Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive

Closed undeletion debates are archived here by SteinsplitterBot.

Recently archived requests

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Abdelilah amal76387.jpg هذه الصورة ملكي و قمت بتصويرها بواسطة هاتفي

مرحبا انا عبد الاله أمال فنان وممثل مغربي إسم الشهرة لمسييح المراكشي هذه الصورة ملكي وأنا من صورها بواسطة هاتفي

بتاريخ 24 أبريل 2022

لقد واجهت مشكلة عدة مرات في عمل صفحة معلومات على موسوعة ويكيبيديا لكن افشل في رفع الصورة وتم تحويلي الى كومينز ويكيميديا المرجو مساعدتي في تحميل ملفاتي الأصلية على هذه المنصة ان كان مطلوب معلومات اضافية فأنا هنا جاهز لذالك --abam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelilah Amal (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 May 2022‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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.
  • It was deleted using the criterion "F10. Personal photos by non-contributors". The reason for this kind of reason would be that the image us not useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose Only 9 edits in all Wikimedia projects, mostly on user page. Yann (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:MSP360 Logo main tag.png

I work as a Brand Manager for MSP360 and have authorization to use the MSP360 logo as an official company's logo. The file was created by the corporate's in-staff designer and he (the designer) and I as a Brand Manager have rights to the company's intellectual property and have a request to use the file File:MSP360 Logo main tag.png in the MSP360 Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klichnerska (talk • contribs) 10:34, 30 May 2022‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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.

  Support If the logo had a copyright, then we would require a free license via VRT. However, this is just 3 letters and 3 numbers, which cannot be copyrighted in the USA. MSP360 is a US company.

I note that User:Klichnerska has made many edits to the WP article. This is a clear conflict of interest and serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


  Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:CEMES-CNRS - Logo.png

My name is Guy Molénat (log in account: Guy BSP) and I work as an assistant professor at CEMES-CNRS, a public research laboratory in physics and chemistry in France. I was mandated by the director to design a new logo for the laboratory: the image deleted corresponds to the new logo and is property of CEMES-CNRS. I therefore ask for an undeletion of this image. Thank you in advance to take into account positively my request. Guy Molénat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy BSP (talk • contribs) 13:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

  Support PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear mr. Molénat, I do not know for sure whether the design is simple enough to publish according to COM:TOO France. Imho the best way to proceed is to follow the procedure of VRT to show you are the person who can give permission. If succesful, the image can be undeleted. A user name on Commons is rather anonymous/cannot be checked. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jacob Rutsen Schuyler (February 23, 1816 - February 4, 1887) obituary.jpg

I want to view it to see if I can upload a better quality version. Please ping me. --RAN (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Do you have a use place for this in mind? An image of plain text is out of scope regardless of quality unless it is in use somewhere or a reasonable justification is given for hosting it as an image. -- King of ♥ 21:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Then why do we have entire projects devoted to adding images of public domain newspaper articles? You can't add the text of an article to Wikisource unless the image of the text is available at Commons for verification. --RAN (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Sounds good, transcription on Wikisource is considered a valid reason to host an image on Commons. Anyways, is File:Jacob Rutsen Schuyler (1816-1887) death.png what you were looking for? -- King of ♥ 00:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Was it an exact copy of the same image, or was it an obituary from a different newspaper, I only see a redirect, and no original image. --RAN (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): It is an exact smaller copy. I restored the image, discovered that it was a duplicate, and deleted it again. -- King of ♥ 00:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks! --RAN (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Resolved. King of ♥ 00:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Mario Kart 7 Logo.png

Logo appears to be under COM:TOO Japan. The discussion seemed to have minimal input. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose with its metallic glow and 3D shaped characters this is not a simple logo and above threshold of originality imho. Ellywa (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per Ellywa. --Yann (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Tanner_fetch_lacrosse.jpg

I have contacted the copyright holder and he is filling out the copyright form and emailing wikipedia this is our email thread. Marek of Shutterlax Photography would like a link to the file and have it reuploaded. Is this possible or can he simply use the deleted link and resubmit the photo via email?

Marek Stor <marekstor@gmail.com> Thu, May 19, 2:42 PM (12 days ago) to me

Hi, no problem. You can use my photo. Now I am in Dresden on the Germany Lacrosse Convent. I'll handle the license next week.

Best regards Marek Stor / shutterlax.com

Wolny od wirusów. www.avast.com

czw., 19 maj 2022 o 22:27 geniuslacrosse@gmail.co <shutterlax@gmail.com> napisał(a): Imię: Lacrosse Genius Email: geniuslacrosse@gmail.com

Treść wiadomości: Marek

I am a volunteer editor of Wikipedia. I would like to include a photo of Tanner Fetch in the Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanner_Fetch. However, Wikipedia can only include such a photo if it is released under a Creative Commons "Attribution-ShareAlike" license or a similar free license listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags/Free_licenses.

If you are able and would agree to provide a freely licensed photograph (it need not be newly created) for use on Wikimedia projects, please follow the instructions at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates, or alternately, email the photo and consent text from that page to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and to myself at geniuslacrosse@gmail.com.

I personally thank you for helping further Wikipedia's goal of public education and outreach; Wikipedia faces a limited availability of freely licensed media, and your time and generosity are tremendously appreciated.

Lacrosse Genius

-- Ta wiadomość została wysłana przez formularz kontaktowy na stronie https://shutterlax.com.

Marek Stor <marekstor@gmail.com> Attachments 11:00 AM (3 hours ago) to me

Hi, Sorry, I'm only just now able to email you about the copyright of the Tanner Fetch photo on Wikipedia. He needs a link to the photo on Wikipedia. Can you please upload the photo on Wikipedia again ?

Best Regards, Marek Stor / shutterlax.com

--LacrosseGenius (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


  Done File:Tanner fetch lacrosse.jpg. I have tagged it as pending COM:VRT confirmation. @LacrosseGenius: Please have the copyright holder send permission to VRT via email; the email may be re-deleted if no permission is confirmed within a month. King of ♥ 21:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Logo Red LinuxClick.png

Han eliminado el logotipo de LinuxClick el cual es de libre y puede ser usadp, por cualquiera.

El logogtipo es usado no como publicidad si no para identificar la pagina wiki de la red

--Angeljromero21 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Angeljromero21: Where is the evidence that it is free? Also this was deleted as advertisement. What's the educational value of this logo? Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: "© 2022 Red LinuxClick" on source page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:AV-Karte-Digital.jpg & File:AV-Karten.jpg

Für im Betreff genannte Bilder liegt unter Ticket#2022052110002416 das Einverständnis des Rechteinhabers (per E-Mail vom 25. Mai 2022) vor. --Friedo (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


  Not done: This will be restored automatically when and if the email is read and approved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Mayor-tyrone-garner-homepage-crop-2.png

This image is from the Wyandotte County Unified Government main page. Because this is a government website and a headshot of the Mayor it is free use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GVDIII (talk • contribs) 15:34, 31 May 2022‎ (UTC)

  •   Oppose - Nonsense request. 17 U.S.C. § 105, which requestor may be implicitly invoking, applies only to federal works. Source clearly includes "© 2022 Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City" with no indication of a free license or otherwise being "free use." Эlcobbola talk 18:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose This was correctly a speedy -- the source has an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


  Not done: as per Эlcobbola and Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Tim Walz-bio tcm1055-418597.png

Hi. This image of Governor Tim Walz is produced by the State Government of Minnesota for use of the public. Here is the government link: https://mn.gov/governor/news/presskit.jsp . As it is produced by the government for public use, I think there is no copyright infringement. This is the case for several other photos of U.S. Governors whose photos are currently available on Wiki, so I am unsure of the problem. Thanks-Beachboiz (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - Please read critically and consider reviewing federalism. {{PD-USgov}} applies only to works "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States [Federal] Government as part of that person’s official duties" and indeed explicitly says "This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision." (bold in original) Verily, the notion that Minnesota government works are PD has been explicitly rejected. Эlcobbola talk 16:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you. How come images like on Kay Ivey, which is similar to this case, is up? Beachboiz (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    To the extent you refer to File:Kayiveyportrait.jpg, that image was also tagged as deficient two days ago. Please also review w:WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are more than 83,000,000 files on the Commons and not all have been, or can be, scrutinized. Эlcobbola talk 16:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Minnesota is not one of the few states whose works are PD and, in any event, there is no evidence that the photo was made by an employee of the state. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Not done, per above. OP has been indefinitely blocked from enwiki. Thuresson (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Laurent Charlet.jpg

To whom it may concern,

The file is the portrait of Laurent Charlet. Laurent purchased it from the photographer and the photographer also agreed to upload it in Wikimedia. On behalf of them, I am uploading it. We completely have the copyright. Please undelete the file. Thank you.

Best regards, Binma2021--Binma2021 (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Binma2021: Since it was published before being uploaded here we need a formal written permission from the copyright holder (see COM:VRT for the procedure), or a mention about a free license at the source. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I would like to mention a free license at the source. Since the file has been deleted, how to make the action? Binma2021 (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose There are several problems here. First, in the file description, Binma2021 claims to be the photographer. Here they say that is not true. Second, the file has been deleted four times and Binma2021 has reloaded it out of process three times. Falsely claiming authorship of a photograph and reloading out of process are both serious violations of Commons rules.

Third, "the photographer also agreed to upload it in Wikimedia". That is not sufficient as both Commons and Wikipedia require that an image be free for use anywhere by anybody for any purpose. I also note that Binma2021 has a conflict of interest in their editing of the article Laurent Charlet. Since User:Binma2021 has shown that they do not pay attention to the rules, I think that in order to restore the image we must have a free license from the actual photographer, Manuelle Toussaint, via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


  Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Promises Film.jpg

Hello,

I have had multiple correspondence via email with you. On behalf of our production company, I own 100% rights to the file which was in deleted. Please see the IMDb and the articles of incorporation in Connecticut. Thank you!


I hereby affirm that I represent Painted Legacy Productions, LLC., the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the following media:

the content attached to this email

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.


--JohnF2039 (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC) June 1, 2022


  Not done: Request already submitted a few weeks ago, you have to wait for volunteers to process it. --Yann (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Sandor-Alexandra-Valeria_20220528.jpg

Hello,

This file was deleted by mistake, ShareAlike status is OK on Flickr. Please reconsider the decision, thank you :)


  Done: Indeed OK. --Yann (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Samuel Finlak and Joseph Chila Photos

Hello sorry it has taken so long notice this. I responded to the original query /deletion suggestion but deletion proceeded without any notice seeming to have been taken. I have offered to provide more to demonstrate that I own the copyright of these images but this has not been taken up. Can the images please be undeleted? Many thanks davidz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dz3 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Provisionally restored:
@Dz3: To prove your authorship, can you please upload high-resolution scans by going to the file description and clicking "Upload a new version of this file"? Otherwise, the files may be re-deleted if this is not completed in a timely manner. -- King of ♥ 16:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not done No response, no reupload - redeleting. The copyright holder may follow VRT instruction in order to restore the files. Ankry (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Kathleen R. LaNatra.jpg

Per Template:MAGov tag: Concerned wikipedia editors have noticed that the Commonwealth may make unfounded allegations that copyright protections exist for state regulations based on technical codes developed and copyrighted by private organizations. Where such works/allegations are concerned, {{PD-EdictGov}} and {{PD-US-Codes-and-Standards-as-Statutory-Law}} may be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thurgoodmarshallisbae (talk • contribs) 18:12, 31 May 2022‎ (UTC)

  •   Oppose - Nonsense request. Notwithstanding that the uploader claimed a bogus cc-by-sa license, their own source says "Copyright © 2022 The General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" with terms that include "No photograph or video on this website may be downloaded, reproduced or otherwise used without the written consent of the General Court." Эlcobbola talk 18:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Done Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kathleen R. LaNatra.jpg. This is clearly ineligible for COM:CSD#F1, as there is a "reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research". Further discussion should be directed to the DR to determine whether {{PD-MAGov}} actually applies. As discussed at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/09#California DMV, state agencies often make false copyright claims, so such copyright statements cannot be used in support of a deletion. Rather, we should determine for ourselves whether this is actually copyrighted. King of ♥ 21:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Reopened this discussion. It seems to me that closing this request against the only comment is premature. I note that the closing comment calls for "Further discussion", but the closure prevents that.

There is no evidence at all that this image was produced by the Commonwealth. It is most likely that it is a studio portrait from an outside studio -- I'm not at all sure the Commonwealth even employees a portrait photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The point is that this should not be resolved at UNDEL. If you want to give your opinion, you can do so at the DR. "There is no evidence at all that this image was produced by the Commonwealth" is speculation which could be used to justify a "delete" !vote at DR, but is not a reason to sustain a speedy deletion. -- King of ♥ 15:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
KOH, we require that images be free beyond a significant doubt and there is a significant doubt that any political image was produced by the government, state or federal. But the important point here is that none of us should close an UNDR unilaterally three and a half hours after it was posted, particularly when there is an opposing viewpoint posted by a highly respected member of the community. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree that speedy deletion was inappropriate for a work from a Massachusetts state government website, given {{PD-MAGov}}. Undeleting, and re-filing as a regular DR where the significant doubt can be discussed, is fine. It was speedily deleted; a speedy undelete seems fine in light of also filing a DR at the same time. If there was no DR, then yes this should have been left open, but since that exists it would be more appropriate to discuss there rather than here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done: as per KoH and Carl. --Yann (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

undelete page Jan Wolff Erepenning

Undelete Jan Woff Erepenning. I'm waiting that the images of the medal of honour can be placed on the page under license CC-BY-SA 3.0. This will happen soon anyway, so please undelete the page Jan Wolff Erepenning and later on I will add again the pictures. It wasn't nessecairly to undelete the entire page only because of the images who where deleted later! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkJan Vos (talk • contribs) 10:26, 2 June 2022‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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 I assume you mean File:Jan Wolff Erepenning.jpg. There is no gallery page with that name.

There are at least three copyrights here -- one for each of the photographs and one for the medal itself. We cannot restore this image without a free license via VRT from the photographer(s) of the two medal images and from the designer of the medal. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No! Its for undeleting the page without the images. The pictures are from the artist who made the ´erepenning´, it will take some time before she can add the CC license at her own website. In the mean time the page could return. DirkJan Vos DirkJan Vos (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
As Jim said, there is no gallery page with that name. Further, you have no deleted contributions outside of file space here on the Commons. To the extent you refer to nl:Jan wolff hoornist, which has been deleted on nl.wiki, you will need to address it there. Эlcobbola talk 14:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Diego Gutiérrez 2022.jpg

This is my own work and requires no licence or permission whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubanMusik (talk • contribs) 16:33, 2 June 2022‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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 The actual file name is File:Diego Gutiérrez 2022.jpeg
Actually, all images require a license or a statement of why they are in the Public Domain. This image has nothing in the file description -- no author, no description, no license, no date. In addition, it is very small and has no EXIF. The size and lack of EXIF strongly suggest that you are not the photographer. I suggest you reload it with the same name at full camera resolution and with full EXIF. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Visual characteristics suggest this is a screenshot of a video. Explanation/evidence of the provenance and licensing thereof is needed. Эlcobbola talk 12:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per Jim and Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jesus_Adib_Abi_Chedid.png

Essa foto NÃO pertence ao site do g1, ela é de domínio público da prefeitura de Bragança Paulista. Basta ler a descrição na matéria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raposa Bragantina (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 June 2022‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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 As a general rule, when an image has appeared on the Web with an explicit copyright notice, as in this case, we require that the actual copyright holder send a free license via VRT. The file description says that the source and author of the image is "Prefeitura de Bragança Paulista", but does not give the source web site or any evidence that it is CC-BY-SA as claimed there, or PD as claimed above. In Spain only a very limited set of laws, regulations, judicial decisions, and the like are Public Domain, see {{PD-SpanishGov}}. Photos such as this one are copyrighted. In order for this to be restored, you must prove that it is freely licensed by the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - Requestor has uploaded two images under this title; both appear elsewhere with copyright notices (first, second) and no indication of the purported cc-by-sa-4.0 and cc-zero licenses. I don't know why Jim references Spain, as this is understood to relate to Brazil. To the extent requestor is alluding to {{PD-BrazilGov}} for the former a) it does not meet the conditions (not pre-1983) and b) it has not even been established that this is authored by a governmental entity and indeed context (e.g., scene and presence of software (social media?) UI elements like bottom bar) suggests it is more likely the image was taken from a third-party source for use in the article. Эlcobbola talk 12:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Pure error on my part. The first Google hit is "https://www.braganca.sp.gov.br" and I saw the "sp" and missed the "br". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done as per Jim and elcobbola. Ankry (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Academia Sinica Emblem.svg (edit: and maybe some of these)

The Academia Sinica is the preeminent academic research institution in the Republic of China, and is under direct administrative supervision of the Office of the President. It is not a "public utility company" or "state-run enterprise" in any way as Template:PD-ROC-exempt implied. In fact, there is a complete list of state-run enterprises given by the National Development Council, and only those should be bounded by the exception claimed by the PD-ROC-exempt template, so most of the files mentioned here and here were deleted unreasonably and unjustifiable, and would be considered ridiculous for anyone actually understands or lives in Taiwan. —— Eric LiuTalk 08:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose I am confused. On the one hand you say only the enterprises listed on the cited list should get the benefit of {{PD-ROC-exempt}} and that the subject is not on the list, and on the other hand are asking for restoration of the emblem.

Since the subject is not a state run enterprise, its emblem has a copyright which we must honor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

"only the enterprises listed on the cited list should get the benefit of PD-ROC-exempt"??? No, what the hell! Have you ever looked into the template for once? Read it, I beg you, please! I seriously don't know what you are saying, as PD-ROC-exempt explains which kinds of media shall not be the subject matter of copyright under the law, and the statement below exclude state-run enterprises from those rules, making them not automatically in the Public Domain. (And geez, that's the reason why you deleted it in the first place! I've tried to prove the opposite, and you still get the same answer?) Since the Academia Sinica is a government agency and not a state-run enterprise, its works, according to the Copyright Act of the Republic of China, shall not be the subject matter of copyright. In simpler words, (1) works of "only the enterprises listed on the cited list" (your words) are not automatically free of copyright and should be examined, (2) Academia Sinica is not on that list, so its work should not be deleted because of that. In simplest words, the original reason the file got deleted ("The Copyright Act of R.O.C. does not cover public utility company's logo, thus, They shouldn't be in Public Domain.") is invalid. Maybe the file will still not be undeleted after all of these, and I'm personally so, so sad that no administrator that is Taiwanese or understand Taiwanese copyright law could give a hand. —— Eric LiuTalk 14:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
"(The Copyright Act of R.O.C. does not cover public utility company's logo, thus, They shouldn't be in Public Domain.) per nomination. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)"
"Since the subject is not a state run enterprise, its emblem has a copyright which we must honor. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)"
Just why, why were these judgements could possibly made by the same person? They literally contradict each other! I'm going to hang myself on that big blue arrow of the Commons logo upper left at this point. Lastly, I apologize for any words not as quite polite as usual, since I'm in a really hopeless situation.—— Eric LiuTalk 15:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Disregard the manner of answering, I would like to mention that the English translation of the Act shall not be seen to have the legal status. The original Chinese Act (Art. 17 of The ROC Office of the President Organization Act) used word "隸屬" which is equivalent to the meaning of "be subordinate to"; hence the Academia Sinica shall be seen to be a government organ. Pursuant to Articles 11 (& 12) & 15 of the Copyright Act of the ROC, I don't think Jim's statement shall be held and it's Jim's burden to prove that this case did not fulfil those articles; otherwise, it shall be recovered. -- (Dasze) 16:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
(The reason I linked the English version of the laws instead of the Chinese originals is to let administrators understand them more easily.) —— Eric LiuTalk 16:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll take another try at it. Let's assume for this argument that the entity is a part of the government and therefore that {{PD-ROC-exempt}} might apply. Unlike the USA, where everything done by the Federal Government is free of copyright, most other governments, including Taiwan, limit their copyright exemption. {{PD-ROC-exempt}} lists five items that are not the subject matter of copyright:

  1. The constitution, acts, regulations, or official documents.
  2. Translations or compilations by central or local government agencies of works referred to in the preceding subparagraph.
  3. Slogans and common symbols, terms, formulas, numerical charts, forms, notebooks, or almanacs.
  4. Oral and literary works for news reports that are intended strictly to communicate facts.
  5. Test questions and alternative test questions from all kinds of examinations held pursuant to laws or regulations.
The term "official documents" in the first subparagraph of the preceding paragraph includes proclamations, text of speeches, news releases, and other documents prepared by civil servants in the course of carrying out their duties.

The only one that could possibly apply is #1 as expanded by the note at the bottom. However we have routinely found that logos are not documents -- a logo may appear on a document but it is not, by itself, a document. Therefore, whether or not the entity is a part of the government, its logo has a copyright.

I also note that the burden of proof here always lies with the person who wants to keep a file. It is up to them to prove beyond a significant doubt that the questioned image qualifies for keeping on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand your concern and have sent a letter to the related authorities (the Intellectual Property Office of the Ministry of Economic Affairs) to ask about the correct interpretation of the respective law. Please wait for a little while more.
And if these pictures really aren't in the scope of PD-ROC-exempt, maybe they could be in the scope of the GWOIA. —— Eric LiuTalk 14:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  SupportI don't know well about Taiwan's copyright law but,if you say true,I agree Eric Liu's opinion. In general rule,government's works aren't protected of copyright when we use them to be known everyone. —— Luke atlasTalk 09:16, 11 May 2022 (JST)


I withdrawn the request at the present moment. —— Eric LiuTalk 12:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


  Not done: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:PD-NJGov 3

The citizens of New Jersey have been done wrong by the two prior deletion discussions regarding this template. The close reason was weak and wrong as regards NJ State law:

Deleted: I have deleted this template rather than renaming it as suggested above. The reason I did that is that anything that falls within the scope of the cited law -- a dataset -- is outside of the scope of Commons, so the renamed template would be useless. Also note that broadly speaking datasets have no copyright in the USA, so the law has no real effect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No, there are two laws at issue here. N.J.S.A. 52:18A-234.1 et seq., the New Jersey Open Data Initiative Act (NJ ODIA), deals with open "data" and "datasets", but the prior law, N.J.S.A 47:1A-1 et seq., the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (NJ OPRA) deals with all publications.

But even "data" is defined as such by the NJ ODIA in §3:

"Data" means final versions of statistical or factual information in alphanumeric form, in as granular form as possible, and reflected in a list, table, graph, chart, map, or other non-narrative form that can be digitally transmitted or processed, and regularly created or maintained by or on behalf of and owned by a State department or agency that records a measurement, transaction, or determination related to the mission of that State department or agency. (emphasis mine)

As per the 2009 ruling of the New Jersey Supreme Court, Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408, the NJ OPRA is to be broadly interpreted — State publications have no copyright. The limitations it talks about, dealing with redaction of SSN's and so on, are not at issue here.

cc: Jameslwoodward (deleting admin) JuTa (requester) Acebarry, Stefan2, Closeapple (participants)

Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 19:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support Thank you for your clear explanation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no mention of copyright in the Burnett v. County of Bergen ruling you link to. The Harvard page on state copyrights also doesn't mention any ruling specifically about copyright. It mentions the Burnett case, but only about access to public records, not whether that has any applicability to copyright. It does not give New Jersey a particularly likely score to be public domain, given that the state still apparently charges for GIS records. Access to public records has nothing to do with copyright -- you can't use copyright as an excuse not to provide the records, but the records themselves may still be protected by copyright thus preventing any use beyond fair use (which would be wider with public records, but not everything). What specifically in that ruling do you think makes the court declare state government works public domain?   Oppose for me, even if the original deletion reason was not good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Use of the word "copyright" is not the bar. The bar is the right to access, obtain copies of, redistribute, and use in other works. All of these are allowed by law and various clarifying decisions. In the State of New Jersey, public records requests are first heard by the Government Records Council in Trenton, the State's political capital. There's an administrative case there, Grauer v. NJ Dept. of Treasury Custodian of Record (Complaint No. 2007-3), which states: Based on the court’s holding in Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County v. Robert Bradley Tombs, 215 Fed. Appx 80 (3d Cir. NJ 2006) and the GRC’s decision in Albrecht v. New Jersey Department of Treasury, GRC Complaint No. 2006-191 (July 25, 2007), copyright law does not prohibit access to a government record which is otherwise available under OPRA. Therefore, the Custodian unlawfully denied access to the requested record pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. and failed to bear her burden of proof that the denial of access was authorized by law pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. If we have the rights to access, copy, and redistribute, we have all rights needed for Commons. A lower court even ordered in the Burnett case that a watermark be affixed on copies which was overturned for another reason (mootness), showing it clearly believed the derivative right exists, it wouldn't order a defendant to affix a watermark to a redistributed version if derivation/redistribution weren't possible. Sometimes a bit of reading between the lines is required, but I have both types of files to upload—maps I know are covered by NJ ODIA and files I believe qualify under NJ OPRA. We may need to word the template carefully to prevent misuse but there are valid uses of this template, there is no reason to oppose it in this blanket way. The State writing However, the State makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of Copyright or Trademark claims or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display. just means that their websites may be using other copyrighted material under fair use which may not be copyable, which is a problem we're well aware of from sites like Voice of America. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 09:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: I would respectfully but (almost) fully disagree. The right to access and obtain copies has nothing to do with copyright -- that is the realm of public records, which says nothing of public domain in a copyright sense. Agreed that copyright is no reason to bar access -- it is up to the requestor to respect copyright law in their further use, for public records which are under copyright. The state cannot claim that making copies violates copyright law, as in that case the copy is a fair use of the copyright. The right to distribute and make further use of works is indeed the realm of copyright -- but Commons is looking for works you can use for any purpose. The scope of fair use would increase quite a bit for a public record, so there would almost always be situations where you can make use of such works. It's not that derivative works or redistribution is possible, but rather that copyright infringement is impossible no matter how you use them -- that is what "public domain" means. So yes, the word "copyright" is indeed the important thing here; if a public record is still under copyright, then it still has some protections and needs a license here, since there will be possible uses which go beyond fair use and could still be infringement. We need some sort of declaration that addresses copyright specifically, in that copyright does not exist at all for state-authored public records. We have court cases that did exactly that in California and Florida, and a government official's similar declaration at least for some works in Massachusetts (which is more tenuous), and that's about it. Otherwise, about everywhere else, the fact that something is a public record has no bearing on its copyright status, other than the scope of fair use. Obviously not all public records are copyright-free -- evidence in court cases, including cases about copyright, are public records. Everyone has a right to obtain them, to make better sense of a judicial decision. You could public such copyrighted works if you are discussing the court case; that would be fair use. But to make a competing work with the original using them, that would be infringement. The question is if copyright itself is gone for state-authored public records -- none of the court cases you mention address that aspect. So, while many uses are OK, if copyright still exists that means that there are some uses which are not OK, and thus not "free". That is what the Harvard site says as well. It would likely be legal to upload such works here, but they are not "free" by our policies, so to label them "public domain" would be incorrect. We still need a license; I don't see anything to support PD-NJGov as a free copyright license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Now, part of this is the terms statement at the data.nj.gov site (and maybe most nj.gov websites): The State of New Jersey has made the content of these pages available to the public and anyone may view, copy or distribute State information found here without obligation to the State, unless otherwise stated on particular material or information to which a restriction on free use may apply. However, the State makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of Copyright or Trademark claims or other restrictions or limitations on free use or display. Making a copy of such material may be subject to the copyright of trademark laws. That does come pretty close to a free license, for material which they choose to make available on those websites. The question there is allowing any kind of derivative work, which is not directly addressed, though the specific language would seem to tend against it. But, under their Open Data laws, the state is under no obligation to place data on the websites, so that license only applies to data which they have actually done so. So, if deemed "free" by our standards, that would be a valid license for the specific websites and not New Jersey government works as a whole. So, that would need to be a differently-named tag. I'm not sure if that statement fully conforms to the conditions on freedomdefined.org; it certainly meets the first three but unsure about the fourth. But that is the debate to me. If we think that statement is OK, and validly licenses New Jersey's copyright on such works, then we could have a tag for works which appear on websites having that license statement. But, nothing that implies that works are automatically public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
  Comment Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NJGov. Yann (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Not done, per discussion. Thuresson (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Carl Cari Congressional Photo.jpg

Review for the purpose of detail revision, esp. for photos belonging to the Philippine government. It was believed that the original uploader failed to give credit for government property, including photos and videos.

Xander Wu (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose @Xander Wu: The uploader declared {{PD-PHGov}} which seems to be wring: (1) House of Representatatives is not the Government and (2) there is an explicit copyright notice on the source page which contradicts the declared PD status. Ankry (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose I don't know why Ankry thinks that the Philippine House of Representatives is not part of Government, but there is both the explicit copyright notice on the source page and the fact that we have no evidence that this portrait was made by a government employee. It more likely is from an independent portrait studio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


  Not done: Per Jim. --De728631 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Thomas Anargyros.jpg

©Valletoux_STO_1463 - Copie.jpg

Hi, I need to upload this photo for a wikipedia article, the photo was taken by a photograper who gave me all the rights of the photo. What can I do so the photo can be accepted by you? Thank you so much

Eugénie — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoriaTV (talk • contribs) 14:11, 3 June 2022‎ (UTC)

@StoriaTV: Please ask the photographer to follow the instructions at Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@StoriaTV: ... or if the photographer indeed has transferred full copyright to you in a written contract (and so they no longer have copyright), provide a copy of the contract to VRT together with your written license. Ankry (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: See the instructions provided by Ankry and Thuresson. We need a permission by email coming directly from the copyright holder. --De728631 (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jürgen Rickmers.jpg

Deleted as not being notable despite being in use at Wikidata, the image is prior to 1900, he died in 1907, so would be "PD-EU-no author disclosure". The image is cropped from a framed version available at Ancestry.com, so we know the image was made public, when it was sent to the family in the late 1800s by the photographer. RAN (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support The person doesn't need to be notable for this to be in scope. BTW the crop should be uploaded in a separate version. Yann (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
pinging @Rosenzweig: the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I didn't primarily delete the file because the person is not notable, and I even wrote in the DR "The photo itself could be useful if we had some more solid information about the date, provenance etc., but we don't." That's the problem with the file: I don't get a year, nothing about the provenance of the photo, no useful source. Rickmers is said to have died in 1907, but that's not old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}}. The date given is "2021-01-17", the stated author was Dannimann (before User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) changed it to "anonymous" without any evidence), source is "own work". How can you keep this? --Rosenzweig τ 12:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I've looked into this some more. First, I couldn't find this image at Ancestry.com when searching for Jürgen Rickmers. There are several entries for him, church registers and Danish census records, but not that image. Second, in the now deleted de:Jürgen Rickmers article, it is claimed in the alt text of the image that this is an en:ambrotype. Which would mean there is only the original (because there were no prints etc. of ambrotypes), but since these ambrotypes were popular in the 1850s and 1860s, that would give us a tentative date if we can corroborate that claim. The first version uploaded here clearly wasn't a photo of an ambrotype, but a digital photo of a printed photo of another photo (possibly the original) in a frame. The frame would fit it being an ambrotype, but with so many degrees of separation it is a bit hard to tell if the claim is correct. --Rosenzweig τ 13:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support Hmm. The subject lived 1825-1907. I'd guess he was 40 in this image, certainly not much more than 60, so the image has to be pre-1890. It appears at Ancestry.com, which is not a guarantee of its authenticity, but probably good enough for us. The image also appears on a cover, see https://www.amazon.com/J%C3%BCrgen-Rickmers-Main-Theme/dp/B09L1FCLTR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Where at Ancestry did you find it? I couldn't find it there. --Rosenzweig τ 14:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not a member of Ancestry, so I couldn't look there-- my comment relied on the statement in the first paragraph above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not seeing the "significant doubt" required for deletion, just speculation that the image may not be truly anonymous, and that image may be of an 80 year old man that looks like he is 40 and that he is "not notable". None of these meet the threshold of "significant doubt". If you do not have access to the image at Ancestry, there are copies of his images at Findagrave and Familysearch, both links are in Wikidata. If we are moving the threshold of "significant doubt" to this level, we are going to have to delete a lot of images from Commons. >80% of pre 1900 images stored at Commons are anonymous. As to "not notable", we currently host over 10,000 images of people marked as "unidentified" and over 10,000 images with no category at all. As to "own work", whenever you scan or even crop an image, you create a derivative work, that is you own work. Does that mean the original copyright get transferred to you, no, but the contemporary date and "own work" is correct for the derivative copy. If you want people to include that dates and creator for the original and derivative, you have to publicize Template:Art Photo, which has room for both sets of data. --RAN (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I do have access to Ancestry, but I don't see this image there. There is a Findagrave entry here, and there is an image of some museum information display there which also shows this photo, but this is not the "framed version available at Ancestry.com" you wrote about. I don't have access to FamilySearch. As for the "significant doubt": I'd like some more concrete dates (a year would usually be enough) and (preferably) external confirmation of them before keeping such a file. None of that was shown in the image description or the deletion request, the only solid year was 1907 as the year that person died. --Rosenzweig τ 17:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The 70 year threshold expired in 1952, how will the demand of a precise date change that fact? I am not a mathematician but 1907<1952 if my knowledge of how numbers work is correct. --RAN (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
You're basing this on your claim that the photograph is anonymous, for which there is no evidence. The term is 120 years for {{PD-old-assumed}}, as I already wrote above. --Rosenzweig τ 18:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: As Jim wrote above, this is from the middle or second third of 19th century (1850s or 1860s), and in any way much older than 120 years old, so PD-old-assumed is very well OK here. Your requirement is not reasonable. This should not have been deleted. Yann (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I didn't get anything dating this to the 1850s or 1860s, just the 1907 death date, and that's what I worked with. --Rosenzweig τ 18:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: Just use common sense, as Jim did in his calculation above. I feel it is a bit of bad faith to assume that it could be from 1907. Yann (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't claim it is from 1907, it's just the one year I really have and can work with. I don't really like speculating myself about such facts. As I wrote, I prefer at least a little bit of evidence, some source, a bit about the provenance, something like that. I got none, and I still don't have any (aside from the claim about the photo being an ambrotype, which might be a clue). If you all think otherwise, go ahead and restore the file. --Rosenzweig τ 18:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't get it, why do we have appeal to one person, when the consensus is already to restore it? When will another person with undelete privileges step up and undelete the image, this is about consensus, not one person's opinion. --RAN (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done: as per above. I changed the license, as diffusion at that time certainly counts as publication. --Yann (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Palmeiras-Santos-Campeonato-Paulista-2022.png

I would like the deletion of this file to be revised, since it came from this video on YouTube which has the Creative Commons Attribution license, which I explicitly stated in the file license forms. Sepguilherme (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


  Done: I would not ordinarily close an UnDR so rapidly, but having watched the video and found the image, I could do the necessary license review, so it seemed better to close it than to have someone else have to do that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Coa Hungary Family Krizsán (1666).svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I made it for other Wiki projects. A bot signed it to delete. I don't know why everything was correct. Madboy74 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support Properly licensed file. The license tags were visible until a April 24, 2022 bot edit by SchlurcherBot made them "invisible" although the wiki code remained. Thuresson (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done and bot "fix" fixed. Ankry (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Erick Ginard.jpg

  Oppose The image comes from https://www.artunity.eu/artist/erick-ginard which has an explicit copyright notice. Also, it is out of scope as a personal image of a non-contributor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


  Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:PES Old School.png

Hi, I am the author of PES Old School (a remake of Pro Evolution Soccer 5), my Twitter account is https://twitter.com/regurgitad0r, the page of the game is https://pesoldschool.tumblr.com. I can communicate with you from both sites to verify the authenticity of my authorship.

This is the deleted image:

<img src="https://static.tumblr.com/poozskq/ezerd1e8g/pes_old_school.png" style="width:1280px;height:720px;"></img>

Warm regards,

D. P.

--Hermosohermosura (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hermosohermosura: If the image at the original site is not under the same free license as you declared, uou need to follow VRT instructions. Ankry (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done image not deleted - nothing to undelete. Ankry (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Convert_ru_kosmos078.jpg

According to the copyright rules for Russia postal covers of Russia are in the public domain. Even in cases where they might contain an otherwise copyrighted image. So I'd appreciate it if this file was un-deleted. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

From what I can all of these are either FDC or other postal covers that were officially created by the Russian government and are therefore PD-RU-exempt per the fact that postal covers released by the Ministry of Communication of the Russian Federation are ineligible for copyright. Even if the artwork on the envelopes is otherwise copyrighted "We can safely assume that the Russian post has come to an agreement with the copyright-holder of such work" or they would not have used said work on an official postal envelope. So I'm requesting that these images be un-deleted.

230 Files

--Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Russia/en#Stamps .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


  Done: as per Jim. See also my post on the Village Pump. --Yann (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Screenshot of Google Wallet.png Licensed under CC

https://developers.google.com/terms/site-policies "Except as otherwise noted, the content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For details, see our Site Policies." Tytygh55 (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose The cited page also says, "In some cases, a page may include content consisting of images, audio or video material, or a link to content on a different webpage (such as videos or slide decks). This content is not covered by the license, unless specifically noted. " The look and feel of the wallet and the Chase credit card shown there are all copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Then why are these files allowed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Pay_promotional_hero.png#mw-jump-to-license
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wallet_iOS.png#mw-jump-to-license Tytygh55 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
These are under fair use on the English Wikipedia. Please read the license there. And fair use is not allowed on Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per Jim and I. --Yann (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Warcraft Arclight Rumble Logo.png

Hello, I don't know why this logo should be deleted. Other Activision-Blizzard logos are on Commons for example:

Some of these logos are obtained from the same site (https://blizzard.gamespress.com) as the Arclight Rumble that I've uploaded. Thank you for your attention Alogsh (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Only logos simple enough are accepted without a permission from the copyright holder. I deleted 2 more which are complex. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:DG x BH x EH - Crazy What Love Can Do.png

This file was deleted under the nomination "non-free file". However I had left a VERY detailed description explaining that the deletion request did not explain specifically why the image should be deleted, thus making it an incomplete nomination. Further to this, I left a detailed comment on the deletion nomination page explaining why the image should be kept. It is made up of simple colours and text which did not pass the threshold of originally. A detailed description including a link to the relevant copyright information was left on the deletion nomination page. Both the nomination (which was procedurally incorrect), and decision to delete should be reviewed. Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose The DR actually reads "non-free single cover" -- Commons shorthand which adequately describes the situation -- that the image is a copyrighted cover of some sort. It is certainly copyrighted and in my opinion well above even the USA threshold of originality. Also note that the stated source shows "© 2002 - 2022 Stereoboard.com. All rights reserved." Finally, as noted above, the DR comment refers to Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_Kingdom. That was a poor choice because it supports the deletion, "The level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom is very low." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: , the cover art could have been sourced from any number of sources including the commercial release. The UK was referenced by the Copyright holder of the artwork is Warner Music UK Ltd (as seen here). It was a primary UK music market release meaning the single and therefore its artwork was licensed to a UK company thus being governed under UK copyright law. Stereoboard is a website that covers news stories and releases, they're not the copyright holder - the artist and label are. "Being well above the USA threshold of originality" is subjective given that the topic, article, artist and record label are not American. Simple text is usually not subject to copyright. I do think the cover art does fall under the examples given at COM:TOO United States. Given that the deletion was contested and a logical explanation was given, it should have been left open longer for a more thorough debate and discussion in my opinion. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

My comment about the US ToO was a little off topic -- but since the US ToO is significantly higher than the one in the UK, I thought it useful to say that the cover passes even the higher threshold. Actually, typography, including simple text, does have a copyright in the UK although not in the US. The DR was open for longer than the required one week and did not attract further discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: And taking that on board, I still think the cover art falls under the examples given at COM:TOO United States but if this is the review process and the outcome is that it was correctly deleted then fair enough. I disagree but I am not familiar with the Commons processes as much as I am general wikipedia processes. It can be replaced in the article under non-free licensing but it would have been useful to clarify the situation given that it wasn't as clear cut as the nominator had made out. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. It is recent cover art, and therefore copyrighted unless it is below the ToO. As noted above, the UK ToO is very low, so it clearly has a copyright. Therefore the shorthand DR was entirely appropriate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Withdrawn by requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Michal Frantík.jpg

Hello, can you undelete File:Michal Frantík.jpg? A valid VRTS permission is in ticket:2021110610003416. Thanks! --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


  Done: @Martin Urbanec: . --Yann (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

JRDProfile.jpg undelete

This picture is from John R. Davis Jr.'s personal collection. Original is property of US Department of State--JRDInfo (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@JRDInfo: There is no file by that name, so I suppose you mean File:JRDJrProfilePic.jpg, which is not currently deleted. Yann (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Saggy breast.png

The file can be used --Tdmrv (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tdmrv: Who is the photographer? Why uploading a PNG instead of a JPEG file? Yann (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Per COM:NOTHOST. Do not agree that this has a realistic educational use. Эlcobbola talk 18:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Does not add anything novel to Category:Ptosis (breasts). DMacks (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agreed. At 727 × 924 pixels it is too small to add anything to the wide variety of much higher resolution images we have in the category. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Чингис хааны морьт хөшөө-1.jpg, File:Чингис хааны морьт хөшөө.jpg , File:Чингис хааны морьт хөшөө-3.jpg

Hallo, die Fotos wurden von mir selbst fotografiert. Ich möchte wieder die Fotos wiederhergestellt haben. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Munkhzaya.E (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Das mag schon sein, aber wir haben ein Problem mit der de:Panoramafreiheit, die es in der Mongolei nicht gibt. Weil wir nur freie Bilder inkl. kommerzielle Nachnutzung anbieten wollen und das bei Bildern dieses Standbilds nach mongolischem Recht erst 50 Jahre nach dem Tod des Künstlers geht, können wir diese Bilder auf absehbare Zeit hier auf Commons nicht wiederherstellen. Du könntest die Bilder alternativ direkt in der deutschen Wikipedia hochladen, da wird die deutsche Panoramafreiheit auf Bilder aus aller Welt angewandt. Hier aber nicht. --Rosenzweig τ 12:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose These are images of a 2008 sculpture. Since there is no Freedom of Panorama in Mongolia, they infringe on the sculptor's copyright and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the sculptor until fifty years after the sculptor's death. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Marie-Odile-Soyer-Gobillard-2020.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022060710005117. The depicted person gave the permission and claims that it is an autoportrait. --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


  Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:WaldbadWeixdorf.PNG Wiederherstellungsantrag

Das Bild wurde von mir selbst aufgenommen: {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}


Done. -- 32X (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Flora Cheung has with or without clothing model 522 1.jpn.jpg

Please restore this image, thanks!

香港𡃁模粉絲 2022-06-08香港𡃁模粉絲 (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


  Not done: Not deleted -- nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Reverend Lewis John Gaster.jpg

Images in this tranche were saved that were made public prior to 1 January 1952 under PD-UK-unknown, for some reason the image of Lewis John Gaster (1879-1939) was deleted, but others were retained, Gaster's image should be in the saved group if we are going to apply the rules uniformly. --RAN (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Was this photo PD in UK in 1996? If yes, what is rationale; if no, we have US copyright problem. Ankry (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I will have to see the image again to see the year it was taken. --RAN (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose The image would have to have been taken prior to 1926 in order to beat the URAA date. Gaster died at age 60 in 1939 and worked in Sri Lanka and Uganda. This image could have been taken any time between 1900 and 1939. There's no evidence of when and where it was first published. Without further information on its creation and publication we can't restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: It can be also PD in US as 70pma if first published after 2003, regardless when it was taken. However, I do not think this is the case. Ankry (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I am looking at the cached version. The precautionary principle requires "significant doubt", I see a man less than 40 years old in the image when I compare it to people born in the same year and less than 40 years old. If the image was taken in 1920 or prior, it would be 70 years old prior to 1996. Looking at images from this era, we estimate the age of the person in the majority of the images. I am not seeing "significant doubt" in your rationale, just caution beyond "significant doubt". --RAN (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I see an image of a man who might be 40, or 50, or maybe older. Perhaps the more important question is when and where it was first published -- Sri Lanka copyright runs 70 years from publication. Uganda is 50 years, also from publication. United Kingdom, 70 years after creation if unpublished, 70 years after publication if published within 70 years of creation. We have no evidence at all of publication -- there's certainly significant uncertainty there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Commons:Publication only means being made available to the public, not appearing in a magazine. If the image had come from a scanned negative that remained with the photographer, I would agree that it had never been seen by a member of the public (other than the photographer or member of the photographers immediate family). The uploader had a cache of positive prints they scanned, so a copy has been made public. --RAN (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to have the image temporarily restored so I can add the image to Familysearch. --RAN (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Yann: That link of yours has an image of the Reverend JG Garret, but RAN is looking for one L. J. Gaster. So, while the portrait is identical to the previous Commons upload, is that even the right person in this context? De728631 (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Right. I didn't even see that the name is different. So we have an issue about the identification in addition to the copyright status. Yann (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The one cached is that image, so whoever loaded it misidentified it. It is JG Garret taken circa 1881 in Sri Lanka. Thanks for the clarification. No need to undelete it. I don't see an image for Lewis John Gaster at the website, which was the source for all the images. --RAN (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Superman & Lois season 1.jpg

I was just about finish the required Non-free use rationale video cover box before the user deleted it. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original work, namely the video cover creator's ability to provide video cover design services and in turn marketing video to the public. Undelete the photo so I may fill in the necessary information, so that Draft:Superman & Lois (season 1) may have a infobox image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advofspec (talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - Nonsense request. One wonders how "Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use content" [1] was unclear and how "I was just about finish the required Non-free use rationale" is meant to reconcile with "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content" [2]. It is those notices that direct to UDR in the first place, so surely they were read... Эlcobbola talk 18:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
    This is what I was trying to do with the file before you deleted it. A non-free use rationale video cover box. It is done like this for many covers on seasons and series pages like this, ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Flash_season_2.jpg Maybe you want to delete every other series/movie infobox on the site then. Advofspec (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
    Please read critically. That URL is en.wikipedia.org. This is commons.wikimedia.org. These are different projects, and the latter--where you are now--does not accept fair use, as has been explained to you numerous times. Verily, you'd have known this if you'd bothered to read the notice: "Non-free content that may be used with reference to fair use may be uploaded locally to projects which allow this". (underline added) You might also consider reading w:WP:OTHERSTUFF. Эlcobbola talk 19:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done No Fair Use on Commons. Ankry (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

all my paintings

Raouf Oderuth (Fenous) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenous (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 June 2022‎ (UTC)


  Not done unclear request. Ankry (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Memoir of a Roadie Cover.jpg

This was incorrectly deleted. I am the owner of both the cover art and book. I am the author of the book. There are contracts in place for the use of the cover image and the designer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifken (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

  Oppose Content previously published elsewhere needs a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose amazon.com: "Front-cover art by Raymond Pettibon". Wikipedia article for en:Raymond Pettibon. Thuresson (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Yann and Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Children's cartoon.jpg

1. Pi.1415926535 deleted my file without notifying me beforehand.

2. Reason for deletion was "(Screenshot of non-free content (F3))." I've read up on it, but the only thing I understand is that the original author gave me permission to license this regardless the fact that it was her work.

Add.: User in question has yet to correspond. I'm fed up with these sites. I've made mistakes before, but it's like I can't upload anything up here, defeating the whole purpose of having a Wikimedia Commons account in the first place. I'm just a guy exploring the internet, is it that hard to live and learn?

Please respond / acquiesce at the earliest convenience. I'm sick of this.

--KOsaurusrex (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  •   Oppose This was uploaded with the description "Still frame of an unidentified children's entertainment program broadcast sometime in the early 1980's." for which a CC BY license is obviously incorrect. The Twitter source indicates that this is a private artwork; if that's true, even if the license is correct, the file is out of scope. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment The scope issue should be handled by a normal deletion request (I cannot see the file nor its description). However, I have a problem understanding how a frame from an unidentified programme could have been authored by a friend – surely the friend knows any programme they have authored. Moreover, the friend needs to follow the Commons:VRT process, as this would be published content with no CC licence attached. –LPfi (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose The only thing that is clear here is that the work is under copyright and therefore requires a free license from the actual creator using VRT. It also is probably out of scope as a private artwork. It is true that normally the scope issue should be handled by a DR, but it seems wasteful of our limited human resources to get a free license using VRT only to delete it as being out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - The description of "Still frame of an unidentified children's entertainment program" (underline added) contradicts the purport that "the original author gave me permission" (bold omitted). The "original author" would be expected to be able to identify their own program. This thus seems to suggest the referenced author is the mere creator of the screenshot, not the underlying program. We require permission from the latter. Эlcobbola talk 13:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Needs proof that it is in scope and a free license from the creator. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Nicky Lu Profile Picture 1.jpg

Hi.

I am a current employee of Etron Technology, Inc. working under the corporate communications department. I am in charge of all proofreading, editing, and publishing of all information related to Etron Technology, Inc., including affiliated persons, the main company(Etron Technology, Inc.), subsidiary companies related to Etron Technology, Inc. (e.g. eYs3D Microelectronics, Co., Ardentec Technology, Inc., and more). While we cannot find out in our archives about who actually took these pictures, I believe I, as an employee, working directly under the instructions of our Corporate Spokesperson Ms. Justine Tsai (Head of Corporate Communications), I have all rights and freedom to post and publish information in forms of text and pictures related to our company and our people.

Image file Nicky Lu Profile Picture 1.jpg was deleted. It is a picture of our CEO, Dr. Nicky Lu (Chao-Chun Lu, 盧超群) Please revert the changes. Thankyou.

Sincerely, Chun-Kang "Jackie" Huang Corporate Communications Department, Etron Technology, Inc. at Hsinchu, Taiwan

@Ricatayakahusta: We need the copyright holder's permission to keep the image online, and it seems there was no such permission on the file description page, or the permission was faulty in some way. If this is a corporate photo and you know by your practices that you own the copyright regardless of who the photographer was, then you should tell that to our volunteers through Commons:VRT – we cannot know from a posting like the above that you are who you claim to be. With hopes of your understanding, LPfi (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - 1) From the provided job description, you do not appear to occupy a role with the authority to license (very distinct from "publishing") corporate assets; this is typically an executive level function not granted by mere employment; 2) there is no evidence that the copyright is even owned by Etron Technology, Inc.; firms commonly engage professional photographers for corporate headshots; 3) relatedly, previously published works require COM:VRT evidence of permission (verily, the source site provided says "Copyright 2015 - 2022 @ Etron Technology, Inc. AI (sic) rights resservied (sic)") and 4) the foregoing may be moot as this is a COM:SCOPE/COM:ADVERT issue; Etron does not appear notable and, indeed, requestor is blocked for spamming. Эlcobbola talk 17:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Per discussion -- requires both proof that the subject is in scope and a free license from the actual copyright holder -- which is usually the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Eli-Clare-publicity.jpg

This file was deleted because the uploader uploaded it as their own work and failed to provide evidence of permission to use it. It appears that this photo is taken from Eli Clare's website, where it is listed on the "Publicity Information" page as "Publicity Photo." Text beside the photo reads "When using this photo, please credit Samuel Lurie. Feel free to crop as needed."

LemonOrangeLime (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose "Publicity photos" are not free. We need the formal written permission from Samuel Lurie for a free license. If you have such a permission, please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose Agreed. "Free for publicity: is much more limited than our required "free for any use anywhere by anybody". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Per above, no evidence of a free license and "Publicity Photo" is without meaning. Further, as this is explicitly the work of Samuel Lurie, statements from a site (presumably) controlled by the subject (Clare) would not be adequate, as copyright initially vests in the author. Эlcobbola talk 17:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ritratto di Pio XII.jpg

Deleted with the reason of "copyvio" and citing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Pontifex Pius XII.png, which I'd opened myself.

However, although I nominated myself these files for deletion because they were uploads by a sockpuppet (currently blocked), in this comment I indicated that this file could be kept since there was no evidence which cites the name of an author, and the source estimates the inception date between 1939 and 1949, so it could meet the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} criteria but, as the period 70 years since first publication (to the Archdiocese of Venice) had not been expired at the URAA date (1996), it's US copyright was restored.

I known that original investigations are not valid as sources, but I cite them because since this sockpuppet user had begun to upload files in Commons I treated to verify that those uploads were properly licensed and that they were old enough to be tagged as public domain, also to verify that they were really anonymous, because there were at least three files that had an author and that this sockpuppet had not even named (all those three files' authors died less than 70 years ago and for that I tagged them as copyvios, it is cited also in the DR).

However, in this particular image, I didn't get any other reliable sources apart from where the file was extracted from, so unlike others where I did add the sources from which I got the information, in this one I didn't add none. Therefore, I was able to conclude that the PD-EU-no disclosure label was valid. In addition, I request the restoration of File:Ritratto di Pio XII.jpg (only this file, not the other ones) because, since as I was able to see in nominations like this, the simple reason of "having been reprotected by the URAA" cannot be the only reason to carry out the deletion of the file.

Thanks for your time.

83.61.237.190 12:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Actually, the fact that the URAA will keep it under copyright in the USA for another ten years or so is a perfectly valid reason that we cannot restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Comment, if this is true, I'll be agree with too. And also, if it is a between 1939 and 1949 painting, when do you think would be elegible for being undelete?, estimating that URAA give circa 10 years more of protection. I only ask this for know it and apply it properly in similar future cases. 83.61.237.190 12:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The URAA US copyright runs for 95 years from first publication -- as if it had been published in the USA with notice and renewal. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose to restore, thank you for explanation. So if we take 1949 as the year of inception/publication, US copyright period protection would be operative until 1 January 2045, if I'm correct. It is possible to add this file to the category Undelete in 2045? 83.61.237.190 14:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Withdrawn by requestor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Un-delete Image Files used in Joseph Mellor Hanson Wikipedia page

Hello!

I have received a letter giving permission to use the following images for the Joseph Mellor Hanson Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mellor_Hanson under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license

The image files are as follows:

The Listening Ear-Joseph M. Hanson-1949-Ithaca.jpg Three Figures-Joseph M. Hanson-Ithaca, 1955.jpg Three Figures-The Fates-Joseph M. Hanson-Ithaca, 1956.jpg Time and the Hour-Joseph Hanson-1957-Ithaca-1957.jpg David Daly-Joseph M. Hanson-Ithaca, 1954.jpg Woman Wth a Dog-Joseph M. Hanson-1955-Ithaca.jpg

Here is a link to the letter https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OGQu3i7LCYbXz22W_LIj4mvvNF2dm4w5/view?usp=sharing

I am happy to send you a pdf of the letter if the link does not work.

--JMToner (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Janelle Toner 6/8/22

  •   Oppose - We do not accept licenses that limit commercial usage ("CC BY-NC 4.0")--please see COM:L. We also do not accept forward/proxy statements of permission. If the copyright holder agrees to an acceptable free license, they should provide that permission directly using the process at COM:VRT. Эlcobbola talk 17:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Non Commercial licenses are not acceptable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Corey-ellis-official.jpg

This is a portrait of a federal government appointee published by the US Justice Department and it's therefore in the public domain. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose The fact that it was published by DoJ is irrelevant to its copyright status. I note that User:NorthAmericanOak claimed that they were the photographer in the file description. In order to be eligible for {{PD-USGov-DOJ}} it must be proven that the photographer was a Federal employee. Most such images are taken by private portrait photographers. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I would support the claim that it is a US government work if the external source is shown, but not when claimed by a Commons user as own work. The source is probably [3] or [4], where it is "Corey Ellis, Courtesy: United States Attorney’s Office District of South Carolina". Yann (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Yann, source field should be changed carefully when restoring. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done: per Yann. This appears to be a federal US work by the United States Attorney’s Office District of South Carolina. --De728631 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:سهند-مدمرة.jpg

Hi. I wanted to upload this file but could not do it because it was deleted. So I ask for undeletion, because this file is from Category:Tasnim and Template:Tasnim license is free (see here). Please check if any of deleted files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Alaa dfgh are from this website, I think there may be other free files deleted. Thanks. HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support The source page shows, "All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. " .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


  Done: as per Jim. @HeminKurdistan: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Coat of arms of Venezuela (2).svg

I talked to the author about its licensing, who changed the license from CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 to CC-BY 3.0 on Deviant Art. (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support The source page shows CC-BY 3.0. It's a beautiful job of interpreting the blazon. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


  Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Nike Boyshorts 3.jpg

Hi, I believe this deletion was a mistake. This picture, along with two others, was appropriate with your project scope. All three pictures were and are educational and didn't show anything the person that reported it said. although I want them re-uploaded, all I ask is for you to review them.

Thank you


other two files in question:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slemonc510 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

@Slemonc510: Who is the photographer? Could you upload the original ones with full EXIF data? Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
It was from the Nike website, though I don't know who the photographer is. As far as the EXIF data, I don't know how to do that. If possible, please help with that. Thank you. Slemonc510 (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Update: look up Jeffery Biri. Slemonc510 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose If these photos come directly from the Nike website, you were not allowed to upload them here without permission from the copyright holder. They are not your "own work" but are copyrighted to Nike and/or Mr. Biri. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)   Oppose Then you are not allowed to upload images copied from the Internet without a formal written from the copyright holder, and claim these as your owns. Don't do that again. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Obvious copyright violations. --Yann (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Fuse-tar (Lucifer).jpg

Hello,

the picture I've chosen for the article was deleted by bot, how I can that picture get again accessible? I didn't upload, just linked it to the article from the gallery available on wikipedia. Thank you loads for your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.252.74 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 June 2022‎ (UTC)

  •   Oppose - Image appeared here in 2012, well before Commons upload, and indeed with EXIF crediting "Atlas Music; Natalia Boik" as noted in the rationale. Boik should provide permission directly using the process at COM:VRT. Эlcobbola talk 15:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Since this was published prior to the upload at Commons, we need a permission coming directly from the copyright holder. --De728631 (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


Is there possibility to upload another picture instead of waiting? I do not think she knows that her permission needed and especially how to do it on wikipedia.

The only quick solution would be a free licence for the photo granted at her website http://www.shahab-tolouie.com/fusetar with credits and permission from the original photographer.
This discussion is now closed (really), so please do not add any posts here. If you have more questions, please contact me at User talk:De728631. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ada Colau, 2022.jpg

The license is "Creative Commons BY - SA" as stated in the website: https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/alcaldessa/en/media

It is acceptable for use in Wikimedia.

That site said BY - NC - SA as recently as June 1, so it was deleted correctly, but the license has indeed since changed.   Support undeletion and do a license review on it again. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done: Now available under a free licence. --De728631 (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Pokémon Hisuian Snow.jpg

I know this poster is not mine. I mention this in summary page. This poster is taken from the official website of Pokémon.

@Krish1604: So why did you upload it then, knowing that you didn't create it and it's not freely licensed? pandakekok9 09:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Pandakekok9: because I made an article of this poster so obviously we upload an poster for this and I am already mentioned that this poster is taken from official website of Pokémon. I need the poster back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish1604 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

  Not done: Not a UDR. Copyright violation, no permission. --Yann (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jahrgang Reichsgraf von Abensperg und Traun.png

Concerns the following files:

These are coats of arms of the classes of the Theresian Military Academy, they are public domain as of §7 Urheberrechstgesetz, because they are used by the Austrian Armed Forces, a public institution, like all other TherMilAk coats of arms that already exist on Wikimedia Commons. Permission to upload was nevertheless obtained before uploading from the Department for Public Relations of the TherMilAk before uploading.

Therefore I am asking you respectfully to restore the affected images.

Maxsmog (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Comment The files were deleted because you did not put any valid license on them. All files on Commons must have a license or a reason why they are PD. They probably can be restored if one of my colleagues more familiar with Austrian law than me takes a look at them. If permission is required, it must come from an authorized official of the Theresian Military Academy via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


  Done: as per De728631. @Maxsmog: Please add categories. Yann (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Büste Melina Mercouri .jpg

Kann nicht verstehen, wieso mein Foto als mögliche Urheberrechtsverletzung markiert und deswegen gelöscht wurde. Möchte um eine diesbezügliche Antwort bitten. Das Foto ist mein eigenes Werk, wie beim Hochladen angegeben, weshalb ich die Wiederherstellung der Datei beantrage.

Mit freundlichem Gruß --Grenzlandstern (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose As explained at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bust of Melina Mercouri (Athens), there are two copyrights here -- one for the photograph, which Grenzlandstern has freely licensed and one for the sculpture. This image infringes on the sculptor's copyright, so we cannot keep the image on Commons without a free license from the sculptor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Jim hat recht, es gibt hier unabhängig von dem Foto noch das Urheberrecht des Künstlers, der die Büste geschaffen hat. Siehe dazu auch Commons:Bearbeitungen. De728631 (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
P. S.: Anders als z. B. in Deutschland gibt es in Griechenland auch keine Panoramafreiheit. D. h., auch Objekte, die dauerhaft im öffentlichen Raum gezeigt werden, haben die übliche Schutzdauer des Urheberrechts und dürfen nicht einfach als Foto weiter verbreitet werden. De728631 (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Baby-Ruth-Wrapper-Small.jpg

Given the discussions at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Baby_Ruth_wrapper,_and_questions_about_Swiss_copyright_laws_in_general, the original rationales for deletion are logically wrong, this is just a US product and doesn't exceed the COM:TOO US. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support as per discussion linked above. Yann (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  Support as I was just about to make this request myself. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  Support Nestlé USA product. --RAN (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done: Not a copyrightable packaging design as it is too simple. --De728631 (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Испытатели ОКБ МиГ-1993 Л.Попов, В.Меницкий, А.Гарнаев, С.Хазов, П.Власов.jpg

own archives

  •   Oppose @Murka-miki: The photo is attributed to one Sergei Skrynnikov. If you are this person, please verify your identity by sending an email as explained in COM:VRT. Moreover, please sign your contributions to discussion sites like this one by typing four tilde characters ~~~~. This will add your user name and a timestamp for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De728631 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

  Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Salem Assli and his parents.jpg

The file was taken from the URL https://salemassli.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Salem-dad-et-mom.jpg. The salemassli.com site states in the footer that the content of the site is distributed under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.-124Sanroque (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a CC licence in the footer of salemassli.com. However, I can't find this particular photo in the published content of that website, i.e. it appears only to be present on their server but not on the website front end. So, I don't think the free licence applies to this photo. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Apparent COM:LL - Salem Assli did not take a picture of himself as an infant. Evidence of permission from the actual author (photographer) is needed. Эlcobbola talk 15:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  Support This is a family photo taken in the home, not an image by a professional photographer in a studio. Generally we accept Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs from family members for family snapshots, even when the family member who had their finger on the shutter is anonymous. --RAN (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  Support The photograph is rare and informative. Obviously, ownership of copyright passes from parents to their children.-AlinaGusewa (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The parents are also in the photograph so neither is the author (photographer). Even if copyright was transferred from the photographer to the parents (something for which no evidence is on offer), it still would not transfer to "their children" just because. Again, evidence of permission from the actual author (photographer) is needed. Эlcobbola talk 18:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  Support I think it is OK to assume that casual family snapshots are properly licensed without the need for a formal permission statement. -- King of ♥ 06:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done, per elcobbola. There is no information if the copyright has legitimately been transferred from the unknown photographer to the subject. Also, the CC license requires attribution to the copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Dedalium New icon.png

We would like to get that image back, we are the creators and owners of it. If there is any formality that needs to be done, please tell us and we will do it a soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel corominas (talk • contribs) 14:15, 10 June 2022‎ (UTC)

  •   Oppose If you are the copyright holder, please send an email from an address affiliated with Dedalium.com or Loycom Games. The process is explained in COM:VRT. Moreover, please sign your contributions to discussion sites like this one by typing four tilde characters ~~~~. This will add your user name and a timestamp for reference. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - In addition to being previously published with "© 2021 Loycom Games. All Rights Reserved," this is a COM:NOTHOST/COM:ADVERT issue: the game article has been deleted on every wiki on which you've created it (es.wiki, en.wiki) and apparently remains only on ca.wiki because you improperly removed the PROD (FVA). Эlcobbola talk 14:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikimedia Commons has a specifically educational scope, and in light of the deleted Wikipedia articles, it is not clear how this logo is educationally useful on its own. De728631 (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Paa Kwasi(Artist).jpg

I am requesting for restoration because I own every right of the said fill, and I made it free use for everyone. Big Ayeh (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Correct file name is File:Paa Kwasi (Artist).jpg. As told you on your talk page, the copyright holder has to send a permission following the procedure at COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done: Permission now OK. --Yann (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Rocoactsaitalking1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The source is Ocean Affairs Council website, which is licensed under {{GWOIA}} [5]. Please note that this request is not related to the VRTS ticket. Thanks. cc @Shizhao: SCP-2000 01:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


  Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:English_Colonel_Frederick_Wolf.jpg

I want to peek at this image to see if it was attached to the wrong person, the person it was attached to died in 1887, so it is in the public domain, if the person was correctly identified. The person attached to was born in Germany and the caption describes an English person.--RAN (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  •   Done @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): This file has been temporarily restored so the subject in the photo can be identified. De728631 (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Keep An image from 1861 is in the public domain, it was incorrectly deleted. The problem with "English" appears to be that the caption was in English. --RAN (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I'd rather be interested in finding the original source, because the linked website does not exist any more. Apart from that, I agree that this is PD. De728631 (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The website probably never existed. It looks like a family member has been adding other members of their family to Wikidata and scanning family photos. I will search for this image in the massive US Civil War photo identification database, to make sure it has not been attributed to another soldier. I am adding in more info at Wikidata as I find it. The man who deleted the photos is also trying to delete the Wikidata entry as "not notable". There are some problems with one Wikidata entry where the person is claimed to be a US Representative and there is no evidence of it. I have been double checking all the entries because of that error, and adding in correct references and linking to obituaries. --RAN (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts. For the time being, I think we can keep the image. Notability aside, this is a nice example of a US Union Army uniform. De728631 (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ultimate Sports Quiz Show.jpg - Undeletion Request

Hi,

The attached image is from 1st episode of Ultimate Sports Quiz.

You check the details from the below reference

Ultimate sports quiz

https://www.sportstiger.com/ultimate-sports-quiz-launch-date-telecast-info-timings-and-all-you-need-to-know/ https://www.sportskeeda.com/bos/news-sony-sports-network-launch-ultimate-sports-quiz-2022-june-5-harsha-bhogle-play-host


--Kalpiitpradhan (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose I could not find the subject image at either of those sites, but both have "© 2022 SportsTiger. All rights reserved " so it is almost certain that the subject image also has a copyright. Note also that claiming to be the photographer of the image, as you did, is a serious violation of Commons rules. Don't do it again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose The file appears to be a screenshot from the video in the first link, but I agree that there is no free licence for any media on these websites. De728631 (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


  Not done: as per Jim and De728631. --Yann (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ro-Drobeta-Turnu Severin 2.ogg

Brother it get delete no reason]]]]]]]] BEcause some racist person hates severin people — Preceding unsigned comment added by PUPGPC (talk • contribs) 12 June 2022 20:24 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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.
    It was deleted due to being used for English Wikipedia disruption. Yhis is a reason. Why should it be undeleted? Where to be used or why educational? Ankry (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: No reason provided. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ro-Drobeta-Turnu Severin 2.ogg. --Yann (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Steven Gutow Scanned Photos_Page_5.jpg

This file has been given to me by the owner/subject.

--Spinozist69 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No such file, see below. Ankry (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Steven Gutow_Richards.jpg

This file has been given to me by the owner/subject.

--Spinozist69 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No such file, see below. Ankry (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Gutow Scanned Photos_Page_7.png

This file has been given to me by the owner/subject.

--Spinozist69 (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Spinozist69: No such file, see below. And do not create multiple requests concerning one file. This is disruptive behaviour. Ankry (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Expo Volupté de l'ombre Maurice Maillard musée de Honfleur.png

I request undeletion of this file, as the author of the work of art is the subject of the Wikipedia page. I wrote this page with the permission of the rights-holders of this author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lferreira (talk • contribs)

Please note that we have a procedure for copyright holders to provide permissions, see VRT. This procedure should be used if the permission is not granted in public. Ankry (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Fotografías de Monsieur Jean Lajoie

Hola. Escribo este mensaje porque hace unos meses fueron seleccionadas varias imágenes de mi taller para ser borradas por motivos de autoría relacionada con el fallecimiento del autor. Quien se encontraba al cargo de las justificaciones era la hija del individuo a tratar (Jean Lajoie), la señora Jacqueline Lajoie, con quien mantengo una relación familiar. Imagino que no debió especificar algunos detalles por ser una persona mayor y que tiene el castellano como segunda lengua. Es por ello por lo que ahora me toca justificar la recuperación de algunas fotografías por los detalles que me ha proporcionado la señora Lajoie pero que parece que no ha expresado con claridad en los mensajes.

El caso es que hay un grupo de imágenes que se encontrarían liberadas por ser de autoría familiar, véase su mujer o sus hijos. Estas son:

Igualmente, hay otro conjunto de fotografías de autoría dudosa y tienen ya más de 100 años. Estas se corresponderían con las siguientes:

Además hay dos imágenes que no eran fotografías, sino de un mismo folleto publicitario de la propia empresa hecho en 1898 que se corresponde con las imágenes siguientes:

Por tanto, si cumplen con las condiciones, me gustaría recuperarlas ya que no fui yo quien trató el tema, sino la heredera de todo el material y entiendo que pudiera despistarse en algunos momentos.

Aprovecho de paso para preguntar: ¿las imágenes de estudio fotográfico que ya han pasado los 70 años podrían ser liberadas? Lo pregunto porque entonces habría que incluir otro grupo de imágenes, pero hasta el momento desconozco todo esto al detalle.

--David Ll L (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

For anybody reading this: that was Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by David Ll L, which I decided. I explained there in quite a lot of detail why (after quite some research) I kept what I kept and why I deleted what I deleted. Basically, the deleted photos are all either French, or for some it's not known whether they are French or perhaps Spanish, and they're not old enough for PD-old-assumed. I wasn't given much information about provenance, original (if any) publication, if a photographer is known etc., so I decided to put them up for restoration with PD-old-assumed 120 years after the date they were given, respectively. As for the two drawings, one was signed, and I could decipher that signature as Albert Robida and keep the file as PD. The other one is said to show a dye mill in France "en 1898", but it's not sure if that means that the drawing is also from 1898, there's no source or author. As I wrote in the DR, if additional facts turn up, some deleted files can possibly be restored earlier. --Rosenzweig τ 20:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Ping @Ganímedes: as the VRT agent who has handled mails in this case. --Rosenzweig τ 20:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I can't openly talk about the emails content; however, I've accepted all statements for files with J. Lajoie artworks. For the rest, I've got doubts. I.e.: according to the user, File:Jean_Lajoie_en_su_luna_de_miel.png (JL in his honeymoon) it's a photo with family authorship. How can be this possible? Obviously nor the wife or the children can took it, or yes? In the second set of files, it says "they're over 100 year, but the author is unknown". Well, how can the user prove that File:Jean_fecha_desconocida.png ("Jean unknown date") it's over 100 years? Etc. I think we need clear evidence in this hold case. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, I hope my English can be understandable. First of all, JL in his honeymoon went with his brother and his respective wife, and we know because we have more photos that prove it so is understandable that this image was taken by his brother or the wife of his brother. The second thing is that I don't remember actually 100% which photo was File:Jean_fecha_desconocida.png but if I'm not wrong, I remember that it was a photo taken during the childhood of JL so it would had more than 100 years, but when I chose the name I used that because I wasn't sure about the exact year when the photo was taken. Now I understand that the therms indicates that is 120 years and not 100 so I don´t have in that case any request about the second group of images. For the rest of the images (the first and the third group) I'd like to be more informed because I don't understand why can't be published, I still not having clear all the information. David Ll L (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Also please note @David Ll L: : Works being over 100 years old does not hold special significance for Wikimedia Commons. If they are over 120 years old, then we can (usually) keep them with the license tag {{PD-old-assumed}} (in the absence of better or contradicting information). --Rosenzweig τ 22:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: I quite agree with the assessment above and in the DR, except for File:Tintorería Hénault-Morel de Alençon en 1898.png: this was obviously published, and 1898 is probable, so OK. Pre-1937 photos could be restored with {{PD-France}} and {{PD-1996}} if we have a hint about anonymous publication at the time. --Yann (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Gutow_Holmes Norton.jpg

Obtained license from Getty Images

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/steve-gutow

I was able to locate your initial purchase for this image (ID # 131484479) and in reviewing the license you selected (editorial standard – low) the wiki use you described below is covered.

The only stipulation to this license is that it expires after 15 years. If that works for you then you are all set, no commercial license is required for this use.

Gabriela Perez | Strategic Customer Service Associate From: Gabriela Perez <Gabriela.Perez@gettyimages.com> P: 646-613-3845

--Spinozist69 (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Spinozist69: Which image are you talking about? There is no deleted file named Gutow_Holmes Norton.jpg, and your only deleted contribution is File:GutowForward.jpg. Note also, that non-commercial licenses are unacceptable for Wikimedia Commons (see COM:L), that there is a procedure for providing a license from copyright holders (see VRT), that most acceptable license require proper photographer attribution, and that low resolution image is likely useless (Wikipedia needs to display images as fullscreen). Ankry (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - 1) This appears to relate to w:File:Gutow Holmes Norton.jpg, which was uploaded to en.wiki, not the Commons; 2) we require commercial usage; and 3) we require licenses to be perpetual. Please review COM:L and free content. Эlcobbola talk 14:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
      Comment Spinozist69 appears to be an undisclosed alternative account of LeoBloom04, which uploaded this file to en.wiki and uploaded File:Steven Gutow Scanned Photos Page 5.jpg and File:Gutow Scanned Photos Page 7.png here to the Commons, which appear what the above requests ([6][7]) were meant to reference. All have been correctly deleted. "This file has been given to me by the owner/subject," for example, contradicts their purport of self-authorship at upload, is not permission from the author, and requires VRT evidence. Эlcobbola talk 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Talounisofia.jpg

This nomination had not been processed for over 1 months, so I forgot about the nomination. I think below images can be undeleted. File:Talounisofia.jpg please resolve this problem someone helps ?

This Official Portails Picture of Sofia Taloni, Moroccan blogger


  Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Hal Lawton.jpg

The image uploaded has been made publicly available via Tractor Supply's website...with a clear "Download Image" button. I work for Tractor Supply and have provided this photo for numerous media events. A simple web query would demonstrate that the photo is fully in the public domain. The continued deletion of the image is unwarranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werthometeam (talk • contribs) 16:49, 13 June 2022‎ (UTC)

  •   Oppose - Previously published with no evidence of permission and bogus self-authorship claim and bogus license; verily, the site's "right to download" terms say "you may only download content displayed on the Site for non-commercial, personal use ". Эlcobbola talk 16:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Giordano Tonelli.jpg

It's my personal photo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giordano Alessandro Tonelli (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 June 2022‎ (UTC)


  Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:ベネッセロゴ.svg

In Japanese copyright law a company logo are not protected by copyright. Therefore,the deletion is not appropriate. Thank you. Ramsal18 (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Certainly not true. Anyway, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yann (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Seoul with little fine dust.jpg

This image was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seoul with little fine dust.jpg.

However, this image was uploaded for used in en:Pollution in Korea and en:User:Hyeonyoung Lee 21/sandbox2.

In this image, Lotte World Tower is not main object and main object is clean sky.

So, This image should be undeleted, however, Lotte World Tower should be censored like File:Lotte World Tower Blacked Out.jpg and File:Lotte world tower (censored).jpg because there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea.

Ox1997cow (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Lotte World Tower. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:   Comment Please read this discussion. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  Support as per Ox1997cow. Yann (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done: Tower masked. Feel free to do a better job. ;o). --Yann (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Antropov Konstantin Grigorievich.jpg

Здравствуйте. Просим восстановить фаил в том числе на странице публикации https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#:~:text=%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%20%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%20(11%20%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F,%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83.%20%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C%D1%8F%201%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0

--Ellegoria (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Deleted per lack of photographer's free license permission. @Ellegoria: What has changed in this matter since deletion? Ankry (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Это фото было предоставлено самим Антроповым Константином Григорьевичем в архиве федерации автомобильного спорта Удмуртской Республики от лица, которое я и делаю эту публикацию, авторских прав не имеет, т.к. делалась по заказу в фотостудии.
Каким образом оформить лицензию для публикации здесь? Ellegoria (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright belongs to the photographer unless there is a written contract concerning copyright transfer. In absence of such contract, we need a free license from the photo studio owner (or the photographer - depending of their contract) send to VRT. If the photographer cannot be identified, the photo will be PD (in US) 95 years since initial publication or 120 years since creation. Ankry (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Ankry -- Free license from actual photographer is required. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:В 1981-м только Константин Антропов (№ 10) выступал на ИЖ-2125 «Комби». Ижевский гонщик замешкался на старте одного из заездов.2 место.jpg

Здравствуйте. Просим восстановить фаил в том числе на странице публикации https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#:~:text=%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%20%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%20(11%20%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F,%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83.%20%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C%D1%8F%201%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8

Спасибо --Ellegoria (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Deleted per lack of photographer's free license permission. @Ellegoria: What has changed in this matter since deletion? Ankry (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Это историческое фото из архивов , предоставленное самим Антроповым Константином для Федерации автомобильного спорта Удмуртской Республики от лица, которое я и делаю эту публикацию о спортсмене Ellegoria (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Crucial is: who is the photographer? We need a written permission from the photographer or from photograper's heirs. For unidentified photographers see above. Ankry (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Ankry -- Free license from actual photographer is required. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Покрышкин А.В. поздравляет победителей ралли Русская зима 1978, Антропова К.Г. и Куковякина В..jpg

Здравствуйте. Просим восстановить фаил в том числе на странице публикации https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#:~:text=%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%20%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%20(11%20%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F,%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83.%20%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C%D1%8F%201%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8

Спасибо --Ellegoria (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Deleted per lack of photographer's free license permission. @Ellegoria: What has changed in this matter since deletion? Ankry (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Это вырезка из газеты, издания которой уже нет. Каким образом здесь оформлять лицензию? Это фото было предоставлено самим Антроповым Константином Григорьевичем в архив Федерации автомобильного спорта Удмуртской Республики от лица которой я и делаю эту публикацию Ellegoria (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
It is irrelevant where the photo was published unless it was published before 1946. Crucial is: who is the photographer? We need a written permission from the photographer or from photograper's heirs. For unidentified photographers see above. Ankry (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Ankry -- Free license from actual photographer is required. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Антропов К.Г..jpg

Здравствуйте. Просим восстановить фаил в том числе на странице публикации https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#:~:text=%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%20%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%20(11%20%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F,%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83.%20%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C%D1%8F%201%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8

Спасибо --Ellegoria (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Deleted per lack of photographer's free license permission. @Ellegoria: What has changed in this matter since deletion? Ankry (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Это историческое фото - из архива Федерации автомобильного спорта Удмуртской Республики 46.147.184.27 21:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Это историческое фото - из архива Федерации автомобильного спорта Удмуртской Республики Ellegoria (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
It is irrelevant where the photo is stored or who provided it. Crucial is: who is the photographer? We need a written permission from the photographer or from photograper's heirs. For unidentified photographers see above. Ankry (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Ankry -- Free license from actual photographer is required. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Благодарность за вклад развития автоспорта Ижевского автозавода.jpg

Здравствуйте. Просим восстановить фаил в том числе на странице публикации https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#:~:text=%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%20%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%20(11%20%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F,%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83.%20%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C%D1%8F%201%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8

Спасибо --Ellegoria (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Deleted per lack of photographer's free license permission. @Ellegoria: What has changed in this matter since deletion? Ankry (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Это не фотография а благодарность (грамота/ диплом) - документ 46.147.184.27 21:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Это не фотография благодарности (грамота/ диплом) - документ , который отсканирован , как доказательство вышенаписанного в статье Ellegoria (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
In this case it is irrelevant who the photographer is. But we need a free license from the diploma issuer or desigher: the diploma form is not so simple to be not copyrighted and this diploma does not seem to be a government document. Ankry (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Ankry -- needs a free license from the issuing institution. Note also that the claim of Own Work made by Ellegoria is a serious violation of ommons rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Antropov Konstantin Grigorievich.jpg

Здравствуйте. Просим восстановить фаил в том числе на странице публикации https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#:~:text=%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%20%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%20(11%20%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F,%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83.%20%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%8C%D1%8F%201%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8

Спасибо --Ellegoria (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Deleted per lack of photographer's free license permission. @Ellegoria: What has changed in this matter since deletion? Ankry (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Это фото было предоставлено самим Антроповым Константином Григорьевичем в архив Федерации автомобильного спорта Удмуртской Республики от лица которой я и делаю эту публикацию, авторских прав не имеет, т.к. делалась по заказу в фотостудии 46.147.184.27 21:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Это фото было предоставлено самим Антроповым Константином Григорьевичем в архиве федерации автомобильного спорта Удмуртской Республики от лица, которое я и делаю эту публикацию, авторских прав не имеет, т.к. делалась по заказу в фотостудии Ellegoria (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Ankry -- Free license from actual photographer is required. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Сергей Григорьевич Чирцев.jpg

Здравствуйте. Просим восстановить фаил в том числе на странице публикации https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

Спасибо --Ellegoria (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Deleted per lack of photographer's free license permission. @Ellegoria: What has changed in this matter since deletion? The procedure that the photographer should follow is here. Ankry (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Это фото историческая из фото архивов музея спорта- предоставлено для публикации данных об спортсмене 46.147.184.27 21:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Это фото из архивов музея спорта, которое предоставили мне для публикации этой статьи про спортсмена Ellegoria (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
это архивное студийное (без автора и авторских прав- делалось всем спортсменам на доску почета и в личное пользование) фото предоставлено музеем спорта для публикации статьи про спортсмена, каким образом разместить это изображение здесь? Ellegoria (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
If this photo is not copyrighted, you need to point out an appropriate exception in the copyright law. Per default, any photo is copyrighted. Ankry (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Ankry -- Free license from actual photographer is required. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:消費者庁.svg

I believe deletion is not appropriate. This work can be PD-textlogo. For instance,CAO logo.svg has not been deleted. Thank you. Ramsal18 (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose I see no text here and the shape of the rosette components is not simple geometric. Ankry (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
You may have missed the Japanese script and the Latin letters "Consu Affairs Agency..." below the rosette. I agree though that the rosette as such looks copyrightable. De728631 (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, it went out of my screen. But I still think the rosette is not PD-shape. Ankry (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose Close call, but I agree that the rosette probably has a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done, per discussion. Thuresson (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:PabloIdrovo.jpg

The file has no copyright, it is a photo of my own --Gaalban (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Recent photos are automatically copyrighted to the photographer, and there is no free licence or copyright waiver at this website. So, if you are the photographer, please verify your authorship by sending an email as explained at COM:VRT. Please note also that owning the copy of a file does not make you own its copyright too, unless it was explicitely transferred to you by the photographer. De728631 (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Note that the original request for deletion was as a personal photo of a non-contributor. Why is this person's photo of educational value for Commons? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


Not done, per discussion. es:Pablo Idrovo has been deleted on June 18, 2022. Thuresson (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:MortezaShokri.jpg

hello, My file, which I own, was deleted a few days ago due to copyright. I personally uploaded the photo to Facebook. I deleted it from Facebook. I now request to cancel the deletion of my photo. My photo name: MortezaShokri.jpg

Thanks --Mortezashokriofficial (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose First, we have no way here of knowing who User:Mortezashokriofficial actually is. Second, it does not look like a selfie, so the chances are the copyright is held by the actual photographer. Both of these must be addressed using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I am Morteza Shokri, the owner of this page (Mortezashokriofficial ) and the owner of MortezaShokri.jpg
This is the first time I shared this photo on Facebook.
How can I solve this problem through VRT? Mortezashokriofficial (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
A lack of notability and/or desire to use WMF projects for self-promotion cannot be remedied through VRT. Эlcobbola talk 15:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


Not done, per discussion. Thuresson (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Imageedit 1 3246028814.png

Hello Wikimedia Commons, this particular file and all the others I've uploaded here since I created my account were all originally drawn by myself. I know that there are existing similar images on the Internet, but I assure you that they are inspired but original photos. So it would be great if you could stop deleting my files in the future.

Thank you, Vic1451 2022/06/17

Vic1451 (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


  Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:To Reach Beyond.jpg

SVC nulll is Stijn Van Cauter. I pleased him in an E-Mail to Upload some Pictures for usage on articles i wrote in the deWP. He is the creator and owns all rights for all Files. And also:

--Fraoch (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
this can't be right. not with this Kind of mass deletion. It's about a whole series of studio albums and music projects for which SvC designed covers and logos. Wheres the UDOM Logo, wheres the The Etheral From Funeral Skies Cover? Where is Monolith, Deep Dark Red, Desolate, Prelude to Monolith, Missing ... You could See most of Them also here: http://nulll.net/music/discography.php many of them were released by renowned labels. there can only be individual decisions here, not mass deletion.--Fraoch (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
You've not addressed the examples provided. If that is meant to imply that some are indeed stolen and others are not, the onus is on you to provide this distinction and evidence, not on anyone else. If the source of assets for some have been misrepresented, why would we believe the others? If these need individual consideration, why have you provided only the mass? Эlcobbola talk 20:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is the Discussion, so I would Like to get every possible File Back. I know that every File is the Work of SvC Nulll. I know every Picture was used as an Album Cover. I dont know about Stolen Details or full Files. Its Not my work. SvC Nulll -Stijn Van Cauter- Upload em to commons. You came Up with one File blamed as "Derivate Work" and Im Not able to say If its Derivate Work or Not, cause Its not my Work. I answered with examples to Show that You couldnt find Derivate Work in a lot of those Files. Again for example File:The Lightless.jpg, File:The Rage (album).jpg, File:The Final Border.jpg, File:Symphony III - Monolith.jpg, File:Prelude To Monolith.jpg, File:Missing.jpg, File:Moon (album).jpg, File:Levitation (album).jpg, File:Inritus.jpg, File:Infra Sub Ultra.jpg, File:UDOM logo.jpg, File:Frostverse.jpg, File:From Funeral Skies.jpg, File:Desolate (album).jpg, File:De Monstris.jpg, File:Deep Dark Red.jpg, File:Days Without Hope.jpg, File:As Dead As Time.jpg, File:Aeon E.jpg, File:Funeral Path.jpg ... I want em Back. Theres No reason for a Delation. --Fraoch (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

As part of a project in the deWP (Funeral-Doom-Run), I asked various musicians for images. Stijn Van Cauter was kind enough to post all the covers of his numerous albums and the logo of his main project Until Death Overtakes Me. He created all the covers himself and is the creator and rights holder and was active here with his label name. That was a real jackpot for me. After all, there are currently 37 articles in the deWP. A lot of them are translatet with And without permission to Other WP-Language-Projects. Now Category:Stijn Van Cauter is empty because everything was quickly deleted. and the rationale was not "Derivative Work". I have no idea if and when „Derivate Work“ applies, but it would have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. the whole thing is a tragedy for me. I am frustrated. why the hell am i bothering to talk to people around the world for getting pictures Under CC? Fraoch (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose For any document previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission from the copyright holder for a free license is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Rights clarification? Fraoch (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This is not sufficient. We need a free license which allows any use by anyone for any purpose. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, for that he had choose a CC-Licence here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Fraoch (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
null.net now with CC-4.0-Licence.--Fraoch (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  Support now, at least for album covers which are not derivative of other works. Yann (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose There are two problems here. The first is that we do not know that User:SVC nulll is in fact Stijn Van Cauter. Http://nulll.net/music/rights.php shows a CC-BY license but then attempts to limit it to NC. I think we need verification from Stijn Van Cauter that the works are freely licensed without any NC restriction.

Second, as Эlcobbola has pointed out above, at least two of these are derivative of photographs made by others. Those two and all others that are derivative works cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the creators of the underlying works. A fast look at a dozen of them suggests that all of them may fit in that category. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


  Done Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stijn Van Cauter. Given that this case is controversial, it is best resolved with a DR. The original reason for speedy deletion, "Seems like these are all non-free album covers with no evidence of freeness", no longer applies. King of ♥ 17:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Luisedwin2105

Dado el requerimiento de Ellywa, abro discusión en esta página.

En su argumentación para tomar la decisión de eliminar las imágenes, señala: From the Template: PD-PE-insignia it appears it is valid for a state authority of Peru, such as ministry or public organization. Ante ello, debo referir que el Jurado Nacional de Elecciones, que ha publicado las imágenes (aquí), es una autoridad estatal autónoma del Perú. Este dato también se consignó antes en la discusión. Además, los logos de toda organización política registrada oficialmente en el Perú deben publicarse en el Diario Oficial El Peruano. Véase un ejemplo aquí (o aquí).

Espero pueda tomar a consideración lo anteriormente expuesto y, de considerarse adecuado, restituir las imágenes eliminadas.

Los archivos son los siguientes:

Saludos. --Luisedwin2105 (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


  Oppose I understand that these are logos of political parties. As such, they have copyrights which are owned by the parties. The fact that they have been published by Jurado Nacional de Elecciones and the Diario Oficial El Peruano is irrelevant to their copyright status. We cannot restore them without a valid license from each of the copyright holders via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


  Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jeter.jpg

Taken in the 1920s (certainly not later than 1935). This is OK under {{PD-France}} and {{PD-1996}}. See related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jeter.jpg. Yann (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - The PD-France condition of publication +70 years is for anonymous works, which is an entirely different concept than merely being unknown to us. For unknown authors, which is the case here per the DR, we use {{PD-old-assumed}} (creation + 120). Even taking the earliest possible "1920s," 1920 + 120 + 1 = 01.01.2041. Эlcobbola talk 15:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Elcobbola: Why do you think it was not published at the time? The photographer is obviously unknown. For this kind of old images, I don't see any reason to think it was not published, comparing with images coming from personal archives. I don't see the point for requiring impossible proof. That's beyond reasonable doubt, which is our requirement. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • You appear not to have read my comment. I've not commented on whether it's been published. ("Why do you think it was not published at the time?") I've not asked for proof. ("I don't see the point for requiring impossible proof. ") Try again. Эlcobbola talk 18:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I've not made disparaging comments. You, again, appear not to have read my comments. Эlcobbola talk 19:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose „The photographer is obviously unknown“ – unknown to us and perhaps also to the people of the School of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of St Andrews, Scotland, where this file was originally taken from ([8]). But that's not the original publication of the image. The Scots don't know where they found it (“Images […] we cannot guarantee that there may not be outstanding copyright problems. We have not kept a record of where we found any of the images we have used”. [9]) As was noted in the deletion request “We have no clue where it was published; it could have been in at a Mexican mathematics conference, or Brazilian, or Japanese or Egyptian or British. So there's no way we can verify that it's free of copyright.” and “we don't know from when it is or who took it.” Has that changed in the meantime? --Rosenzweig τ 18:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Rosenzweig: My point is that beyond reasonable doubt required by our policy. Yann (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Which policy do you mean? If you mean COM:PRP, the wording there is “where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted”. And I do have significant doubt that this file is free. Just because it's been copied on the internet for years without an attribution does not mean it is actually anonymous. Without an author, time and place of creation and time and place of original publication all we have is guesswork based on how the person looks on the photo. That may be good enough for someone who died in, say, 1900, because then we can say PD-old-assumed must apply in any case, even if we don't know an author and don't really know if some work is anonymous. But for the photo of a man who died in 1956, it's not good enough. --Rosenzweig τ 19:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
"[B]eyond reasonable doubt required by our policy" is nonsense. 1) COM:PRP references only "significant doubt" (middling threshold), which is not at all "reasonable doubt" (very high threshold used for criminal matters) and 2) the "significant doubt" in PRP is the threshold at which we disregard evidence that may be available; alternatively stated, it is the threshold for exclusion, not for inclusion. The threshold for inclusion, which is what is relevant here, is COM:EVID: "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain." (underline added) As per Rosenzweig, no evidence of anything is on offer. Эlcobbola talk 19:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I haven't seen the image or its description, but you seem to talk past each other. The question is whether it seems very likely that the photo was first published without naming the photographer. If so, and there is no reason to believe their identity was later revealed, then there is no significant doubt. But if there just is the hope that it might have been published anonymously, then we have no right to act on the presumption. –LPfi (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The image is this one from that page. Yann (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
We know barely anything about that image except that it is said to show Émile Borel and that he looks older. Here is a different version from a Hungarian library, unfortunately without any pertinent details as well. Both look like they were scanned from newsprint, so the image was probably published I think. --Rosenzweig τ 11:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The relevant question is whether, at the time it was originally used, the photographer of such portrait images usually were mentioned (when the photograph itself was unsigned). Prosfilaes talked about conferences, but isn't it likely that the conferences used an existing photo? Where in the contexts where the photograph may have been published was it practice to publish the name of the photographer? At the conferences? In newspapers? –LPfi (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Very rarely. I would say with confidence that 99.9% of pictures from that time are anonymous. Yann (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
So, do we have any reason to believe that this photo wouldn't be anonymous? If it is, and published before 1926 (?), it would have been PD in 1996 (URAA; it hardly had a US copyright). We can assume it was published soon after creation, so assess age through the looks of the photo. But if published 1926–1935, it would have had its copyright restored by URAA, wouldn't it? Still, it would be PD in France (which should be the relevant country for us), and in the USA from 2022–2031. So, if there is no significant doubt that it was anonymous, we can undelete it now or after a few years, 2025 for a 1929 publication. –LPfi (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
While working on deletion requests and doing research because of that, I've seen some photos in French publications from the 1920s and 1930s, and it is not my impression that "99.9% of pictures from that time are anonymous". A great many of them, perhaps. A majority of them in newspapers, perhaps that as well. But we don't even know if this comes from a newspaper, a book, a brochure, whatever. --Rosenzweig τ 16:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose In order to use an "anonymous" tag, it is essential to show that the first publication was, in fact, anonymous. The reason we have {{PD-old-assumed}} is to cover cases where the creator is unknown but "anonymous" has not been proven. Cases such as this one.

In this case, I don't agree we can even use {{PD-France}} and {{PD-1996}} -- we are told that the image is from the 1920s and not later than 1935. Therefore the image might easily be from 1927 or later and therefore not free under the URAA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

But is there any significant doubt about it being anonymous? It is not enough that it might not have been. –LPfi (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there is significant doubt, see above. --Rosenzweig τ 16:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
No, if published before 1936, it is not restored by URAA, as term in France was 50 + 8 years at the time. Yann (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
When implementing the EU copyright directive into French law in 1995, didn't France put some restoration clause in that said that if a work was still protected in any other EU country, then its copyright was restored according to the new rules? The UK and Germany did, and IIRC they did that because it was already in the copyright directive. As a consequence, many older photographs where the copyright was already expired had their copyright restored in Germany, because a court found that Spain had protected many photographs (not the very "simple" ones, but they did not need to be artistic) with 80 years pma since the late 1800s or so. s:de:Oberlandesgericht Hamburg - U-Boot Foto 1941. --Rosenzweig τ 16:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
In the UK that is regulation 16 from 1995: “The new provisions relating to duration of copyright apply— […] (d) to existing works in which copyright expired before 31st December 1995 but which were on 1st July 1995 protected in another EEA state under legislation relating to copyright or related rights.” In Germany, it's § 137f Urhg: „(2) Die Vorschriften dieses Gesetzes in der ab dem 1. Juli 1995 geltenden Fassung sind auch auf Werke anzuwenden, deren Schutz nach diesem Gesetz vor dem 1. Juli 1995 abgelaufen ist, nach dem Gesetz eines anderen Mitgliedstaates der Europäischen Union oder eines Vertragsstaates des Abkommens über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum zu diesem Zeitpunkt aber noch besteht. […] (3) Lebt nach Absatz 2 der Schutz eines Werkes im Geltungsbereich dieses Gesetzes wieder auf, so stehen die wiederauflebenden Rechte dem Urheber zu. […]“ --Rosenzweig τ 16:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Also see en:Copyright Duration Directive#Copyright restoration. But I see that, accd. to fr:Directive européenne sur l'harmonisation de certains aspects du droit d'auteur et des droits voisins dans la société de l'information (1993), France waited until 1997 to implement that directive, after the URAA date of January 1, 1996. So that means while the copyright restoration might have taken place, it was in 1997 (similarly in Portugal, see {{PD-Portugal-URAA}}), so some works were not protected on the URAA date (protection restored only in 1997), and those works were also not protected in the US by the URAA. That is something to pursue if what I think is correct, it would be helpful to determine that some French works are not affected by the URAA. --Rosenzweig τ 16:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is crucial to know when the photo was published in order to determine its copyright status. If we cannot find pre-1936 publication, it is likely not PD. The publication is also crucial for veryfying whether it is indeed anonymous. At this point it is irrelevant when the photo was taken. Ankry (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    Who has a pile of newspapers and conference publications from the 1920s in their cupboard? We won't find such publications but by chance, so while finding a publication makes the thing sure, not finding it says nothing about its existence. –LPfi (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)