Open main menu

Commons:Undeletion requests

(Redirected from Commons:UDEL)

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

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

Contents

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.

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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Files uploaded by Alx90865

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The documents from Russian Empire, published in newspapers in 1906, free to access, no authoring. These documents are very useful for those researching their family roots from the mentioned cities. These documents for the mentioned cities were never published online before, I'd like to make them accessible for wide range of users who cannot visit local (Russian) libraries. Alx90865 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I cannot see the files, but their names suggest that these are lists of voters. Simple lists do not have copyright, as they are data and are not creative. So it does not even matter if they are from the time of Russia Empire or are compiled just yesterday. Thus I   Support the undeletion at this time. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 04:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @EugeneZelenko: ? Ankry (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    I don't mind undeletion of these files as long as uploaded or somebody else is willing to fix license information. Actually I explained on my user talk page to uploader what need to be done, but somehow it was not implemented. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    @EugeneZelenko: I have added the "PD-Russian Empire" copyright tags several days ago, prior to deletion. So I do not understand what else should I do to these files to have them undeleted. Could you explain? --Alx90865 (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    I checked couple of files and licensing remained same as in time of nomination for deletion. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    @EugeneZelenko: I cannot check the licensing because these files are deleted. So I see 2 options: 1) Do add "PD-Russian-Empire" copyright tag to the files after they have been undeleted 2) upload the same files as new ones, providing "PD-Russian-Empire" tag. What should I do? --Alx90865 (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    I restored all files. License tags must be fixed. If you don't know how to do this, just edit these files and newly uploaded one and see difference in wiki-markup. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Alx90865: Take a look at File:Быхов список городских избирателей 1906.pdf I have edited it to make licence reasonable. We can argue whether PD-RusEmpire also applies, but I would disagree, since this is something that is actually not eligible for copyright in the first place. So please take a look and go through other ones as well. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gone Postal: Please take a look at File:Список_лиц,_имеющих_право_на_участие_в_выборах_в_Государственную_Думу_1906.pdf I have edited it in a slightly different way, providing source and author as Mogilevskie Gubernskie Vedomosti (newspaper where the lists were published), not "self-photographed". Also, there are tons of similar files containing old newspapers scans on wikicommons from other contributors, e.g. File:Irkutskie_gubernskie_vedomosti.jpg with licensing and authoring varying from file to file. Should I use newspaper as author, or 'my own work'? In my opinion, the author was the newspaper, not me (not to talk that actually these lists were created by special government electoral commitees prior to publishing them). Thanks for your contribution to this issue. --Alx90865 (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Alx90856: The way I interpret the "source" is where the specific file comes from. While author is the original copyrighted work and all the additional authors that have added something that has in any way transformed it. As such you filling in the author field goes further than what I did, and that is much better. As for the source portion, I disagree with repeating the author, but not enough to actually edit the file or demand that somebody does it differently. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Not eligible for copyright" can be a complex rule, and IMO should be avoided whenever a clearer, more definite rule applies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The issue is that we do not follow that approach in other things, for example, when somebody puts a public domain image available under a free licence, we normally remove a free licence. Personally, I believe that we should have "fall back" templates. For example, "This image is PD-ineligible, if this happens to be wrong, it is PD-old, if this happens to be wrong it is also available under CC-BY". However, this isn't a place to discuss such a change. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Applying {{PD-RusEmpire}} to something that is not copyrightable (and never was) is providing false information IMO. Reasoning provided there applies to works, not to anything. But {{PD-text}} may be better here than {{PD-ineligible}}. Ankry (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with that. "Not eligible for copyright" is a better rationale than "PD in the Russian Empire". Regards, Yann (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with using {{PD-text}}, it is more specific. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I've added {{PD-text}} as category (giving no license) and source as the newspaper title. Can you check please is it all OK to make this request finally closed? There are still some warnings for 'deriative work' which is definitely not this case, so I'm afraid of new deletions.. being a novice in wikicommons it is not so straightforward to cope with its policies--Alx90865 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Never was" seems like a big claim. Such things weren't clearly PD in the US until 1991 (the Supreme Court overruled lower courts in w:Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.) and database rights might apply today in the EU. Given the growth of modern copyright law from previous publisher protection, I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian Empire had sweat of the brow style copyright laws. Not to mention incidental text or typographical copyrights... easier just to say PD-RusEmpire and be done with it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Ngguls

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Text in cropped versions is not eligible for copyright. (Origin versions cannot be restored.) 神樂坂秀吉 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

File:AL_by_GS.jpg

Hello,

It's good that you doublecheck the uploaded images, but a more thorough check would have found that this image (File:AL_by_GS.jpg) is clearly uploaded under my name in other websites. The website where my image was found is using it illegally and I've sent them a message to remove it (edit: I now have confirmation that the image is now deleted from the website). I can provide original RAW files if needed, and it is clear that my file is much bigger than the version found online. This is obviously not possible without the original image.

Please let me know what else you might need to undelete my image.

Thanks! George Simeonov --Gsimeonov (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hanegi

These files depicts specific Japanese cheerleading teams ja:B-ROSE and ja:AKATSUKI VENUS, a pubilc cheerleading event, not simple personal photos, but still remain deleted status. Also, files on Commons are not necessarily required to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as "neutral point of view" and "no original research" and "notablity". Puramyun31 (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

For unused images, the requester should prove they have educational value. That is necessary for the files to be in COM:SCOPE. IMO, this may apply to some selected files, but not to the whole set. And considering poor description and categorization I am unsure if anybody but uploader can make the selection / fix this. Ankry (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: there photos depicts cheerleading at a public sports event (Japanese professional basketball league(B.LEAGUE)), not simple personal photos, can be educational. (Commons does not only accept ancient images (ex. very old photos) but also broadly accept contemporary things such as these sport event photos) Also just "unused" on wikimedia project(s) cannot solely be a reason of deletion since Commons images can also be use outside of Wikimedia projects (That's why Commons files are freely-licensed). I guess "poor description and categorization" as you said maybe caused by lack of non-Japanese users' understanding about the Japanese descriptions of the images. Puramyun31 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
p.s. @Thuresson: sorry for my typing mistake Puramyun31 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I doubt images like File:AKATSUKI VENUS2.jpg are useful because of very low quality. However, I do not oppose undeleteion if sombody makes a selection. Opinions of other admins are welcome, however. Ankry (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I'm not sure what Ankry's view about the standards of the quality of photos and did not see the images in this discussion before they are deleted, but please be aware unlike artistic photos, usually taking high-quality photos at a public event is very difficult. I think we should be more lenient with the quality of public-event photos. Puramyun31 (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

File:King Kong (illustration).jpg and File:Anonymous (art).jpg

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Christopher DOMBRES. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose Deleted as COM:DW in consistence with abovementioned DR. Ankry (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The specific DR for "File:Anonymous (art).jpg" is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anonymous (art).jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Wait a minute... In both cases, it doesn't seem to be direct copies but original artworks inspired by other artworks. I'm not sure DW applies. At least, File:King Kong (illustration).jpg should have deserved a DR, instead of a speedy deletion without discussion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The file contains strict copyright notice: this is enough for speedy. If somebody decides to copy original work including details like copyright notice, this is not just inspiration. Ankry (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Pete Holmes performing at Meltdown.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

  1. There is a Kevin T. Porter in real life. He's a comedian. His instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kevintporter/ .
  2. This KTP had many photos similar or identical to the deleted ones on instagram: go backward from this.
  3. Instagram strips EXIF so we cant really know what camera it is, but on the flickr account https://www.flickr.com/photos/91857696@N07/ , everything was Sony NEX-5N.
  4. All the deleted ones are Sony NEX-5N.

My conclusion is, the KTP on wikipedia, flickr and instagram is the same person, and the photos are his own. Roy17 (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hans Duhan

La licence qui s'applique est {{PD-EU-audio}}

(encore faut-il la connaître et l'apposer…) La restauration est donc parfaitement légitime. Merci Patachonf (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)   Comment @Patachonf: L'auteur n'est pas mort depuis 50 ans. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Dans le cas d'un enregistrement publié en 1928, c'est 50 ans pour les productions Européennes et c'est 70 ans au maximum après 1962… Donc que le type soit mort il y a moins de 50 ans, n'entre pas en ligne de compte, puisque seule est retenue la date de parution du photogramme. « Les enregistrements effectués avant le 1er janvier 1963, ne sont protégés que pendant 50 ans (à compter de leur première communication au public…) ». Patachonf (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: Schubert est mort en 1828. Il y a 191 ans. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel, Patachonf: Selon la Hirtle Chart établie pour les enregistrements US / hors US (depuis le le Music modernization Act d'octobre 2018) un enregistrement réalisé en Europe, sans doute à Londres pour le label Gramophone, en 1928 est dans le domaine public en Europe. Le template {{PD-US-record}} peut être associé, mais il est aussi probable que, le label ayant disparu (racheté, fusionné, etc.), le template {{PD-US-not renewed}} s'applique !
Cordialement, Flopinot2012 (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:The Stand News

  1. Template:The Stand News
  2. File:嶺南大學校友及學生集會要求驅逐何君堯 20190727.png
  3. File:Old man attack people in Yuen Long Plaza bridge 20190727.jpg
  4. File:立場新聞記者被襲擊一刻.gif
  5. File:便衣警員被指全身沒有展示警員編號亦未佩戴委任證 20190707.png
  6. File:Yuen Long Station White Tee people attack citizen in platform 20190721.png
  7. File:Yuen Long Station White Tee people attack citizen 20190721.png
  8. File:Yuen Long Station people's blood after police force entry 20190727.png
  9. File:TP8431 hat 20190727.png
  10. File:TP8431 20190727.png
  11. File:Tear smoke in Connaught Road Central view2 20190721.png
  12. File:Tear smoke in Connaught Road Central view1 20190721.png
  13. File:Tear smoke in Connaught Road Central view 20190721.png
  14. File:Sing Hallelujah to the Lord in Citic Tower Bridge 20190613.png
  15. File:T98431 weapons 20190727.png
  16. File:Queensway tear smoke 20190612.png
  17. File:Protesters waiting at Eastern Magistrates' Courts outside 20190731.png
  18. File:Protesters use water to resolve tear smoke 20190721.png
  19. File:Protesters outside Office of the Chief Executive 20190620.png
  20. File:Protesters in North Point station 20190730.png
  21. File:Protesters in Kwai Yi Road 20190730.png
  22. File:Prof LAU, Chi-pang, JP 20190727.png
  23. File:Press conference for Hong Kong Police Force 20190613.png
  24. File:Police speak after fireworks incident 20190731.png
  25. File:Police Heaquarter wall after the protest 20190622.jpg
  26. File:Police force use the gun in Connaught Road Central 20190721.png
  27. File:Police force use pepper in Long Yip Street 20190727-2.png
  28. File:Police force showing orange flag in Nam Pin Wai Entrance 20190727.png
  29. File:Police force release tear gas to Long Yip Street 20190727.png
  30. File:Police force prepare release tear smoke in Po Yip Street 20190727.png
  31. File:Police force prepare gun in Sun Kwai Fong Garden shops view 20190730.png
  32. File:Police force prepare gun in Kwai Fong Station Bus Terminal 20190730.png
  33. File:Police force prepare gun in Kwai Fong Station Bus Terminal 2.jpg
  34. File:Police force near Kwai Fong Station Bus Terminal 20190730.png
  35. File:Police force in Mong Kok block Shantung Street sidewalk 20190707.png
  36. File:Police force go to Yuen Long Station Exit A 20190727.png
  37. File:Police force clear the people in Castle Peak Road-Yuen Long bridge 20190727.png
  38. File:Police force clear the barrier 20190622.png
  39. File:People stay TSW Police Station outside 20190731.png
  40. File:People stay at bridge arrested by police force 20190721-1.png
  41. File:People argue with police in Yuen Long Station 20190722.png
  42. File:Passenger with police force want to leave in TKL station 20190730.png
  43. File:Passenger shout with MTR staff in TKL Station 20190730.png
  44. File:One male arrested by police 20190721.png
  45. File:Man protesting Hong Kong's extradition law in Pacific Place 20190615.png
  46. File:Kwong Chun Yu in Castle Peak Road-Yuen Long 20190727.png
  47. File:Kwai Chung Police Station vehicle entrance gate 20190730.png
  48. File:Kwai Chung Police Station outside view1 20190730.png
  49. File:Kwai Chung Police Station outside view 20190730.png
  50. File:KMB staff vehicle crashed after fireworks incident 20190731.png
  51. File:Ken Chow Wing-kan in TSW Police Station 20190730.png
  52. File:Cross-Harbour Tunnel Flash Mob.png
  53. File:Connaught Road Central protesters at night 20190721.png
  54. File:190807 HK Space Museum protest.png
  55. File:190806 HK Sham Shui Po police station protest.png
  56. File:190802 HK civil servant rally - Anson Chan.png
  57. File:190801 HK financial sector flash mob rally.png
  58. File:190721 Yuen Long Stand News screenshot.png

According toCommons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/06#A_customary_licence_for_The_Stand_News, Administrator @De728631: mention The Stand News statement like a free licence as in {{Copyrighted free use}} and other users would agree The Stand News statement would be acceptable for Commons. See more in File talk:Man protesting Hong Kong's extradition law in Pacific Place 20190615.png. The statement is clear and all the files should recover--Wpcpey (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support Deletions without valid justification. Yann (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support:Same as Wpcpey. --SH6188 (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. DR nom rationale is faulty by itself.--Cohaf (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per above. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 08:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I failed to understand why the deletion is unjustified as nobody offered an elaborative counter argument. The official policy COM:L made it very clear that vague statements like the one in question is not acceptable. If the policy is not to be followed, why should we have any policy at all? Other examples of deletion due to vague language of licensing can be found at:
Those who would like these images kept based on the value of their contents should rather persuade Stand News to use a well accepted free license such as CC-BY. --Wcam (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - the permission obviously does not meet the requirements of COM:L. A vague "you can use it" has never been acceptable at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not vague, it's terse. They are very clear with their "you can use it". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
In most jurisdictions e.g. the creation of derivative work is forbidden unless it's explicitly allowed. No such statement has been presented, so that the current situation effectively has at least a ND restriction, which is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:DonBoscoTarlacLogo.png

The image was produced, content is ALL ORIGINAL

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrlsfortaleza (talk • contribs) 03:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The logo has been published before without a free licence, so we need a permission by email coming directly from the copyright holder. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Formosa_loves_river

They're all original built upon NASA's material under public domain. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Per the points I given in this discussion--Cohaf (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, I still don't find your point justifiable. Wikimedia Projects are not democracy or literally a place to vote. Best. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 17:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We are not democracy, but providing a clear proof that uploaded content is copyright-free of freely licensed is up to uploader. Per COM:PCP if doubts cannot be resolved, we cannot host the images. No direct link to a NASA source provided nor an evidence that content from sinica.edu.tw is free. "版權所有 © 2008-2019 QGIS" is not a free license declaration, but a copyright claim. Educational only use also does not mean free. Ankry (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
"資料來源:

Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 (ASTER GDEM官網)"

"Source:

Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 (ASTER GDEM's official website)"

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 03:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

JPL Image Use Policy:

Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

  • that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.
  • to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."
  • that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied.

I will add the text that "work based on raw black&white data Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech." upon the recovery of the deleted photos.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 11:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Cohaf, Yann: Should you guys have any question in regard to the copyright explanation above, please let me know. Best. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 11:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per information provided above. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Nope, the above is still not enough. We don't have the original pictures the derivatives is being produced and unless we have it, we cannot know that it is from this source. The special cases also stated that there can be images on the website not covered, so we can't be sure. It's still dubious licensing. --Cohaf (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. I'm observing this whole discussion on several pages, and here is how it looks to me: People are trying to find any potential way to view these files as a form of copyright violation, they do not find any reason, and after that they say "This must be an unknown unknown". Are you saying that you want to see a list of images that were used? If so this is just reasonable enough. My concern is that the "delete" side is actually not stating what is needed here, only vaguely hinting at it. @It's gonna be awesome: Could you please provide links to images that were used? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 12:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes @Gone Postal:. I need to see the actual files. Now they are obtained from a webpage which obviously the webpage is copyrighted. They claimed it is from NASA which in the discussion in Yann talkpage, I note that NASA have a clause that forbids commercial use without explicit permission. The commercial user needs to ask for permission each time they use the files. I supposed it is the same as per derivatives. We just can't host it here. There are a few issues: 1. The clear photo should be given. 2. The NASA clause needs to be resolved (which I offered them to host the files locally at zhwp). 3. Per COM:PCP, I am just taking due precautions. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • If all the data come from NASA, then the files can be accepted, but it is not clear to me if that's really the case. All content produced by NASA is in the public domain. File:Landform of Formosa.png was reuploaded. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
            • @Yann, Cohaf: I produced the final colorful images based on a raw B&W image of ASTER GDEM linked from the educational website hosted by Academica Sinica of Taiwanese Government. Please feel free to let me if you have any question. Regards. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 13:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the raw B&W image embedded in the educational website's example, as you can see that's the northern part of Taiwan. I followed the steps taught by the website to download the complete raw B&W image of Taiwan as a whole. Afterward, I started off the work from a raw B&W image of Taiwan. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 13:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment IMO there are 3 separate issues: 1. the license of the source data; 2. What material was used to produce these maps? 3. Does using the data to produce a new map OK? If the data is just geographical coordinates, I am not sure there can be a copyright on them. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. The license of the source data:
  • Source:
Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 (ASTER GDEM's official website)"
  1. What material was used to produce these maps?
  • A raw B&W data of ASTER GDEM
  1. Does using the data to produce a new map OK?
  • Yes, otherwise the educational website, directly operated by the highest rank of academic institution in Taiwan supported by Taiwanese Government, wouldn't teach people to produce without prior warning.
  • Per JPL Image Use Policy, it's okay to use the data to produce a new map.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 04:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • IMO you confuse several things: 1. ASTER GDEM Version 2 doesn't seem to be a free license, 2. raw data is not "black and white" as you wrote, raw data is numbers. 3. "educational website" doesn't mean that it is covered by a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Firstly,

JPL Image Use Policy:

Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

  • that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.
  • to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."
  • that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied.

Secondly, I started off upon a simple non-visible black and white picture of Taiwan of ASTER GDEM.
Lastly, I would like to emphasize that I learned the abstract knowledge rather than just copied the physical proprietary objects from the educational website.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 04:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

ASTER GDEM does seem to have a free license -- if it's even copyrightable to begin with. It sounds like the GDEM data is the result of automated processing over the raw data[1], and it's given out freely. There does not seem to be any restrictions on what you can do with it (that was not always the case, but seems to be today). The raw data does seem to be photos taken by a NASA satellite using a Japanese instrument. I have no idea if there is any real aiming of the camera or if it just continually takes pictures. But even presuming there might have been a copyright, it would seem the data is being released freely with no restrictions, as is common with NASA efforts (even joint ones with non-PD-USGov entities). Other than pretty extreme theoretical areas, I don't see a real reason to doubt they are free. PD-USGov-NASA may be the most convenient license. I am not sure if the process used added any expression, so not sure if the license should just be that of the original, or whether the user needs to license their efforts as well. But leaning   Support on this if the only real question is the license of the ASTER data. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your clear insight. I would say this is the point. The legitimacy of the license of the ASTER data is the thing they want to confirm. Respectfully yours. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Put it in a nutshell: I got an ASTER data. Afterward, I processed the ASTER data to make it colorful and visible using the knowledge learned from the educational website. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Filed name to undelete

Could you please consider un-deleting the headshot file for Dr. Woody Myers, which I attempted to upload as MyersforGovernor.jpg

4. This is a professional taken headshot whose rights were purchased by Dr. Woody Myers. He has given his consent to use this photo for anything related to his businesses or campaign for Indiana Governor. It's a photo commonly used in newspaper articles about Myers.

--Jdwhitso (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • No file named File:MyersforGovernor.jpg has ever been uploaded to Commons, and your contribution history does not show any current or deleted uploads at all. Please note also that we would need an email with a copy of the written copyright transfer between the original photographer and Mr. Myers. De728631 (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

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

File:adrienpommier.jpg

This is an image taken by Bernard Pommier of a painting of Adrien Pommier commissioned by the Pommier family.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicksocialllc (talk • contribs) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No file with this name has ever been uploaded to Commons. Please note also that in cases like this we would need two permissions by email as outlined in COM:OTRS: a free licence for the portrait painting from the original artist or their heirs, and a permission from Bernard Pommier for the photograph. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: per De728631. --Strakhov (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Please —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.111.198.58 (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Please note that you didn't provide a file that you want to be undeleted, reason why it should be, or even stated who you are. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 17:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: No information about any deleted file has been provided. --De728631 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Stand Up.jpg

Name – "Stand Up" album cover Artist – Dirty Werk Label - Fly House Records Graphic Artist – Steve Smooth Item – Front cover Type – Single Website – https://www.amazon.com/Stand-Steve-Smooth-Dirty-Werk/dp/B07DT48Z3D https://www.traxsource.com/title/994192/stand-up https://www.stevesmooth.com/music/ Owner – Steve Smooth Commentary – Description – Portion – Low_resolution – Purpose – Replaceability – Artist has given the rights to anyone to use

Other_information – Artist has given the rights to anyone to use
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Armstrong s (talk • contribs) 18:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Publication on the artist's website without an explicit licence does not constitute a permission for anyone to use this file. In this case we need a written permission by email from the copyright holder. Please see COM:OTRS for details. De728631 (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: per De728631. --Strakhov (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Carole Migden 2016.jpg

Carole Migden 2016.jpg should not be deleted

This photo IS on a Facebook page - MY own Facebook page. I am the subject and owner of the photo and trying to upload it to add to the Wikipedia entry on myself.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolemigden (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Carolemigden: "Senator Migden at the premier of the award winning film Political Animals." This doesn't look like a selfie. Did you go to a movie premiere and took your own photo? Are you certain that a news photographer did not take this photo? Thuresson (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose Please use COM:OTRS to explain how it is that you own the copyright of this photo. Thuresson (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: per Thuresson. --Strakhov (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:২০২৩ ক্রিকেট বিশ্বকাপে যোগ্যতা অর্জনের পথ.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file has exact same content as File:Qualification Pathway for 2023 ICC Cricket World Cup.png except it was written in Bengali. since when png file written in bengali became obsolete or out of project scope? I believe this was incorrect deletion. Before deleting & removed by a bot, it was used on bnwiki. According to COM:INUSE policy "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, ..... a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough." Therefore i'm requesting for restore this file. Thank you. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko, Ymblanter: It seems the diagram was used indeed. So any objections to undeletion? Ankry (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I always check whether the file I am about to delete is in use but it is possible that I have made a mistake here. No objection to undeletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
If this file is necessary, it could be recreated in w:en:Scalable Vector Graphics. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it could be recreated in SVG but until a replacement is available bnwiki needs this file. This file still in use, has valid png format & doesn't violet any commons rule. Kindly restore this file. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Essense-club-logo13ba.jpg

As an authorised person from essense club, i request undeletion of this logs. Prashanth Randadath ( https://essense.club/about-essense/ ) esSENSE Club https://twitter.com/essense.club

https://www.facebook.com/essense.club/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanthrandadath (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I see no evidence of free license on the abovementioned pages. Ankry (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose Unfortunately we cannot verify your connection to the Essence club through your Wikimedia account. There are two possibilities for you to provide evidence for a free licence for this logo: You can either grant a free licence of your choice at the club's website – this is the fastest and easiest way. Or you can send a permission by email as explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Ralph Stock Portrait.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

The picture was uploaded to Wikimedia with the same license as stated on the linked website (as stated in the "alt" tag of that image). Additionally, I was given permission by the rights holder to upload that image. Graufeder (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Presumably, this is about File:Ralph Stock Portrait.jpg. I don't know if I'd expect license reviewers to check the source code of websites for alt tags containing licensing information (since these are not normally displayed if the image loads as expected), but I can confirm that it reads "Ralph Stock Portrait, Cc-by-sa-4.0". It's not really clear who the author is, though. LX (talk, contribs) 09:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Correct, sorry for causing confusion about the filename. I don't know how else license reviewers would check the licenses of pictures (showing the license directly under the picture as a text outside the source code is not always wanted, and not the whole website runs under that license). I can ask the rights holder to send that OTRS e-mail if I have to, but honestly I wanted to spare us that effort. But I guess I'll do that this way then.Graufeder (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Is the information about the author the only problem, then? Can an administrator or reviewer add this? (as long as the image is deleted, I can't). The author is to be found in the impressum of the company (see link in the footer of the website I linked above). —Graufeder (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support @LX: The alt tag source code at the subject's website now reads "Ralph Stock Portrait, photographer: Justus Bürger (CC-BY-SA-4.0)", so there's the author and the licence. Undelete and adjust the attribution. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

PocahontasMusic.jpg

I am the owner of this picture file. I am creating my artist page for wikipedia because I am a verified artist.--Pocapocahontas7 (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Please note that if the file has appeared elsewhere on the internet it needs to be either publically releaces on an official site/page in the way that can be verified or you would need to follow COM:OTRS procedure. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Please note also that writing articles about yourself at the English Wikipedia should generally be avoided. If you are a notable artist, somebody else will create an article about you sooner or later. De728631 (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Sindhi Wikipedia YouTube channel Banner.jpg

This banner was created with a photo editor online (https://www.canva.com, where anyone can create customized banners for YouTube channel art) so this is my own artwork) and I request to undeletion of this image. Thanks JogiAsad (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The Canva website has different license agreements for their content. Only the Free Images License Agreement is suitable for re-use by third parties as we need here at Commons. Can you please provide a link to the wallpaper at Canva you used to create your banner? So we can check the actual license for this image. De728631 (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:The Speaker Explains - Keeping Order in the House of Commons.webm

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: @Taivo: they are covered by OPL. Roy17 (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Comment The Open Parliament Licence does not cover live and archive video or audio broadcasts. Taivo (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: define live and archive video or audio broadcasts.--Roy17 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I feel it in my heart, but cannot put it into words. Taivo (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Per the link at the Parliament's website, this is every audio and video recording made by the Parliamentary Recording Unit. They have their own non-commercial licence. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: could you please copy word by word? live and archive video or audio broadcasts are All proceedings of the House of Commons and the House of Lords and certain select committee hearings, recordings of Parliamentary proceedings, Audio-visual recordings of the proceedings of the House of Commons and/or the House of Lords and their Committees, Footage of proceedings of Parliament... Not every audio and video recording.--Roy17 (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you please read what I wrote? It covers exactly the definition you gave above, and I never referred to every recording made in parliament. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE2mKkU-AeA is a video produced by Parliamentary Recording Unit, but it is not Parliamentary proceeding, for example.--Roy17 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
"Members of Youth Parliament aged 11-18 take part in an annual debate in the House of Commons chamber, chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons... " [2] So this is an official parliamentary proceeding. De728631 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Noldo18

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please temporary undelete ({{subst:OR|id=2019081710002416|reason=processing}}) to help to sort out the permission process via OTRS ticket:2019081710002416. AntonierCH (d) 20:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


  Done: @AntonierCH: Please proceed. --De728631 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Interior del teatro 2019.jpg

As an OTRS volunteer, I have received Ticket:2019081610008323 regarding File:Interior del teatro 2019.jpg. May any administrators assist with undeleting this file? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


  Done: @廣九直通車:. --Strakhov (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:(아라TV) 방송 나와서 운동하다 가는 디크런치.webm

I uploaded File:(아라TV) 방송 나와서 운동하다 가는 디크런치.webm on July 8 under {{YouTube CC-BY}}, as that was the license indicated at the time. At some point afterward, the license was modified to the Standard YouTube License. 大诺史 tagged the file as a copyright violation on August 4. I proceeded to add an archive link to the file's description page on August 6, along to the source code view-source:http://archive.is/ncSSv which verifies the Creative Commons license. I added a note on the file's talk page indicating this, as Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. Arthur Crbz deleted the file on August 10 as a copyright violation. I contacted Arthur Crbz asking for clarification for the deletion. I did not receive a response despite this user making an edit about ten hours later. It has been over a week and I have yet to receive a response. This file should be restored per my aforementioned explanation. ƏXPLICIT 07:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)