Open main menu

Commons:Undeletion requests

(Redirected from Commons:UR)

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.

Commons deletion (policy)


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

Susana Giménez

The first photo is from a 1976 movie, so it could not be PD prior to 1996.   Neutral about the others as there is no exact publication information as required in the template text, but they are likely PD as claimed by the requester. Ankry (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Is the first photograph a low quality version of this File:Susana Giménez y Sandro en Tú me Enloqueces.jpg? Mutter Erde (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
No, this is this photo. Unsure whether 1975 or 1976 is correct date. Ankry (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mutter Erde: Do you intend to provide the required information about publication date/place? It seems that nobody will support your request if you do not. Ankry (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Why not? But I am only the uploader of this file, dated 1965. What about you show us the rest? Maybe someone finds the earliest publishing date. Mutter Erde (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Undeletion requests for João Justiceiro files

Solicito o restauro dos seguintes arquivos, inadvertidamente deletados pelo usuário Jcb (talk · contribs) sob alegação de violação de direitos autorais:

São fotografias de minha autoria. As cinco últimas são colaborações de amigos que cederam a mim suas fotografias sem restrições de licença e inicialmente foram publicadas no Imgur.

São desenhos vetoriais de minha autoria baseados em obras de mais de 20 anos que não estão registradas em propriedade industrial. O penúltimo é feito a partir deste ficheiro do Commons, e o último é uma forma textual simples que não pode ser enquadrada em copyright.

São mapas de minha autoria baseados em trabalhos já existentes no Commons. O último é um mapa retirado da web com a devida referência.

São bandeiras e brasões que estão em domínio público pelas leis nº 9610/1998, art. 115 e nº 9610/1998, art. 8.

São formas geométricas ou textuais simples sujeitas a copyright, mas que foram identificadas como tal. Os ficheiros da Jovem Pan FM inclusive possuem outras versões em .svg disponíveis aqui no Commons.

Creio que dei uma explicação plausível sobre todos os arquivos, mas se ainda houver dúvidas, estou disponível para contato. Só quero que desfaçam esse engano absurdo, ou se possível restaurem temporariamente pra que eu possa passa-los para outra plataforma, pois eu não possuo mais os originais da maioria destes arquivos. João Justiceiro (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose - I checked several files which were all copyright violations. E.g. non free logos and File:Antiga UMJ da TV Itapoan (1981).png, which was taken from this non free video. Jcb (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Eu já havia sido avisado a respeito do referido arquivo e pretendia repor em outra plataforma. Mas o restante dos arquivos não pode ser enquadrado como violação de direitos autorais, sobretudo o que eu mesmo fotografei e postei aqui. O mesmo se aplica aos mapas derivados de outros mapas, os desenhos vetoriais e as formas geométricas e textuais simples. João Justiceiro (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  Info I think this should be split to separate requests per undeletion rationale. Eg. as some logos are IMO PD-textlogo, wile the maps are not PD-textlogo. Also as some maps clearly refer to PD maps as sources (and the deleting admin did not explain why he doubts that), others have external sources. Also, I cannot find anything about PD status of COA in the above mentioned legal references. Such cases should be discussed in COM:VPC first and if there are indeed exceptions in the law here, they need to be expressed in appropriate copyright templates, prior to coming here. Ankry (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Sobre os brasões e bandeiras, está escrito desta forma: "Art. 8º Não são objeto de proteção como direitos autorais de que trata esta Lei: [...] IV - os textos de tratados ou convenções, leis, decretos, regulamentos, decisões judiciais e demais atos oficiais;". Os símbolos oficiais (brasões e bandeiras) são definidos por lei, e as leis são domínio público no Brasil. Há uma citação no Wikiquote que esclarece melhor. Sobre o registro de marcas, isto é, propriedade industrial, pode ser utilizado o site do INPI para consulta. João Justiceiro (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Individual depictions of CoAs have their own copyright. It's only the description that would be free under this rationale. Jcb (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Bom, essa não é uma representação individual minha, e mesmo que fosse, a lei também permitiria isso. João Justiceiro (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Senhores, por favor, alguém poderia dar uma solução pra essa questão aqui? Ao menos as imagens que eu fotografei deveriam necessariamente ser repostas, é mais do que óbvio. É um absurdo que ninguém preste atenção nisso. João Justiceiro (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Crimean status referendum Ballot boxes.jpg

I consider this as a wrong application of COM:PRP, as I don't see at which point we need to apply any precaution. It is very difficult to prove it five years later, but overall the situation is the following:

  • This is a screenshot from UTR News video. UTR was a government-own TV channel that does not exist anymore. As such, this channel was specialising in coverage of all official events in Ukraine, and there is no need to apply any precautions: the channel was clearly genuinely interested in covering this event.
  • The video was published by the official YouTube channel of this TV channel. Here is a snapshot of UTR official website as of February 2014. You can notice several embedded YouTube videos, all dead as of now. All these videos were pointing to the same YouTube channel. For example, you can check the video Неділя, 9 лютого, 19:30. Україна дипломатична. which is found in this Google cache of the YouTube mirror of the same YouTube channel. There is no need for precautions here either: UTR indeed published all these videos on their own channel under a free license.
  • This video was the channel's own production: they had own coverage in Crimea (for instance, File:February 2014 Simferopol Pro-Ukrainian Manifestation.jpg or File:Aleksei Chalyi.jpg are a part of that coverage). There is no evidence that this particular video was not made by UTR's journalists: see, for example, this Human Rights Watch report stating that Ukrainian journalists were still working in Crimea at that time.
  • While the channel UTR NEWS has been terminated because we've received multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding material that the user posted, this screenshot is not a part of any third-party material. The channel did use third-party materials labelling them as video from the Internet, but I checked all videos before uploading and this one was not a part of them.

I think that deleting this video is not a reasonable precaution: we had a legitimate material released under a free license by a legitimate copyright holder, it is harder to prove five years later but that should not be a reason for deletion — NickK (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@NickK: Do you suggest reopening the DR? I t does not seem to me that there is anything new in the above request that was not said there. And this case shows why it is a bad idea to review own uploads. Ankry (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I don't know what is the procedure. I was already told that reviewing own uploads is bad, but that was five years ago, and when I got the reviewing rights years ago self-reviewing was still normal. Is self-reviewing the only problem? If yes, there are many files from UTR News channel that were reviewed by other users. I can look for and give examples here if needed — NickK (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

photos from MTur Destinos

I could find two:

  1. File:GleidsonSantos Igreja de Sao Francisco Paulo Afonso BA.jpg
  2. File:Ground Zero - Recife - Pernambuco-Brasil.jpg

Reasons (per Commons:Deletion requests/File:GleidsonSantos Igreja de Sao Francisco Paulo Afonso BA.jpg):

  1. Flickr descriptions attribute the images to MTur Destinos.
  2. Todas as fotos com a tag MTurDestinos são de domínio público e tem permissão de uso livre e por tempo indeterminado para uso total e irrestrito e gratuito em praça nacional e internacional, exceto as imagens com a tag “fotos humanizadas 2018” que possuem pessoas onde o direito de uso é pelo período de 05 (cinco) anos a contar...

--Roy17 (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  Info I do not think that "permissão de uso" means also "derivative work creation". IMO, either Flickr license should be changed, or we need an OTRS permission from the author. Ankry (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Please read the entire article: http://www.turismo.gov.br/%C3%BAltimas-not%C3%ADcias/11091-minist%C3%A9rio-do-turismo-lan%C3%A7a-acervo-com-imagens-de-169-destinos.html . The gist of it is, the flickr account is official and the photos are in public domain and 100% free for reuse.--Roy17 (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose per COM:PDM. PDM generally means that user is unsure about the photo copyright status or that they (for some reason) do not want to take responsibility for granting a license. I see even no clear evidence that they have rights to license the image. Free use is not enough. I understand that another admin may have different opinion here. Ankry (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll explain in point form:
  1. Photos all attributed as John Doe/MTur.
  2. Labelled as PDM.
  3. On MTur's flickr user page, it says Todas as fotos com a tag MTurDestinos são de domínio público e tem permissão de uso livre e por tempo indeterminado para uso total e irrestrito e gratuito em praça nacional e internacional, exceto as imagens com a tag “fotos humanizadas 2018” que possuem pessoas onde o direito de uso é pelo período de 05 (cinco) anos a contar do dia 03 de Abril de 2018.
    1. domínio público = public domain
    2. permissão de uso livre = free use
    3. tempo indeterminado = unlimited in time = forever
    4. total e irrestrito = in whole or unrestricted
    5. gratuito = free of charge
    6. em praça nacional e internacional = domestically or internationally
    7. except the ones tagged with fotos humanizadas 2018 e.g. https://www.flickr.com/photos/mturdestinos/27272778778/ which includes an explicit statement Imagem disponível para utilização até o dia 03/04/2023
  4. The flickr account is official.
The licensing statement covers time limits, form of reuse, cost and jurisdiction. What more can be expected? The copyright holder does know what it has on hands, that it singles out the ones they own copyright until 2023.
And the tourism minister Marx Beltrão goes on to say: uma vez que todos poderão utilizar, de forma gratuita, as imagens para ações publicitárias, feiras e promoção dos destinos.
I suppose Ankry did not read the entire article.--Roy17 (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Haurdunaldia.webm

This video was created enterely (including music) by the uploader. He is my student in a course and I have monitored it completely. Why was it deleted? Thanks!

File:Haurdunaldia.webm (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

(cc @EugeneZelenko:) -Theklan (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I think Commons:OTRS is best way to confirm authorship in this situation. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
So the author of a work has to confirm that he is the author uploading it and then sending OTRS to say he is the author? Then what is the point of stating it when uploading? There's no reason to delete this video, and we are openly saying video-creators that we don't want their high quality content on Commons. -Theklan (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: Commons:OTRS#When contacting OTRS is unnecessary clearly states « I created the file myself, it hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright. Just follow the instructions found on the Commons:Upload page, unless the image/ file is of outstanding or professional quality or there is some other reason your authorship may be doubted. » So could you tell why you doubted the authorship? Same, could you tell us why you thought this file was Commons:Derivative works? (and derivative of what?) Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This items should also be reviewed, because of the same reasons:

All the content was created by students who were supervised by me. The content is original and can't be deleted only because it seem too good. Please, undelete it. -Theklan (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Such diagrams, posters etc. get regularly uploaded by "drive by" users, who just copied them from anywhere else. I would like get get opinions from other admins. The files should be (if at all) restored by another admin. regards --JuTa 16:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@JuTa: Thanks for your insights. In this case all of them were specially created for Commons, including illustrations. The videos were also created specially for this and I reviewed all the music used on them, so it was free (PD or cited in the description). They even used Commons files in some cases and stated it in the description. We can't assume that something is a DW only because we think it is "good", I think is a bad assumption that doesn't encorauge users to create and share their great works. -Theklan (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@DarwIn: Thanks for your reviews! I think that getting a new confirmation via OTRS would be impossible now, so maybe this video will be deleted forever. Nevertheless, if someone appears in an interview created to be on Commons we can assume without doubt that he wants to be on Commons. -Theklan (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Theklan: Hey! I understand that, the problem is that we have no way to be sure they understand what means being in Commons, as most people mistake it for Wikipedia, and understand it as an educational, non-commercial project. I'm alternating the reviews with other stuff, but if you need them to go faster please tell me.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Darwin: It would be interesting to go faster, of course, but it's not your fault that this files were deleted incorrectly. As far as I know, everyone who appears in the video know what is for, but if you feel that is better having it deleted, I'm not going to start an argument I can't win, because I can't contact the students again and ask them to find the interviewed again to fill the OTRS. -Theklan (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

File:996.ICU logo.png

The license of this image appears to meet the Definition of Free Cultural Works which Wikimedia Commons adopts as the definition of free licenses (COM:L). Discussions in Commons:Deletion requests/File:996.ICU logo.png regarding the license being non-free were regarding to The Open Source Definition, which is a different set of criteria and is not the one we use here, and should not concern us. --Wcam (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wcam: If the license of this logo fits COM:L you should either point out a suitable license template or discuss its creation in COM:VPC. This place is for undeletion discussion under already accepted rationales not about license compatibility analysis.
So my initial question which license template you find suitable and why? The DR nominator suggested it is fair use. Ankry (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Terry Davis 1997.jpg

Deletion discussion was closed prematurely. The photo was deleted for having "no online source and permission" even though that was demonstrably false. It was sourced to Terry Davis, who released the image into the public domain through his website templeos.org. Such was stated on the file's page. Curiously, several other photos by Davis were closed as "keep" at the same time...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: We need an exact link to a page displaying this photo & its license to go on. I am afraid nobody will dig through domain guessing what did you mean. Ankry (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Retrato do escultor João Zaco Paraná.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

Artist died in 1944, public domain in Brazil since 2015. Abzeronow (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support --Yann (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ankry (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Yandex Notre-Dame fire logo.jpg

The logo of Yandex, File:Yandex logo en.svg, falls under Template:PD-text-logo. The image of Notre Dame Cathedral embedded in the logo is public domain in France and other countries (100+ years). As such, the file doesn't meet criterion F1 stated in the deletion summary. Brandmeister (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: A link to the PD image please proving its PD status. Ankry (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The architecture of Notre Dame is in the public domain. But a recent logo depicting Notre Dame might not be. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: The Notre Dame image in the logo is a generic silhoutte-like outline of the cathedral, not someone's else image. As such it would be Template:PD-France per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_Western_Europe#France, I believe. Brandmeister (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
There are many ways to make "generic" silhouette-like outlines of the cathedral. These might be close to the threshold of originality, but it's hard to say they're beneath it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Kapampangan Ku Pagmaragul Ku (KKPK) International Inc Logo.jpg

Why the logo of organization is deleted?

Kkpk091811 (talk)

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kkpk091811. You were notified about this deletion discussion at your user talk page. Wikimedia Commons has a certain scope of content that is collected here. A basic requirement for uploads here is that the file is educationally useful, but your uploads were considered out our project scope. E.g. this would include the logo of a non-notable company. De728631 (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


File:Kapampangan Ku Pagmaragul Ku (KKPK) International Inc Logo.jpg

That is the logo of non profit organization base in Pampanga Philippines. You can visit the website www.kapampangankupagmaragulkuintl.com

Kkpk091811 (talk)

  •   Oppose And why it should the logo be at Commons? Is there any Wikipedia article about this organisation, or is it otherwise so relevant that the logo itself could be used as an educational image? Commons does not collect any kind of logo that exists. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Example.jpg Solicitud de reincorporación de imagen

Solicito que se reimplante la imagen del la página de Saúl Méndez, debido a que esa foto es de mi autoría

File:Joemon Joshy.jpg

Joemon Joshy Latest Picture of 2019 @ Charutha Program

The above mentioned statement is OK as deletion reason as it does not grant any free license and applies to the deleted photo, I think. The newly uploaded photo by another user may be OK as {{own}} so is there anything to do here? Ankry (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Solicitud de reconsideración

Buen día, solicito la re-consideración de al menos, estos archivos:

File:Muni La Molina.svg - Diseño hecho por mi, puedo agregar licencia OTRS, pero no sé como hacer o realizar.
File:Consorcio RBC MATRIX Logo (MGUERRAHD).png - Diseño hecho por mi, puedo agregar licencia OTRS, pero no sé como hacer o realizar.
File:Instalaciones ATV Perú.jpg - Foto realizada hace años, aunque ya debe estar regada en todo Internet.
File:P1020545 JQ.JPG - Foto realizada por mi en septiembre de 2012, ella estaba celebrando un quinceañero y estaba como portada para mi página de discusión.
File:Trasera Cuartel General del Ejercito (San Borja).JPG - Foto realizada durante el 2013, cuando laboraba en el Cuartel General del Ejercito del Perú.
File:VM IMG140416050020.jpg - Foto realizada por mi durante el 2016, una chica haciendo pompas de jabón. Lo había subido mi ex pareja a su cuenta de facebook y ya no contaba con el original.

Estaré esperando una respuesta o bien, soluciones para poder recuperar estos archivos. Un saludo. --Manuelitoh (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Cécile Pozzo di Borgo.jpg

Hello This file has been created by Cécile Pozzo di Borgo herself. There is no copywrite whatsoever on this file. Please undelete Cecile Pozzo di Borgo

Two different users claim to be the photographer: COM:OTRS permission is needed to resolve this. Ankry (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Twins & Axes From 'The Shining ~ Clarification of Deletion Requested

Hello,

You sent me a message saying my photo -- Twins & Axes From 'The Shining' -- was deleted due to copyright restrictions. I do apologize if that was the case. Just to clarify, that photo was of a small part of a temporary exhibit at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art from November 1st, 2012 to June 30, 2013. It is not a permanent exhibit.

https://www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/stanley-kubrick

So as to not make this mistake again, is everything in a museum prohibited from not-for-profit dissemination (not for financial gain)? When I attend museum exhibits, it's very clear whether photographs are allowed or not. If photographs are allowed, isn't that the equivalent of granting a kind of license to disseminate the photographs, as long as they were not being used for financial gain? One can only imagine how many photos of museum exhibits are shared throughout social media. Can the exhibitors who permitted photography prohibit the sharing of such photos?

I'd appreciate a clarification, as it seems to me that if a museum, or those private parties who present an exhibition, do not want images of their exhibits disseminated, then they would simply ban photographing the exhibit, as is often the case.

Thanks for your time,

~ Russ Loar

4-19-2019

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Russ Allison Loar (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Russ Allison Loar:: non commercial use is a not acceptable restriction for Wikimedia Commons. Everything here must be free for any use, including commercial. See COM:L. Ankry (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Have added good quality pictures of the city Okha and Machhalisahar. Aesthetics has a role in education especially wrt cities associated with tourism.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiwins (talk • contribs)

  Not done: No idea what this is about. No deleted images on this account. Not even a deletion tag on any of their uploads. Please refile with more information on what you are talking about. --Majora (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)