Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Undeletion requests


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

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)

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.

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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit


Please undelete the following files:

Swedish OTRS agent (verify): These files has a valid OTRS release, only that the template was added by the uploader and sender rather than an OTRS agent. I can, however, confirm that the release is valid and that the file should be ok. The files were deleted due by a reason not related to this ticket, and on a technicallity, rather than anything being actually wrong, should have been tagged with OTRS pending instead. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  Comment @Josve05a: I think this is enough to look at for now... we can worry about the others once these are addressed. They actually needed to be temporarily undeleted for review, even by admins, because the filesizes are extremely large....without being able to see the thumbnails, it would be a matter of downloading several gigabytes of data to look at each set. Even undeleting them was rather slow, as it lagged the database a bit. - Reventtalk 05:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


Concerning File:Maurahealey-web-download.jpg

Hello, The file I uploaded is a government photo in the public domain. It was downloaded from the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office website (; high resolution photograph available at According to the website's Terms of Use (see below for text; policy available at, materials, including image files, on the Attorney General's website are under copyright. However, they may be used for "fair use" purposes according to these Terms; for example, using the image to further "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, and other related activities" is acceptable. Enabling the furtherance of all such activities is Wikipedia's prerogative and is in line with its mission. Therefore, the image should be uploaded, as it is legal to do so under guidelines offered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, guidelines which are themselves promulgated in accordance with United States copyright law. Thank you, --Harry.breault (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

From Massachusetts Attorney General's Office Terms of Use: "With respect to material copyrighted by the Commonwealth, including the design, layout, and other features of Mass.Gov, the Commonwealth forbids any copying or use other than "fair use" under the Copyright Act. "Fair use" includes activities such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, and other related activities."

  Oppose Commons:Fair use. Please see Commons:First steps before making additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
But see {{PD-MAGov}}. Unless there is a copyright notice accompanying the photograph (which there is not in this case), we can assume that all material on web sites of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (but not its subdivisions) is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question What do the EXIF data say about author and copyright?   — Jeff G. ツ 11:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • No such data in EXIF. Thuresson (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Has material from the Commonwealth been discussed earlier here or at English Wikipedia? After searching, at the Commonwealth web site I find the following text about copyright: "The only part of this website to which the copyright rules stated above do not apply is on social media pages that receive comment. Content on these pages is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Content includes all materials posted by the Executive Department of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." The deleted photo has been posted on what appears to be an official Facebook account here, Thuresson (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

File:V1 40 years Model List of Essential Medicines.001.png

This file was released by its creator User:Lorenzo.moja under an open license. One can google his name to determine who he is. Anyway have uploaded the file locally on EN WP and tagged it with "keep local".[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Just to make it clear, I quite agree with you that the WHO is perfectly able to use a freely licensed image in one of their publications, and that we do not need OTRS permission if the work has not been previously published. Looking at this, however, the map used appears to be a derivative of (or, possibly, of some other image based on it, but the essential design seems quite clearly the same). If so, the claimed license is not valid. - Reventtalk 03:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose due to WHOwashing per Revent.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I'm pretty sure that such a map is a "common idea", and not highly original. I see no reason why a large organization such as WHO would not have made this logo themselves (even if based on other works, this is not original enough to warrant it being a DW of a previous version).However, I would like to see some evidence that the uploader is connected with the WHO, and not just user a "well known" name as their username, and pretending to be that person. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    @Josve05a: From comments made on enwiki (at the featured list nomination) I think it's somewhat clear that Doc James actually knows the uploader. The problem with simply calling it a 'common idea', however, is that it's not simply an independent version of the same concept.... the pattern is composed of dots instead of squares, but they are in the same positions (including the somewhat unusual projection), and there is an identical choice of which small islands to include. It's an exact overlay, close enough that TinEye matches the images. - Reventtalk 04:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    So that image that it is potentially based on is listed as CC BY. All one needs to do is add them as an author if it is a derivative no? By the way the account that uploaded the image in question has email enabled. They say no one from here emailed him to notify him of the deletion or to ask him for further clarification. On EN WP we have a policy that no offwiki accounts can be linked to of a user? Does this apply here? I can email people with details?
    Okay will wait to here back on how the uploaded created the underlying map. By the way what is "WHOwashing"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support undeletion. I fail to understand the deletion rationale. The freepik source is clearly CC-BY, so OTRS is irrelevant and whatever the original license was on Commons, the correct action would be to fix the license, not delete the file. @Daphne Lantier: could you revisit your sysop action here please? Thanks -- (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    Looking at the fine print of the freepik image, it is not CC BY. But we do have a CC BY version here.[2]. So the image can just be adjusted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I was going by the main page, I see there are a series of caveats on the secondary page. It would be better to have some precedent setting deletion requests that explain the issues with this source, rather than this getting buried at UNDEL. In practice, nobody quotes the UNDEL archives, so novel copyright discussion here is far less useful in the long term than at DR. For this reason when there is doubt at DR the issues should be expanded for the record before a final sysop closure. -- (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
We will recreate the image in question using the dot map on commons.
The prior dot map was within the "Business Strategy suite of templates" of which I do not know the copyright. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Steinschreiber

I created this DR for a potential problem of DW regarding the images on each cigarette packs. It was closed as deleted by Jcb. Following this discussion on my talk page initiated by Steinschreiber, I'm wonder if we can restore the images. The images were published there and without any special restrictions. Your opinions? Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The copyright notice does not explicitly allow derivative work, which is mandatory to comply with COM:L. So I am afraid the permission is not compatible. Jcb (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
That is true that the legal notice point to this decision. And in this decision we can read at the article 6 (2)b "the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents", and it looks great to no derivative restriction. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
A) As Christian Ferrer (talk) correctly stated, that in this decision we can read at the article 6 (2)b "the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents" (or same in official German version of this EU decision: Artikel 6 Bedingungen für die Weiterverwendung von Dokumenten (2)b "die Verpflichtung, die ursprüngliche Bedeutung oder Botschaft des Dokuments nicht verzerrt darzustellen;".
A 'distortion' of a health warning
- is *not* just a photo of the health warning with the same content (i.e. same picture of health warning and same text of health warning) on another background or context or use
- but a 'distortion' is a change which changes the *message*, e.g. changing the text from to "smoking can kill you" to "smoking is healthy" or changing the picture from a person spitting blood to a person smiling happily.
=> undelete
B) Besides that (i.e. even if it would be a distortion), the [Article 6] states that "Conditions for reuse of documents
1. Documents shall be available for reuse without application unless otherwise specified and without restrictions or, where appropriate, an open licence or disclaimer setting out conditions explaining the rights of reusers.
2. Those conditions, which shall not unnecessarily restrict possibilities for reuse, may include the following: [..]
(b) the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents"

but it only may include "the obligation not to distort" but not do include "the obligation not to distort", because it is not mentioned that this obligation applies in that case/web page. The right to use it for commercial or non-commercial purposes is explicitely stated [see copyright notice]
=> undelete
--Steinschreiber (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If still not convinced, please note: According to the German implementation of the EU Tobacco Product Directive 2 [Directive 2014/40/EU] into German national law [Verordnung über Tabakerzeugnisse und verwandte Erzeugnisse (Tabakerzeugnisverordnung - TabakerzV) § 11 Allgemeine Vorschriften zur Kennzeichnung von Tabakerzeugnissen] (1) Für die Gestaltung und Anbringung der gesundheitsbezogenen Warnhinweise nach den §§ 12 bis 17 auf Packungen und Außenverpackungen von Tabakerzeugnissen gelten folgende allgemeine Anforderungen: Die gesundheitsbezogenen Warnhinweise [..] 4. dürfen zum Zeitpunkt des Inverkehrbringens, einschließlich des Anbietens zum Verkauf, nicht teilweise oder vollständig verdeckt oder getrennt werden; [...] (2) Abbildungen von Packungen und Außenverpackungen, die für an Verbraucher gerichtete Werbemaßnahmen in der Europäischen Union bestimmt sind, müssen den Anforderungen dieses Unterabschnitts genügen. in conjunction with: [Gesetz über Tabakerzeugnisse und verwandte Erzeugnisse (Tabakerzeugnisgesetz - TabakerzG) § 35 Bußgeldvorschriften]
it is an offence under German law to use photos of cigarette packs, on which the graphic health warnings are hidden, for advertising to end customers within the EU (with a fine of up to 30 000 €). (The same is valid for presenting them in a shop (included into the paragraph listed above by Bundesrat (German States Council), Drucksache, 221/17 on 12 May 2017) i.e. the whole idea of the EU law is to enforce the use of graphic health warnings and *not* to hide them. The graphic health warnings were made purely by the EU to spread their messages.
=> undelete
--Steinschreiber (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Indeed my quote did not include the beginning, and my understanding was maybe wrong. My quote above is about one possible condition, but this part only applies when it is specified : "...available for reuse without application unless otherwise specified". Therefore I tend to   Support undeletion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


Please, restore the following speedy-deleted file and nominate for deletion to discuss it: File:Simonyi-Semadam.jpg. The source, an academic work (Izsák, Alajos – Pölöskei, Ferenc – Romsics, Ignác – Urbán, Aladár: Magyar miniszterelnökök 1848–2002 [Prime ministers of Hungary 1848–2002], Kossuth Kiadó, Budapest, 2003. p. 85. and 227.) clearly says the author is unknown and the photo was taken in 1920 (thus it is more than 70 years old). User:Hungarikusz Firkász nominated the image for speedy deletion without giving a reason. When I asked him to describe the reasons, he reverted my edit without comment both in Commons and Hungarian Wiki. Thanks in advance, --Norden1990 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A kép szerzője Halmi Béla, aki 1962-ben hunyt el. Attól, hogy egy könyvben nem tüntetik fel a szerzőket, nem azt jelenti, hogy a könyv szerzői szerint ismeretlen, hanem csak annyit, hogy nem tüntették fel. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A megadott könyv konkrétan írja, hogy ismeretlen szerző, illetve 1934 helyett 1920 szerepel dátumként. De ha Halmi a fényképész, akkor a kép még nem közkincs (majd 2033-ban). Ugye, hogy nem fájt annyira a válaszadás. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Nem neked válaszoltam. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)   Oppose Hmm. I don't think so. The Hungarian law is 70 years pma in the case of published works. Published works by unknown authors are copyrighted for 70 years after publication, but we have no evidence of any publication before 2002. While the 2002 book cited above could publish it legally under the rule that unpublished works by unknown authors are PD 70 years after creation, the publisher of that book has a new 25 year copyright for the work.

(After edit conflict) If HF has correctly named the author above, then the work will be under copyright until 1/1/2033 (1962+70). If not, it will be under copyright until 1/1/2029 (2003+25)..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Egyébként az sem feltétlenül hiteles forrás. Itt például ismeretlen fényképezőt ír, miközben erről a képről egyértelműen lehet tudni, hogy a készítő Jelfy Gyula. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Meg gondolom, a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum sem feltétlenül megbízható, ami a kép adatszolgáltatója. (Institution: Hungarian National Museum) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk)
Jól gondolod, egyetértek. A kép a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Történeti Fényképtár (Historical Photo Collection of the Hungarian National Museum) része, a miniszterelnöki protokollkép 1920-ban készült. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Halmi Béla akkor is 1962-ben hunyt el, a lényegen ez nem változtat. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Ha a honlap téved a dátumban (1934), akkor a szerzőt illetően is tévedhet. Főleg, hogy Halminak 1920-ban még nem is volt műterme. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Tehát a Múzeum csak abban téved, amiben neked jól esik? Gondolod, az élet így működik? Attól, hogy valakinek nincs műterme, még fényképezhet. :-) Az pedig még véletlenül sem fordulhat elő, hogy a Izsák, Alajos – Pölöskei, Ferenc – Romsics, Ignác – Urbán, Aladár szerzők tévednek. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Legalább most ne légy ostoba, bár nyilván, nehéz ezt kérni tőled. :) Az adott kor feltételei mellett a beállított fotók műtermekben készültek. Halmi az 1920-as években még nem volt aktív (maximum tanonc lehetett). A kép más könyvekben is előfordul (pl. legújabban A Horthy-korszak, Helikon, 2017), szintén 1920 és ismeretlen fényképész megjelöléssel. De nekem mindegy, hogy a kép marad-e vagy sem, mert Simonyi-Semadamról legalább van még fotó, igaz, ez volt a legjobb, lévén, hivatalos miniszterelnöki portré. További jó ámokfutást. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Látom, nem sokáig bírod ki személyeskedés nélkül, ha nem bírod a véleményedet ráerőszakolni a másikra, de csak saját magadat minősíted. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Ez van. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Én tőlem, lehet akár ez is, engem nem zavar, ha ilyenképpen mutatkozol be. :-D Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:Jameslwoodward, this is a well-known official photograph of a prime minister (1920, so I doubt the date of 1934). It already appeared in the book Magyarország miniszterelnökei 1848-1990, published in 1993. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, if HF is wrong and the author is actually unknown, then a 1993 publication has a 25 year copyright that expires on 1/1/2019. The only way to have it be PD today is to show that it was first published either (a) after 1/1/1991 and before 1/1/1992 (so that the original 70 years had passed, and that the 25 year copyright has also passed) or (b) before 1/1/1926, so that the original 70 years had passed before the URAA date. ..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Which, anyway, is not a criteria for speedy deletion. :) 1993 was just an example, the photo already appeared in earlier works, for example daily 8 Órai Ujság (after his appointment in March 1920). --Norden1990 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
But the author is not unknown. The Hungarian National Museum supports Béla Halmi (see Provenance-Institution: Hungarian National Museum). There is no proof that the museum is wrong, so it is not proven that the author is unknown. (machine translation). Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Another, academic sources, which also confirm that the photo belongs to the Hungarian National Museum, say the author is unknown. An academic source is more relevant than a website (in other case, it claims the author is unknown, while, in fact, the photographer is Gyula Jelfy (d. 1945). Thus this website is not so reliable as Hungarikusz Firkász suggests. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Csakhogy én nem az Eeuropeana megbízhatóságáról beszélek, hanem a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum megbízhatóságáról. Inkább hiszek ennek az intézménynek, mint annak, aki jogsértő képeket töltöget fel. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hát igen, a Fortepan üldöztetése ezek után különösen vicces. :) Egyébként is irreleváns, hogy te mit hiszel. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Maps from the Malay Wikipedia

Hi, Do you think we have enough information to restore the maps from the Malay Wikipedia?

See the request of my talk page: [3]. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment Please comment. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes,It already said contribute to Public Domain.As it is a Wikimedia file, commons should accept it.*angys* (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Commons doesn't automatically accept all files from other Wikimedia projects. We need to be sure that the file is free, and that all information are provided. I am quite indecided here, so I'd like opinions from other experienced volunteers. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Since the two maps exist on WP:MS and there is doubt here, I would not restore them here. Very few maps are drawn from scratch -- it is much more likely that these were traced or copied from existing maps which may or may not have copyrights. Unless we can find out more about their creation, I don't think we can keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Parks in France

Hi, I think these 2 files were deleted by error. There is no proeminent copyrightable element in them:

Regards, Yann (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose In the first, there are two topiary swans in the immediate foreground. The fact that they are plants, rather than bronze or marble, does not somehow take away their copyright. The second shows a lot of topiary, and also the layout of a maze. If the maze were on paper it would clearly have a copyright. I don't see any reason why this one does not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    • It is not because something on paper has a copyright, that a garden that looks the same has also a copyright. A recent map of any place has a copyright, but the place doesn't automatically get a copyright. I don't see any provision for copyright in French law for this. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I think your map analogy fails because the direction of creativity is reversed. A map is created from reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is not, of course, a created work, and does not have a copyright. A topiary maze is created from a drawing which has a copyright. In the technical sense of the word "map", the copyrighted drawing of the maze is mapped onto the ground. The topiary maze is a DW of the copyrighted drawing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment while there is a high ToO, or at least it exist undoubtedly, regarding architecture in France (mainly due to the utilitarian side of the buidings), the ToO regarding the other artistic works, whose aim is artistic, is very very very low in France, e.g. this photo have been considered by a court as a DW of the yellow letters (an artistic work!) above the door! Therefore   Oppose as per Jim. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Yuen Kay Shan.jpg

RE: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yuen Kay Shan.jpg. The deleted is image is right here in this collage=> File:Wing Chun Collage.jpg uploaded a year ago. If I was a good as you on wikimedia I would have found this pretty quickly... Maybe deleting is your forte @Taivo: *wink*(Australianblackbelt (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC))

Thank you, Australianblackbelt! I'll nominate it for deletion. Taivo (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
If the photo taken in 1930 (for example) was first published in 1979 (for example), it would be copyrighted until 2030.   Oppose without information regarding the original publication. Storkk (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Victor Fink Book Covers.jpg

The file contains covers of the books published in the Soviet Union before 1973, when the USSR signed the Universal Copyright Convention. Moreover, according to the Soviet copyright law, the copyright of a published work lasted only 15 years after the author's death.

Therefore, they are not the subject of copyright. --Doctor Gregory (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose First, I would not restore this even if it were not a copyvio -- it is too small to be really useful and is blurred. There is no reason why this sort of image should not be tack sharp.

Second, I see no WP article on Fink. I see only a smattering of Google hits. Amazon does not carry any works by him, so whatever his importance may have been 50 years ago, he is forgotten. That suggests strongly that his book covers are out of scope as not useful for any educational purpose.

Finally, I see nothing at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Russia_and_former_Soviet_Union which even hints that the applicable law is pma 15. In fact, the rule is pma 70 and since Fink died in 1973, these will be under copyright until 1/1/2044 unless it can be shown that the copyright to the covers lies with the publisher, not Fink, in which case it will probably last until 70 years after the publication of each of these editions, but that has yet to be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If he was a published author, he would be in scope for Wikipedia and also for us, regardless of Google hits. Part of an educational mission is to try to preserve the memory of such people, not forget them just because they do not appear online (especially those for non-English authors, where fewer works are online thus far and they are harder to search for, since you may have to search in Cyrillic, etc.). And if the only available photo is small and blurry, we should keep it until we get something better. He does have a Wikipedia article -- ru:Финк, Виктор Григорьевич. Something like this is way, *way* within scope.
However, while Soviet copyright law was 15 years after death, more recent Russian law has retroactively restored copyright to a much longer term. It sounds like Fink was born in Odessa, lived in Paris quite a bit, and also Moscow. Whichever country of those his books were published in, the copyright is today 70 years from the author's death for any of his works. Both Russia and Ukraine retroactively restored copyright to 50 years after the author's death in the early 1990s ; this was a requirement to join the Berne convention. That means that even though the 15 pma term may have expired, copyright was restored going forward. Both Russia and Ukraine later non-retroactively extended copyright to 70 pma (meaning that if a work was still under the 50-years-after-death copyright in the early 2000s, then the term was extended to 70 years after death, but not if the 50 year term had previously expired). Russia later made the 70 year term retroactive as well. France, as with all EU countries, was at least 50pma to begin with, and retroactively restored works to 70pma in the 1990s. So, if these covers were the work of Fink himself, they are all still under copyright. If they were the work of anonymous people at the publishing companies, they would still have a copyright of 70 years from publication. It's possible some of those have expired, although anything published after 1946 would likely still have a U.S. copyright even if they have since expired in Russia/Ukraine (since the U.S. retroactively restored works in 1996 if they were still under copyright in the foreign country on that date, and the terms would have been 50 years from publication then). So... we would need to know the authorship of the covers. If by Fink, they are still under copyright. If anonymous, we would need to know the publication country and date, they would likely have to be from before at least 1946. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my objection on the grounds of Scope, thank you for pointing out the article. The quality objection is debatable, but, as Carl has verified, it is moot, because there is a clear copyright problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for doing research on the subject. Unfortunately, deletion of the file seems to be inevitable, but I'd like to make some things clear.
Firstly, neither Victor Fink is forgotten, nor his works are useless; his original works are in demand and his translations from French are still in print. Information about him in English is in An Anthology of Jewish-Russian Literature. Two Centuries of Dual Identity in Prose and Poetry. Vol. 1: 1801-1953. Edited, selected, and cotranslated, with introductory essays by Maxim D. Shrayer. Armonk, NY, London: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2007. — P. 361-364. ISBN 978-0-7656-0521-4.
Secondly, the file in question is of good quality, unlike File:Victor Fink.jpg, which is really blurred, and which is nominated for deletion.
Now about the authorship of the book covers. There are 8 of them in the file. All books were published in the USSR; the books in the first row were published in 1925, 1931, 1932, and 1942, in the second row -- in 1966 (two books), 1962, and 1968. Copyright in the USSR belonged to the publisher, not to the author/translator/artist/designer.
I hate seeing the files deleted, but by no means want to violate the law. --Doctor Gregory (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
We clearly have very different standards for quality. 676 × 509 pixels would be small for a scan of one of these covers and is very much too small for all of them. I would expect to see that, when magnified, all of the smaller print on the covers was legible, which it is not here, and the edges of all of the lettering to be crisp, rather than fuzzy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Most images on Wikipedia articles are rendered at less than a 500 pixel resolution. So, any image that big is still useful for an educational purpose. If it's too small for even a Wikipedia article thumbnail, that gets more arguable. We would of course prefer larger, so that people can look at the more detailed larger-resolution image, but that does not put the smaller images out of scope if they can still be used on a Wikipedia article. If they are additionally blurry at that resolution, that can be more arguable as well. File:Victor Fink.jpg is in scope too at that resolution, though it likely has other copyright issues. For something like book covers, even small thumbnails are useful for identification purposes and can be used on book listings, etc. To me, they would have to be unrecognizable as that particular book cover to fall out scope. Reading the lettering is highly preferred, but not a requirement to be useful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't see the image, so I can't say for sure, but such use would not likely violate the law -- it would almost certainly be fair use of the book covers. However, Wikimedia Commons does not accept works which are only legal due to fair use, as they are not "free" -- we want works which can be used in all situations. U.S. fair use is fairly broad, but does not apply in most other countries. So, it's more of a policy issue -- we need works which are either licensed by the copyright owner, or where copyright is currently expired. Even if the copyright was owned by the publisher, the copyright would still exist -- we care about the author because that determines the *length* of copyright, and when it expires, regardless of who actually owns it. It's possible the retroactive Russian laws changed who owns the restored copyright, but the main issue is does that copyright exist or not. If it does, actual ownership of the copyright would matter if we can get a license from that person/entity, but most of the time we have to wait for copyright to expire. If a human author was known, the copyright term is based on their lifetime; if published without a human author being credited, and (in most countries) if the human author did not become known in the subsequent 70 years, it would be anonymous and the term is usually based on when it was published. It sounds like the bottom row doesn't have much hope either way. I may have found a thumbnail cache version on Google Images -- if so, the top left and top right book covers appear to be lettering-only, and laid out in normal lines -- as such, those book covers are likely {{PD-ineligible}} to begin with, so no copyright would exist, and individually those should be OK. The other two on the top row may qualify for {{PD-Russia}}, but that would depend on demonstrating anonymous status, which is different than simply not knowing -- it would depend on the cover author being someone other than Fink who died before the 1940s, or not credited on the publication and not becoming generally known in the subsequent 50 years. Information like that can be hard for non-Russians to search for and find out. Some Wikipedias do allow fair-use images, if there was an article specifically about the book or something like that -- but that is up to the policy of each Wikipedia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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

File:WLM India 2016 28.jpg

I was simply making a report to uploaded on meta for my rapid grant project. The canvas image was a winning image of Wikiloves monument 2016 in India, hence uploaded in Commons. User: SpacemanSpiff deleted it for no reason. --Abhinav619 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done: restored. Daphne Lantier 16:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Reopened. Daphne, Abhinav619, if I understand correctly, the large images in the photo are Wiki images, so they have free licenses. However, unless the licenses are CC-0, we can't use them without attribution. In order to keep this, Abhinav619 needs to find the file for the image on the right and, unless it is CC-0, add appropriate attribution. Even if it is CC-0, it is polite to credit our colleagues when we know who they are.

And, by the way, SpacemanSpiff's action was entirely appropriate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Attribution added. The image depicted in this photograph is File:Tirumal Naicker Palace 1.jpg (CC-by-sa-4.0). I have added an appropriate attribution at File:WLM India 2016 28.jpg. De728631 (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:R.N.X.S LapelBadge.jpg

This is a picture of the RNXS lapel badge They are About 4,980 image results when searched for and (about the same in actual badges issued)

The badge was given to members of the RNXS of which i was a member i am authorised as a member to use RNXS images i have a badge in my possession.its my badge ,any photo i took would look exactly the same. Although i understand the need for copywriter protection, and applaud your diligence i think in this case perhaps A tad over zealous.

Many thanks Andrew Johnston(Ex-L.N.X)Rosyh

Dixon hill (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify who made this design and if you have permission from him or hear to distribute copies. Thuresson (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
From what he told us on the IRC help channel for en.wp, this may be covered by Crown copyright. Jéské (v^_^v) 19:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  Support The badge definitely has or had a Crown Copyright. The Royal Naval Auxiliary Service was formed in 1963. Crown Copyright lasts for fifty years, so if the badge were designed and "published" (in the technical, copyright sense of the word) before 1967, then it is PD. Although it is unproven here, I am prepared to assume that it did not take four years after the creation of the service for the badge (and the the RNXS ensign, which has the badge on it) to be created. I think it is almost certain that the badge was actually created before the official start of the Service because otherwise vessels that were added to the RNXS at its inception would not have had an ensign. (note to Americans and others who are not familiar with UK flags -- unlike the USA, which has one national flag, and many countries which have two or three, the UK has dozens of official national flags and the flag that is flown depends on the organization flying it and, in some cases on ships, on the person in command). That would make this PD four years ago, but not on the URAA date. I think that the URAA does not apply to Crown Copyright, but I could be wrong on that. Carl? Anyone else?
I should add that I see nothing over-zealous in this deletion. Ownership of one of these badges does not give one the right to freely license copies of it. The fact that Andrew was a member of the Service says nothing about his right to license its images. I don't know offhand who is authorized to freely license Crown Copyright images, but I doubt very much that it includes ordinary members of the Services. So, at best this is OK by four years and at worst it is still under copyright in the USA because of the URAA. Certainly a case that required discussion.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Andrew Benjamin Conner.jpg

Please undelete this photo. I own the rights and am the Communications Manager for team in which Mr. Conner plays, this photo belongs to me.

I am even listed on this page:

This photo was flagged by an overzealous user who is monitoring with no knowledge of the subject matter.


Eunice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euniceskim (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required 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.

One option is that you log into the team's Flickr account and change this photo's license from "All Rights Reserved" to an acceptable free license. Thuresson (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose I am afraid that I don't much like it when someone who has a total of 29 edits on all WMF projects comes here and complains about "an overzealous user who is monitoring with no knowledge of the subject matter". The person who deleted your image, one of our most active and productive colleagues, was simply following our standard policy when we see an image on Flickr with "All Rights Reserved". There was nothing "overzealous" about that.

We have no way here of knowing who you are and whether you actually have the rights to the image. Please do not criticize our colleague for simply following policy. Policy requires that either (a) the ARR must be changed on Flickr to an acceptable license or (b) the actual photographer must send a free license directly using OTRS. The former can get the image restored immediately; the latter will take several weeks or more as OTRS has a significant backlog. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bas integration image.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent (verify) request: Permission sent with Ticket:2017050410016766. Arthur Crbz (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done: @Arthur Crbz: Done. --Yann (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: Peux-tu supprimer l'image File:Bas integration image.jpg ? En tant que collage utilisant des logos qui ne sont surement pas publiés sous licence libre, je ne pense pas que le client soit en capacité de fournir les permissions nécessaires. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  Done Yann (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Queer (musical logo).png

I am the owner of the image and I keep getting harassed with it being removed. Please undelete it immediately!

--MissHazelJade (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose First, please note that uploading an image a second and third time after it has been deleted is a violation of Commons rules and a waste of time and resources. Don't do it again.

There is no evidence that this musical is in scope. Images on Commons must serve an educational purpose. The subjects must be notable, which generally means they have a WP article. This musical is not mentioned at Category:LGBT-related musicals and gets no hits on Google.

If you can prove here that the image actually is in scope, then policy requires that an authorized official of the musical's production company must send a free license using OTRS. We do not accept unsubstantiated claims of "ownership" of images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I will repeat to you that I am the creator/producer of this musical. Feel free to view our website at Queer: A New Musical and the Broadway World announcement article, and please stop harassing me! If you need further proof, tell me where I can email it to, and I will do that. --MissHazelJade (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note my first paragraph above. Anyone can create a web site. Yours says that the musical is "in development". Until the show actually appears and lasts more than a few nights, it probably does not meet our standards for notability.

Also, please understand that all we know for certain here is that you are an anonymous user who repeatedly claims to be the creator of the musical. We get many fans and vandals who make similar claims in order to post images on Commons. Therefore, as I said above, "policy requires that an authorized official of the musical's production company must send a free license using OTRS". OTRS is linked for a reason. However, don't bother to send a license to OTRS until you have convinced this community that the show is in scope.

I also note that you got exactly the same response at User_talk:Hedwig_in_Washington#STOP_BLOCKING_.2AMY.2A_PHOTOS -- both with respect to scope and with respect to copyright -- a few minutes before you posted here. Please don't expect that when you do things that are outside of policy that you can shop around and get an answer that you like. Although some of our colleagues may disagree with me and Mattbuck on the scope issue, the copyright issue is long and firmly established policy. Shopping around for different answers simply wastes your time and ours. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2017050210023181 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   Arthur Crbz (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done @Arthur Crbz: I have restored this pending the OTRS check. De728631 (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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

OTRS requests 16:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Request temporary undeletion to evaluate the following files with their respective tickets:

seb26 (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seb26: Restored. Daphne Lantier 16:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done: tickets added. Daphne Lantier 17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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

File:ISticker Logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent (verify) request: Permission sent with Ticket:2017050910006268 Arthur Crbz (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done: @Arthur Crbz: Please add the ticket. Daphne Lantier 17:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Isfahan International Conference Center - 4.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent (verify) request: Permission sent with Ticket:2017050910005321. Arthur Crbz (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  Done: @Arthur Crbz: Please add the ticket. Daphne Lantier 17:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)