Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

< Commons:Undeletion requests

Current requestsEdit



Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is in the public domain ({{PD-US-Medical imaging}}), so copyright isn't a problem. There was an IRC discussion where the doctor who took the MRI wanted it removed. He said he wants to use the image for a board exam question and not have the answer available online.

As of yesterday, the image was in use on multiple wikis. We also have no other images of its kind. Category:Scimitar syndrome only contains two versions of the same X-ray. This file is a much more illustrative MRI. Guanaco (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, BU Rob13, Bawolff, Doc James, Radswiki: Pinging everyone I know to be involved in discussion about this file. Guanaco (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not think {{PD-US-Medical imaging}} applies because the author mentioned doing substantial work in Photoshop to clean up the image. That is creative; it is not merely a machine process. ~ Rob13Talk 04:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
They have said that they will get another image of the condition in question for us to use. I would request some time to figure that out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I made the call, but I concede it is a close call. In fact, I went back and forth myself before deciding to make the deletion. I'm led to believe that it isn't clear-cut that it's in the public domain. In my opinion, if, as promised, we get another image that is suitably licensed, that is the best solution. I hope that happens soon.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
FYI, the IRC discussion about wanting to use it in a board exam is information that I did not have at the time I made the deletion. While the information I saw wasn't perfectly clear-cut, I got the impression that the uploader, in GF, believed it was public domain, but later realized that might be wrong (perhaps because patient's permission was needed). Deleting because the uploader unilaterally decided they prefer it no longer be available is obviously fundamentally different than deleting because the original claim of copyright status was incorrect. I still stand by my observation that if we can get a replacement image, that's the best solution all around.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm highly skeptical of the claim that there were digital alterations which exceed the threshold of originality. I'll withdraw my request if we get a replacement image soon, as that's definitely the ideal solution. Guanaco (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Images from Radswiki are in Category:Images from RadsWiki and tagged with {{Radswiki-attribution}}, which asserts a {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} license based on Ticket:2013052110003987. The problem is that there is no mention of that specific license, or any specific license, in that ticket.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.: I agree the ticket is problematic, but what about {{PD-US-Medical imaging}}? Guanaco (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Guanaco: The digital post-processing by the radiologist in Photoshop created a new copyrighted work, which was then uploaded to RadsWiki and Commons. That radiologist never provided a versioned license, and has repudiated what he did provide.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
You would have to add something creative in Photoshop for there to be a copyright. Image cleanup takes skill, but usually not creativity, and typically will not create a copyright. What kind of manipulations would add creative expression to the finished product, do you think? Deleting because it would unexpectedly harm the uploader can be a valid reason. Is there a date we could undelete it, if that is the case? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
To follow up -- Chapter 900 of the Copyright Compendium has this to say:
The registration specialist will analyze on a case-by-case basis all claims in which the author used digital editing software to produce a derivative photograph or artwork. Typical technical alterations that do not warrant registration include aligning pages and columns; repairing faded print and visual content; and sharpening and balancing colors, tint, tone, and the like, even though the alterations may be highly skilled and may produce a valuable product. If an applicant asserts a claim in a restoration of or touchups to a preexisting work, the registration specialist generally will ask the applicant for details concerning the nature of changes that have been made. The specialist will refuse all claims where the author merely restored the source work to its original or previous content or quality without adding substantial new authorship that was not present in the original.
The specialist may register a claim in a restored or retouched photograph if the author added a substantial amount of new content, such as recreating missing parts of the photograph or using airbrushing techniques to change the image.
So you would need to identify new material or substantial changes made during the post-processing for there to be a copyright. The request to hold off until after an exam seems reasonable to me though, if we know a date we can restore it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

File:1942 Map of Japanese Empire.jpgEdit

Please, consider a temporary undelete for discussion purposes. Other maps were created by using this file as one of the sources. I want to try to verify the source, if possible. ThanksA ri gi bod (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

From the undelete WP page:

"To assist discussion Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. "

@A ri gi bod: Temporarily undeleted. Let us know here once you no longer need it. Guanaco (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
An updated link to the immediate source would probably be, where the image is marked "(c) 1997", so the original source seems to be -- Asclepias (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Japanese Empire.pngEdit

File:Japanese Empire.png (image originally uploaded on 22 September 2005 and modified on 6 October 2005) was deleted in 2007 with the deletion comment "dupe Japanese Empire2.png" (see logs). Also note in the the upload log that there was information about the origins of the file (hopefully that information was also present on the description page, because in the upload log the end of the comment is cut). "File:Japanese Empire2.png" was uploaded on 22 December 2005 as a modified version of "File:Japanese Empire.png", by a user who is not the same as the author(s) of "File:Japanese Empire.png". "File:Japanese Empire2.png" did link to its source "File:Japanese Empire.png", allowing readers to know the author(s) of the source images. However, the 2007 deletion of "File:Japanese Empire.png" made all the information vanish from the view of casual readers (if not entirely from users who dig into the logs, as we are doing now, but that should not normally be required from users in order to find the essential information about a file). The information should at least have been copied to "File:Japanese Empire2.png" before deleting "File:Japanese Empire.png". From the license of "File:Japanese Empire2.png", I guess that "File:Japanese Empire.png" may have been under the GFDL, which requires attribution. If so, the deletion of "File:Japanese Empire.png", thus removing information about authorship, had the consequence of turning "File:Japanese Empire2.png" into a copyright violation. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Original author seems to have been en:User:Kokiri, and it was indeed {{GFDL}}. Second upload was a minor modification (borders from black to white, minor color improvements) that was uploaded by Huhsunqu - the modifications are probably minor enough not to create a secondary copyright claim, however per the license they probably do need credit. I have tried to clean up the file description on the kept file... @Asclepias: do you think that adequately does the job? Storkk (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Atlantic Overview - Aug. 26 2008 (2800303577).gifEdit

Screenshot from NHC, under PD license {{PD-USGov-NWS}}, suitable for Commons. --B dash (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Seems likely; author & permission info on the uploads is certainly just someone's Flickr-washing. Do you have any specific evidence these come from NHC (not, for example, from a TV station)? - Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • --B dash (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • That seems pretty definitive to me. I say undelete, but correct the author, license, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  Support (all but one). I live on a boat in Boston, so I'm on the NHC web site every day during hurricane season. All but the last of these have the clear look and feel of NHC pages. The last one, however, is clearly from the Weather Channel -- it has the logo in the lower right corner and a completely different look. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Goni Aug 22 2015 Precipitation Daily Accumulated.jpgEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Under {{PD-ROC-exempt}}, suitable for commons. B dash (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Doesn't obviously fall under any of the five criteria listed there. Which are you saying applies? - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • fixed. --B dash (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      I still don't see it. That template lists 5 criteria:
      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.
      Which are you saying applies? - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      • No. 2: "Translations or compilations by central or local government agencies of works referred to in the preceding subparagraph." --B dash (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also under license {{OGDL}}, see File:Khanun Oct 11-15 2017 Precipitation Accumulated in Taiwan.jpg as an example. --B dash (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Coats of arms by Tomas.urbanEdit

In January, user Macucal (talk · contribs) nominated several coats of arms, all by Tomas.urban (talk · contribs), claiming copyright violation because they were "too small to be original." Administrator P199 (talk · contribs) rescued one file (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biskup Galis Tomáš CoA.jpg) noting that "too small to be original" is NOT valid deletion criteria and there was undue suspicion. He also tried to rescue File:Biskup Vokál Jan.jpg (closing as keep) but it was renominated for deletion by Macucal and deleted by another administrator. Another image of Tomas's was nominated by Ellin Beltz in 2014, linking to I believe a church website. That link is now broken and I can't see the file, but it is probably another original coat of arms.

These files were deleted with no proof of copyright violations. To the contrary, all evidence seems to indicate that these are original files created by Tomas.urban, who has been contributing to Commons since May 2007. All anyone had to do was look at this user's history. He has created hundreds of original coats of arms and flags over the past decade, several of which no doubt have found their way onto various websites, as many are fairly obscure and not available until he created them. Some of his files are small size, some are larger, some are jpg, some are svg etc but all have the same consistent style, which you would not have if he were uploading other people's work as he found it. You can see samples of his ecclesiastical coats of arms here on his user page on the Czech Wikipedia, and additional galleries here (municipal arms) and here here (municipal flags). Some of his works include a small "T.U." that someone thought was a copyright claim, but that matches his user name, which should have been a clue he created them. According to discussions on his talk page on Commons and on the Czech Wikipedia, he has fulfilled requests to create designs, made modifications people suggested and emailed higher-resolution files to people requesting them. For some reason, he did not respond to the deletion nominations, but he shouldn't have had to, as there was no valid reason for deletion. Please undelete these files. Wikimandia (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose This is a difficult one, which is probably why it has been here for almost a month without comment. First, note that it is not up to us to prove that the image is not free. It is up to the uploader (or anyone who wants to have an image restored) to prove beyond a significant doubt that it is free.

I have looked at a variety of this editor's work, both the images above and those that are still active -- see [1]. I cannot imagine drawing images as complex as this at this small size. It would be much easier to draw them much larger. That argues for their deletion. On the other hand, there is, as noted above, a consistent style that suggests that many of them were created by the same hand. That hand might or might not be our uploader. Given the ambiguity here, I think the Precautionary Principle requires that they not be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree with Jim that the small size creates a suspicion. @Tomas.urban: If these are your works, could you import the original files? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The uploader has some larger ones done more recently in a very similar style: File:Kapitula_Litoměřice.jpg, File:Biskup Kindermann Jan Ferdinand rev C2.jpg, and probably others. The uploader clearly has some vector source material they are working with, given those, and given the similarity in style with the earlier ones, I think I   Support undeletion. If they have been lifted from the net, we should be able to find a source. Long-term uploading of new works with the same style seems more the mark of an original author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Taiwan Province (PRC) prfc map.pngEdit

Chinese: 我觉得这张图片是从fotoseimagenes.net搬来的可能性不大,反倒有可能是fotoseimagenes.net从维基共享搬走的,因为fotoseimagenes.net上的那张图片的分辨率比维基共享的这张图低很多,图片上的文字没有维基共享的这张图片清晰。

English: This image may not copy from Image in is smaller than this image, words are hard to read. Maybe copy this image from here.

Sorry my not good English. ——彭鹏 (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose I agree that it looks unlikely that the Commons image was copied from Possibly it was the other way around.

However, I do not believe that this is entirely the "own work" of User:ASDFGHJ. I think that it is very unlikely that he or she created this without using a base map from somewhere. In order for us to restore this, User:ASDFGHJ must show that the base map used is PD or freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

File:A Fidget Cube.jpgEdit

Fidget Cubes should not be seen as "toys" and are utilitarian in nature - a plastic box with random buttons on it. There is very little, if any, uniqueness to be copyrighted. Further, they are used for stress relief and to treat ADHD. The term "Fidget Toy" is often seen near the name, but in my opinion, not meant in the literal sense or to imply it is an entertainment or amusement toy for children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User8133 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

  Oppose This particular image has two things in it. The sculpture of a woman on the left clearly has a copyright, so this image cannot be restored without a free license from the creator of the sculpture. Therefore, with respect to this image, the question of whether a fidget toy has a copyright is moot.

If this image were cropped to eliminate the sculpture on the left, then the decision would not be so obvious. However, the choice of colors and the arrangement of the large and small buttons clearly creates a copyrightable object. I doubt very much that a US court would call a fidget toy utilitarian. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Kawaii Jumbo Squishy Strawberry.jpgEdit

A "Squishy" is a generic term for any soft product made out of a spongy-like material that can be compressed while coming back to the original form. There are 100's of "Squishy" things, like items for pets, etc., that meet this definition. It should not fall under copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User8133 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 13 November 2017‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

  OpposeThe several holders of registered trademarks for the word Squishy in reference to toys would object strongly to your claim that the term is generic. However, that is irrelevant as we do not concern ourselves with trademark here. Trademarked or not, 100's of them or not, there is no reason why this toy, and the other similar toys you uploaded, are not copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:PH airports.pngEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It is the cited webpage that copied an earlier version of the file, not the other way around Dakilang Isagani (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose That may be true, but I don't believe that you created this map yourself from a blank page. Unless you did so, you must name the source of the base map and prove that it is PD or freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Andrzej Ruszczyński 2017.jpgEdit

Please, undelete the file. I agree to use the picture. --PiotrGregorczyk (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Tagged as copyright violation for the following reason: "Not "Own work". Metadata shows Author as Constantine Alexander Vitt". Thuresson (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose Using OTRS either (a) Constantine Alexander Vitt must send a free license or (b) Vitt's licensee must send evidence that User:PiotrGregorczyk has the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


This regards the photo associated with the Joe Clifford bio page. I have just received and forwarded permission from the photographer. If the photo needs to re re-uploaded with correct info, I can/will do it. Rory1262 (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose Rory1262, please note that as a general rule, OTRS does not accept licenses that are forwarded. We require that the actual photographer must send the license directly to OTRS. This is the rule because there are bad actors around who are perfectly willing to forge a license in order to have an image kept on Commons.

Also note that if a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. You do not need to (and must not) upload the image again.

If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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


Hi again. My file become deleted [again] and It shouldn't be. There is long discussion Here Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-11#File:Society of Students Against Poverty.svg. One of similar files Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands Logo.svg didn't delete and also notice in here Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany. My file is completely legal and I created it. I don't know why the when User:Thuresson archive my discussion also delete my file.



Firouzyan (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: There was indeed a long discussion and the conclusion was not to restore the file. There is nothing new in this request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

There is NO CONCLUSION! You make two different decisions by EXACTLY SAME CASE. I have problem with it. Firouzyan (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
There is also Commons:Threshold of originality#Iran which about Iran, and logos are fine when "the mark presented". Your action is clearly out of scope and leave me without choice except complaint about it in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard Firouzyan (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Please also decide about File:KNTU LOGO.svg. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


File:Disneychannellogosmartphone.png te perdono por borrar la imagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas5312 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)