Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

< Commons:Undeletion requests

Current requestsEdit


File:Rapido de bouzas CR logo alternativo.svgEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file is based in Rapido de Bouzas logo, and I think that it doesn't surpass COM:TOO. Elisardojm (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose. The shape of coat of arms is not simple. Taivo (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Taivo, I don't see originality, it simply has yellow-black vertical bars with the letters C and R in a circle. I think that in that case it could be applyed Template:PD-textlogo too. Other problem is the trademark, it could have trademark rights, but that rights are different from copyright, and them don't affect to Commons. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yellow-black vertical bars, C and R are simple, but shape of coat of arms is not. Taivo (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
It's only a little variant of an Swiss-shaped heraldic shield, at the end, only a simple geometric shape, a lot more simple than Testa di cavallo shields. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
A bit similar, but not very much. This is original shape and copyrightable. Taivo (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that a simple shape like that, it isn't copyrightable, because there isn't any originality on it. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  Info I think, an opinion of somebody familiar with Spanish COM:TOO is needed here. Without that we cannot go on. Any hints who can be pinged? Ankry (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if Spain has TOO, but perhaps Discasto could help with that. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, guys, but I'm not a lawer and I don't really know how strict TOO in Spain is :-( --Discasto talk 10:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC) PS: IMHO, the file you're discussing about can't really be claimed as original (that is, the shape of the shield can be found everywhere for sure, but most of the times our assessments are also subjective)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Shahr TheatreEdit

City Theater of Tehran is WFH and based on Intellectual property in Iran after 30 years it's free. There are many photos from this building here. MasoodHA (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  Support 70 pma definitely does not apply to Iran. Ankry (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose First, while it is true that 70pma does not apply, it is still 50 pma in Iran (30 pma for deaths before 22 August 1980). Second, architects rarely work on a work for hire basis -- they almost always retain copyright in their work. There is no evidence that this building was work for hire. The architect, Ali Sardar Afkhami, was alive in 2004, so the building will be under copyright until at least 1/1/2055. Third, the building has been added to after its 1972 construction. That work may or may not be in the photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@MasoodHA: Could you provide an evidence that this particular work is considered to be a work for hire in Iranian legal system? The Wikipedia article you pointed out is about US law, which is irrelevant here (PD in US because Iran is not a member of Berne convention). Ankry (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry:In this case Iran's copyright law is not clear. But this is a public building that was built under the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran. MasoodHA (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support As previously discussed, the architect's copyright only lasts 30 years in Iran. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yann, I don't understand that. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Iran is clear that architectural works have a copyright that lasts 50 years pma. The thirty year limit in Article 16 extends only to financial rights, and does not include all of the other author's rights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be based on Article 16. Iranian "work for hire" for architects may not be the same as U.S. norms, especially when it comes to past regimes or items built for the state. Article 16 also isn't particularly clear on ownership of the copyright or ownership of a single physical work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Avicenna Mausoleum and Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Azadi_Tower. I don't see any difference with this request. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Both of those were based on a misreading of Article 16 -- it does not say that work is PD after 30 years, but only that the author's financial rights terminate. Other rights remain in place for 50 pma. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Generally, I would equate "financial" rights with the economic right, and any other rights as moral rights. Iranian law says that only the financial rights are transferable, so those are the only rights you can sell. Also, the "intellectual rights" have no time limit in their law. It is only financial rights which are normally 50pma, in Article 12, but that term seems to be explicitly limited by Article 16 in those situations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ebrahim, Mardetanha, Mmxx: Could you please have a look at this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


This file was deleted here but published under Creative Commons Zero on the website of the Dutch government, see template It was printed in the PDF of the annual report of the NPO, the public broadcaster of the Netherlands and is about the program Nieuwsuur of the NTR. The reason for deletion was that it was said to be third party content. But NTR is a Dutch organisation with a legal task of to produce special interest programs to the Dutch public, NPO is a legal body fully funded by the ministry of culture with the legal task to coordinate the public broadcasting in the Netherlands. NTR is fully funded by the Dutch government, not a private organisation like other broadcasters (member organisations). Government is respeonsible for those organisations see for example restrictions on salaries that is the reason that the annual report is published on NPO is part of the Dutch government see and This file in the annual report of the NPO is published on the government site of to the general public and as such all the text and images are according to the copyright statement released under CC-0 unless otherwise stated. --Hannolans (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose The DR clearly shows that works of the NPO and the broadcasters are under copyright. If a copyrighted work is published on a CC-0 site, as a general rule the copyright remains in force.

Also note, that contrary to the assertion above, the NPO is a nominally independent foundation, funded by the government and by advertising revenue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, actually it is the government that receives the advertising revenue. Those revenues are redistributed to NPO which has a legal task. The Dutch government is fully responsible for the NPO and that is the reason the annual report is on the gov site.--Hannolans (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose also. If the site operator (Dutch govenrnement) intended to make all pre-June-2015 photos to be freely licensed, such exception should explicitely appear on the site license. If they just changed the license for some reason we cannot assume that the previous license (without photo exclusion) applies to works that the site owner was not the copyright holder. It is likely that erlier CC0 license for third party photos was a mistake and, actually, never legally valid. IMO, to consider this photo CC0-licensed, we need clear declaration about its license either from the site operator, or from the photo copyright owner. Ankry (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't know. You're right that under Creative Commons, if they don't own the copyright of those pictures, they can't license them under CC0. As those pictures are from a photographer for NTR, that are published in the annual report of the NPO, that is published on the website of the central government, the chain is very long to assume correct license forwarding. I will ask NTR directly to release those pictures under Creative Commons --Hannolans (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Retrato Julio Quesada.jpgEdit

File:Retrato Julio Quesada.jpg restauracion de imagen del pintor para ilustracion de perfil en wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanka 89 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Karanka 89 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Karanka 89: claiming Own work you declared to be the painter who made this portrait. Can you prove that?
Julio Quesada's works are copyrighted 70 years after his death (till 1.1.2080) and a written free-lecense permission from his heirs (or his permission dated before his death) is needed to publish any of his works under a free license.   Oppose Ankry (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khayam mausoleum 01.JPGEdit

WFH for 55 years ago (See also:Category:Omar Khayyam Mausoleum). MasoodHA (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support as per previous discussion. Yann (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose Again. If an architect were to work for hire, he would be constrained from using details or features that he had included in any building in subsequent buildings. Therefore, architects rarely work on a work for hire basis in any country that I am aware of. No one has provided any evidence to show that Iran is different from the rest of the world. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ebrahim, Mardetanha, Mmxx: Could you please have a look at this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


These files have been deleted because it is believed that User Thanissaro is not their owner.

These images belong to Wat Phra Dhammakaya, of which Thanissaro is a representative. For evidence, see this scholarly book, in which he is interviewed as a spokesperson of the organization. He is also an author there, as can be seen from this link. Please revert the deletion. I have written articles that contain the images. @Wcam: and @Jameslwoodward: deleted the file.

@Pk9720:, @Wikiman5676: and @Supatipanno:, you might want to get involved in this discussion. If you want to address someone, please use the ping template.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham:. Please, read carefully COM:OTRS. According to our rules for each image that has already been published anywhere else or that is not personal work of the uploader we require either:
  • a proof based on public information that the image is not copyrighted in terms of local & US copyright law, or
  • a publicly available evidence that the image was initially published under the declared free license; (this information should be linked to in the Permission field on the image description page), or
  • the actual copyright owner sends a written free license permission to OTRS.
Unless you can provide here the information requred for any of the first two, emailing to OTRS is the only option to get the image restored. Ankry (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose Please note also that claiming "own work" when, in fact, one's only connection to the files is being a representative of an organization which claims to own the copyright is a serious violation of Commons rules. Unless one is the actual photographer, the files are not "own work".

In order to restore these (a) the actual photographer[s] must send a free license[s] using OTRS or (b) an authorized representative of the organization claiming to own the copyright must send a free license. Given that one of the organization's representatives has already made incorrect claims here, that organization must be prepared to prove that it has the right to freely license the images by providing a copy of the written contract with the actual photographer[s]. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Foto Bodei Berlino.jpgEdit

Dear Sirs,

I would like to request the undeletion of the file with the photo of the Italian philosopher Remo Bodei because there is no copyright infringement. I was authorized to upload that photo by the author himself, to whom the wikipedia page in Italian, English and German is dedicated, the philosopher Remo Bodei, I was a student of. I would like to attach here the letter of approval (in Italian), but the system does not allow this procedure. I report the text hereafter. Best regards. Teo Orlando — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teo Orlando (talk • contribs) 04:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Teo Orlando: The author has to send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Manila skyline day.jpgEdit

Skyline images are not covered by FOP restrictions. Skyline images containing buildings still under copyright rather falls under de minimis, as they are all incidental. Lack of FOP is not a good reason to delete skyline images.-TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 08:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support as per TagaSanPedroAko. Yann (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose I disagree. The test of de minimis is that the copyrighted content is dm if an average observer would not notice if the copyrighted content were removed from the image. In cases where almost everything shown in the image is copyrighted, that is obviously not possible. While any one of these buildings is certainly dm, removing all of them would leave us with a white page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You may use censoring out the buildings to test the DM argument if they are such, and, I support undeletion under that argument (as what you pointed, removing X (the copyrighted buildings) would make the file useless). I agree the buildings form the elements of the skyline and are an unavoidable feature. This can be listed as another example of use of DM as an argument for undeletion. This can be undeleted, with addition of the {{de minimis}} tag after the image license. -TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 01:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Logo oldcodex.pngEdit

{{PD-textlogo}} {{Trademark}} ErMary (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose Not a textlogo. The stain-effect over lettering make it copyrightable. Ankry (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose Agreed. There is no evidence of a free license at the source, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Philippines National Museum.jpg and File:Supreme Court of the Philippines.jpgEdit

This images were deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheCoffee for the reason of lack of FOP exemptions in the Philippines. But, two images also deleted, along with Rizal Monument in Rizal Park, are of American-era buildings that are now PD: the National Museum and the Supreme Court of the Philippines building. This should not be deleted where there are users who have noted that some images are of PD buildings, but with the only opposition are on buildings in China (where FOP exceptions exist).-TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 01:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose According to the WP:EN article, the Philippines National Museum building was designed by Ralph Harrington Doane (1886-1941) and Antonio Mañalac Toledo (1889-1972). Since the Philippine law is pma 50, it will be under copyright until 1/1/2023. I could not find the architect for the 1933 former Supreme Court building on the Manila campus of the University of the Philippines, but its 1933 date is far too recent to assume that its architect died before 1968. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


bonjour, nous vous demandons de restaurer les fichiers jpg ainsi que leurs emplacements puisque ces elements ont ete verifie par monsieur Rutveno

aux emplacements :

bien cordialement mt

Dear Mt,

désolé de vous avoir offensé: c'était una façon d'identifier les fichiers.

J'enregistre vos remarques au sujet des photos dadaïstes artistiques téléchargées par vos soins.

Una façon pour permettre l'utilisation de vos fichiers sur votre site serait d'insérer une permission d'utilisation sous license libre, comme la Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0, sinon les contenus sont considérés par défaut comme "Tout droits réservés". Puis vous pouvez demander la restauration aux administrateurs, comme il vous a été indiqué.

Cordialement, Alessio Rutveno — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANIETCLAKOS (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)