Commons:Undeletion requests


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎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 [[:Image: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 Edit


Per OTRS ticket 2016031510005968, I request the restoration of the files from Prensa Presidencia. As many user already know, all the contents of all the websites from the Government of Chile are licensed under the {{CC-GobCL}} license according to the Ord. 112/14 of December 2010 (that is mandatory), and this include any of these websites, even if them lacks of the link to the CC-BY license and even if the page contains any restriction statement (these restrictions are just invalid and I requested the updating of the website to be aligned with the Ord. 112/14 of December 2010). (the request at the OTRS Noticeboard is more related with the issue with mail delivery).

Please restore these files as soon as possible in order to be checked by me. The licensing of the contents published by the Government of Chile at its websites after December 2010 shouldn't be questioned anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

[One again, ignoring the bold... ] Just advising, that I was engaged in some discussion with that topic, especially via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inicio de las obras de la nueva Línea 6 de Metro.jpg... well, I have no desire [in German: Ich habe kein Bock...] to re-engage in this discussion (and I can't see the OTRS-ticket). For now, I only rechecked some links and copyrights of related sites via my comment Special:diff/152187162 from 03.2015 and... well: after now 6 years they remain as they were (as also some related Flickr accounts, see discussion). As I already said in 2015: I would say: it is a mess... . So... do what you want, I don't care anymore. Currently, I am trying to identify Cross-wiki uploads from which are +/- 85% bad... Good luck. Gunnex (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that there is unclear copyright status. I think OTRS permission is needed. Poké95 11:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
1.- I started this thread with OTRS ticket. An OTRS volunteer already answered to me and confirmed its reception, as well the validity of the answer form the Presidency of Chile. Just ask to the OTRS team how many tickets related to {{CC-GobCL}} received... overwhelming.
2.- The Ord. 112/14 of December 2010 is very clear and applies to every content found in every digital platform (aka. Websites) published by every organism of the Government of Chile (most of them after december 30, 2010, and this was explained for years. Neither disclamier at websites can supersede this official document. Several organism of the State of Chile (Presidency, SEGEGOB, DIBAM, etc.) given the same answer for every Transparency requests by B1mbo and Me.
Again, neither user (specially foreign ones) should questionate our legislation and how it is applied, there is already concensus about this and no doubts should have anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Howicus← ticket owner. @Amitie 10g: Has there been discussion here on Commons that agrees with your reading of the Chilean law? If so, it might be relevant to link it here. I can't find any relevant discussion (using "Chile" as the search term) at COM:VPC. Storkk (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Alan: (as Spanish-native talking user) already know this situation and already checked previous OTRS tickets related to the Ord. 112/14 of 2010. Alan, please check this ticket, too.
Just AGF and undelete the files, the scope of the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 was explined for more than a year, and it is the only document that establish the licensing for works fro the Government of Chile in its digital platforms. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I really do believe you are acting in good faith... but assuming good faith (see Commons:Assume_good_faith#Good_faith_and_copyright) is irrelevant to this discussion: I'm wondering whether your interpretation of Chilean law has been agreed with by anyone else here. The question isn't whether you are trying to comply with copyright law, but rather whether you are correct. Storkk (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Just restore the files, please. If the admins are too fast when deleting files following the little proof of Gunnex and his misinterpretation of the legislation of Chile, why the admins are too slow to restore these files with the proof that I given (four or five OTRS tickes with the same answer from the Government of Chile)? --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I am personally unconvinced, and am waiting for you to show that at least one other person whose copyright opinions are generally respected agrees with your interpretation of this law. You mentioned a single ticket (ticket:2016031510005968)... which are the other three or four? Storkk (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
What? Why you're still questioning the message from the Presidency of Chile and questionating an Ordinance published more that 5 years ago? So Symbol wtf vote.svg WTF?. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No, as I have continually said, I am questioning your interpretation. Storkk (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent, I want to explicitly state that ticket:2016031510005968 does not contain a release under a free license. "Creative Commons Atribución" and "CC-BY" are not free licenses, this isn't a matter of Chilean copyright law.    FDMS  4    10:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
FDMS4, I don't understand your comment. "Creative Commons Atribución", which is the same thing as "CC-BY" is a "free license" as we understand those words here on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: When releases lacked a CC suite version number, files were generally (from what I've seen) always deleted since there is no way of knowing which legal text exactly they are referring to.    FDMS  4    14:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, is true that the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 don't mention the specific version of the CC-BY licnense, but most of the organisms (starting with adopted the CC-BY-3.0 Chile license. Should we accept this implicit adoptation of that specific license, or I should communicate directly with the SEGEGOB? (considering that I already requested Transparency information (answer pending), asking if the CC-BY-3.0 Chile is the license offically adopted, and what document ratificate it). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any policy that calls for deletion of a file that is marked CC-BY without a version number. The summaries at and are word for word identical. While the two full versions are different, the differences are by way of clarification and do not change the basic legal theory underlying the license. I have no problem at all with accepting CC-BY-3.0 as the intention of the Chilean government -- or perhaps the latest version in existence at the time the law was passed? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not a Commons policy (other than COM:PCP), it's copyright. When an upload of mine got deleted back in 2014, it confused me a lot, therefore I asked around onwiki (ping Jkadavoor) and on the CC IRC channel, and the response I got was that one cannot assume what the copyright holder meant unless he explicitly refers to the legal text of a license. This makes perfect sense (I was quite new back in 2014) since a license is simply much more than its summary – when CC updated their license suite, they did make some changes that can make a big difference in court.    FDMS  4    20:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall that happening much. We probably just assume the most recent version number, even though legally yes it would be better to point at a version. If on the other hand something just says a "Creative Commons" license without specifying which one, that is a problem. There isn't that much difference between the CC-BY versions in terms of intent though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Got the ping; so this comment. Yes; we can't assume the copyright holder's intention on version number and country porting. The differences between versions may be marginal; but there are indeed some differences on handling attribution, adaptations, etc. Otherwise we can ignore the previous versions and move to newer one whenever CC release new versions.
There were a lot of previous related discussions at VP and AN earlier when attempting to change the redirects of Template:CC-BY and Template:CC-BY-SA to latest versions; all rejected based on these arguments. I can't find the links from my weak Internet; but think Denniss had some similar arguments (like mine). Jee 02:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I can understand not changing the version that a file is pointing to, but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that a tag of "this file is CC-BY" has no legal effect, to the point we actually delete them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
We have a slightest consensus to consider CC BY as CC BY 1.0 which is the initial version. But that version is almost obsolete. The latest version (4.0) is not acceptable to all due to some reasons. I don't know how we can get into a consensus to assume CC BY=CC BY 3.0. Even if accept such files, we may forced to take them down when asked by the copyright holder due to this vagueness. Keeping files until there is a complaint is against COM:PCP. Jee 04:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that that is a reasonable doubt. I don't think 4.0 was current at the time of the statement in question, so agreed on that, but whatever was current at the time would seem to be reasonable. And I think versions 2.0+ allow a work to be used under any later version anyways -- it's not like mixing a CC-BY-2.0 work in a CC-BY-3.0 derivative is a copyright problem. I'm not so sure we would be forced to take them down. Now, it's possible that the instruction in question was basically an order that material should be released with such a license, while perhaps allowing some exceptions, but not an actual release itself -- that could be different. It's one thing to have a policy, but perhaps another to make an actual release. But while I think it's best that OTRS press for a specific version if possible, I don't think deletion is the answer if the version is the only issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I've no objection if this is accepted uniformly. My memory, in my OTRS time, we asked for version number when not mentioned. I had asked same question in CC mailing list and the answer was also version number is a must. (if I remember well) Jee 16:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
COM:ET does indeed state that a version number is required (since 2011).    FDMS  4    20:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Considering that the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 effectively does not specify the exact version of the CC-BY license, I already contacted to the SEGEGOB three weeks ago, asking what is the exact license officially adopted by the Government of Chile (we accepted implicitly the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Chile license for years, considering that most of the Government websites —like— have a link to the CC-BY-3.0 Chile license), but their answer was not satisfactory, so I requested a Denying reclamation. Therefore, I just contacted to the Departamento de Derechos Intelectuales of the DIBAM (at the time to requested an interview), in an attemp to get reliable information about the licensing, at the time to urge the SEGEGOB to give a reliable answer. That answer will be mandatory. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Un sacco bello Ruggero.png

And File:Unsaccobello33.jpg

Based on this close, this other one and the subsequent discussion, I assume the URAA issue should be ignored and the image restored. This is an almost exactly identical case, it changes only the year of release (this one is two years older). --Cavarrone (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The movie was released in Italian, Spanish, Polish and English. Therefore it was almost certainly not affected by URAA because it already had a US copyright, which will last until 2075. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:, the movie was never released in the US, as far as I know. I cannot find any evidence it was ever released in English, too. Which are your evidences it has a US copyright? Cavarrone (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
See IMDB where it explicitly calls out an English version and title. That puts it beyond a significant doubt that it was released in the USA since it is very unlikely that they produced an English version and released it only in the smaller UK market. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward:, for the record, IMDB does NOT explicitly nor implicity calls out any English version, a large majority of Italian films have English titles for the international market without ever being screened in the US, and sometimes without ever being screened anywhere outside Italy (eg,. see here, where just a half dozen of these films were actually released in the US). I personally doubt that any Carlo Verdone's film was ever distribuited in the US. Even Amori Miei, i.e. the 1978 Italian film you closed as kept here has, according to IMDB, an alternative English title of My Loves, yet I strongly doubt it was ever released in the US as well. If these films were actually released in the US, we should find somewhere some actual evidence, but please let's avoid just unsubstantiated speculations based on an unreliable user-generated website. Cavarrone (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It's up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is PD. I think that the fact that IMDB lists it as having an English title suggests strongly that it was released in the USA -- you disagree, but it is up to you to prove your point and proving a negative is difficult. Carl also raises the point in another case here that if the movie -- even the Italian version -- had a copyright notice, then it has had a US copyright since its release in Italy and therefore did not have a URAA restoral. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
James Woodward, with respect, your argument about proving a film not being released in the US does not make any sense, what do you expect to find, a source saying "Un sacco bello, a film released in Italy in 1980, was not released in the US?". IMDB itself, your supposed proof, besides being user-generated (i.e. unreliable), do not report any release date in the US. On the contrary, when a film is distribuited in the US it is way common to find at least basic informations about release dates, distribution company, screenings, the US poster, etc., at least some of them, and both of us were unable to find any of them in this case. Also, even the 1978 Italian film you closed as kept here has an English title listed in IMDB, yet you closed it as kept (the other one has not just because [1] is called that way in English as well in all the languages). And the Carl's concerns applies to the files you closed as keep as well as to this file. I would be fine with "let's wait and investigate about a possible US release", but saying "an English title suggests strongly that it was released in the USA" sounds like a joke and taking the piss out of me. Especially as after your closes I questioned about these files and about their possible undeletion in your talk page and you did not responded other than URAA is not applied on Commons, it's quite bizarre and definitely unfair you are now raising any sort of conspiracy-theorist-alike doubt when you had noone a few hours ago, nor you had any of them when you kept images with a perfectly overlapping context with an opposite opinion and closure. To be frank, it looks like you are trying to distinguish at any cost pretty identical situations just to avoid to have your closes above scrutinized or maybe reversed. But wathever the files will be restored is the minor point here (after all, it was me who originally nominated them for deletion), I think as an administrator you should have more respect for the volunteers who spend a lot of time working for Commons and the other Wikiprojects and avoid the "taking the piss out" game. --Cavarrone (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think, for U.S. law, it matters where it was distributed -- just that such distributions (if before 1989) had a copyright notice. Since copyright notices were part of the possibilities in the Universal Copyright Convention, and Italy was a member, it's entirely possible that producers of works were aware of that issue and added notices to some works -- and was probably more common in the 1970s and later as awareness of copyright issues spread. Secondly, there is a particular problem with still frames of movies, given the different treatment of them in U.S. and Italian law. For Italy, they have the 20-year PD-Italy term. For the U.S., they are just part of the movie which has its own copyright. For the U.S., they would probably just consider whether the movie itself was always copyright (i.e. had a copyright notice), and for the URAA, whether the movie itself got restored. I don't think the previous "keeps" took these issues into account, so yes they could well still be problems. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Cavarrone, I freely acknowledge that I make mistakes -- we all do -- copyright as a whole is a very complex subject and we're all learning the subtleties of it daily. If you look back through my talk page archives you'll see many cases where I reversed myself when an error or new facts was brought to my attention.
The whole URAA question is a mess -- it's clear that many of our colleagues, including me, think that the URAA is a bad law -- why should the US extend copyrights far beyond those granted in the originating country? On the other hand, I take Carl's opinions very seriously, so my handling of short copyrights -- Italian and others -- will change and I may reopen the Italian DRs that I closed earlier as keeps.
And, by the way, the way you prove things here is to do the research. The Italian version of the whole movie is at and there is no copyright notice. I have found the movie's poster in Italian and Spanish, but not English. Carl what do you think, given that? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
If there was no notice, then it would have been PD in the US (provided it wasn't registered with the US Copyright Office within 5 years but that seems like a rather faint likelihood). The US copyright would then have been lost, but restored by the URAA. So, it's purely a URAA question at this point then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


I accidentally deleted my only copy of this file and would like it back.

Regarding permission, I will schedule a call (or video call) with the artist and his wife who will together grant permission for its use. I will need a Japanese speaker from the Wikipedia organization to communicate with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwh2010 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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. Storkk (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cwh2010: Please don't schedule a call, since the way we work with our permission archival system is much more amenable to text emails. By far the best way forward would be to point the sculptor to Commons:OTRS/ja, which contains the required permission email in Japanese, and also contains instructions in Japanese. Please have them put "[Ticket#2012102210012109]" in the subject line if possible, and they should reference "File:Omine-Jissei-shisa.jpg" in the email. I understand it might be impossible to communicate with them effectively if you have lost your copy of the photo, so I'd be prepared to send you a low-resolution copy of it that should be sufficient to identify the sculptures in question. Please let me know if you want me to do this. If you are still using the same email address, I will just reply to the ticket, if not please use the "Email this user" function. I don't speak Japanese, so if/when the ticket comes through, I hope whym, who tried to help last time, would be willing to lend a hand again. Storkk (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

File talk:CC-BY icon.svg

File talk:CC-BY icon.svg was deleted out of process, and the reasons for this deletion are now ancient history. Please restore and blank the talk page. –Be..anyone 💩 06:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Restore and blank? I see little point in that. While it probably should not have been a {{speedy}}, the remarks were wrong (they confused trademark and copyright) and it was an inappropriate use of a file talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you folks intending to follow your own policies at some point in time? The speedy deletion violated the speedy deletion policy, and after my observation was archived it has to be fixed here. –Be..anyone 💩 13:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The only difference would be having that history available to read for those so inclined. Is there a good enough reason for that? It can sometimes help to see that an action was done before, to prevent the same action from being done again, so sometimes discussion on a file can be helpful to keep even if an original comment was mistaken. As for undeletion... it doesn't *have* to happen, if admins look at the content and think it should still remain deleted, even if for reasons other than the original. I'm not sure why discussing legal issues of a file would be inappropriate use of a file talk page though... we try to keep links to kept DRs on that page, for example, for people looking there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps my choice of "inappropriate" was inappropriate. What I meant was that making comments about a file's licensing on its talk page is more or less useless, since file talk pages are very rarely looked at by anyone. If there is a problem with licensing, the correct step is a {{delete}} so that it can be discussed in the full view of the community.
I still don't understand "Please restore and blank the talk page." Why restore it in order to blank it? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The uploader often sees it, which can be a lower-key discussion before it goes to the full community. But yes, typically no action would be taken if the discussion is simply left there. I'm not sure why you'd blank it either -- archiving would seem more appropriate if that was warranted, but I can't see the discussion either, and if it got out of hand. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's one of two reasons, the page with questionable comments was also edited by me. And the other reason is that if admins don't follow policies we can simply trash those policy pages and run this shop based on the five pillars incl. IAR for non-admin edits. –Be..anyone 💩 16:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand "Yes, that's one of two reasons, the page with questionable comments was also edited by me." The page had only one edit and that was a comment by Elvey. The comment is wrong, because it does not distinguish between Creative Commons copyright and its rules for the use of its trademark, but it is not heated, controversial, or in any way a problem. I still don't understand why Be..anyone wants to restore and blank a non-controversial incorrect comment made by another user 18 months ago. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I confused it with lots of closely related CC-icon talk pages, where I added {{edit request}}s or other comments about invalid SVGs and Rillke's law. November 2014 is really ancient, I had it in a subpage with pending undeletion requests waiting for the admin to archive the corresponding thread on their talk pages. –Be..anyone 💩 05:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Be..anyone, are you withdrawing this request? If so, it can be closed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
No evidence so far that any involved admin accepts the idea that IAR SHOULD be limited to "editing without special rights" (it also affects staff etc., the other example is linked on my user page.) –Be..anyone 💩 19:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Be..anyone, Jameslwoodward: I'm not really sure how this can be closed at the moment. Be..anyone - would you consider me to be an uninvolved admin? Would everyone be happy if I restored, responded to the incorrect comment stating "That's a COM:NCR, not a copyright issue", and left it at that (no blanking or archiving). Not really sure it will accomplish anything other than close this section, but if it's a process issue that Be..anyone feels strongly about, and it's not a problematic restoration, and there are no clear objections, then why not? Storkk (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine with me, thank you for taking the initiative here -- I think the restoration is pointless, which is why I objected to it above, but if it will get this UnDR closed, fine. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Also fine with me. –Be..anyone 💩 20:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no need to restore this orphaned talkpage. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question In my experience, "orphaned talkpage" means a talk page for an image that, for whatever reason, does not exist. Under that definition, the talk page of File:CC-BY_icon.svg is not "orphaned". If you still oppose, could you please clarify? Storkk (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Fatemeh Hosseini 1394.jpg and File:Fatemeh Hosseini 1394 (cropped).jpg

Please restore File:Fatemeh Hosseini 1394.jpg and File:Fatemeh Hosseini 1394 (cropped).jpg. These images marked as copyright violation because License Reviewer could not find them on source page but if you look at source page you can find original image(Third row, third photo). Regards In2wiki (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Also this image which is extracted from File:Fatemeh Hosseini 1394.jpg(Deleted image) and has same source and license info has passed license review. I think in 1000 license reviews these errors are normal. In2wiki (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support All photos on source page were taken by Hamed Malekpour, Tasnim News Agency/AP. Operating under the assumption that the files are indeed from said website (non-admin; can't see ofc), the files should be restored and tagged with {{Tasnim}} if not already done. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert deleted files

(Cancellazioni); 02:05 . . Jcb (Discussione | contributi) ha cancellato la pagina File:Grottaminarda (AV), 2010, il Castello d'Aquino. (4272173520).jpg ‎(Copyright violation: no FOP in Italy)

All files are correct, see Category:Fiore S. Barbato and OTRS ticket:2011111910039525 proves the change of license.--Threecharlie (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Threecharlie: The ticket a forwarded confirmation from the photographer that he has changed the Flickr license on his photos. The photos above all appear to be derivatives of architectural works. If those architectural works are still under copyright protection (which lasts for 70 years after the death of the architect), then Fiore Barbato is unable to properly license the photographs and they are copyright violations. Please read COM:Freedom of Panorama for more information. Some parts of the Castello d'Aquino might be public domain due to age, but the windows here appear quite modern. Since it was renovated in 1980, we would need to know exactly what was rebuilt/redesigned before restoring the photos without a release from the architects. I'd Symbol support vote.svg Support undeleting the two subterranean photos, and possibly the fresco as they appear ancient, but Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the others. Storkk (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
What about Bivongi? Also, I think deleting the plaque is unnecessary. I'd recover that myself if that's ok. --Elitre (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Based on there being no mention of reconstruction on San_Giovanni_Theristis, I'd also Symbol support vote.svg Support File:Bivongi (RC), 2009, Monastero Greco Ortodosso di San Giovanni Theristis. (4268241545).jpg... but still Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose File:Grottaminarda (AV), 2010, il Castello d'Aquino- lapide di epoca fascista. (4272172478).jpg as I doubt it's uncopyrightable and as a work from 1935, the author is unlikely to have died before 1945... or am I missing something? Storkk (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Alexandra Elbakyan - 2010.jpg

I see a log entry "01:00, 9 April 2016 User:Jcb (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Alexandra Elbakyan - 2010.jpg (Copyright violation: Derived from " Well, the /wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ looks suspiciously like it is a mirror of Wikipedia, so what I am reading is that this picture got deleted because it was copied to some fork, and then an admin here confused derivative work with the original. I fed this image to the Google Image search and it didn't give me any hits. At the very least, we should have a discussion with the info on the uploader, license, OTRS and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The photo is used in an "about me" box on with a link to a facebook profile. The profile uses a smaller version of the photo, the server claims document.lastModified 2013-11-01 (or 2013-01-11). –Be..anyone 💩 07:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
It was only uploaded in April. Was it on en-wiki under another name or something? I think another blog system uses "wp-content" and has nothing to do with Wikipedia (wordpress, probably). The uploader is very experienced so it would be rather surprising if it was simply lifted from a copyrighted source though. Per the Google cache, the source was at Flickr, which is licensed OK, and it certainly was on Flickr before the "derived from" upload mentioned, so the deletion reason is bogus. That looks like an organization's Flickr page, but it does not look like photos actually taken then -- seems like it was photos of speakers at an upcoming conference, so they were probably collected from various sources. It's possible they got permission to license them that way, but humanity+ would not be the author nor (in almost all likelihood) the copyright owner either, so it's unclear what the licensing permission was. Definitely deserving of a regular DR but without further info, I may lean towards deletion in the end. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Untitled, 2015, ink on mylar, 75x53".jpg

File:Linn Meyers, today and tomorrow4.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, every now and again.jpg
File:Untitled, 2012.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, Every now. And again., 2011.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, Untitled, 2011.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, Untitled , 2011.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, at the time being, 2010.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, Blue Study, 2013.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, Every now. And again. (Detail), 2011.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, at the time being, 2010, Ink on wall, 11' x 23'.jpg
File:Meyers, Untitled, 2011.jpg
File:Untitled, ink on Mylar, 2013.jpg

Permission in OTRS ticket:2016031710002243. Image is identical to the one attached to the OTRS ticket --Rrburke (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple duplicates and a few different photographers, and a couple on enwiki... Storkk (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


  1. File:Untitled, 2015, ink on mylar, 75x53".jpg ✓ Done
  2. File:Linn Meyers, today and tomorrow4.jpgen:WP:REFUND
  3. File:Linn Meyers, every now and again.jpgen:WP:REFUND
  4. File:Untitled, 2012.jpgen:WP:REFUND
  5. File:Linn Meyers, Every now. And again., 2011.jpg  Not done (see #10)
  6. File:Linn Meyers, Untitled, 2011.jpg EXIF credits Lee Stalsworth/Rolling Thunder... Symbol support vote.svg Support as a faithful representation of a 2D work of art, I find it difficult to believe that (at least in the US), this would have separate copyright... but I'd like a second admin's opinion.
  7. File:Linn Meyers, Untitled , 2011.jpg ✓ Done
  8. File:Linn Meyers, at the time being, 2010.jpg includes another artist's work bang in the center... it might be PD or it might be possible to crop/blank it out, needs more research. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now.
    1. ✓ Done - central painting is File:Vincent_van_Gogh_-_The_Road_Menders_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg, so PD. Storkk (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  9. File:Linn Meyers, Blue Study, 2013.jpg Exif credits Lee Stalsworth/Fine Art through Photography, LLC... but similar to #6: Symbol support vote.svg Support
  10. File:Linn Meyers, Every now. And again. (Detail), 2011.jpg ... #5 and #14 are inferior duplicates... EXIF credits a Brian Forrest. I'm not sure we don't need his permission as well: it's a picture of two painted walls at right angles. Each is 2D, but it could be argued the whole is 3D... I don't know.
  11. File:Linn Meyers, at the time being, 2010, Ink on wall, 11' x 23'.jpg  Not done inferior duplicate of #8
  12. File:Meyers, Untitled, 2011.jpg ✓ Done
  13. File:Untitled, ink on Mylar, 2013.jpg ✓ Done
  14. File:"Every_now._And_again."_2011,_Hammer_Museum,_Los_Angeles,_CA_ink_on_wall.jpg  Not done (see #10)
Storkk (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Temporarily undeleted File:Linn Meyers, Every now. And again. (Detail), 2011.jpg, File:Linn Meyers, Blue Study, 2013.jpg and File:Linn Meyers, Untitled, 2011.jpg to allow Rrburke to investigate on OTRS. Storkk (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I seem to have gotten slightly mixed up... the EXIF on the Brian Forrest photograph of 5, 10, and 14 is on 14, so I've temporarily undeleted File:"Every_now._And_again."_2011,_Hammer_Museum,_Los_Angeles,_CA_ink_on_wall.jpg as well, and it may actually be the superior copy - I think I was led astray by thinking it was artificially zoomed in, where it may just be out of focus. Storkk (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Tres mares.jpg

Ticket#2016011310024785 seems to be valid, but the file was deleted due the OTRS tag was not placed in the file. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The ticket does not seem to be in a permission queue. Ankry (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: please use ticket:2016011310024785-style links. Your template usage doesn't work. TicketID is not the same as TicketNumber, this has confused me in the past too. Storkk (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


Ticket#2015121410027618 was sent two days after the deletion and seems to be valid. If the file is actually Own work, then, the deletion rationale was not valid. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

How can you determine if the file is a clone of [2] and not the otherwise? Get a preview of the SVG at the resolution that matches the PNG. If checksum matches, then, the Government of Peru used the file at Commons. Also, the SVG contains several free elements already in Commons.
How can you determine if a CoA is based on a graphic rather than a Blazon? The both Coa that you mentioned are totally different, but appears to be heraldicaly equivalent. So, you cant (and shouldn't) claim that if a CoA graphic is a DW of another one, because both are based in the same blazon. Also, the SVG contains several elements already available at Commons, so, is very hard that the uploader copied the CoA from the website of the Government of Peru. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I cannot determine any of those things, but I can clearly determine that the ticket contains no mention that they created it from the blazon. Storkk (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
You're right, and the description contains just Own work and no details about heraldry. But, some considerations should be taken:
  1. You shouldn't consider a specific version of a CoA as based on another specific version (specially if them are very different graphicaly but heraldicaly equivalent).
  2. And about the both equivalent graphics, the SVG seems to be sightly lighter then the one found in the website of the Government of Peru. But, by seeing the graphic closer and doing a deeper research, the crown is used in several other files at Commons like this, and several files depicted in this article. Therefore, this SVG looks like a job of a Wikimedia Heraldic artists rather than a more elaborate raster graphic from someone else like this non-free CoA.
So, what do you think? --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the image might have been taken from here, which is why I said that in my initial reply. I've given my opinion, which is that we need a more explicit statement regarding what the image is based on, but other admins are free to differ (as always). Note that unlike some other requests, I have not {{oppose}}d this undeletion request, I have simply given comments and declined to carry it out myself. Storkk (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I strongly think that there is copyfraud from the Government of Peru and not the otherwise. The uploader still claiming that he is the author of the SVG, and I just trust him. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I think that is quite likely took it from here. In any case, I believe we need a statement regarding what the drawing was based on. If it was derivative of the blazon, OK.. if it was derivative of a very old COA, OK... if it was derivative of a non-PD COA, then we have a problem. I think that without any statement to the contrary, the last is the most likely. This will probably be my last comment on this section: I've said everything I can say about it. Storkk (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you forget to ask yourself have the CoA elements taken from one or more files already in Commons? (the crown for example). I'm not criticizing your doubt, but there is little proof of a DW of anything than graphics already found at Commons. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. Take for example, this collage. If all the small images that made it up were PD, it would still be a derivative of the photo of Obama. In this case, if all the components were CC (and properly credited (!)), we still need to know on what original the image was based. Storkk (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This was temporarily undeleted by Thibaut120094 to allow for investigation. Storkk (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: I sended a message to the uploader, asking what elements is based (or "inspired") the CoA (namely, if the uploaded based in the Blazon, or a specific graphic) (at least, the crown already exists in Commons and is used in several CoAs). --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter how old the design is, or that the SVG is "based on" a general design (an idea); it is not derivative of the blazon. See Commons:Coats of arms. Each different drawing of the seal is its own copyright. To be derivative, you are looking to see if the exact same lines etc. were copied from another version -- always possible. (For a photograph, you are looking to see if it is the exact same angle, framing etc. as the original photo -- so yes that collage is derivative.) The image Gunnex found has a server date in 2015, and the SVG was uploaded in 2016 by the looks of it (unless there are old deleted revisions). Those versions are basically identical -- so identical in fact that the .png version on the Peru site was obviously generated from a vector version. The uploaded SVG is exactly that same vector version -- it's too close to have been traced or otherwise created from the .png; it had to be the other way around -- the .png is definitely generated from a vector. Given the dates though, that is harder to explain unless there is a vector version somewhere else out there (or the uploader made it available somewhere else first). The other bitmap version listed above looks to be an utterly different drawing and so there is no copied expression; that would seem to be irrelevant. I do see the same uploader also uploaded File:Bandera_Chacas.svg much earlier which was deleted about the same time -- if the flag has the same graphic, that would explain how the vector came to be (the Peru site would have just extracted the seal from the flag), and would seem to make sense. Was the deletion of that flag SVG also incorrect, or was there better reasoning for that? If the flag SVG seems fine, and using components from other SVG files available here strongly suggests it was at least somewhat an original work done directly by a Commons contributor, then I'd probably support undeletion. The Google cache of the flag seems to show a different author than the uploader though, but it sure feels like it was probably licensed OK at some point, at worst on a local wikipedia before transfer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the in-depth analysis and corrections, Carl. File:Bandera_Chacas.svg appears to be essentially this file on a blue field. I guess all that remains would be to credit the creators of the original elements. The crown appears to be this one, which is PD-self by HansenBCN... are all other elements PD? Storkk (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Therefore, if File:Bandera Chacas.svg contains the same CoA, shoudl not be temporary undeleted too? The uploader insists that the CoA is his own work and I believe it, but, as I mentioned above, I sended a message to the uploader for more info. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably. Was it a valid deletion? Or did someone remove a license tag which resulted it being deleted for no permission a year and a half after upload? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
It was deleted after being tagged with {{no permission since}} for 8 days. I would oppose temporary undeletion, since its restoration is not necessary to the investigation of its copyright status, however it should be undeleted if this file remains undeleted, as the issues are identical. We have seen that the uploader has taken credit for at least one element that they did not create personally, and while that may be OK because it was licensed PD-self, it does not fill me with confidence that the other elements were all created by the uploader (e.g. the shield). And given that many of our heraldic elements appear to be licensed CC-BY-SA/GFDL rather than PD, I don't think we can just assume they all were PD. Storkk (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Technically, if something is PD, credit is not required (though still a good idea). The crown has been used on a *lot* of CoAs here, as a Google images search shows. I think the other file had a different author than uploader -- if that is the case, they are the author of this file too from the sounds of it. Was there a good reason for the no-permission tag? Was there a license on the file? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Same author. It was tagged by Gunnex as needing permission on 2016-01-23. I agree that taking the crown is probably OK license-wise, if perhaps poor form... I am trying to say that taking the crown while claiming own work throws much doubt on whether (eg) the shield is own work. Storkk (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Note, Ondando appears to have been renamed to Lamder. Storkk (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, OK -- that was likely done after seeing it was the same as the CoA here, without realizing that the upload date of the flag invalidated the no-permission tag on both. I think Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion of both at this point. That crown looks like it has been used on hundreds other files, many of them CoAs of Spain or Spanish-speaking countries (such as File:Escudo de Cerratón de Juarros (Burgos).svg or Category:Coats of arms by the Taller de Heráldica y Vexilología in the Spanish Wikipedia among many many others). Looks like using that crown was just standard practice among that community. If you are using it, that means you are at least knowledgable enough to composite elements in a vector image application, and would likely be good enough to create some new drawings as well, and it also indicates that Commons was almost certainly the initial upload of the work. So... no real reason to doubt the license, from what I see. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
To me the technical quality of the shield appears different enough to the drawings on the shield that I remain unconvinced, and won't restore it myself. I do not oppose restoration if another admin sees it differently and finds the authorship claim credible. If closed as {{done}}, File:Bandera Chacas.svg should also be undeleted. Storkk (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Entirely possible that that was also a stock component, though I can't find examples elsewhere. But the uploader has done a number of SVG seals, and there is a community on es-wiki it looks like which collaborates with these. Either way, the initial deleting reason was incorrect (though at first it looked reasonable), and therefore there is no reason not to assume good faith, to me. So, I'd support undeleting both. Improving source documentation is always welcome but I don't see anything which would warrant deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


The files:

Uploader confirmed that the files are released into the PD. Please temporary restore in order to confirm if are actually in the PD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitie 10g (talk • contribs)

Then, is possible to send the files to my email address (or at least the links loicated at external sources) for further research? --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At the OTRS ticket, I see a series of e-mails from the uploader at a g-mail address all of which say the following with different file names:
"Por el presente se otorga permiso para la publicación del archivo ALMA MATER (MARCHA).ogg"
That is nothing like an irrevocable free license. There is no evidence that the uploader has anything to do with the source or the authors of the files and, therefore, no evidence that he has the right to allow publication of the files. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This seems plausible for me. I still have my suspicions, but I'll trust you (but I still want these files to research deeper). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Gerő Ernő Magyar Rádió 1955 FP 56202.jpg

This image depicts Gerő Ernő, a Hungarian Communist politician prominent around the middle of the 20th century. The source of the image is Fortepan, an open repository of historical photographs. Fortepan receives "donations" of photographs from copyright holders (photographers, collections, media publications). "Donation" in this sense means placing the image under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and providing Fortepan with a copy for posting, so Fortepan does not become the copyright holder, nor does it claim to be. Subsequent users are asked to satisfy the "BY" part of the license by giving credit in the following format: "FOTO:FORTEPAN / name of donor". Donors warrant and represent that they are the copyright holders, and they agree to place the image under CC-BY-SA-3.0.

In this instance, the donor is Rádió és Televízió Újság, a weekly magazine about radio and TV programs. The name of the staff photographer taking the picture is not known, but that is beside the point: §30, section (7) of the Hungarian Copyright Act makes the magazine (as employer) the copyright holder, and they as licensors want to be credited as "Rádió és Televízió Újság".

The deleting admin gave three different reasons for the deletion:

  1. The deletion summary states "Missing permission".
  2. When asked to undelete the image, he refused by saying it was "very unlikely that Fortepan is the copyright holder of all those pictures".
  3. When asked about the actual reason for deletion he said "probably because the author was stated to be Rádió és Televízió Újság, while the real author is the person who takes the picture, not some organization".

To refute each claim:

  1. The image is licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0; it is unclear what additional permission is necessary or why.
  2. Nobody claims that Fortepan is the copyright holder; Fortepan is simply a repository of images licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 by the actual copyright holders.
  3. The actual staff photographer taking the picture is unknown; and Rádió és Televízió Újság, the copyright holder is named as the author. This is standard practice on Commons, for example, File:Reiner gamma.jpg is stated to be authored by NASA, File:Matilda II Tarakan (089970).jpg is stated to be authored by the "Australian military" and File:Tornadic classic supercell radar.gif is attributed to "Storm Prediction Center".

In summary, this is a free image and I see no reason why it should not be kept on Commons. Please undelete it.

--Malatinszky (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find the above persuasive. Do we know whether Fortepan is reasonably rigorous in making sure actual copyright holders are the donors? Any thoughts, Jcb? In some jurisdictions (e.g. UK), even if the employer owns the copyright, it expires 70 years after the actual creator's death, so the actual creator is always desirable to know, but I suppose it shouldn't be required in order to undelete this photograph since it doesn't need to be PD. Storkk (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
How can the Radio and Television Magazine claim that one of their employees is the photographer while at the same time the photographer is unknown? The three examples you mention are photos that are public domain by law and nobody has claimed that this photo is public domain. Thuresson (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I can only theorize: perhaps it was their policy to only use photographers who were their employees, or perhaps it was their policy to always require a transfer of copyright ownership for pictures they print (neither is unrealistic in the context of the Stalinist system in place at the time). In any case, they claim to be the copyright owners, that claim is not unreasonable, and we routinely accept reasonable claims of copyright ownership. Malatinszky (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
A lot of archives assume themselves to be the copyright holder of any material they have a physical print from. That's why we need a reasonable explanation about how they became the copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This photo was made in studio of Hungarian Radio. There is no reason to suppose that the picture was made by anyone else, only one of employees of the magazine (publisher of the magazine was Hungarian Radio, before 1959 its name was Radio Magazine). --Regasterios (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Metodi Shatorov.jpg

Hello! Under the actual Bulgarian Law on the copyright and related rights this photo, I have made several years ago in Pazardzik, Bulgaria, is not a copyright violation. Article 24, paragraph 1, item 5, from the above mentioned law reads as follows: Without the consent of the copyright holder and without payment of remuneration is permitted the use of works constantly exposed on streets, squares and other public places (with exclusion of mechanical contact copying) as well their transmission by wireless means or transmission by cable or other technical ways, if this is done with informative or other non-commercial purposes. I am a lowyer, however I didn't understand why it was deleted. This case is a nonsense. Regards! Jingiby (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The file was deleted because it can only be used for non-commercial purposes. Commons:Licensing says that files should be free for any purpose, including commercial and derivative works. And don't ask why commercial use should be included, because it is part of Wikimedia Commons' mission. And being a lawyer doesn't exempt copyright violations to be deleted. Most of the unpaid volunteers here (including license reviewers) are not lawyers. Thanks, Poké95 08:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jingiby: Please see COM:Licensing/Justifications for an explanation of why we only accept content that allows commercial derivative works. Storkk (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Oval Dreams Audiophile Remix LP Velut Luna 2012.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS ticket:2016030210024784. Paolippe (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


Permission in OTRS ticket:2016030910023978. --Rrburke (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No deleted file with this name. Thuresson (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Thuresson: It is an error with the header. I fixed it. Poké95 07:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Dave Kusek .jpg

This is a file that I own and uploaded and can go into the public domain. Thanks. Unsigned edit by User:Zekemusic

@Zekemusic: Hello, if you're the copyright holder of that file, then please send an email to the OTRS stating that you're the copyright holder of the file and you agree to release it into the public domain (via Creative Commons Zero Public Domain Dedication 1.0). (@Administrators: Can you check if this file is in scope or not). And please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, Poké95 13:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be in scope -- see Dave Kusek. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Restoring two images nominated for deletion by

I am requesting to restore the two images above, because Green Giant and P199 didn't asked the nominator to confirm their identity through OTRS. The anonymous user that nominated these two images uses the IP, which is a proxy server located in Pokhara, Nepal. But the Republic Day Event 2013 image was taken in Pune, which is far from Nepal. This never has been looked nor considered at all. They even nominated a file which was taken in Namaste, New Delhi, which is of course, far from Nepal. It was deleted on Flickr, but that is not the reason to delete it on Commons too. For a more detailed explanation, see Thanks, Poké95 04:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - The IP is actually an Indian IP registered to the Indian public sector BSNL operator and is a range used throughout India for mobile telecom edits, see.
- "Namaste" is the traditional Indian greeting by joining 2 palms together vertically, and is not a place in New Delhi.
- How did you (actually/indirectly WMF globally banned user "Scott") conclude the India Against Corruption group are behind these deletion requests ?
-In the case of the 2nd. image the uploader admitted the photographer's error (probably also the reason why it was also deleted on Flickr by the photographer).
- FYI, I had already reported the very same Wikipedia Sucks Wordpress blog to WMF so that a formal DMCA complaint can be filed to Wordpress take down the site for copy violations and libels. Unfitlouie (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Unfitlouie: But why says it is a proxy server located in Pokhara, Nepal? In my opinion, I would trust the results of, because they can detect proxy servers, unlike There is even reports against that IP. Poké95 09:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Pokéfan95 I don't think UnfitLouoie is saying that they don't trust but that the IP is owned by an Indian telecomms provider registered in New Delhi. In this increasingly globalized era, it is not surprising that a server might be located in another country. The fact that there are complaints against an IP is not unusual; in fact I'd be surprised if there wasn't some complaint about bad behaviour against most IP's. My account used to have an IP-exemption on English Wikipedia because some of the IP addresses that my ISP provided were also used for vandalism by persons unknown and I was caught in a range-block. Look at this in a wider context than just Commons - in roughly the same time-frame the same IP made 11 edits on wikis other than Commons. Should we assume that those edits were made by the same person? Alternatively, we can assume that it could have been several different people. Green Giant (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Pokéfan95 The website itself admits their possibly 50% error rate in geo-location. The authentic ICANN information I linked shows that this IP is actually used for mobile telecom subscribers of BSNL (India's 3rd largest mobile telephone operator) exclusively within India. The term "proxy server" is not the same as "open proxy". Most such mobile telco IPs are default configured as proxy servers because they are used under "roaming" or clients set up mobile hotspots from their handsets. I checked, this IP is on India's National Internet Backbone (or NIB) server is exclusively within India and not allocated for Nepal. Seeing the wide date separation and other edits to WMF sites from this IP, I agree with previous commenter that it is not possible to assume that same person made both deletion requests, or they are necessarily connected. Unfitlouie (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment I have undeleted the Oberoi photo and re-opened the DR because I made the mistake of not asking the IP to go through OTRS. Although Scott makes an assumption in his comment on Odder's talk page, I closed the DR on the basis that the photo was no longer in Flickr and the uploader agreed with deletion. I did have a look through the Flickr user photostream to see if it existed under another name. Indeed there other photos apparently taken in a hotel, but not the one in question. So I assumed that it is quite possible that the photographer has removed the photo in response to a request from the person in the photo, unlike Scott's example of people removing photos from Flickr because they don't want them there anymore. I do find Scott's argument about the parent and child possibility a little odd - "How likely is it, that a 20-something hotel employee in New Delhi has a child at a Wikipedia event in Pune (around 1,500km from New Delhi), and that photos of both of them somehow appear on Commons by different photographers and at different dates?" Given that we know next-to-nothing about the hotel employee, it is a lot of assumptions being made about her. News flash: women can have children at almost any age after they hit puberty. The Oberoi photo was taken in March 2009 and the Pune photo in January 2013, so what is so shocking about the possibility that a "20-something woman" has a kid who is still a kid four years after the first photo. Another news flash: quite a lot of Indians (and I daresay other nationalities) migrate huge distances to work whilst leaving their families in their home town - it has been going on for decades. Hundreds of thousands of Indians work abroad e.g. in the Gulf countries. So, yes it is quite possible that she might work 1,500 km away from her family. Finally, just as Scott has been able to edit by going through a server in Japan (despite him normally living in Australia), I don't find it odd that an IP in Nepal was used twice in a month by someone in India (which is next door to Nepal). Trolling by external websites aside, I don't think it is implausible that a "20-something woman", photographed in 2009, in New Delhi, has a child in an event in Pune, four years and 1,500 km later. To be fair, we don't know that one of the kids in Pune necessarily is the child of the woman in Delhi. Too many variables and too many assumptions being made. Green Giant (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Ich bin der alleinige Erbe der Bilder und Fotos des Künstlers, der die Bilder und Fotos selbst gemacht hat!

Deshalb beantrage ich die Wiederherstellung meiner Änderungen Unsigned edit by User:Güloda

Presumably concerns images nominated for deletion here. To uploader, please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS to proceed. Thuresson (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Padma Vibhushan India Ie Klasse.jpg

The Indian Copyright Act states that copyrights expire on all government works after 60 years. Our COM:COIN#India is based on same lines. I would assume that same applies to this medal issued by the government. The medal was first given in 1954 and the design was then altered in 1955. (See reference on en:Padma Vibhushan.) Counting by 1955, we have surpassed the 60 year limit. Pinging involved editors @Jolly Janner, Jcb:. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I support undeletion on these grounds. Jolly Janner (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

File:61-Point Reqruitment System.pdf

I'm requesting undeletion requesting for the pdf file File:61-Point Reqruitment System which was shared publicly & for acknowledging the fact or information given in it. This file was provided by bangladeshi government institute named 'boesl'. File contains a notice & detailed info as is & permitted to share with all who are interested in it. But admin NahidSultan request a deletion without knowing the file unreasonly showed his masterclass. I respect his manners with all due respect, am requesting an undeletion for this file. & I hope Mr. NahidSultan has an answer for me providing the cause that why did he do that because he didn't left any message providing the reason surprisingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reply2milon (talk • contribs) 12:10, 25 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Please clarify why the file itself is useful for a Wikimedia project. Thuresson (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


I feel that even with the strict copyright norms for UK, this image falls under {{PD-text}}. Requesting undeletion if we all feel so. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Edge logo has little edges on the letter E which does not come with any font typefaces. This logo is plain text. What part of this logo (available in en wiki as File:AnyDecentMusic? (logo).jpg) is eligible for copyright? --Sreejith K (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The gradient color on a background itself also colored, the four colors were not chosen by chance. In a country with a low TOO, as UK or even France, I think it's enough to be protected. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Iberia Express A320.jpeg

Iberia Express image has permission to publish!!

This author has given permission for the publication of their photos in this album. as indicated in this other wikimediacommons publication — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuentaprueba10 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 April 2016‎ (UTC)

File:Der Haldenwald, 1963, Öl auf Leinwand, 40 x 50 cm Der Haldenwald.tiff, File:Günter Senge, Hommage à Fantin Latour, 1979 Vorstand des Vereins Düsseldorfer Künstler.tiff, File:Werkstatt.tiff

Wiederherstellung der Bilder:

File:Der Haldenwald, 1963, Öl auf Leinwand, 40 x 50 cm Der Haldenwald.tiff

File:Günter Senge, Hommage à Fantin Latour, 1979 Vorstand des Vereins Düsseldorfer Künstler.tiff


Bitte um Verständnis, die Bitte um Wiederherstellung der Bilder: s.oben zu wiederholen. Die Bilder wurden gelöscht, weil die Urheberrechte leichtfertig übergangen waren. Inzwischen hat aber Frau Bärbel Senge als die Inhaberin der Urheberrechte für die Gemälde und die Fotos davon zwei Mails geschickt, um die Wiederherstellung der Fotos in dem Wiki-Beitrag "Günter Senge" zu beantragen. Bisher hat es leider keine Reaktionen gegeben - weder dass die Mails beantwortet wurden, noch dass der Wikipedia-Beitrag vervollständigt wurde. Wir sind da nun ziemlich ratlos, wie es weiter gehen könnte, was wir eventuell noch bewerkstelligen könnten/müssten. Hier im Anhang eine Mail von zweien, die Frau Senge an wikimedia geschickt hat. --Mabonagrin (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

<>: host[] said: 550 Address does not exist (in reply to RCPT TO

Hiermit erkläre ich in Bezug auf die Bilder

     File: Der Haldenwald, 1963, Öl auf Leinwand, 40x50 cm Der Haldenwald. tiff
     File: Günter Senge, Hommage à Fantin  Latour, 1979 Vorstand des Vereins Düsseldorfer Künstler.tiff
     File: Werkstatt.tiff
     File: Wintertag in Constantin.tiff.
     File:Fensterbild, Haus mit Kanne.tiff,

dass ich die Rechteinhaberin des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts der aufgezählten Werke bin. Ich bin damit einverstanden, daß alle oben angeführten Bilder, auf welchen die Werke abgebildet sind, unter folgender freier Lizens veröffentlicht werden: Bild-CC-by-sa/3.O/de Ich bitte um die Wiederherstellung der Bilddateien und um deren Einfügung in die Wikipedia- Seite "Günter Senge".

Restauración de imagen retrato del escritor Carlos Liscano File:Liscano nov 2011.JPG

Se trata de una foto de mi archivo, de uso público (libre) por cuanto fue tomada en la Biblioteca Nacional en tanto Liscano era Director General de dicha institución en 2011. En Uruguay tenemos ley de acceso a la información pública. Quien suscribe es asistente personal y abogada de Carlos Liscano y él está perfectamente al tanto de que estoy trabajando en la actualización de la información relativa a su vida y su obra y de que incluí en esta información la foto subida en su página, por lo cual solicito se reponga tal publicación. Atentamente,

Dra Mónica Cardoso usuario Mónica Nero

Unsigned edit by User:Mónica Nero

Photo by Nancy Urrutia, published here. Urrutia is apparently a professional photographer. Thuresson (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Main Jeeliya.ogg Undeletion request

hey there, I am Imran Butt and this song is the property of mine. I am the vocalist of this song and I have all the rights to edit and upload it on any website. Please tell me the procedure of which I can prove that this song is my property. Looking forward for your positive feedback.

You must have permission from the copyright owner/s to distribute and license music and lyrics. Please see COM:OTRS for more information. Thuresson (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)



I'm editing an article for this artist Berneen who is a friend of mine and I got this picture directly from her (Berneen.jpg). But it was deleted for possible copywright violation, which isn't true because she herself send this picture to be on wikipedia. Please let me know what are the opportunities to prove that we use this file legaly? Maybe I should mark a different tag (which one?)? Here is her instagram, where the picture has already been publicised:

Thank you in advance for help.

--Donatabuivyde (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 2016 04 26


@Donatabuivyde: Hello, for a file to remain on Wikimedia Commons, it has to be free for any purpose (including commercial and derivative works). Please ask the copyright holder (Berneen) to send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, Berneen agrees to release their work under a free license (example, CC-BY-SA-4.0) irrevocably. Thanks, Poké95 07:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Donatabuivyde: The copyright holder is not ususally the subject of the photo. This appears to be a studio portrait, and the copyright will almost certainly be held by the photographer, who should confirm the free license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. If Berneen emails us herself, she will need to explain how she came to hold the copyright. Storkk (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Why did you claim to be the copyright owner if you in fact are not? Thuresson (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Flag of Hualien County.svg

This flag belongs to Hualien County in Taiwan. Based on Copyright Act of the Republic of China, this flag shall not be the subject matter of copyright, and is in the public domain in Taiwan administered by the Republic of China. That is, this file never violates any Wiki Common's copyright rules. So, please undelete it and revert all removed links. Thanks a lot. --Akira123 (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


1. It does not violate copyright(s) 2. It has free license of and fair use 3. It is not self-promotion or vandalism 4. It is educationally useful 5. It has no naming issue 6. It is in good quality ShanksofWessex (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Previously published in 2014 [4] and here. Thuresson (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


Published under CC Zero through OTRS Ticket:2016042410008375. --Ruthven (msg) 16:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support but whoa... @Ruthven: I think I am prevented from doing so myself by the confidentiality agreement, but could you please reiterate #2 of your first email to the client here? I think it needs wider input. Storkk (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: I did it to avoid him one more step, but if you think it isn't proper, this will be the first and last time! :) Basically I asked the client who was the author of the image (I haven't access to deleted files here, so I couldn't check it myself) and made him notice that he had already changed the license on Flickr, from copyrighted (I suppose, otherwise the file wouldn't have been deleted) to PD. --Ruthven (msg) 10:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I think strongly that you should have accepted the license that the client intended. Note that much ink has been spilled regarding PDM (vs CC-0) on Flickr, the result being that we don't consider it a valid license. But I think your point 2 is factually incorrect as well in any case. Discussing this would be easier if you specifically allow me to quote you or if you quoted yourself. Storkk (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, maybe I made a mistake on the license because I am not aware of the "ink spilled regarding PDM (vs CC-0) on Flickr". I noted in my answer that the image was already published under a PD license on flickr and that he wanted to publish it on Commons under a "more restrictive one, which is not allowed". The last part of the sentence being the mistake. However, in answer #5, the client doesn't care about the choice of the license (he put it in PD on flickr!). If you consider that the original license is ok for the file, it's fine with me as well. --Ruthven (msg) 11:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
That's indeed what alarmed me: I took issue with your statement to the client that he was not permitted to send us CC-BY-SA-3.0 for his work. Storkk (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
In any case there is no need of a OTRS ticket in this case: the file is already published by the author in PD. I should have closed in that way, avoiding headaches to both of us. --Ruthven (msg) 15:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Ticket is still much preferable, because Flickr still says PDM, and not CC-Zero. The difference is that PDM is not a license: it is simply a statement that there are "no known restrictions". For extensive discussion regarding this, please see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/12#Deleting_thousands_of_Flickr_images_over_faulty_PD_marking, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/04#Would_it_be_possible_to_import_PD_image_from_Commons_under_CC0_license_from_Flickr.3F, Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/03#Is_CCO_1.0_the_same_as_CC_pdm.3F Storkk (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC) and i forgot the RFC: Commons:Requests_for_comment/Flickr_and_PD_images Storkk (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Capa do CD Governe!.png

Guys, I know about copyrights and I know you must be careful, but I own the image copyrights, I'm the creator of the art. I even placed a link to the website where we published the art for the first time to be a source for the image used.

I don't know what else I can do to show that I CAN use the image however I want. Please help me out here. I'm trying to help making a nice page for the álbum of the rapper and it would make a big difference if we use the album cover in the page.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Thanks a lot.

--JAYPIRES (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

--Josve05a (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Poster style A for Archangel from the Winter's End Chronicles. 01.jpg

Permission in OTRS ticket:2016032110012073. --Rrburke (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Poster style B for Archangel from the Winter's End Chronicles. Episode III.jpg

Permission in OTRS ticket:2016032110012108. --Rrburke (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Miron Chernenko.jpg

Permission in OTRS ticket:2016032210010742. --Rrburke (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Permission in OTRS ticket:2016032210019234. --Rrburke (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Sticker.jpg

Permission in OTRS ticket:2016032210019234. --Rrburke (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Choo Mi-ae 2015 panel.jpg‎

The file was published under CC-BY-3.0 on YouTube by the author. Reverse image search does not show the image reproduced anywhere else other than that video. The nominator linked to a different website of the author organization which had another license tag at the bottom: the image has not, as far as I can tell, been published on that website. The deleting admin did not give any reason beyond the nominator's statement. Nizolan (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not CC-BY-SA. See the their's homepage. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
If an uninvolved editor would like to review the website in question, it is here (per Idh0854's original link on the nomination). As I said, there is an unannotated license tag at the bottom of the page, and no indication that it applies to this file, which was published on another website under a different license. I assume a photo published under a correct license on Flickr would similarly not be deleted just because the author has a different license for other files somewhere else. Nizolan (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Seo Young-kyo Assembly 2014-10-29.jpg

Speedy deleted out of process—the file is extracted from a video published by the author under a CC-BY-3.0 license. A contradictory blanket license is apparently provided on another website, though not for this specific video—either way, not a "clear" copyright violation, so should at least be discussed at deletions rather than speedy deleted. Deleting admin did not provide any additional reasoning. Nizolan (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not also CC-BY-SA. See the their's homepage. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I have unfortunately lost the link to the video since the page has been deleted, but an administrator may review the link to verify that the file was published under the CC-BY-3.0 license. Nizolan (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Files by Museu Valencià d'Etnologia

OTRS under Ticket:2016042210013078, then merged to ticket:2016041910017142.

File:Processos de cultiu de la xufa.jpeg
File:Procés de cultiu de la xufa.jpeg
File:Festes a la Vall d'Albaida.jpeg
File:Edifici segle XX - Ciutat Viscuda - Museu Valencià Etnologia.jpeg
File:Dibuix interior pati centre Beneficència - Museu Valencià d'Etnologia.jpg. --TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Bol 54.mid

As per Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. There is no "copyright violation", and URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. Bloody-libu (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason for deletion was that it is coyrighted until 2023. Thuresson (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion
22:16, 4 June 2014 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Bol 54.mid (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing) (global usage; delinker log)
16:08, 21 April 2014 Yann (talk | contribs) restored page File:Bol 54.mid (11 revisions and 1 file restored: URAA is not reason for deletion.) (global usage; delinker log)
So, why this file was deleted? Bloody-libu (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Bloody-libu: URAA has always been a contentious issue, with long-standing contributors, administrators and copyright experts arguing on all sides in good faith and having good points, and our URAA treatment evolves over time. COM:URAA appears to be the current best-practices (you link to an RFC closed over 2 years ago). In it, the language you quote is partly preserved but expanded upon: A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the detailed explanation Storkk. Bloody-libu (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This file is in the could be/could be not okay range but we will never find out if it is in fact a copyright violation and we tend to keep such files. Since this file is one of the many abuselively speedy deleted by Fastily in the middle of the URAA-war I believe we should at least restore it so it can face a regular DR. See for older discussions regarding this file here and here. Seems that this is the only file in an entire set that didn't survived the war. Natuur12 (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue this much, but I think the relevant discussion for this file is Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-02#Works_of_Maurice_Ravel, where it was decided that pre-1923 works by Ravel are OK. This is a work from 1928, so I don't see why there wouldn't be "significant doubt about the freedom of the file under US ... law", which is how I believe we should decide URAA cases (which was undecided at the point of the discussion I just linked to). I won't restore it myself, but won't contest its restoration by others. I think while we should discount Fastily's deletion, we should also consider discounting Yann prior restoration under our current URAA stance. Storkk (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Than how do we know that this work wasn't published in the US within 30 days after it's publication in France for example? Perhaps there is a bilateral treaty that is relevant? Natuur12 (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't, but I probably have a different threshold for "significant doubt". Storkk (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Himanshu.engin

Permission received via Ticket#2016042710018395. Please restore (at least temporary) the files in order to check every of them. Since the permission contains files additional of the files uploaded/deleted, is better to restore them rather to reupload. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Prince Beatrice with Dave Clark.jpg

File:Prince Beatrice with Dave Clark.jpg [sic] was deleted today because the person who uploaded it on FlickR changed the license. At the time the file was uploaded on the Commons, it was marked as cc-by-2.0, which was confirmed by the FlickreviewR bot. It was claimed here that the bot was mistaken because the link pointed to the lightbox, but that is obviously nonsense. Four other files from the same photographer and same photostream, all uploaded by me at the same time as File:Prince Beatrice with Dave Clark.jpg, were confirmed as free without any supposed lightbox issues. Those four files are

Evidently, the photographer changed the license of all five photographs (and the rest of the stream) after I uploaded them here. I have gone through my uploads and found more cases of photographers changing licenses of images whose orignal copyright status has already been confirmed by either the bot or human reviewers. For example, File:Vincent and Josephine.jpg, now marked as non-free on Flickr, was confirmed to be free when uploaded to the Commons by the administrator Natuur12. The author of that photograph also uploaded File:Crown Prince Frederik running.jpg to FlickR under a suitable license, which was confirmed by a bot, but then changed it later. File:Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester.jpg, confirmed as free when uploaded to the Commons by Leoboudv, has also seen a license change.

If that warrants deletion of these files, what is the point of reviewing their copyright status once they are moved from FlickR to the Commons? I have extensively searched FlickR for free images and videos using its copyrght status filters, uploading over a 100 images and videos, with subjects ranging from lampreys to athletes. If the decision of the author to change the license on a whim years after uploading the file is all it takes for my effort to be nullified, why bother? Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favour of undeleting the image if this deletion request is resumed. Thuresson (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a hard one. On the one hand, the reason we do Flickreview is to deal with exactly this sort of problem and therefore, as Surtsicna asks, why bother if we aren't going to stand by the review? On the other hand, the point of the review is to have the ability to go into court and testify that an independent review absolutely without question established that the license was CC-BY on the date of the review. As I understand it, because Surtsicna did not correctly cite the source, we cannot do that with this image. So, while I think that the circumstances are probably as Surtsicna describes them, they are not beyond our standard of proof of "significant doubt". Therefore, COM:PRP required deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
So, including "/lightbox" in the source link was an incorrect way to cite the source? Why is that not mentioned here or here? And should all my FlickR uploads with "/lightbox" in the link be reassessed now (before the FlickR uploader changes the license)? There appear to be three: File:Julia Grace Wales in 1916.jpg, File:Julia Grace Wales upon graduation.jpg and File:Gimnazija Mostar.jpg. Surtsicna (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Iceburned

Please restore the following files:

Per Ticket#2016042710021327, Uploader provided the source of these photos, that indicates that (the photos and the report itself) are not copyrightable (Public domain). --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Mandy pic.jpg

This picture is Mandy Takhar's original one and available for free on the internet. Moreover this has been approved by Mandy Takhar herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvjitkhera (talk • contribs)

@Sarvjitkhera: Hello, please ask Mandy Takhar to forward their permission to the OTRS. Also, since it is a photo of theirself, is it a selfie or not? If it is not, then the photographer (not Mandy) is the copyright holder, and they must send an email to the OTRS instead of Mandy. If it is a selfie, Mandy must send an email to the OTRS. Also, does Mandy agrees to release their image under a free license (example, CC-BY-SA-4.0)? Lastly, is Mandy Takhar a notable person (has media coverage)? If not, it is out of our project's scope, and even there is a permission, it will remain deleted. Thanks, Poké95 08:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Game logo kripts.png

I have a personnal confirmation for using of this file from the author, moreover, I've posted a link in the references for the official site of the game, where you can find this file and other files in free access. So, why it was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartiksl (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 April 2016‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The web site which you called out as the file's source in your file description has an explicit copyright notice. We cannot keep the image on Commons without a free license from the copyright owner via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller docked on the Aarhus harbour (2013).jpg


I am the owner of this picture, and I was taken personally by me in the Aarhus Harbour. I took several pictures and with photoshop I made the panoramic. I don't understand why this picture was removed and I would like request to undelete this contribution.

I can prove that this picture is mine because, I am using it in my personal blog ( from long time and also because I have HD resolution version of the picture.

--Juanparati (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Juanparati: We would love to restore your photograph! Please confirm the license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. This is necessary because we have to be sure you are actually the photographer. (We'd also love to have the full resolution version, if you are willing, once you have confirmed the license via COM:OTRS). Thank you! Storkk (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Note that's not strictly normally necessary when the original site is licensed cc-by-sa-3.0, but the fact that your username here is so different from may cause confusion. Storkk (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Read in another language