Commons:Undeletion requests

(Redirected from Commons:DRV)


Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎svenska • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎پښتو • ‎বাংলা • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

File:Smbaliuagjf243.JPG and photos of several Philippine malls

File was deleted in 2012, according to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smbaliuagjf243.JPG, the file was deleted because of no-FOP (freedom of panorama) in the Philippines. However, the deletion request for another mall of the same mall chainCommons:Deletion requests/File:Sm megamall.jpg – ended up as "kept" because, according to @King of Hearts:, the SM Megamall lacks characteristics that makes it copyrightable. Quoting from King of Hearts' statement:

"I just found the following in Sec. 186: "Copyright in a work of architecture shall include the right to control the erection of any building which reproduces the whole or a substantial part of the work either in its original form or in any form recognizably derived from the original: Provided, That the copyright in any such work shall not include the right to control the reconstruction or rehabilitation in the same style as the original of a building to which that copyright relates." While not directly related, I think this implies some sort of threshold. Think about it: Suppose someone built a building shaped like a grey cube, with no features, nothing at all. If someone else came along and built a grey cube-shaped featureless building (which is almost identical to the first by necessity of the description), is that a copyright violation? You could say, well, it's almost identical, and hence "recognizably derived from the original." But an idea that can be expressed in a short phrase like "grey cube-shaped featureless building" is merely a style, and so we have a contradiction. So we conclude that there ought to be some threshold of originality, only above which is an idea separable from its expression."

Using this statement by King of Hearts, it can be interpreted that SM Malls like SM Megamall have little copyrightable elements present. It can also be interpreted that all other malls belonging to SM can be considered as having little threshhold of originality, as evidenced by the successful defense in the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smmarilaojf.JPG (for SM City Marilao). Then SM City Baliwag (and possibly other malls by SM Supermalls) also fall under the low or little TOO as said by King of Hearts for both SM Megamall and SM City Marilao. However, I might need the insights of some other Filipino Wikipedians regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  •   Support I believe that also applies to the deleted image here. -- King of ♥ 04:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: I'm not sure if this TOO rationale can be safely be considered for other photos of SM malls deleted, such as :File:SM_Aura_in_Bonifacio_Global_City.jpg found at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Shopping malls in the Philippines. But I can assume that this low or little TOO can be applied to other malls, judging from the case of SM City Marilao. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that one looks pretty complex. -- King of ♥ 05:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: here is a (partial) list of deleted photos depicting malls by SM Supermalls. Since I'm not an admin, I can't identify whether they can be undeleted just like the case of SM Megamall pic and of SM City Marilao or they do not pass low TOO.

Deleted files under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SM Mall of Asia: (listing added by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC))

I don't know if other Philippine malls (e.g. Robinson's, Gaisano, and others) may have the same treatment as that of SM Malls. Comments and insights to be placed beside the aboveventries are very much welcome. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Update @King of Hearts, Nat: per updated COM:FOP Philippines (using low COM:TOO standard in our country, proven by similarities of architectural styles in various common buildings in our country, usually by different architectural firms or people), I might also request the undeletion of the following two Robinsons Mall photos:

Unfortunately, casual searches on Google may find File:Robinsons Place Bacolod.jpg and File:Robinsons Place Manila Pedro Gil.jpg not passing the low TOO. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Another update Crossed out SM Aura, which seems to be too complex as King of Hearts said before. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Just visited here. in my opinion, OPPOSE ALL. No matter how plain a bldg is, it is still copyrighted. pls see the deletion request about banks in the phils in which your senior moderator Jim said bldgs and structures, no matter how plain, deserves copyright protection. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Photos of subjects probably OK using the low COM:TOO:
No copyrightable elements found or COM:DM:
No comment (some interiors or the Globe of SM MOA; pls help @King of Hearts:
The rest: probably not OK / unknown as of now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Additional undeletion requests from the requester

Some files that were deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Shopping malls in the Philippines. Since I'm familiar with the subjects of the said photos, I might not need provisional undeletion.

- Per low COM:TOO

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Quezon memorial.jpg

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Quezon memorial.jpg, file was deleted because of "no FoP in the Philippines," deletion was made in 2012. However, per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Circle (dated 2019), QMC (esp. the monument) was designer by Federico Ilustre who "was working for the Bureau of Public Works when he did this design." (per User:Jameslwoodward) Added basis is from @Seav:, quoted by @Markoolio97::

"The architect was an employee of the government and the shrine is owned and maintained by the government. As such the shrine is considered a work of the government and according to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, no copyright subsists in works of the government. This also applies to when the Philippine government was part of the United States during the time the shrine was designed."

As such, QMC is PD (a work of and owned by the government) and photos of it are permissible at Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  •   Comment Hmmm. While I'm not opposed to undeletion, the statement that Federico Ilustre "was working for the Bureau of Public Works when he did this design." overlooks the fact that per the English Wikipedia article: His most notable work would be his design of the Quezon Memorial Shrine monument, a design he made for a national design competition held in 1951 for the then-planned monument for late President Manuel L. Quezon, where he won the grand prize, which indicates that he may not have been working on this design in his capacity as a government employee, but as a private citizen competing in a national design competition. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nat: in this case, I might mention again the two users — @Seav: and @Markoolio97: — who interpreted this "commissioning of works by the government as equivalent to PD-PH government" and were active in the prior undeletion attempts at QMC (which somehow were 98% successful). I also passed by this previous undeletion request of 98% of the deleted pictures of QMC - Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-02#Photographs of Quezon Memorial. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Nat: found an insight at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Shrine, by @TagaSanPedroAko: "The FOP issue is a gray area of Philippine copyright law that affects images of many modern architectural works in the Philippines posted here on Commons (but not elsewhere on the Web), and I agree with the two this should not be deleted as Seav states is clearly a government-commissioned work. It's just time not to step too far regarding lack of FOP in the Philippines, but I agree US copyright law prevails (the work needs to be both free in the US and the Philippines) and the nominator just did it right. As far as I know, Filipino architects don't mind any pictures of their works, even where posted on the Net; it's just the existing law (from the 1990s) that doesn't reflect reality."
I somehow agree with TagaSanPedroAko, and also with @Sky Harbor: in his futile attempt to "save" a pic that was eventually deleted. Despite vagueness of our copyright law, with incompatible fair use guidelines, and the non-mention of a FOP-like provision, it can be said that there is "status quo" situation for photography prevailing in the Philippines, since no case lawsuit against Filipino photographers has ever been filed by the architectural community, at least for those photographing structures that were built or designed by the now-deceased people. This might be against the 5 precautionary measures, but that is the reality in our country. I might also quote a so-called general principle in our laws that was uttered by to Hon. Alfredo Garbin Jr. of the w:Ako Bicol party list during the June 8 hearing for the ABS-CBN's franchise (link to the w:Philippine Star video - [1]). At point 1:47:50, he said that "the basic principle in law, and that principle is that what is not prohibited is allowed." Although this might only apply to the station's franchise woes, it can be interpreted that his statement is for all Philippine laws, whether network franchise or copyright or even photographic restrictions. I previously posted this insight on King of Hearts' enwiki talkpage.
If there are some restrictions in photography, these are usually non-copyright restrictions such as needing an access permit to visit a landmark or asking permission from the management or the security officers. @Judgefloro: once responded Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Shrine that upon asking permission from the officers, he was told that it is permissible to take pictures for purposes of Wikimedia Commons since such purposes are for "public learning" (i.e. educational purposes). So I can assume that pictures of QMC and its monument are allowable here in accordance with Commons' aims JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"The architect was an employee of the government and the shrine is owned and maintained by the government. As such the shrine is considered a work of the government and according to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, no copyright subsists in works of the government. This also applies to when the Philippine government was part of the United States during the time the shrine was designed."

The most suitable tag to be used for this case is {{3-D in PD}} with embedded {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}.
And I stand with Hon. Garbin's (of Ako-Bikol party list) statement about the basic principle in Philippine laws (although some might argue it as only relevant to citizenship and franchise laws, not copyright law, and others might say "please see 5 precautionary principles!"): "What is not prohibited is allowed." (a mere application of common sense) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No. My point is that the argument of there are no lawsuits of photographic reproductions of architectural works is irrelevant. COM:FOP Philippines clearly notes that restrictions here are clearly copyright restrictions. The only question that should be considered here is whether Federico Ilustre acted in the capacity of a government employee or a private citizen when he participated in the national design competition for the monument (in which a prize was awarded). Everything else is irrelevant at the moment. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
To quote from the source cited on Ilustre's enwiki article, although the original link is down ( JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
"The Quezon Memorial Shrine was designed by Architect Federico Ilustre, who won a design contest for the Quezon Memorial Project in 1951. The Bureau of Public Works began the construction of the memorial in 1952 but failed to finish due to insufficient funding. Later on, the memorial was turned over to the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (formerly NHI) by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1 issued by Pres. Ferdinand Marcos on September 21, 1972.[1] The Commission took the responsibility to finish the structure.[2]
  • [1] Historical Markers Metroplitan Manila.  Manila: National Historical Insitute, 1993, p. 106.
  • [2] Ramos-De Leon, Lilia. The Quezon Memorial Shrine. Kasaysayan Vol. III N.1-4, Manila: National Historical Institute, 1978, p. 9-10."
Also found a passage on enwiki article itself, @Nat:

"He first joined the Bureau of Public Works in 1936 as a draftsman, staying in that position until the outbreak of World War II in the country in 1941. He was then promoted to the position of consulting architect iduring the Japanese Occupation. After the war, he briefly left the bureau to join the AFWESPAC of the US Army as supervising architect and assist them in the postwar infrastructure rehabilitation. In 1947, he became the supervising architect of the National Housing Commission, a position he held for two years until he returned to the Bureau of Public Works in 1949 also as supervising architect. He would remain with the public works office until the 1970s.[1] _ Lico, Gerard (2008). Arkitekturang Filipino: A History of Architecture and Urbanism in the Philippines. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press."

Accordingly, Ilustre was working (actually returned) as a supervising architect to the Bureau of Public Works in 1949. This means that he was part of the Bureau of Public Works (as a supervising architect) when he did the design in 1951 (or maybe 1950, but it is improbable that he made the design before 1950). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Does not matter if he was a government employee at the time. The question is whether the design was done as part of his duties as a government employee or just as a participant in a national contest. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: A quote from the Philippine Star article concerning the construction of the now-demolished terminal building of the Manila International Airport (precursor of NAIA):

"In 1954 Magsaysay gave the Bureau of Public Works the orders to implement designs prepared by noted government architect Federico Ilustre. Ilustre had apprenticed with Juan Nakpil before the war. After Liberation, he won the competition for the Quezon Memorial. He became the chief architect of the Bureau of Public Works, the precursor of today’s DPWH."

It seems to contradict various claims by several sites that he designed the monument as a Bureau of Public Works employee. His public works position wasn't also mentioned in the following:

"World War II and the destruction it brought to the metropolis, not to mention the death of the newborn capitol city’s founder during that period, dashed the hopes for those grand plans....Until the government decided to dedicate this field instead as a memorial to the man whose vision made Quezon City possible, with a shrine instead of the planned capitol to be its landmark. A contest was soon held for the design of the planned Quezon Memorial Shrine that was to rise in the elliptical field. The prize was eventually given to the design of Filipino architect Federico Ilustre, which incorporated contemporary design with some classical and symbolic inspirations. Although the planning of the memorial began way back after the war in 1945, it would take more than 30 years before the vision of the Quezon memorial was finally realized due to long-winding issues with funding and materials...."

"The Quezon Memorial Committee which was tasked to organize a nationwide fund-raising campaign for the building of a monument dedicated to former President Manuel Quezon, was established by the virtue of Executive Order, No. 79 signed by then President Sergio Osmeña on December 17, 1945. Then President Elpidio Quirino proposed the relocation of the monument away from its original planned site but such plans were not pushed through. The Bureau of Public Works commenced the construction of the monument in 1952."

If this is true then does that mean all other pictures of this monument are also affected (in particular all pictures undeleted at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-02#Photographs of Quezon Memorial)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  •   Comment Hi, I just want to add that according to page 161 of this report issued by the Quezon Memorial Committee in 1952, I quote:

    "In order to secure an appropriate plan of this Memorial a contest was opened some time ago by the Committee to all architects and civil engineers for the selection of the best design for the proposed Memorial. The prize of P10,000 was offered for the plan adjudged the best. This prize was won by Architect Federico Ilustre. The winning plan together with all its details, is on display in the Office of the Committee in the City Hall."

  • Judging by this, I would assume that Ilustre's design was made in his capacity as a private architect rather than as the chief architect of the government. However, in page 163, there is an illustration of Ilustre's plan for the memorial with his name written at the bottom and a logo at the bottom right corner. If anyone can identity that logo which to me looks like a government office seal, maybe it could confirm that this was made in his capacity as a government architect. Just my 2 cents -Howhontanozaz (talk)
@Howhontanozaz: is there a higher resolution version of the copy of this page that can be seen on the Internet? Paging @Seav, Markoolio97, Sky Harbor: for confirmation of this seal. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps paging @Jeff G., Yann, Ankry, Jameslwoodward, TagaSanPedroAko: too, for inputs regarding the logo mentiones by Howhontanozaz (paging those who participated in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-02#Photographs of Quezon Memorial and in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Shrine, hoping to bring this month-long undeletion discussion to a close) 10:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I would try contacting the National Archives and the Presidential Museum and Library for a higher resolution copy of this specific page and if possible, a copy of the plans. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: So both offices replied and they were both unhelpful, to be honest. The Presidential Museum replied with the zoomed in version of the page of the same online book found in the Internet Archive while the National Archives said they don't have the book nor the building plans available in their collections. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
You can find the images the Malacanang Museum sent me here. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

BIG OPPOSE. Again, i just visited here. the fact that evidence presented above is compelling to accepr that QMC's creator was NOT a government employee. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: according to Jsnueva1022 at User talk:Mrcl lxmna#Nomination to delete the Quezon Memorial Shrine photo, this monument "was built by the Philippine government, local government unit of Quezon City in specific, in honor to the late President Manuel Quezon." So I think this should now rest the case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction JWilz12345, it was actually built by the now-defunct Quezon Memorial Committee using funds obtained through a fund-raising campaign. But that is somewhat irrelevant since the crux of this discussion concerns the design of the monument. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Nat: Per Liuxinyu970226 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Shrine, {{PD-PhilippineGov}} might apply here. So QMC monument can be a work from the government. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I hereby   I withdraw my nomination. I'm exhausted unfortunately, and despite repeated Googling I can't find the exact logo of the Bureau of Public Works, which if identical to the seal/logo thing Howhontanozaz mentioned before would validate Ilustre's QMC as a government commissioned work. More sources also state that Ilustre just participated in the national design competition. I shall leave this discussion and even the deletion request targeting all of QMC shrine photos to other editors and admins. I will no longer involve on this section and in that DR against QMC Shrine photos. I will wait for the developments at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP, whether affirmative or negative, instead of wasting my power and time doing extensive researching. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Antipolo - National Shrine.jpg

Deleted because of no FOP (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antipolo - National Shrine.jpg for ref.) But enwiki article states the current structure was completed in 1954, with the year 1983 as the year of its promotion as a cathedral (promotion of status, but that didn't changed its fundamental architecture). Also per updated Commons:FOP Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Support per above and w:Antipolo Cathedral. The deletion reason provided in the DR was incorrect. Ankry (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  Oppose as following my stand at the bldg of the prptestant church below. 1951 to 1972 bldgs are not ok. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Files in Category:Exterior of the Cathedral of the Holy Child (Aglipayan), Manila

The following files were deleted because of "no FOP in the PHL." Ref. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Exterior of the Cathedral of the Holy Child (Aglipayan), Manila. But per enwiki article, it was completed on May 8, 1969 (inauguration date) so it falls under the exemption as stated in the revised Commons:FOP Philippines (buildings completed before November 1972).

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  •   Comment As the building was complete after 1951, we tend to err on the side of caution (e.g. COM:PCP), especially because it's a huge maybe and there is legal uncertainty. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment N.B. I'm not opposed to undeletion, but I am not in support of it either. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply from requestor Despite being marked as "Maybe" for 1951–1972 buildings, it is still listed among the "exceptions" at Commons:FOP Philippines, which means they should be OK. The lack of actual cases do not signify that people are faced with stringent restrictions in terms of photography and in manners of usage, at least to buildings that are old enough. AFAIK potential copyright issues may arise at contemporary-era buildings (most esp. buildings built after the post-EDSA People Power revolution of 1986) and also to sculptures that are truly considered special works of art, such as the recent deletions of photos of famous Lion's Head in Baguio and the photos of the noteworthy Sigaw sa Pugad Lawin in Quezon City in early 2010s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment We should make one global decision whether to accept Philippine buildings from 1951 to 1972, and change the "maybe" to "probably" or "probably not" once consensus is reached. Otherwise, decisions will be made based not on the merits of the case but on the inclination of the closing admin. We see this problem on graffiti and URAA cases as well. -- King of ♥ 13:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: is there a need to open a new discussion about this at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or another forum? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
That might be a good idea. -- King of ♥ 16:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: update.Making an inference at Clindberg's analysis at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#PHL buildings from August 1951–November 1972, 1951–72 bldgs should be fine. "The Berne Convention does state though that it's matter for domestic legislation on how photos of architecture etc. would be protected, and that legislation did not exist until 1972. I'm not sure that the question of photos of buildings has ever come up in court there, so I'm not sure what the de facto treatment is -- it's possible photos of buildings are simply used without consequence there." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Carl stated right before: " It seems as though there are still questions on how treaties become operative law in the Philippines, though (given that the Philippine Senate did concur to the Berne Convention in 1950, effective 1951) it would be reasonably valid law. That link is a presidential proclamation from March 1955, which states that every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the citizens thereof." Architectural works between 1951-1972 are still a huge maybe and maybes are generally a "not ok" per COM:CARES and COM:PCP. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Yep. It could even be the case that architecture was protected but they still needed a copyright notice to get that protection, since technically the notice requirements were not removed until 1972. It sounds like there were no court cases in that period which could have answered that question. There are a bunch of "maybe" questions for that intervening period. It may be exacerbated by any type of de facto ignoring of that possibility -- i.e. maybe people use photos of buildings commercially all the time but nobody has bothered to sue over it. It would take losing an infringement case to change such behavior. And we're trying to guess how that would turn out with basically no precedent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, Just visited here. if your argument is correct Nat, them bldgs completed that period is NOT OK. Then OPPOSE. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:MEAACT PHOTO

Per the recent consensus to accept COM:PDM as a license, I've been going through Category:Public Domain Mark 1.0-related deletion requests/deleted restoring any images that appear to be free of any other issues. I am seeking a second opinion on this batch of images by the Ministry of East Africa Affairs, Commerce & Tourism (MEAACT) of Kenya. They have applied "Public domain" (PDM) to the image on Flickr, but also indicated in the caption "MANDATORY CREDIT: MEAACT PHOTO / STUART PRICE", which contradicts the meaning of "public domain". My question is: should we accept these images? -- King of ♥ 18:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  •   Support undeletion. I see no way that any court would decide that any person or a project has committed a copyright infringement after the author has published the work with a public domain mark, even if they have also demanded attribution. However, the question that should be asked is not whether to undelete or not, but what licence/copyright tags should we apply. I think that in this case we should be safe and assume that it is {{attribution}} rather than any form of public domain attribution, I am unsure if the court would see it this way, but in this particular case it is better to be safe, especially since it does not inflience us actually having the images. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Josve05a --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • If we think they are enforcing that requirement through moral rights only, it could still be consistent. Even so, using {{Attribution}} might be more prudent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Smith Museum stained glass.jpg and File:Asiatown IT Park.jpg

Previously discussed at here but separated from that request to continue to conversation. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Oblation photo/s if de minimis

The following images were deleted because no FoP in the Philippines. Nevertheless, if some or any of these photos show the copyrighted statue 'incidentally, and/or if the photo focuses more on the plaza and the Quezon Hall (1950 bldg.)', these can be restored. I used available evidence (mostly the "cryptic file names"), since deleted photos are virtually invisible to me. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Oblation back UPLB.JPG (DM or not?)

File:Magsaysay Park Davao.jpg

Deleted because: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Magsaysay Park Davao.jpg (no FoP). But I assume it is a park, so COM:DM might apply. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  Info From the image description: "This 25 meter long tri-pillar obelisk with the statue of Ramon Magsaysay is made by the Davao Chapter of the Philippine Veterans Legion and was turned over to the City Government of Davao in honor of the third President of the Republic of the Philippines". The same monument can be seen through Google Streetview [2]. Thuresson (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Per , it was built sometime between 1957 (Magsaysay's death) and July 31, 1960, the year on which the Davao Chapter of the Philippine Veterans Legion turned over the monument to the City Government of Davao. Per the wording, it is assumed that they turned over the rights (even moral rights) to the city government ({{PD-PhilippineGov}}). Like the possible applicability of PD-gov for Manila Film Center and other structures in the Philippines now owned by the government. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Some Negros Oriental photos

Following files were deleted because no FoP in PHL. But:

- Negros Oriental states that it was built in 1924, so this should be PD.

- COM:DM might apply.

- might be plain buildings (low COM:TOO) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Saint Raphael Church in Legazpi, Albay.jpg

Deleted because: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saint Raphael Church in Legazpi, Albay.jpg (no FOP). But says the present architecture is from 1834 (auto. PD). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  Weak oppose The image is low resolution and shows also neighbouring objects that are likely copyrighted. Ankry (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Response: Despite low resolution, it is still a good photo. I assume it is also w:File:Saint Raphael Church in Legazpi, Albay.jpg. For the objects concerned, the flagpole and the resto has low COM:TOO, and the lamp pole should be OK as there are various photos depicting the same type being hosted here at Category:Roxas Boulevard and some other categories. Also the fixtures are not main subjects or secondary subjects (COM:DM) as the photo is about the church. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Two Robinsons photos by KatorseNiAmang

Files were deleted because no FOP in the Philippines. But through the low COM:TOO reason which saved File:Sm megamall.jpg from deletion, it can be considered as having low TOO as a mall building and more utilitarian in purpose than a work of art. Are malls of the Philippines works of architectural art? I doubt this notion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Files deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bank of the Philippine Islands

Stated files were deleted because no FOP in the PHL.

- But if this is the w:Don Roman Santos Building (my assumption only), this should be PD and undeleted.

- if these are indeed having low COM:TOO as claimed by Ubcule, then these should be undeleted too. This is evidenced by the similarities of architectures of the branches of the bank, and I doubt they are of the same architectural firm.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

File:MRT-2 Betty Go-Belmonte Station Exterior 1.jpg

File deleted because: no FoP in the Philippines (Commons:Deletion requests/File:MRT-2 Betty Go-Belmonte Station Exterior 1.jpg). But IMO train station buildings in the Philippines are ineligible for copyright as they are more utilitarian than artistic. Commons has hosted photos of train stations buildings (even exteriors) with no problems, from Category:Recto station to Category:Buendia station, amd from Category:Kamuning station to Category:Blumentritt station (Line 1). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church.jpg

Per, 1966 bldg. Absolutely falls under the exceptions at the updated COM:FOP Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

While I personally think, that it was not the intention of anybody that the Berne Convention became a substitute for local copyright law (its intention was to grant the same protection for foreign works as granted for local ones), we cannot go on here due to some doubts raised concerning 1951-1972 architetural works. We need to gather wider consensus about how to treat these works in Commons before taking a decission here. Ankry (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

File:SSC Water Tank.jpg

Deleted because: Commons:Deletion requests/File:SSC Water Tank.jpg (no FoP in the Philippines). But I think it is highly absurd to say that water tanks are copyrighted despite the fact that these don't possess artistic qualities (simplicity threshold). Low originality and more utilitarian than made for the so-called "artistic architectural/sculptural impressions". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Miserable Monday (30579989018).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per updated COM:PDM A1Cafel (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@A1Cafel: Which copyright tag you find appropriate for this image? Ankry (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I do think {{PDMark-owner}} is appropriate. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The "owner" seems to be the subject and this is not a selfie... Ankry (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe the employees of the Office of Michael John took it? As Michael John is a spokesperson of the Tea Party. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
"Maybe" means COM:PCP and COM:OTRS, not {{PDMark-owner}}. Ankry (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nat: My doubts here concerned one image; I said nothing about the others. Ankry (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Bimbo el oso del pan.jpg

File was deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bimbo el oso del pan.jpg — FoP in Mexico was interpreted as only for noncommercial use during that time (2007). But the current interpretation, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico#Freedom of panorama, is more lenient than what it was, so I think this file should be undeleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  •   Weak oppose @JWilz12345: I don't know how this work would fit under the conditions set by the law. And there is a question of scope, as it is a picture of a Bimbo ad on a Bimbo delivery truck at an odd angle, through a car window or windshield (and as such has very faint reflections of something). I do not see how it can be realistically useful for an educational purpose. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Was the change in FoP laws retroactive? If so, I agree that this should be covered, as the artwork is clearly visible from a public place. I don't speak Spanish, so I cannot say whether the law has some further restrictions, e.g. that the photo must have been taken from a public place, which the inside of a car is not. As for scope: we have a number of Category:Grupo Bimbo delivery trucks, but none with this particular artwork. I think that's sufficiently in scope. --rimshottalk 22:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Interpreting the content of Commons:FOP Mexico: "Reproduction, communication and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs and audiovisual processes of works that are visible from public places (lugares publicos)." [1996-2018 Art.148(VII)]. This can mean that photos of copyrighted works taken from inside the car is acceptable, as long as the car is located in a public space. The only known restrictions, AFAIK and based on my reading of the policy page, are in some establishments and areas, the Metro de la Ciudad de México for example. And for retroactivity, yes the FoP law (2018 ed., according to the policy page) should be retroactive. We have accepted photos of Mexico City's skyscrapers and sculptures in publicly-accessible areas, so this should also be fine. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


Jason Chan (陳柏宇) is a famous Hong Kong singer, no way to remove it. -- 10:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  •   Question Who was the photographer? What is the source of this image? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd prefer to see the version with EXIF, or at least an explanation why the EXIF has been removed. The image has been published eg. her and here, but these versions are newer and watermarked.   Weak support for undeletion or at least starting a DR if there are scope or copyright doubts. Ankry (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • EXIF data sometimes may involve some personal data, the user doesn't want to disclose. Also, image was uploaded here in 2012. The sources that Ankry provides is in 2016. -- 03:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
      • In such cases the original image can be emailed to OTRS. Was this indeed the case? Ankry (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Tous les chemins 1960.jpg [Ticket#: 2020081910006862]


Suite au courriel de Jeanne Person, j'ai supprimé la clause NC (Pas d'utilisation commerciale) sur Flickr des six clichés dont je suis l'auteur :

   File:Tous les chemins 1960.jpg
   File:Soleil d'hiver.jpg
   File:Scène de vie parisienne.jpg
   File:Les pêcheurs 1974.jpg
   File:Café du matin.jpg

Ils sont donc libres de droits et devraient être compatibles avec wikipedia. Pouvez vous SVP annuler les six suppressions. Merci.

Par ailleurs et comme expimé dans ma demande Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <> le mer. 19 août à 16:46, je rappelle que je possède les droits de représenter et signer en mon nom tous les documents nécessaires à la présentation ou exposition de tableaux de mon neveu Pierre Deschodt.

Enfin, les tableaux de mon neveu ont fait l'objet d'exposition citée dans la description et dans mon email.

La dernière exposition a été faite en aout 2020 :

Aussi, je vous remercie de bien vouloir autoriser la publication d' article sur mon neveu avec toutes les illustrations.

Je me tiens à votre disposition pour toutes demandes complémentaires et nécessaires à l'aboutissement de ce dossier.

En vous remerciant par avance.

Très cordialement,

Hubert Denis du Péage — Preceding unsigned comment added by PDeschodt (talk • contribs)

@Kvardek du: pinging for opinion. I do not see any -NC- license anywhere around (the deleted images are declared Own work, with no source link). Ankry (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@PDeschodt: When the permission in the OTRS ticket is verified and accepted, the images will be restored by the OTRS volunteer or on their request. It you have questions about OTRS ticket processing, you can ask at COM:OTRS. Unfortunately, it seems that we have backlog in the French OTRS queue, so ticket processing may be delayed. Ankry (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: thanks for the ping. The Flickr links are in the ticket, example but there is still a ND clause so I explained the choice.
(yes we do have a huge backlog, we need help...) kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 22:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Remember The Plankinton.webm

The following video was deleted even though it is the same video I created and uploaded to YouTube ( under a Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) license.

I'm not sure why it was deleted when there are other videos on the Commons, such as the following example that have the YouTube link as the source -!_-_YouTube.webm

Can the source just be changed to the YouTube link as in the above example to placate the editors. If not, what else do you need to reverse the deletion decision? --Volkswriter (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The film makes use of some stock footage as well as a number of photographs and drawings, making it a derivative work of those. You would need to provide some proof that all of these are out of copyright or that you have the rights to publish them under a free license. --rimshottalk 21:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Theresa May graffiti art, Herne Hill.jpg

See also COM:GRAFFITI. -- 03:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  Support per above. Graffiti author is not known. Ankry (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Files deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benghazi Municipality Interior Old.jpg

The following are photos deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benghazi Municipality Interior Old.jpg due to no FoP in Libya:

The artist mentioned was Marcello Piacentini (d. 1960). But these should be in PD by now, as Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Libya states that the copyright duration for Libyan works are 50 years after the death of the author. So 1960+50=2010+1 (completion of 2010 calendar)=2011. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose They are likely copyrighted in US due to URAA (The URAA deate for Libya is 1.1.1996). And no, Libya has not 50pma; they have 25pma and 50 post-publication. So to avoid URAA problem, you need to prove that these are pre-1946 works. Ankry (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: then how come the File:Benghazi Central Station.jpg ended up as kept? And this is a building, URAA should not be an issue according to Clindberg at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-09#Some photographs by TheCoffee. If the second file doesn't apply (I assume it's a chandelier), then the first showing the interior of the building should be OK. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, unsure if wall & ceiling art paintings qualify as architecture. Ankry (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Κωτσόβολος Samsung Hub.jpg

This file is not against Wikimedia Commons rules. It show the inside of a Retail Shop, that shows an innovative shop set up. No people are shown. The image is taken by an HR employee of this specific retail shop, and is free for use in Wikipedia and any other use. We are sorry if we misunderstood the rules. Please let us know what the problem is so we can provide new images. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by VickyMajnl (talk • contribs)

As the declared image copyright holder is different to User:VickyMajnl, you cannot grant a license at upload. Per policy, a free license evidence is needed in such case.
BTW, who are "we"? Per policy, Wikimedia accounts are personal and cannot be shared. Ankry (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


Hello! A few days ago, I nominated for undeletion this file, but I didn't say about some things. Firstly, I published this file at Russian social media service ( before I published its at Wikimedia. Secondly, I don't know how prove, what it's my own work because I will refer to the rules of this Russian social network by which I can freely use this file( (look rule №7.1.3)) Sebersky (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sebersky: Non-commercial permission is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements, see COM:L. Ankry (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Please, undelete this file, I am attaching a license... {{Cc-by-sa-4.0|JONY_на_выступлении.jpg}} Sebersky (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sebersky: You need to provide a link to this license in, or the photographer needs to follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

File:1973 Gay Pride.jpg

- - - Reason for this request

I hereby affirm that (1) I served as legal counsel for the event depicted in File:1973 Gay Pride.jpg, that (3) the copyright tag below applies to the above-mentioned content because (2) the copyright holder intended that his work be available in the public domain for any purpose.

{{PD-because|Jim Chalgren, the copyright holder, released the underlying photo in the US before 1988, "without an explicit Copyright notice".}} [Ticket#: 2020092210007961] verifies that the reason given above complies with Commons' licensing policy.

--Y6f&tP4z (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

- - -

In the images' desscription you stated that "Egil Jonsson" is the photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

- - - Reply #1

No! In my reply to Ahmad252, September 19, I said, <Egil Jonsson, the author of File:1973 Gay Pride.jpg, posted the picture of himself "in the orange ring" on his Facebook page in 2012, then reposted the same picture with context in 2019. Because Jim Chalgren released the photo in the US before 1988 "without an explicit Copyright notice", his work was not an "orphan" and could be used in the public domain for any purpose.>

I was attempting to clarify that Jonsson was the author of the "orange ring" that was added to Chalgren's photo.

--Y6f&tP4z (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

- - -

Temporarily undeleted for discussion. We may need some info about the pre-1988 publication (date, place) as an evidence. Ankry (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

- - - Reply #2

I asked the Curator, Tretter Collection in GLBT Studies, University of Minnesota Libraries, to search for records that will identify with whom its copy of the photo was shared before 1988 and/or where it appeared in print.

--Y6f&tP4z (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

- - -

File:Jetta si Watak Utama.png

this file is an official information regarding the informations about the company , i plead to BOTS to make this file stay on Wikipedia Common Page . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meandkancil2020 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 25 September 2020‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  • @Meandkancil2020: How can we confirm, basing on public record, that YOU are (personally) the author and exclusive copyright holder of the image? Note, that providing false or incorrect information makes your other statements not reliable. Ankry (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Rodolfo Guevara Dato.jpg

requesting undeletion for rodolfo guevara dato picture. He was my great uncle. The picture has been with our family since the 1950s. thank you. C (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stephentalla: In order to undelete the photo we need either: a free license permission from the photographer or photographer heirs, or an evidence that copyright expired in country of origin. When the photo was made? What is its country of origin? Was it ever published, and when and where, if so. A 2020 photo copyright cannot expire, yet. You claimed that you are the photographer who made this photo of your family member: how old were you when the photo was made? Ownership of a photo print is irrelevant for copyright. And providing false or incorrect information makes your other statements not reliable. Ankry (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Coloana Fidelității Timișoara.jpg

My photo has been marked as a possible copyright violation and, therefore, was deleted. I own the rights of this photo, it is my own photo. The EXIF shows Sorin Pintea as copyright holder because I have borrowed the DSLR camera to take this photo from my son-in-law. Actually, you can see Sorin's Facebook profile here, which shows I am on his friends list: Please undelete this files, it really does not represent any copyright violation. Thanks! Radu Simionoff--Simionoff (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Simionoff: We need some evidence for this, eg. a confirmation from Sorin Pintea. This cannot be made on-wiki, so COM:OTRS procedure is the right way. Ankry (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Alexandr Jucov.jpg

Picture is taken by me, and if you see more attentively you’ll see that in Forbes India picture the hands are on different position than on this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vovagig (talk • contribs)

Well, this does not qualify it for speedy, but for requesting a permission. Both images seem to originate from a professional session and for professional images COM:OTRS permission from copyright holder is still needed. Ankry (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Another image of the obviously same shooting is found here and is credited to "World Lab Technologies", the company of the depicted person. --Túrelio (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

File:רועי לבס - הופעה.jpg

Hi. this photo is owned by me (as I stated when uploading it) and therefore it can be used broadly. Please re-delete it. thank you ! Pika2020 (talk)

File:סוד - רועי לבס.png

Hi! this photo is designed and owned by me and as I stated when I uploaded it, approve using it broadly. Please re-delete it. thank you! Pika2020 (talk)

File:Man Playing A Guitar.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It is my personal photo. It's not a copyrighted material. I can provide documents to prove ownership of the file. Acnologia08 (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guh7 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 September 2020‎ (UTC)

Procedural close. Not deleted, nor has the file been requested for deletion. Thuresson (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Joanne Camilleri.jpg

I am the owner of the photo which is being considered for deletion. I don't know why a message is being displayed stating that it is not copyrighted. I can provide documents to prove ownership of the file. Please refrain from deleting the photo and let me know what I need to do to avoid similar issues in the near future.

Thanks and regards,


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scamosa (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 September 2020‎ (UTC)