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

Files uploaded by MARTA MANCINICons

Mostly scans of photos over a century old. Except one, they all had date/description and sufficient author information, plus a copyright tag. Blatant deletion mistake. Nemo 06:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose I disagree. As they stand they could not be kept and the DR was open for a month without the uploader fixing them.

In several cases I looked at, it would be easy to determine the author and, probably, his date of death, that should have been done before upload. The uploader certainly cannot claim "own work" for any of these, as was done without source in several cases. Come back with this request one by one with the necessary information supplied, and we can restore them -- but not en masse. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  Support Some of them already contains required licensing information so they should never be deleted while procession this DR. In some cases the information may be incomplete or incorrect (eg. PD-anon-EU template for a US work), but this was not raised in the DR. As per above oppose, I suggest reopening the DR and continue dispute there. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, the uploader had a full month to deal with the various problems and made no effort to do so. I don't see that opening an unwieldy DR solves anything. If you have any specific files that you think should be restored, please list them and the community will consider them, but my look over the list suggests that the bulk of them cannot be kept as they are now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Note, that:
  1. the UDR request is not from the uploader; so any requirements directed to the uploader are irrelevant here
  2. most of the images already had proper copyright info fixed before they were deleted; so the deletion in the DR process was not correct, IMO. I have restored them: feel free to re-nominate for deletion (en masse, or one-by-one) if you wish
  3. we are all volunteers so we cannot require a specific user will respond in a specified period of time; we should be able to deal with such cases even if the uploader did not respond
  4. assumption that we can delete any image because its uploader did not respond is not the right way, IMO
  5. for few remaining images you are right: more information is required (@Nemo bis: eg. the death date of G[iovanni] Gussoni from Milano) to resolve their copyright status.
I think, we can close this case. Or anything else can be done/said here? Ankry (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It is entirely out of process for you to restore these images when there are only two opposing comments on the UnDR. I suggest you redelete them and wait until there is more support for your side of this discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose - none of them had a valid license, the files with a license only had a US PD rationale, and no license on the source country - Jcb (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

New York seems to be located in US. What source country rationale is expected then?
Anonymous-EU is a valid Italian copyright tag when no author/publisher info is provided on the work itself. (work = diploma form; the written text is purely informative and so not eligible for copyright); AFAIK, in some countries such diplomas can be considered "official documents", not eligible for copyright, but unsure about Italy here.
Italian diplomas with author/publisher info remain deleted. Ankry (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The diplomas are clearly above TOO, so eligible for copyright. Also several pictures of people are involved. To use Anonymous-EU, you have to show that the author actually published the work without disclosing his identity. This is completely different from 'we at Commons do not know the name of the author'. Jcb (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: Indeed, clear copyright mark: "Mishkin Studio, New York", "(C) H. Mishkin, N.Y." and clearly pre-1923 published. Why they needed to be deleted? Ankry (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
None of the images seems to origin from the US, so it's not sufficient to only deal with the US copyright situation. (I wrote that earlier, as you can see a few lines above). Jcb (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
False asumption. "Boston Conservatory of Music" is probably a Russian school. And two photos were created in New York near Rome. They were photographed in Italy, but it is irrelevant for definition of their country of origin. Some works are Italian, one is definitely German (also PD) and at least three are US. Ankry (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry, but what you write is very difficult to understand and very vague. E.g. what is "created in New York near Rome" suppose to mean? And claims like "one is definitely German (also PD)" should come with a file name and a PD rationale. Jcb (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: This means that you deleted images with valid author/copyright information without even looking at them. Ankry (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Boston Conservatory of Music is here. This and this images have clear copyright mark from a New York photographer. How did you find them to be non-US works? this has clear authorship of a German photographer (death date unknown, but active since 1864, so PD-old-assumed is an appropriate rationale). And recent deletion reason is clearly fake for them.
Regarding File:Agide Jacchia 04.jpg, the same photo-card has been published under a CC-by-4 licence by Deutsche Fotothek, so we could either restore this one accordingly or upload the Fotothek image. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC) restore it. The autographs seen in Agide Jacchia 04.jpg are not copyrightable and if the photograph is available under CC-by I support restoration. De728631 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


I also request that these files that I uploaded to the Northern Football League Wikipedia Page be undeleted;

Reasons: These images were drawn by me on Microsoft Paint and therefore not official pictures that were created by the football clubs involved and not under copyright, they can be free to be used anywhere on the internet. It is already common for the jumper designs of football clubs to be uploaded to Wikipedia - for example, if you look at the Goulburn Valley Football League and the Central Murray Football League Wikipedia pages, they have pictures of the jumper design of all of their clubs. The pictures I uploaded completed the missing jumper designs from my league, bringing the Northern Football League Wikipedia Page close to completion and accuracy. The only difference I can see between the jumper designs on the other Wikipedia pages and my own, it is that mine have the Northern Football League Logo on the jumper design. If this is what the issue was, I will remove it and reload the images. I believe that the addition of the jumper designs for teams in the Northern Football League Wikipedia Page adds interest for anyone reading the page.


--Dpeters1980 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose This is a common problem. If the designs closely copy the club designs, then they are derivative works and therefore copyright violations. If they do not closely copy the club descigns, then they are your personal art and not useful. Either way, they cannot be kept. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Robert Cena 1863-1945.jpg

"The source for this photograph has now been determined. This photograph has been published on page 92 of the book by Adam Serdeczny, “Morawsko od czasów starożytnych do końca XX wieku”, Jarosław 2006, ISBN 83-86697-63-6 – already cited in the original biographical note Robert Cena. It is argued that the photograph of a known source may now be attributed a free licence due to its age (PD-Polish: above 70 years). If this fulfils the licensing requirements, the request to delete is hereby withdrawn. Regards Henry39 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)" per this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Some additional information that the discussants might find useful.

Robert Cena was in the last years of XIX century an important leader and deputy representing the Agrarian-Christian Party from the Polish part of Austria in the then Imperial Austrian parliament in Wien. Since 1900, this area (Jarosław, now in the South-Eastern corner of Poland) suffered two world wars and was invaded by Russians, then Germans, and Russians again. It is now (partly only) a part of Poland as it always was before the troubled years. There are very few archives left and available. The Polish archives (the Jagiellonian Library in Cracow in particular) are incomplete. Moreover, there are no successors to the XIX century photographers or publishers. Hence, it is practically impossible to locate the original source of the Robert Cena’s photograph. However, we know a lot about the image. First, it shows Robert as a young man, taken presumably at the peak of his political career. It means that the photo is about 120 years old. Second, the photo published by the local historian Adam Serdeczny (mentioned above) was already a rather poor copy/scan from, it may be assumed, some printed material and it was/is not one of those formal XIX century portraits produced in a photography atelier. Third, the image is that of Robert Cena, as we have the evidence from Adam Serdeczny himself and it agrees with a detailed facial description in an article in newspaper Cracow Daily (30 March 1897) giving the news of Robert’s election. The description, in Polish, is presented in full in reference No. 6 in Robert Cena in the Polish Wikipedia. Adam Serdeczny, the local teacher/historian has passed away (in 2009). Robert Cena biograms have already been written and published independently in both the Czech and the Polish Wikipedias. Regards - Henry39 (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose Unfortunately, the Polish law is that the image remains copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the author. Although 120 years is a long time, it is not long enough for us to be able to assume that the author died at least 70 years ago -- he could easily have lived for 50 years after taking the picture.
If the author is unknown, then the copyright lasts for 70 years from the date of first publication, As far as we now know that was the 2006 work mentioned above, so that doesn't help. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Surb gexard.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is from Christian Armenia Encyclopedia which is under cc-by-sa-3.0 (file:Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան (Christian Armenia Encyclopedia).pdf) ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that is a completely different photo. As noted last time the file was deleted before you recreated it outside of process, the file was actually taken from hy:File:Surb gexard.JPG, which has no source, authorship or licensing information whatsoever. LX (talk, contribs) 13:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
See the third image. These two images are the same. My (and hywiki) version is just with better resolution.--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
ԱշոտՏՆՂ, please be honest to yourself. These are two photos of the same subject, but not two identical photos.   Oppose. Sealle (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Repeating the claim doesn't make it any more true. Even if it were the same photo, the licensing claims for File:Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան (Christian Armenia Encyclopedia).pdf and all the images it contains aren't exactly convincing either. LX (talk, contribs) 15:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
OK :(. BTW, can I cut and upload the image (or any other image) from the encyclopedia?. I just want to understand the rules.--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Ordinarily, you can reuse content that you find on Commons, but as I said, I'm not convinced about the copyright situation for File:Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան (Christian Armenia Encyclopedia).pdf, and I've just started a discussion about that. I wouldn't upload anything extracted from the file unless it is shown that the licensing is correct and applicable to the illustrations used in the file. LX (talk, contribs) 08:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:-KM 30 (canto).jpg

Ni que decir tiene que nada más lejos de mi intención que tratar de subir una imagen cuyos derechos de publicación, verdaderamente, no me pertenecieran. Así, si solicito la restauración del archivo indicado es simplemente porque no alcanzo a entender qué violación de derechos de autor puede haber en el hecho de que haya fotografiado, en este caso el canto, de una moneda de mi propiedad, con una cámara de mi propiedad. Si así ha sido, ruego me indiquen para sucesivas ocasiones qué manera completamente acorde con la legalidad hay de subir este tipo de imágenes.

Un saludo. --Mperezreviriego (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Files in Category:Falla Gayano Lluch 2015

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Falla Gayano Lluch 2015. Mistakenly deleted by EugeneZelenko who ignored Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Coentor.--Coentor (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Comment I don't think he ignored the earlier DR -- he was probably not aware of it. There is nothing in these file descriptions to indicate that these sculptures are temporary and are burned. In fact, you have not said that here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Almonty Industries and Panasqueira Mine

File:Pe. Leal.jpg


Good afternoon

I'm Nuno Alves director of mine developmentof Almonty Industries, the owner of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal that is the legal owner of the concession on Panasqueira Mine in Portugal. Please see:

I published the file Frentes convergentes - Panasqueira.jpg in commons, to update a wikipedia article on Panasqueira Mine.

That file Frentes convergentes - Panasqueira.jpg is from the internal records of the corporation that I represent (Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal) that has all the rights over that photo. It was published by Ing Cláudio dos Reis in an official state publication in 1992 in behalf of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal.

In case of needing additional clarifications please contact me by:

Thanking you in advance

Nuno Alves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno Madeira Alves (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 April 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.

  Oppose Because we do not know who you actually are and identity theft is common here, policy requires that an authorized official of the oprganization owning the copyrights to the images must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg

Good afternoon

I'm Nuno Alves director of mine developmentof Almonty Industries the owner of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal that is the legal owner of the concession on Panasqueira Mine in Portugal. Please see:

I published the file File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg in commons, to update a wikipedia article on Panasqueira Mine.

That file File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg is from the internal records of the corporation that I represent (Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal) that has all the rights over that photo. It belongs to the production record that the corporation keeps updating year after year. It is also published in:

In case of needing additional clarifications please contact me by:

Thanking you in advance

Nuno Alves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno Madeira Alves (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 April 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.

  Oppose This image is out of scope. We do not keep images of text material that should be set in wiki markup. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Côrrea de Sá et al 1999.pdf

Good afternoon

I'm Nuno Alves director of mine developmentof Almonty Industries the owner of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal that is the legal owner of the concession on Panasqueira Mine in Portugal. Please see:

I published the file File:Côrrea de Sá et al 1999.pdf] in commons, to update a wikipedia article on Panasqueira Mine.

That file File:Côrrea de Sá et al 1999.pdf] is from the internal records of the corporation that I represent (Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal) that has all the rights over that work. It was created and published in 1999 by Beralt. Ing António Correa de Sá is actually chairman of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal and gave all authorizations for the publication of this work also.

In case of needing additional clarifications please contact me by:

Thanking you in advance

Nuno Alves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno Madeira Alves (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I just wrote to this person by email with further guidance on emailing OTRS. That resolves this matter for now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
At ticket:2017041810014761 the user made a copyright release for these images. I cannot see the images but here are their names -
These can go into Category:Panasqueira Mines.
Can someone else process the undeletion at least temporarily, if not the entire ticket? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose No. Making a request here does not allow uploaders to jump the long OTRS queue. These images must wait their turn.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward It was not my intention that anyone should jump the queue, but that is what I incorrectly did and I apologize for the sake of those waiting. At this point, could we make this an instructional experience so that I learn the correct way and share the information with others? Suppose that I did come to this request in the OTRS queue - what is the correct process for a non-admin like me? Should I as a non-admin not touch the ticket, or request undeletion to examine them, or what would you advise? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I came on a little strong above -- the length of the OTRS queue makes me unhappy and I don't always deal with it well.
When you process the OTRS queue in the routine way, oldest first, then you can and should bring those that deserve it here for restoration. That will usually be done routinely. If you have any doubts, you can list out the files included in the e-mail and ask that an Admin look them over.
It's not a bad idea to check the reason for deletion. An OTRS license will not allow restoration of a file that is out of scope, such as this uploader's File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg, mentioned above, which is an image of a table which should be set in Wiki markup. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Related DR's

Please, undelete this files until resolving the main DR. Thanks.--MaGa 17:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose What "main DR"? The first of these files is the base map for the others. It has no source and was deleted. Unless someone can up with the source, freely licensed, it and all its subsidiaries cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This (deleted) and other files have the same problem. As you see, main DR is still open, so individually deleting of some files is not correct. It's very simple: all or nothing.--MaGa 19:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Main DR is linked in the title of this section.--MaGa 19:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Iaroslavvs in the main DR, no significant doubt about the source of the base map.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Nagyvasútállomásnál. Tatai buszjáratok, térkép. - Komárom-Esztergom megye, Tata.JPG

Reason of the discuss

Hi Jcb! Globetrotter19 contacted me and said that the deleted file is a cropped version of File:Nagyvasútállomásnál. Tata várostérkép. - Komárom-Esztergom megye, Tata.JPG which shows an information table erected in a permanent manner (Hungary has FoP). Thus, I think FoP applies in this case and the file can be restored. Would you mind taking another look at it? Thanks, Einstein2 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2017 ([1])

After that Jcb immediately designated for deletion the 'big file' (File:Nagyvasútállomásnál. Tata várostérkép. - Komárom-Esztergom megye, Tata.JPG). The discuss is here [2].

So, if 'the Big' is FoP, I think the cropped version also FoP and can be restored.

Sincerely, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  Done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Dutch spoken articles

File:Nl-BNN Today-article.ogg and Nl-Dirk van den Broek-article.ogg. These are spoken versions of the respective Dutch articles nl:BNN Today and nl:Dirk van den Broek. See also Matthijs van Nieuwkerk.ogg, which has been restored for the same reason. Wikiwerner (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

These were deleted in 2013 for missing licenses. Which is the copyright status of a reading of a Wikipedia article? Thuresson (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
It is public domain: see File:Nl-Matthijs van Nieuwkerk-article.ogg, which was deleted for the same reason, and had been restored recently. Wikiwerner (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Public Domain cannot be correct. The recordings are derivative work of a CC-BY-SA 3.0 Wikipedia article. The license of the recording should be CC-BY-SA 3.0 as well. Jcb (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The recordings itself don't add a new copyright. Natuur12 (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, there is clearly some original authorship in the recording. But due to the license of the article, the recording must have the same license. To satisfy the license requirements, the person who made the recording has to be attributed for making the recording. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
If a back seat conversation isn't copyrighted, why would readin a text generate a copyright? Natuur12 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
A back seat conversation may be on the edge, but for a recording of a Wikipedia article it's quite obvious that there is original authorship. You make choices e.g. in intonation, speed, how to read non-proza parts. But fortunately this whole discussion is hardly relevant for these recordings, because the license is already obvious, and the user who made the recording is attributed correctly if they use our standard templates. Jcb (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Even if there were no copyright in the intonation of the recording, it has to be copyrighted because it is just another form of publishing the original text. So the CC licence of the Wikipedia text has to be reflected. For the same reasons, audiobooks are not automatically PD either, but if the text is copyrighted, the reading is copyrighted too. De728631 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we agree on that. I expressed myself a bit sloppy. Natuur12 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Mooi.   Then my work here is done for the moment. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Searching further I found File:Nl-Amsterdam-article.ogg, where the Commons license is used. Wikiwerner (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Peugeot 2008DKR Tehran.jpg

This file was deleted by user:EugeneZelenko because it was not in original resolution. It was my own work, but I was edited it before uploading here. how shall I get it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdi666 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Mahdi666 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mahdi666: You have two options: one, upload the original photo here, or two, follow the procedure at OTRS. I would   Oppose undeletion of this image for now until this issue has been resolved. Thanks, Poké95 08:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: How can I upload the original one? you removed the original one that I uploaded again after first deletion by user:EugeneZelenko. Mahdi666 (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mahdi666: Oh, I don't know it was the original photo. Please upload it again, but under a different filename. Thanks, Poké95 04:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Srinath Singh.jpg

This image is published for public use anywhere by the permission of Sushila Chauhan,daughter of Thakur Srinath Singh, resident of Allahabad. This work now follows The Copyright Act Of India 1957,which is also recognized by United States Of America under the treaty of both countries. So please undelete the specified image. Thanking You, Pushpendra Singh (son of Sushila Chauhan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpschauhan (talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drpschauhan: Hi,
"published for public use" is not sufficient for Wikimedia Commons. We need either a free license, or an evidence that the file is in the public domain. For that, could you please provide when the picture was first published, and who is the photographer? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Undeleted some files uploaded by Vpe

I work essentially on the project of Montpellier and I live in the same city.
Is it possible to restore files that were erased too quickly ?

I've open a request (in french) for a same situation with this file : "Affiches électorales 2012.JPG". In France, in a electoral period, it's a biggest moment and this image is representative for the posters in a public domain.
I am in the process for update the file, but all images are not in Commons and the links with the pages that are used this file are broken. I just need an access to copy the links with the pages of the different projects.
I've geolocated this file "Église Saint-Marc" but my changes are't update ! This file complies with the rules of Commons.
This file is the only one that is not distorted after the restoration of the historical monument. The file is small but the photograph is unique.
The file is unique to Montpellier and there are only three files in the category : Radomes in France. It would be a shame to delete a file that complies with the rules of Commons.
I've also geolocated this file but my changes are't update. I take photos regularly from the city but there is already so much work to do in categories before dropping files.
For these four files, we do not yet have an equivalent on Commons (Patrimoine de l'Université Montpellier I (sorry, in french) ).
I've also geolocated this file but... no update of my changes.
It is the only file of this church that we have for the village of Satillieu (in french because he's too poor in English). Why remove the file from a church ?

Thank you in advance if this restoration can be possible ! —— DePlusJean (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you please upload the original unmodified images (except the election posters)? (Message in French to the contributor's talk page). Yann (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Bonsoir @Yann, je me suis permis de vous répondre sur ma pdd.
Cordialement, —— DePlusJean (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
File:Affiches presidentielles 2017.jpg cannot be restored because it is a derivative work of non-free campaign posters, and there is no freedom of panorama in France. So even if you took the photo, you're not allowed to publish it without consent from the copyright holders of the posters.
File:Montpellier montage couv.jpg: did you take all these individual photographs yourself? If so, please upload them all separately in original resolution including the EXIF metadata. Otherwise, please tell us which freely licensed images you used to created this montage. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @De728631 for your quick reply and for the information provided.
  • For the file Affiches presidentielles 2017.jpg : During elections, posting is allowed on the public domain (In accordance with the Environmental Code (articles L.581-13, R.581-2 et R.581-3)). The photo was taken in the street, for a display during the election period of 2017 (Category with 27 files) and for validated candidates. I think that this photo is in agreement with a freedom of panorama, derivative works and respects French law.
  • Unfortunately, no. There is no freedom of panorama in France, and the posters are under a copyright, even if displayed on public places. Yann (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Cordially, —— DePlusJean (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi,could you tell me why you deleted 延榮.jpg image of the article 延榮?This is the portrait of my great grandfather I found in my family's album. It was scanned by myself. My great grandfather died in year 1916. I have no idea who and where this photo was token. Could you help me and tell me how can I share this image?

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 亦飛 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 26 April 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.

  Oppose It was deleted because owning a paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right almost always belongs to the photographer or his heirs. 1916 is thirty years too recent for us to assume that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment@Jameslwoodward: 延榮 is a Chinese. The copyright term in China for photographs is 50 years after first publication or, if unpublished, 50 years after creation. It should be PD in both China and the US. --Wcam (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, but I think you have the law wrong. According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#People.27s_Republic_of_China, the law is confusing. Article 18 tells us that for a work with an unknown author, the term is 50 years after first publication. According to Article 18, Article 21, which gives a term of 50 years after publication or, if unpublished, then 50 years after creation, applies only after the author has been identified, so it does not apply here. Or do I misunderstand the interaction of the two provisions?

We apparently don't know the author and the image came out of a family album, so was not published until recently. If my reading of the law is correct, the image cannot be kept unless the photographer and an heir can be identified to give permission. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I agree that the law is confusing. To make matters worse, Article 20 of the Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (not shown in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#People.27s_Republic_of_China), defines a "published work" to be "a work made available to the public by the copyright owner or by another party with the copyright owner's authorization". The uploader is neither the copyright holder nor likely to have the copyright owner's authorization so we may not consider this photo as "recently published" in the context of China's copyright law. --Wcam (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't add that, because it seemed like a problem we didn't have to face for fifty years. That's a general rule -- something cannot become "published" in the technical sense unless the copyright holder has authorized it. That was particularly important during the "notice required" era in the USA -- otherwise anyone could have put something in the PD simply by publishing it without notice .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Let me clarify my point. If the photo is never "published", then Article 18 of the Regulations is not relevant here. We should only consider Article 21 of the Copyright Law which says the photo's copyright has already expired because it is unpublished over 50 years after creation. Also, the actual Copyright Law has a higher legal effect in China's legal system over the Regulation. --Wcam (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support {{PD-China}} seems to apply here. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support as per my comments above. {{PD-China}} should be appropriate. --Wcam (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann and Wcam.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


This photo was originally taken by US Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) as part of official duties in 1946. According to The Copyright Act of 1976, I believe it is not protected by copyright.--Medalofdead (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Medalofdead, in the file description you said that the source was: "Hunnicutt, R. P., & Dyer, D. P. (1988). Firepower: a history of the American heavy tank. Novato, CA: Presidio." The book presumably has an explicit copyright notice. As noted in the deletion comment, it appears on Flickr as (c) All Rights Reserved. There is nothing in the file description that says that this is an Army image. Such images are often taken by the manufacturer. It is up to you to prove that it is an Army image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ruth Porat image on her wikipedia was deleted

Hi, I wanted to get more information as to why the image for Ruth Porat was taken down? Please let me know, many thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpasynkova (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mpasynkova: Hi, I wanted to get more information as to where you got that image. Please let me know, many thanks in advance!   — Jeff G. ツ 22:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Bak Hok Shan after.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I find these picture in google search that linked to Wikipedia, these 3 picture taken around 2005 or 06 is with reasonable photo size (654 × 472/ 1024x768) but i don't know is it have any exif data and the upload date. (May be the contribution people think the big pic size is waste time to upload) It should not be delete. May be try to content with Acklbonboncat, although that people no more active since 2013....

Wpcpey (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose: there is doubt whether these images are free. If the uploader really took these photos I don't see the reason why they have to go the extra mile to scale the sizes down and remove the EXIF deliberately. On the contrary, an image with low resolution and without EXIF is often a strong indication that it is taken from somewhere else. --Wcam (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
First, it should ask people check these 3 file again, to ensure that is it have any exif data. Secondly, I guess it may have some reasons to let the uploader scale the sizes down, such as the storage is not enough when the people to take the picture (during that time only have 32MB/64MB memory card, it only set 640x480 or 1024x768 if they want to have more space to take the picture) the computer storage may not enough also. Use old version ACDsee save the picture may also remove the exif data....

btw...these picture can be "historical picture" also, since it have been removed during the Ho Man Tin Station construction around 2012.--Wpcpey (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Acklbonboncat

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: See {{PD-HK}} seems to apply here and should not delete, these work are over 50 years (the Bak Hok Shan around 1900s, Hok Un Power Plant pic taken in 1920s, HK Gov Gazette in 1857, the 宋官富行宮遺址 map also create in around 1920-30s), which the author died had already ended, or the work is of unknown authorship and the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first made has ended. Wpcpey (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

File:ErosPyramide20090221 352.jpg

This file and other equivalent ErosPyramide files have always been kept because all DRs concluded that there was no reason to delete files showing a pornographic show. As any subject, pornographic shows are encyclopedic subjects, i.e. in scope. But for some reason, this one has been deleted because it "is not useful for education purposes" ??? And why that ? Should we start to delete all files with such a topic ?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose per closure of the DR. The bare fact that this picture shows nude people does not make it in scope. If those people would have been clothed, the picture would probably be deleted for a reason like 'unused personal picture'. In the DR you tried to relate the nomination to censorship, which has nothing to do with the deletion. If a picture of people is useless for educational purposes, we delete it. No matter whether the depicted people are dressed or naked. Jcb (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You don't understand. You say "no educational purpose" but you don't explain why. Be coherent : if you say this file was not in scope, you mean that all ErosPyramide files (and maybe all other files showing a pornographic show) are not in scope. Thus you don't respect the fact that such subjects may be illustrated, per COM:CENSORSHIP. For this file, there was a first DR and it was kept exactly because of those reasons. A second DR had been launched and it brought no new arguments. All the other previous DRs about such files have always been closed as kept : Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 243.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 439a.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 440.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20110218 1098 Christina Bella & Mya Diamond.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 442.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 422.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 426.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 445.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20110218 1088 Christina Bella.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:ErosPyramide20090221 344.jpg.
@Green Giant, Taivo: Since you kept the files in the DRs I've mentioned, what do you think ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tm: Since you participated in some of these DRs... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Weak   undelete. Educational value exists for illustrating pornographic shows, but as quality is not as good as other mentioned photos have, only weak support. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Taivo: It's not particularly good nor very bad, as far as quality is concerned. And I don't find it particularly worse than any other file in the Category:Pornographic shows... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@TwoWings: No, I did not say or mean anything about other files from the same source. I just deleted this particular file, because I consider this particular file out of scope. Please don't confuse the processes all the time by responding with unrelated and irrelevant comments. Jcb (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Unrelated and irrelevant comments ? Do we speak about the fact that you accused me of being out of subject when I spoke about censorship in the DR ? Actually I wrote "censorship" in the first one. And you seem unaware that both Fixpol and Saadbl have launched DRs with moral purposes. So yes, it was about censorship. The funny thing is, Fixpol launched the first DR with the comment "Not educationally useful" and Green Giant kept the file, then Saadbl added the comment "inappropriate content"... and you closed it as "deleted" by repeting Fixpol's pseudo-argument which really meant "don't propose sexual topics on Commons" (it meant that for Fixpol).
But again, you give absolutely no explanation about the fact that you consider "this particular file" (NB : available here for those who are not admins) as out of scope and non-educational but not the other ErosPyramide files ! Why wouldn't it be educational to illustrate a pornographic show or lesbian cunnilingus with "this particular file" ? What are the concrete arguments ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  Undelete I have been pinged and asked for my opinion by TwoWings further up this discussion. I take a disinterested view because I'm neither interested in this or similar photos nor do I particularly recall much of my thought process for the earlier DR. However, Commons has a broad interpretation of COM:EDUSE in that it certainly is not restricted to a narrow viewpoint. In my own opinion "educational" means providing useful information that adds to the knowledge of users. Some of us might disagree with the "education" that this particular photo provides but I can see that it does indeed have an educational element. The photo was taken during a show by these two people, presumably in a legally permitted environment. They quite clearly appear to be consenting adults.. If this photo had been taken in a private room with one of them being forced to do this, I could see an argument for challenging the educational value. The point of the shows is to cast illumination on a group of activities that are not the usual subject of schools or coffee shops etc. It is not necessarily a topic that some will find appropriate but it is this very question of appropriateness that appears to have inspired the latest DR. In contrast I would argue the "knives are dangerous" principle in that it is quite obvious that most knives are sharp and can cause immense damage in the wrong hands. However, a knife in the hands of a skilled chef can contribute to excellent food. Would it be right for us to ban photos of knives on the grounds that they might encourage others to commit knife-related crimes? In the same way, the photo herevshould be kept separate from the morality of what use end users might or might not put the photo to. If we want to engage in a discussion on the merits of all similar photos, then that would be legitimately done at the Village Pump but not this piecemeal approach. Indeed TwoWings asks the cogent question of why this one and not entire category? In the nominators defence I note that they are a new user here but have been editing elsewhere for some months. I can only recommend that you should always check the talk page first and go to relevant user talk pages to raise the issues there first. Of course some of us still struggle with this concept even after years of editing. So yes, let's undelete this photo and if people feel strongly about the issues raised in the DR's and this undeletion request, then please start a discussion at the VP. Green Giant (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support per nom and Green Giant. This file has an educational purpose, to educate photographers in how NOT to shoot cunnilingus: if the lens can't see the tongue or lips, one could shoot it better with a different angle.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm with Jcb on this one. Sorry but this is grabadge. Porno with no educational value. Natuur12 (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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



The above mentioned image has unlawfully been deleted. It was marked as a copyright violation. The rights of the image belong to © Kimberley Garner. The owner has requested that I use this photo on their Wikipedia page/article.

Please undelete this image and reinstate in on

Thank you.

Kind regards, Ashldn (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose Words such as "unlawfully deleted" are not helpful. An action taken according to Commons policy is not unlawful in any way. In fact, even if the action were in violation of Commons policy (which this was not), it would still not be unlawful.

There are two problems here. First, the file description says that the photographer was Kimberley Garner herself. It does not look like a selfie, so I suspect that the actual photographer is another person, who is, therefore, the copyright holder.

Second, "requested that I use this photo on their Wikipedia page/article" is not sufficient. Images on Commons and WP:EN must be freely licensed for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use (posters, t-shirts, etc) and derivative works.

In order to restore the image, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. If that person is not the photographer, then the e-mail must include written evidence of the copyright license or transfer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. --Daphne Lantier 20:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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


La imagen se basa en desarrollo digital de maqueta del Plan Parcial para el barrio del Jarama desarrollada por mi con sotfwar skechup pro e insertada en google earth.

Google permite el uso "público" de su programa Google Earth para georeferenciar diseños arquitectónicos, de ordenación del paisaje y urbanísticos, que son propiedad intelectual de sus respectivos autores, y que sólo son visibles en el PC de los particulares en los que está instalado el programa. No procede por tanto pedir el borrado de la imagen alegando incumplimiento de los derechosde autor, siendo el desarrollo de un trabajo propio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisangelzas (talk • contribs) 15:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This file has not been deleted. Please make comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Luisangelzas. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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


No precede alegar violación de los derechos de autor para solicitar el borrado de esta imagen. Se trata de variante de modelo digital desarrollado con licencia legal de SkechUp Pro y subido a la aplicación de Google Earth, siendo el uso del mismo "público" y usado para georeferenciar proyectos arquitectónicos, de ordenación del paisaje y/o urbanísticos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisangelzas (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : Obviously not. Google Earth is not free. --Yann (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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


Google Help> Google Earth Help> More Information> Legal and Privacy Issues> Legal Issues> Using Images

Legal issues: Using images We are flattered to know that you are going to incorporate Google Earth into your online world. You can personally use images from the app (for example, on your website, blog, or word processor) as long as you retain copyright and attribution notices, including the Google logo. However, you may not sell them to third parties, offer them as part of a service, or use them in a commercial product, such as a book or television program, without obtaining the necessary permissions from Google previously.

The image is based on digital model google earth treated digitally creating a different variant of the original by the author of it.

For all these reasons it is not appropriate to ask for the erasure of the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisangelzas (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : Obviously not. Google Earth is not free. --Yann (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

File:United Bengal.png

Ticket:2017042610024422 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.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Daphne Lantier: Jeff is a OTRS volunteer, and the file as a OTRS pending tag. It seems reasonable to restore it. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I sent the permission via OTRS and provided may evidence why its not violating any copyright . As i am not a experienced wikipedians . Confusion or mistake may happen . Can i know the fate of this file ? Aziz Tarak. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz Tarak. (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Aziz Tarak.: Please do not delete vast swaths of others' work here any more without good reason, and sign your work.
Administrators: The preceding text by me, Yann, and Aziz prior to 20:10, 28 April 2017 was copied from Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-04#File:United_Bengal.png, which I believe was improperly closed. Yann and I have access to the OTRS ticket from the inside, Aziz has access to it from the outside via email, and Daphne Lantier has no access to it and is a new Administrator. I respectfully request that Daphne Lantier reconsider or an Administrator with access to the ticket take a second look. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  Done: restored and will await OTRS proccessing. --Daphne Lantier 22:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)