an unknown author. Old enough to be PD-old-assumed Abzeronow (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support as the image is older then 120 years, it can be undeleted because it is now in PD, per Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template. Ellywa (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
This is actually from 1908 per [5], where the photo was taken from. So any rationale based on PD-old-assumed won't work yet. --Rosenzweig τ 10:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: {{PD-anon-expired}}. --Yann (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Hong Kong Tramways 103(Z05) Shau Kei Wan to Happy Valley 06-07-2020.jpg

I am the photo owner,I uploaded the photo in hkrail fandom first,then uploaded this photo in here,also use cc-by-sa license.

https://hkrail.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:Hong_Kong_Tramways_103(Z05)_Shau_Kei_Wan_to_Happy_Valley_06-07-2020.JPG

Also,Nation Security Law is Hong Kong important news,so it can have photo discription.LN9267 (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support as per recently discussed case. Yann (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:First Unit of TRA EMU3000 on Test Run near the south of Tai'an Station 20210819.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Valid ticket received: ticket:2022041110006817. Stang★ 18:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Stang: . --Yann (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Canon Abel Brohee (1880-1947).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Guido convents

I don't like DRs that give minimal information on files. These might still have URAA issues, but I am definitely curious if any of these photographs have dates or other information on them that could help determine when they should be undeleted. EDIT:The date range for these photographs appears to be from late 1920s to mid 1930s if context from the captions they had on English Wikipedia give us anything to go on. Abzeronow (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose All three appear to have URAA issues.

The first shows "Illustrazione Vaticano 1935."
The second:
|description=
English: The Dutch Fr Lambert-Perquin o.p. founder of the KRO and first president of BCIR from 1929 to 1935.
date=1934::source=archives BCIR 1934
author=Responsable of the dutch Dominicans 1934
The third:
description=... In 1928 he was the co-founder of the International Catholic Film Office (OCIC). He was elected in 1933 as president of OCIC and will remain its president until his death in 1947
author=photographer is unknown but the photo was made for OCIC for public distribution

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The first seems like it could be restored in 2031. The second could be as early as 2030 or may have to wait until 2055 if it's not considered anonymous enough. Third appears to possibly have a creation range from 1933 to 1947. Abzeronow (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't like closing requests when I'm the only commentator, but it has been nine days with no further comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:20150728JH0001.jpg

Requesting that File:20150728JH0001.jpg‬ be undeleted. The image was provided by the subject of the photo and Wikipedia profile, Dr. Kimryn Rathmell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmbarnard (talk • contribs) 09:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose @Kmbarnard: We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder for a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:MW 4月バトルパス報酬.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: 公式より使用許可をもらっている為。 あんまそ (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Screenshot from a video game, and image copied from Twitter. We need the formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder, who is usually the game producer. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Snei-Ap-female-band-studio-2021.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I've taken that picture during a photo studio shooting for the subject (Snei Ap band) FabioLazzaretti (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The subject of this photo does not have a Wikimedia article except a draft, it:Bozza:Snei Ap. Thuresson (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
There is no need for a subject to have a "Wikimedia article" for the photo to be in scope. On the other hand, the file was deleted as copyright violation. We need a confirmation that you have the permission to publish the image here, as we cannot know you are who you claim to be. Send e-mail according to the instruction at Commons:VRT, and the VRT volunteers will sort that thing out. –LPfi (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd be happy to strike my comment if there is any other reason why this particular photo is useful for a Wikimedia project. Thuresson (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per LPfi. --Yann (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Jordan Schmidt.png

I (loud & cozy) am working with Jordan Schmidt's management team (WeVolve Music, Inc.) to update Jordan Schmidt's discography and bio. Jordan Schmidt (via WeVolve) has granted permission to use this photo for wikipedia. Jordan Schmidt is the copyright holder of file:jordan_schmidt_headshot.jpg

--Loud & Cozy (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Photo published at billboard.com. Subject is a Nashville songwriter and producer. The photographer Justin Mrusek is a professional photographer also based in Nashville (website). Please use COM:VRT to submit documents that verifies that Justin Mrusek has transferred the copyright of this photo to Jordan Schmidt. Please note that use for Wikipedia only is not acceptable. Thuresson (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson -- needs VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Auderghem auberge Chez Léonard.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Auderghem auberge Chez Léonard.jpg

1900-1901 post cards would be old enough to host on Commons now. Abzeronow (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This is a montage d'une carte postale de 1900 et d'une photo de 2008, and deletion was requested by uploader. --Yann (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Shen-Horn Yen.jpg

reason: this photo has no license. catch from facebook photo. -Alfredo ougaowen (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Procedural close. This page is for files that have been deleted. Please visit COM:DEL if you want to nominated a file for deletion. Thuresson (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


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

Artwork by Zdravko Luketič

We have verified permission from the author (VRT ticket #2021090510001282). It took me a while to get a list of files corresponding with that document from the uploader (a third person; see ticket #2021090110007024), but now everything checks out. Please undelete and I will take care of VRT templates. — Yerpo Eh? 17:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Yerpo: . --Yann (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


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

Artwork by Zdravko Luketič, missed file

File:Zdravko Luketič,, On the golden sea 2011.jpg - also covered by the VRT ticket #2021090510001282, missing from the list above by accident. Please undelete that one too. Thank you, — Yerpo Eh? 18:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Yerpo: . --Yann (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Iarnród Éireann Irish rail train social distancing sign - July 2020.jpg

Please may you undelete as per 2019 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2019.172.01.0056.01.ENG rather than Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (No. 28 of 2000) @Ellywa: @Edl-irishboy: . Ear-phone (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Iarnród Éireann is a subsidiary of Córas Iompair Éireann which is, in turn, a subsidiary corporation of the Irish government. It is therefore not completely clear whether the law is 50 years (Irish government works) or 70 years (other works) after creation, but in either event, it will be under copyright for many years from now. Note that the cited document explicitly says that the national governments may have their own rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Thomsen Buste.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thomsen Buste.jpg

"this is a photograph by "Jonals Co.". "Jonals Co." was a company founded by photographer Herman Bente (1881–1947)". I cannot see if this is a simple photograph or one that would require 70 years PMA. Either way, it appears to be public domain in Denmark. {{PD-Denmark50}} if applicable would make this public domain in the US as this very likely would have been public domain on URAA date. Abzeronow (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose First, the photograph. Under a 2010 law, non-artistic photos from before 1970 are PD. I'm not sure whether this is an artistic photo or not -- arguably since it was created by a studio photographer with special lighting, it could be artistic. I also don't know what the law was in 1996, so it may or may not be copyrighted under URAA. Also, the photo is of a bust. The subject of the sculpture died in 1909, so the bust is likely from around that time, not much later, but the sculptor could easily have lived past 1926, so that the bust was under copyright in Denmark in 1996. I think there is too much unknown here to restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Question regarding the bust: is this the same as the one in this photo https://www.europeana.eu/en/item/2058618/object_KUAS_22113397 if so, it was created in 1890 by August Saabye who died in 1916. I'll keep looking for busts of Julius Thomsen if that's not a match. Abzeronow (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Yes, that is the same bust by August Saabye, so the object is out of copyright. But I agree with Jim that we don't know enough about the status of the photo. De728631 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not quite as sure about the bust. On the one hand, the costume and stand is the same, but it looks to me if the head position is different -- in the deleted image it seems to be looking straight ahead, while in the one cited above, he seems to be looking down and to his right. Perhaps the same sculptor made two different versions? Still, I'd have to say that it is the same sculptor and since he died in 1916 it's PD-US whether the same or different. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the lack of a concrete date on this is the biggest obstacle. Potential date range from 1910s to 1947. Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Volker Burkert.jpg

The photo is owned by Jefferson Labs, which allows the use of its photos: https://www.jlab.org/photos https://www.jlab.org/news/releases/volker-burkert-named-virginia-outstanding-scientist

HRShami (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment Nearly OK, but I worry if the copyright holder really understands the implication of allowing commercial use, as images on Flickr are under a -NC license. Yann (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose A general commercial use appears to be alright per the "Photos" website linked above. However, there is a personality rights disclaimer that we need to consider (my emphasis): "If Jefferson Lab material is used for commercial purposes, especially including advertisements, it must not explicitly or implicitly convey Jefferson Lab's endorsement of commercial goods or services. If a Jefferson Lab image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person." De728631 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Those are {{Personality rights}}, and a Commons:Non-copyright restrictions which applies regardless of any copyright license. So that clause in itself is fine. Well... I guess if you are assuming they are also going to use copyright to enforce that restriction, it could be a problem. But the very specific restrictions to me more indicate that they are simply reminding folks that trademark and publicity rights exist when you are making advertisements, which are usually more important than copyright in those cases, but still don't cause a problem for uploads here. We should probably have a custom license tag for that site; I see at least one place (File:Cynthia Keppel, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility.jpg) where it passed license review. Although that file has a PD-USGov tag, which I'm not sure is strictly correct. Might be more like {{Attribution}}. It really comes down to how "commercial use" is interpreted; is it in a copyright sense, or a trademark/publicity rights sense? In the latter case, it's fine, and the specific reminders of advertisements seems to indicate it's the publicity rights sense. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree with Carl that the personality rights warning is not important to us. However, there is no evidence that the image is actually PD. It appears on the Jefferson Labs site without credit, but also on several other sites with a similar announcement. The uploader said that he received the image from the subject and credits the subject as the author. I don't think we can restore it without understanding who created it and whether it was a work for hire. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:vertical_capsule.png

this image is made by me.

using this image.

https://pixabay.com/photos/galaxy-star-infinity-cosmos-dark-3608029/

and uploaded to Steam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinjaecha (talk • contribs) 09:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Pixabay images cannot be kept on Commons. The Pixabay License reads, in part:

What is not allowed?
This section only applies to media users and not to the appropriate artists.
✕ Don't redistribute or sell Pixabay content on other stock or wallpaper platforms.
✕ Don't sell unaltered copies of content, e.g. don't sell an exact copy of a stock photo as a poster, print or on a physical product. (https://pixabay.com/service/license/)

All of the actions forbidden above must be OK for Commons images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Joaquin Balaguer in 1960.jpg

Is a work with a known author for which the author died in 1961.--OliverDF (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@OliverDF: Who is the photographer? Thuresson (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Joaquín Balaguer was President of the Dominican Republic, so presumably that is the country of origin of this image. The law there is 50 years pma, which means that if the photographer died the year the photo was taken (1960) it would be PD in the DR in 2011, which is long past the URAA date. The earliest it could be PD in the USA is 2055, and that assumes that it was published in 1960, which is unproven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Schimmelpilz Befall vs. neuer Pollenfilter.jpg

Mir liegt ein Schriftverkehr mit iStock vor, wie eine Datei bei Wikipedia veröffentlich werden muss, damit sie die Lizenzen wahrt. An dieses vorgehen habe ich mich gehalten, darum bitte ich die Datei wiederherzustellen. Vielen Dank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosn (talk • contribs) 10:29, 15 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The Istock license terms explicitly forbid the use of their files on Commons. See https://www.istockphoto.com/legal/license-agreement where it says:

3. Restricted Uses.
c. No Standalone File Use. You may not use content in any way that allows others to download, extract, or redistribute content as a standalone file (meaning just the content file itself, separate from the project or end use).

That is, of course, exactly what Commons allows and encourages. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Namco Bandai Games logo.svg and File:Namco Bandai Games logo.png

Logos fall under COM:TOO, which was seemingly ignored in the earliest deletion in 2010. Subsequent deletions were solely based on earlier deletions. Logo is just text with a geometric background. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support I tend to agree. The Japanese rule on TOO appears to require more creativity than we see here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Deprivation series Выставка Димы Ребуса, Лондон 2019.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Здравствуйте! Я получила личное разрешение от автора. Вот скрин нашей переписки: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B_%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0.jpg В письме можно убедиться в том, что данный адресат - автор, так как та же почта указана на сайте, указанный в шаблоне статьи: dimarebus.com Yanchezzz (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose There are three copyrights here -- one for the photograph and one for each of the paintings. It appears that the same artist did both paintings, so there are only two copyright holders. Each of them -- the photographer and the artist -- must send a free license using VRT.

The document you linked above is unacceptable because it is extremely easy to forge such a document and we have people in the community who do just that. Also note that the document itself has a copyright and therefore I have deleted it -- your uploading it here is a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Основываясь на материал: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9 "Вы не автор. Работа публиковалась ранее? Да: Попросите автора прислать нам напрямую (желательно, чтобы это не было пересланное письмо) разрешение с электронного адреса, связанного с его именем (то есть с адреса, опубликованного, например, на странице с контактной информацией его сайта; если имя не может быть ассоциировано с данным адресом, вопрос можно будет обсудить отдельно)". Я следую по этим правилам. Автор еще вчера отправил письмо по шаблону permissions-ru@wikimedia.org со своим личным разрешением. Могу попросить его переслать его еще и мне. Это решит проблему или это снова будет нарушать какие-то права? Yanchezzz (talk)Yanchezzz

Again, there are two authors here -- the painter and the photographer. Both authors must send free licenses using VRT. The document you have posted is not acceptable because (a) it is in a language that few of us read and because it is an image, we cannot use a computer translator, (b) it is from only one of the two people who must license the image, and (c) because it is too easy to forge such a document. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Harsh mayar profile.jpg

Hi, The action to upload the picture was requested by the author/person in the picture. The appropriate licence and source of the picture has been updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.m.suman (talk • contribs) 07:25, 16 April 2022‎ (UTC)

Procedural close, file is not deleted. Discuss this file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harsh mayar profile.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose Reopened. I deleted the image -- Facebook images are subject to speedy deletion. In order to restore the image, either (a) the actual photographer must provide a free license using VRT or (b) someone else must provide a free license together with a copy of the written license from the photographer allowing that person to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Cai Xukun in 2020.jpg

此檔案已更改為知識共享署名方式許可協議（Attribution 2.5 Generic），根據知識共享協議摘要，允許在維基共享資源上使用。 並且其中標明了可以自由分享、轉載，除非對文件作出修改。另外，這張圖片是由他本人的官方工作室發佈的，除了商業用途與侵犯名譽權的編輯，應當能夠使用。謝謝。— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caixukunlaopo0802 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 16 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose I see no evidence of any free license on the source page. Also, the image infringes on the copyright for the trophy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


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

Artwork by Claude Goiran

Please restore

We have permission per Ticket:2021090710008414. (Actually the permission came for a larger number of files, and I had overseen those five when I processed it.)

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:XXXTentacion by Jack McKain.jpg undeletion request

Undeletion request for the File:XXXTentacion by Jack McKain.jpg file. This file was deleted on (good faith) false pretenses by User:EugeneZelenko as they believed it was a copyright violation. This file was uploaded by the photographer himself, and more proof of this is linked. https://imgur.com/a/cj9sFTx

TheXuitts (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose It appears without a free license at https://ismorbo.com/the-rehearsal-palomo-spain-reinventa-la-primavera-en-un-mundo-en-confinamiento-en-su-nueva-coleccion-ss21/. Therefore the photographer, Jack McCain must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Request by Dr ahora

== عکسهای من را به اشتباه حذف کرده اید ==

با سلام و عرض ادب من از شما یک سوال مهم داشتم . بنده یک خواننده و بازیگر هستم و تمام آهنگهای من دارای شناسه بین المللی و حق کپی رایت هستند و در پلتفرمهای بین المللی دارای اکانت حرفه ای می باشم از جمله :

آهنگهای من دارای شناسه بین المللی و کپی رایت بین المللی هستند :

Delbar

DK UPC: 196833909907 ISRC QZHN32249719 Uploaded: April 6, 2022 Release date: October 1, 2021 APPLE ID: 1618134819

Link: https://music.apple.com/album/1618134819


Madar

DK UPC: 196833905275 ISRC QZHN32251691 Uploaded: April 6, 2022 Release date: October 30, 2021 APPLE ID: 1618145498

Link: https://music.apple.com/album/1618145498


Del Nazok

DK UPC: 196833903806 ISRC QZHN32251692 Uploaded: April 6, 2022 Release date: November 1, 2021 APPLE ID: 1618147471

Link: https://music.apple.com/album/1618147471


Ghalbe Mani

DK UPC: 196833902557 ISRC QZHN32251693 Uploaded: April 6, 2022 Release date: December 1, 2021 APPLE ID: 1618145324

Link: https://music.apple.com/album/1618145324


Tez Gal

DK UPC: 196833901895 ISRC QZHN32251694 Uploaded: April 6, 2022 Release date: January 1, 2022 APPLE ID: 1618146922

Link: https://music.apple.com/album/1618146922

Etefaghan

DK UPC: 196833901239 ISRC QZHN32295908 Uploaded: April 6, 2022

Release date: January 31, 2022

=== پس به چه دلیل عکسهای من رو حذف کرده اید ؟؟ لطفا به من پاسخ دهید . با تشکر — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr ahora (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 April 2022‎ (UTC)


@Dr ahora: You need to explain what it is you request and the names of the files that this is about. Thuresson (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The user has uploaded a wide variety of images of himself. The all claim to be own work but do not look like selfies, so they are probably copyvios. They also all have long inappropriate self promotion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Mr. King film.jpg

I own the copyrights of this poster. I am associated with the movie's production house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitasdeveloper (talk • contribs) 15:48, 17 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The copyright holder, usually the film's producer, must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ivan Danishevskiy.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: because the owner of the rights to the photo has allowed its use by sending mail on permissions-commons@wikimedia.org <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>; at 21 september 2021, author is Inna Stelmakh. Швец Виталий (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted, so there is nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I deleted this file, as copied from Facebook, and with no license. Yann (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Mahesh_Madhu.jpg

The personal photo uploaded via Wikimedia Commons, File:Mahesh_Madhu.jpg was done for an assignment purpose of Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore. The photo is urgently required to complete an assignment, in Wikipedia (Sanskrit). It is used only for educational purposes. Kindly restore the image.

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Official correspondences between the DPRK's Embassy in Hanoi and the DRV's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1966.pdf

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official correspondences between the DPRK's Embassy in Hanoi and the DRV's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1966.pdf.

Uploaded by one of Musée Annam's many socks (which means that random copyright tags were added), it is actually a public domain file as it qualifies under "{{PD-VietnamGov}}" on the North Vietnamese side as North Vietnamese government documents aren't protected by copyright. Copyright didn't even exist in Korea until 2001; and although retroactive "{{PD-North Korea}}" only goes back 50 years, this template which also contains the text "It is ineligible for copyright protection because it is a "document for state management" without a commercial purpose" tells me that works by the Korean government are likely to not be copyrighted.

Please ping me as I don't regularly visit this page and the e-mail notifications I get here are 100% (one-hundred percent) irrelevant as it somehow never shows an edit relevant to a UDR I started. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose There are subtleties here which may be affected by the translation of the laws. It is not clear to me that these fit under either of the templates named above. Also there is the question of whether these are within scope -- most such letters have little significance and would be out of scope. I don't think we can restore it unless someone who can read it tells us its significance. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment I don't know about the copyright issue, but official letters such as this one are very much in scope. Yann (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Yann, I don't see how you can say that without knowing the content. These certainly may be in scope, but equally they could be about something trivial like repainting the embassy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, but if this letter is about anything political, it is highly interesting, i.e. what DPRK's Embassy in Hanoi writes in the middle of the Vietnam War. Yann (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: Donald Trung's argument make sense, and it is most probably in scope. --Yann (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Snei-Ap-female-band-studio-2021.jpg

I made this pic for the band during a studio shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FabioLazzaretti (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

  •  Oppose The band are using this on their website without a free licence. Therefore our rules require that the copyright holder (you) sends a permission by email. Please see COM:VRT for instructions. Another possibility would be a free licence for this particular image at the band's website with credits to Fabio Lazaretti. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Love_Generation_2010.jpg

The image File:Love_Generation_2010.jpg was was nominated for deletion in March 2022 here. I voted keep, referring to that it passed license review several years ago. Nominator claimed it was a "clear case of Commons:License laundering". I got no response to my request that they provide evidence supporting that claim, something that should be fairly easy if it really is a clear case. No one else participated in the discussion but then the file was deleted two weeks later with no further votes or discussion. Per this page, I asked the closing administrator they explain this decision, a conversation that ended here. My standpoint is that the question is not whether or not LG owns the copyright of the image, but whether or not they had the right to publish the image under the license in question. LG is a large company and I find it unlikely they would publish images under the wrong license. I therefore request the image be undeleted, at least so that more users can participate in the discussion before a decision is made. --Bensin (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment The original source is [6], and the question is whether this account (now gone) really belongs to LG. LG account on Mynewsdesk is at [7]. Two snapshots are available on IA: 2010-12-08 and 2012-01-05. Yann (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! The image in question can be found here: https://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/lgnordic/images/lg-love-generation-59670 and it is still licensed under "Creative Commons erkännande" (="Creative Commons Attribution"). --Bensin (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 Support In the absence of contradictory evidence, we shouldn't question whether verified large corporate accounts/websites are authorized to release images under their stated licenses. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 Support The original question was whether the site from which it was taken actually belonged to LG. That was a valid reason for deletion, but now appears to be wrong, as I don't see any question that the site cited above belongs to LG and that the image is licensed as stated. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Ashok Singh Jaunapuria.jpg

I tried uploading the image File:Ashok Singh Jaunapuria.jpg for new page but I see it to be deleted. Kindly help me restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaunapuria (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Personal image by non contributor, out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose Also probably a copyvio -- the subject is the uploader, who claims he is the photographer, but it does not appear to be a selfie. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

--WPhoto2021 (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears on Instagram without a free license, therefore policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Raham Kon cover.jpg

This is my Own Photo . I'm a singer and this my cover art from my song And it has no copyright and I shared the photo on the internet myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by آرش کیان (talk • contribs) 10:48, 20 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Almost all created works, including this image, have a copyright from the moment of creation. You claimed in the file description that you were the actual photographer, but this does not appear to be a selfie, so that is probably wrong. Also, the image appears all over the Web without a free license. For both of these reasons, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT.

I note that you have recreated this image and others that were deleted as copyright violations. Doing so is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again you will probably be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:ময়মনসিংহে_গারো_সম্প্রদায়.jpg

I've informed to the author of the File:ময়মনসিংহে_গারো_সম্প্রদায়.jpg and the author sent a permission email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org the [Ticket#2022042110002347] so this image shouldn't have copyright issue. Please undelete the file.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by শাহজাইব আজমান (talk • contribs) 05:32, 21 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Not done: The file will be restored when and if the permission is read and accepted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Advanced Intelligent Systems Cover.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The cover of the journal has been shared under CC BY-NC 4.0 (you can see the icon of CC4.0 on the top of the page https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aisy.202170011). The copyright statement at the bottom of the page doesn't apply here as this cover belongs to an OA journal and has been shared under CC BY-NC 4.0. Bobs1983 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bobs1983: NC is not compatible with commons and we cannot host this file - please see COM:L Gbawden (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Is is possible to use the image under "fair use"? Bobs1983 (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Bobs1983: Commons doesn't accept Fair Use either - however you may be able to use a fair use image on Wikipedia Gbawden (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: NC and Fair Use are not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Microsoft Edge logo (2019).svg

The license is already under MIT License. Please see File:Microsoft Edge logo (2019).png for more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:8d40:be1:4797:16e5:e1b8:ec56:4147 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Does the MIT licence apply to all sizes and file formats of the logo? The recent deletion argument was that it is only valid for the 128 x 128 px PNG version at GitHub. De728631 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
See related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Microsoft Edge logo (2019).svg. Another opinion? Yann (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
On a precautionary principle, it should not be restored. However, I think that it should, because if the 128x128px version is freely licensed, why an upscaled one isn't? It makes no sense. --Bedivere (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
BTW I see there is a 1024px version that is also explicitly under the MIT license. I think the SVG file should be restored. Bedivere (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Bedivere. --Yann (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Iymen-chehade-headshot.jpg

I have just submitted an email from the photographer stating that we have permission to use the image on Iymen's Wikipedia page. TsunamiPrincess (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@TsunamiPrincess: You have to wait for a volunteer to process the permission. Yann (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Also note that "permission to use the image on Iymen's Wikipedia page" is not sufficient. WP:EN and Commons require that images must be free for any use by anyone anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Not done, will be undeleted if and when it sucessfully goes through VRT. Thuresson (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Rudy Atencio.jpg

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rudy Atencio.jpg the nominator described the image as out of scope as an "Unused photo of an unknown person"

The uploader responded with "Rudy Atencio, is an American politician and currently seeking the Democratic nomination for South Washington in the third district."

The closure was "Deleted: per nomination."

I told the closing administrator I thought the uploader's explanation was credible. I reminded them that, even if a failed candidate wasn't notable enough for a standalone article, on a wikipedia, they might nevertheless merit some coverage in a subsection of an article. I cited two examples of photos of failed candidates having their photos used on en.wiki. User_talk:Ruthven#Clarification_please...

I think we have never required that individuals have wikipedia articles before images of them are in scope. Rather haven't we only required that those images might, creditably, be used in a wikipedia article? Geo Swan (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment This is clearly in scope, however the copyright status is not so clear. There are 2 different images, claimed to be own works, but that's doubtful. The uploaders, Washington Whigs, and then Us investigations, claimed to be Rudy Atencio himself, however these are not selfies. Yann (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree. The image is in scope, but appears to be a copyright violation. The actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
This person meets both the Commons scope test and the WP:EN notability test. I agree that the deletion of the image for scope was incorrect. However, I don't see a significant difference between the two tests. If the person were actually unknown, as stated by the nominator, then the image would fail both tests. While we don't use the word "notability" here, there must be a reason why an image of a particular person has an educational value as required by COM:Scope and "notability" is a good shorthand for it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Prinz_Ernst_August_und_seine_Braut,_Prinzessin_Victoria_Luise.jpg

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prinz_Ernst_August_und_seine_Braut,_Prinzessin_Victoria_Luise.jpg the nominator described the image as a non-free work.

The file was "Deleted: per - An unknown author cannot have given a CC-0 license. This is too recent to assume the author has been dead for 70 years. And who did the colorization, and when? It too has a copyright."

However, the author is "http://www.zeno.org - Contumax GmbH & Co. KG" (see GEMEINFREI [Public domain] LINK)
The source: [8]
The license: Gemeinfrei = Public domain (see source link)
Colorization: was made by me on upload day.

Please re-upload the picture. With Regards. --Jagdrevier.566 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support The people are en:Princess Victoria Louise of Prussia and en:Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick, so the date is obviously not 1900, but rather around 1920. The photographer is not named, and as it is a postcard, so this could be under {{PD-anon-70-EU}} and {{PD-US-expired}}. Yann (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The photographer very clearly is in the lower right corner and, even if it weren't, anonymous does not mean you personally do not know and does not mean the random website from which it was sourced neglected to provide a credit. The studio is Jagerspacher Hofphotograph, Wien; Carl Jagerspacher died 27.09.1921. Эlcobbola talk 23:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if the studio survived the death of his creator, but if it did, the photographer is clearly unknown. Otherwise, it means that it was taken before 1921. Yann (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Question: Does the text or logo at the bottom identify the author? If we assume 1920, then it's OK, but if it's 1927, it's under copyright in the USA. Also, Jagdrevier.566, please don't waste my time and yours by putting a request on my talk page and here. This is the right place for it.
Also, Do we want the colorized image or would we prefer to have the original? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
We can have both, the colorized version should be uploaded as a separate file. Seeing the ages of the people depicted, late 1910s or early 1920s seems a safe assumption. Yann (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 Support I agree that a date before 1927 is beyond a significant doubt. As Yann noted, either the photographer died in 1921 or is unknown. In either case it was PD in Germany before the URAA date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. @Jagdrevier.566: Please upload the colorized version separately. Could you also add categories? --Yann (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Dr. Neil Shah.jpg

This is a photo that is used by the general public and the campaign would not oppose it's usage on Wikipedia. This is relating to a picture of Dr. Neil Shah that was deleted from the 2022 Minnesota Gubernatorial Election Wikipedia page. Feel free to reach out. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJRSmith (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Most images on the Web, including this one, have a copyright. Copyrighted works cannot be kept on Commons unless they are freely licensed, which Facebook images are not. In order for this image to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:CianiHoeder c MeganVadaHoeder.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2021050510005437. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: ✓ Done The file above is a redirect to File:Ciani-Sophia Hoeder 2020.jpg which I also undeleted Gbawden (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Sacha_Altay.jpg

Hello,

I would like clarification as to why the image of the player in the ALtay uniform was deleted.

(File:Sacha_Altay.jpg)

It is a photo from my personal device therefore, it does not violate any copyright laws and was not stolen from anyone or anywhere else. So I am unclear as to why it was deleted.

Please to review and either overturn the deletion or provide some reason as to why it was removed.

Thank you for your consideration in advance.

--Sacha - Gay Brown (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted because we do not keep personal photos of people who are not contributors. Commons is not Facebook. Also, while you carefully say above "It is a photo from my personal device", in the file description you claim that you took the photo. The subject's name is the same as yours and it is not a selfie, so it appears that someone else actually took the image. That person, not you, owns the copyright, and your uploading it here infringes on their rights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Picsart 22-03-17 00-18-58-890.jpg

This file use another websit and author request for delate this file Tanvirnahid565 (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

?? There has never been a file with this name on Commons and there is nothing in the requester's history which is anywhere close, so there is nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No file by that name. --Yann (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Project Hylearn.jpg

The images needs to be undeleted since the image is considered as public property.

@Mark Lance Olaguera: Please sign your posts with 4 tildes ~~~~ per commmons policy
 Oppose as deleting admin. The source of this file (and numerous other uploads by this user) is facebook with no indication of a free license Gbawden (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Mark Lance Olaguera (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Also  Oppose. @Mark Lance Olaguera: We need clear evidence that the declared license has been granted by the actual copyright holder, who is likely the photographer. If the image is in Public Domain, we also need evidence of this that is based on copyright law. Moreover, you declared that the photographer is Parañaque National High School - this is clearly false. Ankry (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:ProfLeventKurnaz.jpg

I did not realize a permission was requested. I would appreciate if you could assist me on how I get permission.

The uploaded photo was found on the public web page: http://climatechange.boun.edu.tr/prof-levent-kurnaz/

Procedural close. Please have a look at Commons:Help desk if you need assistance. Thuresson (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Logo do Democratas até 2018.png

During the discussion of Commons:Deletion requests/File:DEM logotipo(2007).png user Túrelio suggested the deletion of File:Logo do Democratas até 2018.png authored by user João Vitor Bachini. However, despite his good intentions, the description of the file explained how user João Vitor Bachini digitally made that file himself from scratch based on the original logo in order to provide copyright free material to wikipedia (which is legal). Therefore the exclusion of this file contradicts Wikimedia's own work policies. Besides, even if that wasn't the case, the logo quite clearly does not meet the threshold of originality, being consistent solely of simple even elementary geometric forms. See the following precedent which is far more complicated and yet copyright free because of its simplistic composition. File:LogoPDT.svg

Przelijpdahl (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment Copying an image as described above creates a derivative work which infringes on whatever copyright the original has. Therefore this can be restored only if the original logo is below the ToO. That's a close call. I am inclined to believe that it is OK, but I'd like to see other comments. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim, no opposition. --Yann (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:DH 1930s wheat.jpg Undelete

File is out of copyright and public domain PD-Australia as a photograph taken before 1 Jan 1955.

{{PD-Australia}}--Marillajoe (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose It was under copyright in 1996, the URAA date, so it will be under copyright in the USA until 1/1/2031. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Could you please elaborate? Per image description, the photo was made in 1935, so its copyright in Australia expired on 1.1.1986 (50 years since creation). Ankry (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support I stand corrected, thank you Ankry. When the copyright term changed from 50 to 70 years, the change was not retroactive. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Joe Howe1.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: INeverCry's closure was inappropriate. The enwiki DR, w:en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 30#File:Joe Howe1.JPG, resulted to its keep as it has been established that the author of the quote, w:en:Joseph Howe, died more than 100 years ago, so {{PD-Canada-creator}} applies. The INeverCry's reckless deletion must be reversed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support undeletion per above. Ankry (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 Support If this were in the UK, the typography copyright would apply, but I don't think that's in the Canadian law. I don't think "reckless" is appropriate -- note that the DR nominator was Magog, who is a careful and thoughtful Admin. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I meant INeverCry who was reckless. Not Magog the Ogre. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 Comment JWilz12345, I don't understand how closing the DR can be reckless if the nomination was not also reckless. Either both or neither was reckless. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: several of INC's closures were sudden and not reviewed, such as the case of COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheCoffee (a PHL FOP deletiom request). Even public domain ones like the Dumaguete Belfry as well as the Rizal Monument was deleted by INC. And by the way, I am aware of INC's block and perpetual revocation of thekr admin rights, which led me to think that their closures garnered some complaints from various users of impacted files. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 Oppose The quote itself is out of copyright but the installation as such appears to be copyrightable – especially with the background that looks like an old manuscript of sorts, and the choice of colours. As the Wikipedia DR noted, FOP in Canada "does not include 'advertising hoardings' (which is a billboard)". So I don't think we can use the derivative photo unless a point could be made that this is rather artistic craftsmanship. De728631 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry and Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Kit body ent19781979a.png

This file is my own work, created on 20th February 2022 and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Keduqu (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment We have hundreds of these football kit pages, so it shouldn't be a problem. This one, however, is defective -- it's only 38 × 59 pixels and shows only part of one shirt front. Better upload it again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: as far as I know every football kit "body" part is 38 x 59 pixles and shows only part of shirt front. Some examples: Manchester City, Juventus. Is it possible to undelete the original one? Alternatively, I can upload the same one. Thank you. Keduqu (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Support I stand corrected -- I don't understand why we keep bits and pieces of the kit rather than complete uniforms, but obviously we do. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. @Keduqu: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Bandai Namco Entertainment logo.svg

Deleted due to File:Namco Bandai Games logo.png being deleted, which has since been undone. This logo is under COM:TOO and is quite similar to the other image. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:1_logo_base - UAE.png

Hi. The picture we negotiate has been issued as a company logo. It is place at the company website also https://tresotc.ae/. Please, inform if the description is not enough to undelete the picture and restore it on the article head section. --XXX-Rays (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment There has never been a file by that name on Commons and nothing similar appears in your deleted contributions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No file by that name. --Yann (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:FC Olimp Comrat logo.png

This image doesn't violate the copyright laws of Wikipedia, because the source of the image is Moldovan Football Federation. This is the official page of the FMF -> FMF Website — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeusAmmon1 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 25 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The page named as the source of the image in the upload, https://fmf.md/home/cluburi.html?club=Olimp, has an explicit copyright notice and no evidence of a free license.

"© 2020 FMF - Federația Moldoveneasca de Fotbal"

Therefore it cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the copyright owner via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Đàm Liên.jpg

The user (User:Mo Billings) who requested to delete this file was banned from Wikicommons due to sockpuppetry. The individual used abusive tactics to nominate most of my contributions for deletion.

All information and Wikicommons guidelines were followed and this image's information were properly stated in the rational provided in the description. --Audioboss (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't see Mo Billings anywhere in this file's history. It is not clear where the original photograph came from and until we understand that, I don't think we can restore this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:General Nicolas Gonzales.jpg

Also:File:General Ludovico Arejola.jpg

The user (User:Mo Billings) who requested to delete this file was banned from Wikicommons due to sockpuppetry. The individual used abusive tactics to nominate most of my contributions for deletion.

All information and Wikicommons guidelines were followed and this image's information were properly stated in the rational provided in the description. --Audioboss (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 Oppose I see no involvement of Mo Billings in these files histories. As I understand it, these are "conceptualizations" -- imaginary images of the subjects. I don't think we should host these as they will inevitably mislead viewers. And yes, I have read the argument that all images of Jesus Christ arise from an artist's imagination, but in that case any thoughtful person will understand that they are not actually they appearance of Christ. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment I think the crucial distinctions is that the depictions of Christ are in scope as depictions of Christ by [NN] or depictions of Christ in [someplace]. My painting of Christ isn't in scope, unless it ends up in the cathedral or somewhere else notable. So, is the author of the conceptualization notable? Or is the image close enough, based on available sources, that it informs more than it misleads? The reconstructions of Ötzi or ancient pharaohs are in scope in their own right, if done by due know-how and care (even File:Steinzeit Mensch Zeichnung.jpg is in use, as illustration to a children's book at Wikibooks). It seems Audioboss thinks they are realistic enough to be useful, but as the files are deleted and the deletion requests are confused, I cannot see any evidence. –LPfi (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


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

Diphu_City_Rap_Christin_Teron_Official

I want this photo or page to be lifetime Thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christinteron (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This image was deleted as a personal image of a non-contributor. It is possible that the subject is sufficiently notable for it to be educationally useful -- that must be proven. However, the subject has the same name as the uploader and the uploader claims "own work". Since it does not appear to be a selfie, if the subject is the uploader, then the "own work" claim is incorrect and it needs a free license from the actual photographer using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Derekscott200.png

The deletion of File:Derekscott200.png was uploaded without the license but it look likes it falls within the OGL (Open Government Licence version 1.0) (OGL v1.0) license. Other council political leaders have images with the license. --KeyKing666 (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is from

https://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/service-area/councillors/ward-8-the-ferry-derek-scott

The "Terms" link on that page goes to

https://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/service-area/chief-executive/chief-executives-services/terms-and-conditions

Where it says:

"The user is not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way the content of these web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without prior written permission of Dundee City Council."

That is far from an OGL. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Politics of Dundee. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't think town and council governments are Crown Copyright at all. The OGL must be explicitly applied to works even if they were, in most cases. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Carl. --Yann (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Restitución de los siguientes archivos

Estas fotografías son de mi propiedad y fueron eliminadas debido a que a criterio de una usuario era y cito "No indication of own work on some old photos, a very small and low quality pair of color photos, one of of a building, the other of a person." por lo que no estoy de acuerdo, cuando estas fotografías cumplían los criterios de esta página, de no haber sido así, no hubieran sido aceptadas, por lo que le solicito a quien corresponda, ver la posibilidad de revisar este caso y verifcar que e lo que me hace falta a mi. sinceramente Cobitomx Cobitomx (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose The first two images are old, one from 1942. You claim that you were the photographer. While that is not impossible, it seems very unlikely. Please remember that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it here. That right is held by the actual photographer or his heirs.

The third image is small and has no EXIF. If you are the actual photographer, as you claim, please upload the image again at full camera resolution and with full EXIF.

The fourth image is also very small and has no EXIF, so the same applies. It also appears on the web without a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Dani Martínez 2022.jpg

Hi! I´m David Abril, the community manager of Artistik Producciones https://artistikproducciones.com/. Artistik Producciones is the company who represent Dani Martinez and we want to share this picture of Dani that it is from now (instead the picture which appears now, it is from long time ago).

This picture is ours, created by the photographer PITU LOPEZ, hired for us to take a photo session of our artist. We have all te rights of the picture.

Please, how we can put without beeing changed, deleted,etc?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhtiku (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 April 2022‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Most licenses from photographers to their subjects are not broad enough for our needs here. Therefore, either (a) PITU LOPEZ, the photographer, must send a free license using VRT or (b) someone else must send a free license together with a copy of the written license from PITU LOPEZ allowing the sender to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Erik Miko.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: That is my personal picture. <IP redacted>

 Oppose @Erik Miko: Please log in when you edit here. Please note also that Wikimedia Commons is not a general webhost or a social media site. We do not allow profile pictures for editors that have not made any substantial contributions to Wikimedia projects. So, as you are completely new user, I'm afraid you cannot have a profile image. Have a look at Commons:User pages for more information. De728631 (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Morgan & Morgan Logo.svg

The image is the logo of a company that has a page on Wikipedia, en:Morgan & Morgan, which was created on 14 April 2022. The logo image was deleted on 2 April 2022, per CSD G10 (files and pages created as advertisements). As there is now an article about the company, requesting image be un-deleted so it can be added to the infobox, for visual identification of the company in question. Dmoore5556 (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done: pd text logo. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:David Leeson.jpg

This photo is a Dallas Police mugshot. All police mugshots are public domain and are legal to use. If you look at David Leeson's wiki page, you'll see that it's been removed to whitewash his image. --Melton Juan (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Correction. It is a Dallas Country Sheriff mugshot. Melton Juan (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Notwithstanding that you claimed it to be cc-by-sa 4.0 at upload, "[a]ll police mugshots are public domain and are legal to use" is nonsense and, of course, presented without evidence. The Dallas County jail, to which the image is credited clearly states "Copyright © 2022 Dallas County Online. All Rights Reserved." Alternatively, the Dallas Country Sheriff, cited by the requestor here, says "© Copyright - Sheriff Department"--the opposite of public domain. Эlcobbola talk 15:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Emilio sempris picture.jpg

This public domain file was taken from this flickr: [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gudisoc (talk • contribs) 14:42, 27 April 2022‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose - This is a non-selfie image of Emilio Sempris and that Flickr account purports to belong to Emilio Sempris. As copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the subject, the PD claim at the Flickr site is not adequate. The actual author should provide evidence of permission through COM:VRT. Note also that while it already appears to be Flickrwashing per the above, it also appeared elsewhere with its background unedited (unlike the blanked Flickr version), suggesting Flickr is not the actual origin. Эlcobbola talk 15:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Yang Zi 2015.10.22.jpg

I didn't understand the reason you deleted this file for. Can you cancel the deletion?--Wu Bai X Tong Nian (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a small image without metadata, and unlikely to be own work as claimed. Yann (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Wu Bai X Tong Nian: It was deleted as we did not receive a valid permission as requested on the uploader's talk page. Note: in this case we need permissions from copyright holder(s) of both photos: this one and the one in background. Ankry (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Markus Frenzel S2021.jpg

The photographer and the photographed have reached out to me to help them keep the file on wikimedia commons. It is a neutral photo and is well suited for the article about the journalist markus frenzel. I am in direct contact with the photographer and he tried to upload the photo on his own, but it was deleted on commons. He asked me for help and I'd kindly ask the admins to restore the file. Sincerely -Berndxfiedler (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Berndxfiedler: We need a license from the actual copyright holder (presumably the photographer) and licenses are required by law to be granted in a written form. Please ask the copyright holder to follow the VRT procedure if the license has not been granted in public. Note also that the author of a photo is always the photographer; false authorship claims are considered copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


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

File:Dsm02552.png

This a official articles musician wikipedia that bacome, the photo File:Dsm02552.png is just me and so I agree to the creative common laws for my image. Thank you for your time and for your attention.

 Not done: Not currently deleted. Out of scope anyway. --Yann (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2022-04&oldid=652800521"