Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-07

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

File:Kudrinskaia001.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kudrinskaia001.JPG. But {{FoP-Russia}} (buildings only) since 2014. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Support per {{FoP-Russia}}. Ankry (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Russian law has changed since the deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Hand of epigyny.jpg

This file was deleted because there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. (Per COM:FOP SK)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hand of Coexistence.jpg.

However, when I participated in this discussion, I confirmed that this image was applied DM.

This photo showed the shore with the hand-shaped sculpture.

So, if the file is renamed to "Shore of Pohang", the hand sculpture in this photo is DM, so it's allowed in Commons.

Ox1997cow (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose If the Hand were not in the image, it would be an image of a nondescript rocky shore with a town in the background and would not be kept on Commons. It is clear that the only reason this might be allowed on Commons is the presence of the copyrighted hand. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:  Comment I know that the photo is a photo of the rocky shore of Pohang, near New Millennium Park. The hand-shaped sculpture is incidental. Just write the description and file name correctly. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense. The image has no educational value without the sculpture and if the sculpture were edited out, it would be deleted for that reason. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
If there is an encyclopedic article about the place, and it has no image, then I don't think a picture of seemingly bland scenery would be entirely "useless" there. I don't know how much of the scenery would remain in such an edited image, though. whym (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ox1997cow: Did you consider uploading a new version that can be used on a Korean Wikipedia page (or any other Wikimedia site) without the sculpture? If scope is the only issue, we don't delete an image as long as other Wikimedia sites want to use the image (COM:INUSE). https://commons-delinquent.toolforge.org/index.php?image=Hand_of_Coexistence-edit.jpg shows that the related image was in use at multiple Wikimedia sites before deletion. Perhaps such a new edited version could be the replacement? This diff does not suggest that the sculpture was the reason for inclusion. I don't know how much of the scenery remains in the image after such editing, and if you are not the photographer, we might need a temporary undeletion for editing, though. whym (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Whym: Sorry, but I don't have any photos associated with it. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Whym and Ox1997cow: I have cropped the hand out, leaving as much of the imege as posible. If you find it useful, please fix the image description and name. If not, it will likely be deleted as out of scope. Ankry (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I edited the file description. Change the file name after deciding whether to keep it or not. Ox1997cow (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done at its current form, the photo does not violate artist copyright. Feel free to nominate for deletion if out-of-scope. Ankry (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Slavka Taskova Paoletti. Ritratto degli anni '70 . Fotografo Ruggero Tavanti.png

== Slavka Taskova portrait has permission ==

(File:Slavka Taskova Paoletti. Ritratto degli anni '70 . Fotografo Ruggero Tavanti.png)

The file was deleted in spite of a written document sent to prove its rightful origin. 

The mentioned pic was taken by a professional photographer of a small town and he was paid . so he gave MRs Taskova the rights under payment but it was the 70's and in such small set up there was no written contract, So the heir of the photographer, who is now dead ,has written a declaration where he asserts Mrs Taskova has the rights of the pic.

--Ric1967 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The permission seems to be processed under ticket:2021051010012937. When the permission is verified and accepted by OTRS volunteer, the image will be undeleted. Also, we cannot host images without a license and no licensing information has been provided. Ankry (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS action needed. Ankry (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Michał Woś.jpg

And also:

I am the owner of copyright of this photo session.--Krzemin28 (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Christian Utz (2021).tif

Hello,

permission for unrestricted use of the file has been approved by the director of KUG (University of Music and Performing Arts Graz, Austria). Please find the message sent to Wikimedia Commons below:

Betreff: Wikimedia Lizenz_Foto Professor Utz

Von: "Rektor KUG" (Redacted) Datum: 16.06.2021, 07:19 An: (Redacted)

I hereby affirm that I represent Alexander Wenzel, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christian_Utz_(2021).tif

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.

Georg Schulz Rector of the University of music and performing arts

2021-06-15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo.ciconia (talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose @Jo.ciconia: Permissions should be sent to email addresses providec in COM:OTRS, not quoted here, as we cannot verify their legitimacy on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Yunomi Tomb of Jesus Christ.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

The mug only has a cross and the dialect of the region where the mug is sold. Therefore, it is not an infringement of copyright.--8joKeaton (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is not "only a cross", and is copyrighted, IMO. Ankry (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 Question@Ankry: What's mean "IMO"?
IMO = In My Opinion Gbawden (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Another admin can have a different opinion, so I do not take the final decision here. Ankry (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gbawden: @Ankry: Oh,Thank you for telling me what that means.!--8joKeaton (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Question If this image is uploaded only on the Japanese version of Wikipedia and not on Commons, would there be no fear of deletion?--8joKeaton (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@8joKeaton: This question should be asked there, not here. Ankry (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but where's "there"? Is there a question page suitable for my question?--8joKeaton (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Clearly copyrighted. Ask the question about WP:Japan on WP:JApan, not here as we do not know the rules for WP:Japan. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

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

File:3320House of Mercy - Tallest Jesus, I Trust in You Statue 60.jpg

To be reuploaded under fair use (for Divine Mercy Statue (Bulacan) since there it is assumed that there is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: {{Temporarily undeleted}}, please, notify when finished. Ankry (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
✓ DoneHariboneagle927 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Redeleted. Ankry (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Aishakhatun.jpg

Hi, this is my profile picture and I am unsure as to why it was deleted (cannot understand the copyright violation code given). I'd like to request it's undeletion. I use it in my profile page and is supposed to be linked in Outreach_programs/Success_stories soon. I'd also like to link it to my foundation profile page AKhatun_(WMF). Thanks! Aisha Khatun (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aisha Khatun:
  1. This image originates from Facebook; Facebook license is not compatible with Commons requirements
  2. This image does not seem to be a selfie; and author = the photographer, not the photo subject
  3. We need an evidence that the declared license is from the photographer, if a photo is not made by the uploader
  4. We generally do not accept on-wiki self-licensing if a newly uploaded photo is low resolution, or without EXIF info. This one is low resolution and without EXIF info
  5. We do not manage WMF website and we cannot care or control image licenses declared there (if any). If the photo originated from WMF website and was initially published there under a Commons-compatible free license there, it would be OK. But the metadata says that it originates from Facebook...
The solution is: the photographer needs to follow COM:OTRS process. Ankry (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Interesting, did not realise it was Facebook. Sorry about that. I will probably have to upload a new one. Thanks! Aisha Khatun (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Facebook image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

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

File:GUILDFORD CITY FOOTBALL CLUB Logo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the Guildford City FC new 2021 Logo. I am the Social Media & Website Manager of Guildford City FC and require the change of logo. I have the copyright clearance to use this image. Junderwood31 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Junderwood31: 1. Permission "to use" is not enough. We need a free license in order to host the logo in Wikimedia Commons; see COM:L. 2. You claimed at upload that you are the author of the logo and moral rights belong to you. How can you prove that? 3. If this was a false claim, how can we rely on what you say now? We need an evidence of your claims. See COM:OTRS for a procedure how to provide documents. Ankry (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done no free license. Ankry (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

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

File:2021 Kazakh election flyers.jpg

This file clearly wasn't violating any rules and in the end on 11 May 2021, it was decided to be kept yet it still got removed. --ShadZ01 (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

 Question @EugeneZelenko: Did you find the photo a DW of something else than the election posters being considered de minimis is the the recent DR or is there another reason to override a community decision with speedy process? Ankry (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Obviously posters are main subject off this photo, so de minimis claims are bogus. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: But overriding a DR decision through speedy deletion is out of process, even if we disagree with it. I  Support undeletion and reopenning the DR unless User:P199 has also changed their mind. Ankry (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
It's very reasonable to ask question why deletion request was closed that way, especially taking in account absence of freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The posters are DM in my opinion, low-res, no details visible. But it could be borderline. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose It's a photo of a posting board that has twelve copyrighted posters on it. There is very little else in the image around the edges of the board. It obviously fails the DM test -- "Would a casual observer notice if the copyrighted work(s) were removed?" Several photos on the posters are recognizable and the poster headlines and most of the sub-heads are legible, although the body text is not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


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

Files in Category:Interior of Taipei 101

According to TIPO, photographing merely interior decor is OK. The office also mention 拍攝"室內"裝潢的行為是將實施結果的實體物為拍攝，並不涉及著作權之侵害 (translate: The act of shooting "interior decoration is to take the actual object as a result of the implementation and does not involve copyright infringement) , so it is OK for Interior architecture photography/video. However, it still doesn't have any conclusion in Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan#Interior architecture, OK? and the above file cannot clearly see any artwork. I disagree with administrator Jameslwoodward say " Taiwan FoP does not cover interiors". If this happens, there have more than 10000 images about Taiwan will be deleted, including ALL the buildings interior photos.

Meanwhile, in this law firm, it mentions As for whether the internal design of a building is protected, it should be judged by whether it is "original" and "creative." Corridors, ceilings, stairs, etc. are all structures common to buildings, and cannot be called "works". Chinese: 這裡「至於建築物內部的設計是否受到保護，應該以其有無「原創性」及「創作性」來判斷，像是走廊、天花板、樓梯等都是一般建築都具備的結構，不能稱為著作。」Those deleted photos only can see the structure of the interior, it is difficult to see and even NO artistic elements.--Wpcpey (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 Info this is a repeat restoration request. The original request is at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-06#Files in Category:Interior of Taipei 101. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 Support No artworks shown for em IIRC, and I'd love to modify COM:FOP Taiwan again to reflect this. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The images all show interiors that are clearly creative. Also note that the law very clearly states that the work must be outdoors. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Clark International Airport new terminal exterior.JPG

To be reuploaded in the English Wikipedia under fair use; for Clark International Airport since there it is assumed that there is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Photo was reuploaded at the English Wikipedia.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Press Photo Of Prince Salani.jpg

File:Press Photo Of Prince Salani.jpg

Reason: So I can resubmit my request in future by using this portrait or image.

(29 June 2021) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 1.38.44.48 (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Please explain how this image is in COM:SCOPE? Gbawden (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Ankry (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Robert Roberts, MD.jpg to undelete

Hello,

I would like to request to undelete this photo as my client owns all rights of the file. Please let me know if you need proof of identification/ownership.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MC.Biotech (talk • contribs) 01:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@MC.Biotech: Few questions:
  1. How did you disclose information required by Terms of Use (last subsection)?
  2. At upload you declared yourself to be the photographer and exclusive copyright holder. Now you say something else. How can we rely on your statements?
  3. You were notified that the COM:OTRS process is required. Did the copyright holder go through this? What is the ticket number?
Ankry (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done no response in 24h. Ankry (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Winery 042.JPG

No valid reason for deletion. As I mentioned on my talk page User:سندباد is inactive since 2011. Hanooz 04:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

While there are doubts about COM:SCOPE here, I see no copyright-related problems. The photo was self-licensed by the uploader on fawiki prior to transfer to Commons. The photo has complete EXIF info from Canon EOS 20D, with no copyright/author info. @Fitindia and Missvain: What copyright-related doubts have you found here that a permission is needed? Ankry (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
{{Temporarily undeleted}} Ankry (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Support Uploader claims to be the author. As Ankry says, there is good EXIF and it is 3,504 × 2,336 pixels, certainly larger then Web size. I would Assume Good Faith. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done no objections. Ankry (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:TESVI logo transparentbg-06.png

Hello, please restore this file. This is a {{PD-textlogo}} logo and is below the threshold of originality. Thanks, Enjoyer of World (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Creaotr is US company, no US copyright in pure text logos. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Senator Mark Wyland.jpg

I want to reupload the picture. I saw that someone did and it got deleted because at the time they didn't use PD-CAGov tag. I'm not sure if it's the same picture or not from the Archive Website. If it is, I'm requesting for it to be undeleted. Dillon251992 (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Support As no photo author information is provided on the abovementioned page, we can consider that "Copyright © 2013 State of California" applies to it, IMO. And the photo seems to be public record as described in {{PD-CAGov}}. However, another opinion is welcome. Ankry (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at {{PD-CAGov}}, works created by photographers or others who are not employees of California or one of its subdivisions have an enforceable copyright. I would guess it is 50/50 that this formal portrait was taken by an non-government photo studio. Politicians generally want the best image possible and that is more likely to come from an outsider than an government photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As per Jim, {{PD-CAGov}} requires the work be "created by a government unit." It is not uncommon that government entities hire private photographers, and no evidence is on offer that this image was created by a government unit. As either is genuinely possible, COM:PRP applies. Mere hosting on a government website is not evidence of, and has nothing whatsoever to do with, authorship. This is especially so in the absence of a general site disclaimer that content is public domain, and "Copyright © 2013 State of California" directly contradicts, and is mutually exclusive of, public domain assertions (see also 17 U.S.C. § 105(a): copyright related to government authored works and works transfered to the government are very different notions.) As an example, contrast JPL terms which say "Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission" with the terms of the legislature.ca.gov site which say "[s]ome of the information presented on this web site may be protected by copyright." Again, per COM:EVID, "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain." (underline added) This has not been done. --Эlcobbola talk 13:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Caio Vinícius Moura Luz.jpg

O arquivo foi autorizado pelo próprio dono da imagem e não viola nenhum copyright 23:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Tuany Bittencourt 28/06/2021 20:15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuany Bittencourt (talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Ankry (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the photographer. Now you say it was uploaded by "the owner of the image" (Google translation). The photographer needs to send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by RoundSquare

Files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RoundSquare, as per the rationale in the deletion discussion. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Wikimedia Commons hosted files are required to be free for any use, including commercial reuse and derivative work creation. CC0 allows them. I see no evidence that the CC0 license for these files has been granted. If you think that another community-accepted copyright template is applicable here, please advice. Ankry (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose All of the images appear on a page with "© 2021 Michigan Senate Republicans". The statement "Photos on the Senate PhotoWire are intended for media and public use and may be freely reproduced." does not overcome that as "freely reproduced" does not include making derivative works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Mark-divine-2020.jpg

Personal headshot for main page [[1]] to be added to military infobox. Requesting undeletion to allow for upload and complete the recently accepted page.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arw29 (talk • contribs)

@Arw29: While the image is in scope, it still lacks the original camera settings info in EXIF. If you are the photographer as you claimed at upload, please upload the photo with original EXIF info from your camera. Alternatively, you can prove your authorship through COM:OTRS process. Ankry (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose Aside from copyright, the WP:EN page on which it might be used reads like a puff piece. It's not clear that WP:EN will keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:IMO helping to mitigate the impacts of MV Wakashio oil spill in Mauritius - 50236896003.jpg - deleted as copyright violation but evidence of compatible license exists

Hi. File was deleted as a copyright violation. However, the file appears to be part of a set produced by w:International Maritime Organization: image in question, whole set and published under CC-BY 2.0. The first instance of this photo appears to be this tweet by a local journalist, but the tweet makes no attempt to claim the image as their own work or offer any attribution.
The image also appears to be part of a set, and 7 photos are on IMO's Flickr and only one is on the journalists Twitter.
The image is clearly taken from an airborne vehicle, likely a drone and possibly a helicopter; it seems unlikely that a private individual would get permission from the local government to flyover an active disaster site, but it seems more plausible that a UN agency did.

While it is possible that a UN agency is engaging in systemic copyright infringement on Flickr a more simple explanation seems to be that a local journalists got a copy of IMO's photo before IMO had a chance to publish it on their Flickr and rushed to Twitter with it.

Given that, on balance, this image appears to belongs to IMO and is published under a compatible license, could you please restore it? Thanks Melmann (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Melmann: The tweet is earlier than the IMO publication so it constitutes significant doubt who the author is. Especially, as the IMO publication is not helpful here (no EXIF, no author attribution as required). If IMO is the exclusive copyright holder of this photo, we need some evidence for this. (eg. an evidence that Guillaume Gouges, the tweet author, has got the photo from IMO, or that the photographer was an IMO employee). We assume that the earliest publication identifies the author unless we have evidence otherwise. Ankry (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Greetings. There is talk page correspondence about this already. I give whym permission to incorporate and archive from my talk page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Given the uncertainty, I would like to see permission (or at least behind-the-scenes source information) for this from Guillaume Gouges or IMO on their websites or social media, or via OTRS/VRTS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Preceding conversation between Ellin Beltz and Whym

Can you take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:WAKASHIO...oil spill in Mauritius.jpg again? You deleted a file that was not nominated for deletion - the target of a redirect created after the deletion nomination. (Perhaps I should have closed the DR.) I believe it was originally published at [2] with acceptable license. whym (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Whym: The image was clearly copyright violation https://www.3bmeteo.com/giornale-meteo/mauritius--aumenta-la-perdita-di-petrolio--la-petroliera-si-sta-spezzando-377914. The image at the file location you gave was identical to the image which was nominated for deletion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Would you take a look at the file pages, not just the images again? The images were identical, but the file pages were not: the nominated file page contained no source, while the not-nominated file page contained a source which lead me to the Flickr URL I gave above. Do you think https://www.flickr.com/photos/62937028@N02/50236896003/ is not its original publication (or the Flickr image is different from the deleted one)? I believe it passed license review. Who was the reviewer? whym (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Whym: If you look at the source above you will see the photo is credited, and not to the flickr account. Therefore the flickr account uploaded something that wasn't theirs, and we can't keep it. I have no idea who reviewed it, that's not really important. It could have been a bot. Flickr reviews are fairly regularly overturned when people take a serious look at the images. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't you think it's possible for www.3bmeteo.com to make a mistake in the credit line? Many web pages misattribute photographs. In this case, it's the International Maritime Organization, a well recognized organization whose specialty is ships, who owns the Flickr account and is (at least indirectly) claiming authorship here. Nikkei Asia attributes the same image to the International Maritime Organization. [3] Is there anything that makes 3BMeteo.com more trustworthy than Nikkei Asia and the IMO on this matter? whym (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Whym: It's precisely that uncertainty which means we can't keep it. Notice that the actual source image is larger that the one which was uploaded here (1280x853 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Efd3u_FWkAE8u10?format=jpg&name=large & https://twitter.com/guillaumegouges/status/1294635129055444993/photo/1. Guillaume Gouges is a journalist. The original upload template reads: {{Information |description={{en|1=On top of the COVID situation, this tanker ran aground on the pristine lagoon of Mauritius spill out its black poison. The area is still reeling from the effects.}} {{fr|1=En sus de la situation delicate causee par le COVID, ce navire-citerne deversa son poison noir dans les lagons de l'ile Maurice. Les effets furent devastateurs.}}{{Wiki Loves Africa 2021 country|MU}} |date=2021-04-12|source={{own}}|author=[[User:MARCELSPES|MARCELSPES]]|permission=|other versions=}}=={{int:license-header}}=={{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
In no way is this possibly the own work of uploader. The source you propose: https://www.flickr.com/photos/62937028@N02/50236896003/ is the same size but two days after the one uploaded to Twitter by Guillaume Gouges. I really do not think we can accept the Flickr source as the original. See COM:PRP. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I asked Guillaume Gouges whether it was his work in a reply to that tweet. Also, since it seems that the uploader (or rather the importer from Flickr) was never notified about the deletion, I'll ping them: @B2Belgium: . whym (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Copied from [4] --whym (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As written above, I asked Guillaume Gouges about it, and in a private response to me (he was okay with making it public), he recalled that it probably came from the Government information Service of Mauritius. There is indeed prior publication at a Facebook account associated with the government, [5] if I interpreted the timestamps correctly. So there is a third possibility, the most likely one in my opinion given the evidence so far, that both IMO and the journalist obtained it from the government, and the question is whether the government allows free use of the image. It looks like we have to assume the answer is no, unless we get specific permission from them. At the Facebook page I find nothing that suggests free license. GIS Mauritius's copyright policy seems pretty restrictive. [6] The government's open data initiative page does not contain anything associated with the keyword "Wakashio". [7] whym (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Extra documents may be needed and the right path is to go through COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Asom Barta Logo.png

Asom Barta is An Assamese weekly newspaper. This file was not uploaded my me. This image is important to us for creating a article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalita bani (talk • contribs) 06:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The UK has a copyright for typestting. It would not be surprising if the same applies in India. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Pooja Theatrical Poster.jpg

== [[Pooja.jpg]] Please Undelete Image ==

The poster for this film released in 1954 is a theatrical movie poster of an Indian-language films that was released more than about 60 years ago. I obtained this poster from the internet and my understanding was that these old posters are now in the public domain, and therefore out of copyright.

I note that the Copyright law of India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_India) indicates that all cinematograph films fall in the public domain 60 years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published. I also note that Wikipedia has many articles with posters on movies that are over 60 years old.

It would be great if you restore this image back to Wikipedia Commons. Thank you. Scholar165 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

A movie poster is not a cinematograph film. Isn't O. D. Nerdy the artist and when did he or she die? Thuresson (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - A poster is a separate work from the advertised film and is not a cinematograph work. The standard copyright duration in India is pma + 60, so when did D. D. Neroy (signature in lower left) die? Even if Neroy died immediately upon creation of the work (ca. 1954), the PD date in India (1954 + 60 + 1 = 01.01.2015) is well after the URAA date; per COM:HIRTLE, this would not be PD in the US until 01.01.2050 (1954 + 95 + 1). (Works must be PD in both the US and country of origin.) That "Wikipedia has many articles with posters on movies that are over 60 years old" is OTHERSTUFF. Эlcobbola talk 21:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done, per discussion. Thuresson (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Laadla.jpg Please Undelete Image

The poster for this film released in 1954 is a theatrical movie poster of an Indian-language films that was released more than about 60 years ago. I obtained this poster from the internet and my understanding was that these old posters are now in the public domain, and therefore out of copyright.

I note that the Copyright law of India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_India) indicates that all cinematograph films fall in the public domain 60 years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published. I also note that Wikipedia has many articles with posters on movies that are over 60 years old.

It would be great if you restore this image back to Wikipedia Commons. Thank you. Scholar165 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - A poster is a separate work from the advertised film and is not a cinematograph work. The standard copyright duration in India is pma + 60, so who is the author and when did they die? Even if they died immediately upon creation of the work (ca. 1954), the PD date in India (1954 + 60 + 1 = 01.01.2015) is well after the URAA date; per COM:HIRTLE, this would not be PD in the US until 01.01.2050 (1954 + 95 + 1). (Works must be PD in both the US and country of origin.) That "Wikipedia has many articles with posters on movies that are over 60 years old" is OTHERSTUFF. Эlcobbola talk 21:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done, per discussion. Thuresson (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Kaley Feel the forest.jpg

I have used the logo, since the article is about their tea. It was used with their permission. How can I fix this? Can I upload an image of tea containers instead? Kayzeec (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose To your question, no -- an image of a tea container would have the same problem, that it infringes on a copyright that you do not own.

In order for this logo to be restored to Commons, an authorized official of Kaley Tea must send a free license using OTRS..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim. Ankry (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Saint Luke's Global City (BGC, Taguig)(2018-06-04).jpg

There is presumably no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. For reuploading in the English Wikipedia instead here in Wikicommons.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Not necessary, since it is available for download here (source). Thuresson (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The image can be undeleted in English Wikipedia directly, no need to reupload there. Ankry (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Minneapolis Gay Pride.jpg My personal Photograph

I myself took this photograph, and have 100% sole claim and ownership to it. Please remove any and all claims and/or restrictions placed upon it. Every single photograph, image, video, file, etc. that I post is my own, has been taken by me, with sole ownership and legal rights and authority. Under the United States Constitutions First Amendment I have the full legal right to create, produce, distribute, and/or upload this photograph.

Thank you.

Elyon127 (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: not an undeletion request - image not deleted. Ankry (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:AJay_Rabha_Love_Bichitra_Rabha.jpg

I want this photo — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2409:4065:82:A127:BDAE:B8DA:555D:10B6 (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Not a valid reason for undeletion. Ankry (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

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

A series of photo about G.T. College

I am writing to request the recovery of the above photos. I am the representative of G.T. College(Owner of https://main.gtschool.hk/) and the one who upload the photos. All photos I upload belong to G.T College, and we are willing to share them to public so as to enrich the information in Wikipedia.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenctz (talk • contribs)

@Citizenctz: Per policy, it is up to the uploader to provide an evidence that the appropriate license has been granted by the actual copyright holder. On-wiki declaration by an anonymous user is not an evidence. Please, provide a link to the site where the appropriate license is granted of follow COM:OTRS instructions as suggested on your talk page multiple times. Ankry (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs license from authorized official of the college via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Lincoln Townley Portrait.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per Ticket:2015021110014871 A1Cafel (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DeanoJD. Ankry (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination--A1Cafel (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Chillin' at home.jpg

This File is my own work: I JJxFile, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (legal code).

it's on facebook even with credits

Thanks

@JJxFile: If the file was published elsewhere prior to its upload to Commons, we need an evidence for free license (eg. free license declaration at the initial publication site - Facebook in this case) or COM:OTRS process. Moreover, COM:SCOPE issues may need to be addressed also. Ankry (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Deleted files

File:Adele-Bloch-Bauer bw - (1881-1925).jpg, File:Adele Bloch Bauer vers 1910.jpg (english version below)

Bonjour, cette photographie a été prise en 1910. Le photographe n'a pas pu être identifié et est donc réputé être inconnu. @Jameslwoodward: supprime le fichier avec la raison suivante : "1910 is too recent to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years". Les règles applicables en matière de définition du domaine public ne disent pas cela. En revanche, si l'auteur d'une photographie n'est pas connu, la plupart des pays européen applique la règle des 70 ans après la première publication. Le cliché a été pris en 1910. Adele Bloch-Bauer est morte en 1925. Il y a 96 ans. La photographie est donc du domaine public. La règle qui voudrait qu'on ait a penser raisonnablement que le photographe est mort depuis septante ans n'existe nulle part. A restaurer donc. --Madelgarius (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this photograph was taken in 1910. The photographer could not be identified and is therefore deemed to be unknown. @Jameslwoodward: removes the file with the following reason: "1910 is too recent to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years". The rules for defining the public domain do not say that. On the other hand, if the author of a photograph is not known, most European countries apply the 70 years after first publication rule. The picture was taken in 1910. Adele Bloch-Bauer died in 1925. That's 96 years ago. The photograph is therefore in the public domain. The rule that one should reasonably assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years does not exist anywhere. To restore therefore. --Madelgarius (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - "[I]f the author of a photograph is not known, most European countries apply the 70 years after first publication rule" That applies only for truly anonymous works, which is an entirely different concept from being merely unknown to you personally ("The photographer could not be identified and is therefore deemed to be unknown.") The Commons has proprietary evidence requirements ("The rules for defining the public domain do not say that") and consensus has determined that we use 120 years from date of creation in pma countries when the author is unknown--see {{PD-old-assumed}}. Jim is thus entirely correct that 1910 is too recent to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years. (1910 + 120 + 1 = 01.01.2031) Эlcobbola talk 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose "Anonymous" and "Unknown" are two very different things. The former requires that the work was originally published without credit and with the creator deliberately not named. The latter simply says that we do not know who the creator was -- the name was lost over time.
Note also that the rule cited by User:Madelgarius and the status of "anonymous" requires publication. There is no evidence that that this image was published in 1910 or any other date before 1952. In order to rely on the rule cited above, publication, not just creation, before 1952 must be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Madelgarius, Have you had in your hands a paper print of the photograph made from the original negative? If so your experience is relevant, but not conclusive. However, if your "THOUSANDS of times" were digital copies or in books and periodicals, the experience has little meaning. Also, you have not addressed the issue of publication. Even if we accept that work is anonymous (which I am not inclined to do), you must still prove publication before 1952. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: So you change your argument along the way. When you say that an anonymous work applies when "the creator deliberately not named", you are stating an untruth. Now you ask me to prove that the work was public before 1952. Adele Bloch-Bauer was Klimt's muse, she died in 1925. Klimt had died in 1918. It is obvious that this photograph was made public before 1952. If only in Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer's "salon", where Klimt's paintings were on public display in a room that had been transformed into a memorial for his wife. All of Vienna knew this photograph. Sometimes you have to stop trying to be right and bow to the evidence. This picture IS in the public domain. You have deleted the picture saying: "1910 is too recent to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years". Another untruth. Now you argue otherwise but you still see no way out. I'll give a tip: the way out is undeletion. --Madelgarius (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Our standard of proof for publication is that you must cite the place where it appeared. The version of the image we are arguing about is not a halftone. It was apparently digitized from a print or the original negative. Your assumption that "it is obvious that this photograph was made public" is not at all obvious. Given the woman's status, there were probably many photographs of her in existence during her lifetime. You must show that this particular one was published before 1952 and that that publication was anonymous -- without naming the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Therefore,
1. You intervene on a discussion page in which my opponents have nothing more to answer me. The page stagnates.
2. You use your tools without taking into account the discussion by deleting the file on the grounds that there is no proof that the photographer has been dead for 70 years.
3. I point out that this clause does not exist and is not required to establish that a photograph is in the public domain.
4 should have been: oops, sorry, I may have acted a little too quickly, I'll restore.
Yours was the next one: No, actually I was right to delete anyway because you have to prove publication before 1952.
I hope that the dispute between us (you proposed, a few years ago, to delete all my contributions on commons) does not interfere with this.
For someone who uses his tools without discussion, I am quite surprised at your approximate knowledge of copyright laws and regulations.
I suggest that you step aside and leave it to others to deal with this request on the understanding that you are both judge and jury and that you are trying to justify after the fact a deletion that I heavily question. --Madelgarius (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No evidence of publication. No evidence that the photographer is anonymous.
{{Anonymous-EU}} requires that it was published more than 70 years ago, or not published within 70 years from creation. We don't have evidence of either of those.
If it was not published within 70 years from creation, then we need evidence that it was published more than 25 years ago, per Article 4 of Directive 93/98/EEC.
If it was published within 70 years from creation, then we need evidence that the photographer's name wasn't disclosed when it was published. We don't have that evidence.
Commons policy also requires that it is in the public domain in the United States. If it wasn't published at all, then {{PD-US-unpublished}} requires evidence that it was created more than 120 years ago. If it was published at some point, then United States copyright status is more complex. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough, but I will not close it. You have shown no proof of publication or that any publication was actually anonymous, both of which are required to use the EEC "70 years after anonymous publication" rule. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The neue gallery : author unknown. Your request to proove a publication before 1952 is procedural. How many contributors who have submitted an image in the Category:Unidentified photographers have been asked to provide such proof. Are you going to delete all those where this has not been demonstrated? I have been in contact with Randol Schoenberg about a photograph of Gustav Bloch-Bauer to make sure it can be placed in the public domain. Here it is established that the author is unknown, that the photograph was taken around 1910 and that Adele Bloch-Bauer died in 1925. More than enough to establish the PD. You are now nitpicking by invoking a rule that you did not mention at the beginning of the proceedings. It would be a stretch to think that you are overplaying. --Madelgarius (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Madelgarius: If you think that other images violate Commons policies, feel free to ask uploaders to fix information or request for deletion of the images. Policies being violated elsewhere is not a valid reason for undeletion. Ankry (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Most of them are probably there for the right reasons. They just haven't been asked to demonstrate the obvious. As for me, I prefer to build an encyclopedia rather than to nitpick with the contributors. --Madelgarius (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


Not done, per Jim, Stefan2 and Эlcobbola. Thuresson (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:SCP-173 artwork.png

This file was deleted because it apparently infringed on the copyright of a sculpture. However, I believe that the file was allowed under Commons:Fan art. It was a two-dimensional anime-style chibi drawing of a three-dimensional statue that was not originally in the chibi style. I think that this file is not a copyright violation and should be allowed on Commons in the same manner as, for example, File:Batman Clipart.svg, which is another heavily stylized cartoonish representation of a character. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The deletion reason contradicts the source license, which explicitely allows derivative works. @組曲師 and Jameslwoodward: for explanation of their rationale in the DR. Ankry (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The issue here, as it is with all fan art, is whether (a) it is useful for an educational purpose and (b) whether it infringes on the copyright of the original. I compared this image with the original and it seems to me that it is clearly derivative, more so even than the cited file File:Batman Clipart.svg, which is itself borderline. There is, therefore a substantial doubt over whether it can be freely used. I also wonder what its educational value is. Fan art, as noted in the cited guideline, is not automatically useful here -- there must be a good reason why we break our rule against keeping personal art from non notable artists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: no consensus for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Cryptocurrency & Blockchain in Virtual Reality.jpg

This image has been deleted on the grounds of the presence of a Bitcoin medallion in the image. However, the Bitcoin medallion and logo is not subject to copyright unless modified, which it hasn't been. There are a number of images currently published on Wikimedia Commons that also use cryptocurrency, and specifically Bitcoin, medallions, so it's difficult to understand why this image is any different. For example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bitcoin_.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bitcoin_(38461156010).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bitcoin_(33540791008).jpg

CC 30/06/2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dealdropimages (talk • contribs) 12:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 OpposeActually, the bitcoin was not mentioned in the DR -- the deletion was of a group of photos taken from Flickr that appeared to be Flickr washing. Also, it is not clear why you think the Bitcoin does not have a copyright -- it certainly does. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Justina Vail Evans MCC CHt.png

I am the person the page is about and I can tell you that the image I uploaded is mine. Please restore it or allow the new one I uploaded to be kept in place. The image that someone keeps switching back to is 20 years old and is not allowed use by me anymore and is also my own image. --Bellwon (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Justina Vail Evans

@Bellwon: Does nit seem to be a selfie of the anonymous uploader. We need an evidence of free license directly form the actual copyright holder and an evidence of copyright transfer if the copyright holder is not the author. COM:OTRS is the process for providing non-public data. On-wiki licensing can be used here only for original, non-published amateur images, where the real author is not identifiable or their identification do not differ to uploader username. See COM:EVID for anything else. Ankry (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Also, note that the image appears at https://www.justinavail.com/justina/ with "COPYRIGHT Justina Vail Evans 2014-2021". The easiest way to have this image restored is to change that to, "COPYRIGHT Justina Vail Evans 2014-2021 except that the image of Justina Vail Evans on this page is CC BY SA 4.0". Alternately, the actual photographer can send a free license using OTRS.

I have speedy deleted Justina Vail Evans hs 2019 1.jpg. It is a Facebook image, which we cannot keep on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I also note that User:Bellwon has made many edits to the WP:EN page Justina Vail Evans. That is a serious violation of WP:EN rules and must stop. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Dronerep.jpg

Hi, I had seeked permission from Scott Marsden himself to use his images for this project. Have I uploaded the Donerep image incorrectly? if so how do I go about doing so right? Thankyou FlowerMoon593 (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose This requires a free license from the publisher of the album or the person holding the copyright for the cover via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Los Papas y la Astronomía.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An artwork in the 17th century, obviously in PD A1Cafel (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Eight out of the nine images are old, but you must have overlooked the lower right image of John Paul II. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No response and no evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Schloss Meerholz Luftbild.jpg

Die Einwilligung des Urhebers liegt mittlerweile vor.--Landaulet (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to restore the image, an authorized representative of the photographer or other copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Raül Romeva al Parlament de Catalunya.jpg

Hi! Can anyone restore File:Raül Romeva al Parlament de Catalunya.jpg? This is the specific source. --Davidpar (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, that's the source. It has "©2021 Generalitat de Catalunya" and no evidence of a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Foto_de_perfil_Clemilda_Thomé_2021.jpeg

The photo is owned by Clemilda Thomé. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssmars (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @Ssmars: your blanket statement is not enough. Proof of copyright ownership by Thomé must be sent from her via COM:OTRS correspondence. And also, does she really hold the copyright and not the photographer who photographed her? The proof of copyright transfer between the photographer and her must also be accompanied in that OTRS correspondence that will be sent from her. Note that in most cases copyright is held by the photographer and not the person who owns the photo or the person depicted in the photo, unless there is solid proof of copyright transfer documents. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per JWilz12345. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Tulsi Kumar Indie Hain Hum.jpg

Hi,

Kindly undelete the file above as there are no copyright violation. The link that you shared says the copyright is with PR of Tulsi Kumar. I am the one who submitted that article and the image as I'm handling TUlsi Kumar's Digital and PR.

Thanks & Regards, Sauravjit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauravjit (talk • contribs) 01:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Alimansour.jpg

Return image for Egyptian actor to add it in article [8] --Leonleader (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done undeleted as in scope. But it is likely Flickrwashing (DR). Ankry (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Nidhi Kumar.png

1. This picture was clicked at a public event and is available free for anyone to use.--ArjunWhorra (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair Use is not accepted in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Phật A Di Đà giáo chủ Tây phương Cực Lạc.jpg

the images you just removed (recently)from the wiki don't have any copyright, they are widely used and if someone tries to claim copyright it is extremely fake, that Buddha image cannot be copyrighted and the content Its content is free for everyone. for whatever reason you always like to remove the images of gods, fairies, saints, Buddhas of the east. if you don't know exactly then you don't have the right to remove and you have abused your authority and images like some jesus god img have copyright etc then please do your good Lolvatveo (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lolvatveo: The image was not deleted due to someone's copyright claims, but due to lack of evidence that it is not copyrighted (evidence of pre 1960 publication, or evidence of author's death more than 50 years ago - assuming that the country of origin is Vietnam + evidence of PD status in US, which may be more complicated) or under the declared free license granted by the image author. Note also, that modern images of Jesus are obviously copyrighted as any other modern work. Ankry (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Unless the copyright has expired, the work has a copyright, so it is incorrect to say that it does not. In order for it to be restored, you must prove that the copyright has expired. Since the work is undated and the author is unknown, that may be impossible. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:A Chinese Panda eating noodles with Black motorcycle.jpg

This is about the motorcycle, please give it back — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 182.239.90.124 (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Chinese Panda eating noodles with Black motorcycle.jpg: the painting is not COM:DM here. Ankry (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Can we crop out the mural, and just left the motorcycle? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 182.239.85.8 (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose It could be done, but it would be several hours of work to eliminate the mural behind the motorcycle. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Walter Russell Mead and Jake Sullivan.jpg

This file was deleted because of licensing issues; I just sent an email to the permissions-commons address which contains a rights release for the image. Am hoping that it can be restored once these licensing issues are sorted. Thanks! --Nedbless (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Problem was just resolved. --Nedbless (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Nominator withdrawn.(non-admin closure) --A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Supremmedeluxe.jpg

I am Social Media Manager for SUPREMME DE LUXE and We have all the license for the picture from his photographer--Antoral (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Antoral: We need to receive a free license directly from the actual copyright holder through their official service or in COM:OTRS process. We cannot accept mere declarations by a third party. Ankry (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Aliki (1958) 1 C.jpg File:Aliki (1958) 2 C.jpg File:Aliki (1958) 3 C.jpg File:Aliki (1989) 5 C.jpg File:Aliki (1958) 4 C.jpg File:Aliki-Heiligtum C.jpg

Haubi (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Info unclear request: the files are not deleted. Ankry (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@Haubi: Das sind deine eigenen Bilder. Das hier ist die Seite für eine Löschprüfung. Da die Bilder aber nicht gelöscht sind, ist unklar, was du erreichen willst. Wolltest du stattdessen einen Löschantrag stellen? --PaterMcFly (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:I'll_See_You_In_My_Dreams-Beachcomber-tenorsax.ogg

This file was deleted because at that time the song was not yet in public domain. It is now (since 2020) J.G.G. (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Support: Composition published before January 1, 1926, recording freely licensed. I'll note that the original rationale for deletion, that the author died less than 70 years ago, is invalid because this is a U.S. work.  Mysterymanblue  19:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-US. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg Tengo permisos para subir la imagen, por eso pido la cancelación

Hola buenas tardes! Hable con los mamadera de franco Bertello y me dieron permiso de subir sus imágenes, me parece que antes de que eliminen tienen que preguntar, no tienen que eliminar de una. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathi ayd (talk • contribs) 15:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: needs permission via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Feng Tang's calligraphy works.jpg

Reasons for the request: this picture is belonged to me and I have the right to use it at any place for any purpose. Please do not delete it. Thanks.

--2001:56A:7304:DF00:D511:8137:B52A:921C 16:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose. @2001:56A:7304:DF00:D511:8137:B52A:921C: / @CherryChan2020: you may own your photo, but you just took an image of a copyrighted Chinese calligraphic artwork and published it here under a commercial license without the author's permission. You must obtain permission first from the person behind this calligraphic work, if they agree to have your image of their work licensed under commercial Creative Commons license. If they do not agree, then sorry. Commons does not accept images of artistic works that are not meant to be reused for commercial purposes. Even simple Chinese calligraphy can be copyrighted: see COM:TOO China. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs permission from Feng Tang. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Vivienda_Emiliano_Blasco.jpg File:Pabellonmunicipaltorres.jpg File:Edificiotorresol2020.jpg File:Ayuntamiento_de_Badules.jpg

Hi, i just want to request the undeletion of the following images, File:Vivienda_Emiliano_Blasco.jpg File:Pabellonmunicipaltorres.jpg File:Edificiotorresol2020.jpg File:Ayuntamiento_de_Badules.jpg they were taken from the website https://wwww.lorentearquitectos.com, I have talked with the website owner, in fact he is the creator of the images, and he has send several mails accepting the use of all images on wikipedia projects. The images have the following references: File:Vivienda_Emiliano_Blasco.jpg -> https://www.lorentearquitectos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/emilianoblasco0.jpg [[:File:Pabellonmunicipaltorres.jpg]} -> https://www.lorentearquitectos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/municipalberrellen0.jpg File:Edificiotorresol2020.jpg -> https://www.lorentearquitectos.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/20200609_175831brr-1.jpg File:Ayuntamiento_de_Badules.jpg -> https://www.lorentearquitectos.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/badules-aytob-1.jpg

Thanks for the review.

Julian Barroso (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The permissions for the images need to be processed and accepted by VRT/OTRS team. You cannot bypass the procedure requesting here. Ankry (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: needs otrs action. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Movie Poster Final.jpg

Hello, I was attempting to update the movie poster for a movie that I am part owner of, Break Every Chain. I was uploading the file Movie_ Poster_Final.jpg to try to update the infobox template on the film page with the new poster. The new poster has nicer graphics and lighting.

Thank you so much

Jonathan Hickory Break Every Chain Movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hickory79 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: no permission. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Internatszimmer LSH Wiesentheid.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: License and permission given in ticket:2021070810007051 — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done @JJMC89: Please note, that license templates are missing. Ankry (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Science-atom-news-2020.jpg

I make changes in this picture to add source which i forget to add when i upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashantkumar544 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Stated source has "Copyright © 2021 | Theme designed by Science Atom ". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Mike Sievert.jpg

Hi! This was deleted due to a lack of OTRS confirmation that release permission was provided. I have copies of an email exchange dated 26 May through 8 June in which both a representative of T-Mobile and the photographer explicitly confirm the copyright release in the format provided by the release generator. Not sure why the permission was never confirmed on here. Thanks for your help! MaryGaulke (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not the forum to ask questions about tickets or present any documents. Please make a request at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard instead. Thuresson (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Awaiting OTRS action. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Badgato1.jpg

== [[File:Badgato1.jpg|thumb|Badgato durante el lanzamiento de su primer single en Paris]] ==

I don't understand why is deleted my picture. I have all the rights because is my picture and I took it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badgato (talk • contribs) 21:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Previously published images require additional evidence of permission. Further, as copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject (uploader Badgato purports to be subject Badgato, and image is clearly not a selfie), the aforementioned permission needs to be in the form of direct (not forwarded) contact from the actual author or a copy of the document that transferred copyright; either can be provided using the process at COM:OTRS. That is all likely moot as well, as this appears a COM:NOTHOST issue. Эlcobbola talk 21:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs free license via OTRS and some evidence that the subject is notable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Walter Russell Mead.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission given in ticket:2021070810009317 — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done by DarwIn. Ankry (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Save The Duck Logo.jpg

Hello, I would like to request that this file File:Save The Duck Logo.jpg be released and undeleted.

Tarrytally1829 (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Tarrytally1829, July 8 2021

 Info No file with this file name has been uploaded to Commons; hence there is nothing to undelete. Thuresson (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 OpposeThe file is actually named "File:Save The Duck Logo .jpg". (note the space between "Logo" and ".jpg". It was uploaded by User:SVDUSA. User:Tarrytally1829 is a sock of SVDUSA and has been blocked for misusing multiple accounts. While it is perfectly all right to request restoration of your own upload, it is a violation to do so deceptively.

No reason for undeletion is given above. The logo appears at https://savetheduckusa.com/ with "© 2021 Save The Duck USA. All rights reserved" so the deletion appears to be correct. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Yuu (2).png

File:Yuu (2).png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahadhassan143 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Procedural close: duplicated request. Ankry (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Yuu (2).png

Mahadhassan143 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Procedural close: duplicated request. Ankry (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Yuu (2).png

15:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahadhassan143 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not the original file from your camera. An evidence is needed that you are the original photographer, or that the original photographer granted a compatible license and does not wish to be attributed. Ankry (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No authorship evidence provided. COM:OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Abdalrahemalghefari.pnj.jpg

لا اريد حذف هذه الصورة — Preceding unsigned comment added by باسل مدحت السويركي (talk • contribs) 15:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Google Translate: "I don't want to delete this photo".

Procedural close. No rationale for undeletion. Thuresson (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Feng Tang 2019.jpg

File:Feng Tang 2019.jpg

Reasons for undeletion: This picture is provided by Mr. Feng Tang and he has authorized me to use the picture at any place for any purpose. So please restore the picture. Thanks.

--CherryChan2020 (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@CherryChan2020: then Feng Tang must submit a correspondence via COM:OTRS process (see Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. There is nothing to be made here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@CherryChan2020: We need an evidence that (a) Feng Tang owns copyright to the image (which belongs to the photographer by default) and (b) that he indeed granted a free license, not just a permission to use by YOU. Ankry (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done, unlikely that the copyright owner meant for Wikimedia user CherryChan2020 to relicense the photo or to claim to own the copyright. Thuresson (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Cases in Category:Chinese_FOP_cases_(indoor)

See also: Template:FoP-China.

The new copyright law of China which took effect in June 2021 removed the "outdoor" limitation:

−
In the following cases, a work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon: (10) copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place;...
+
In the following cases, a work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon: (10) copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in a public place;...

This mean now indoor works in a public place have freedom of panorama, so files in Category:Chinese_FOP_cases_(indoor) should be undeleted.--Njzjz (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The requirement that the author and title of the work be given means that this is limited to those cases where both are known. That, in turn, means that these will have to be handled on a case by case basis. There is nothing to be done here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Weak oppose as per Jameslwoodward. Also, some of the depicted indoor works might already be gone by the time the amendment went into effect last month. Is the amendment retroactive to indoor works that were intended to be permanently-placed but were suddenly removed or destroyed? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
ping @GZWDer and Wcam: who created this category. Njzjz (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:श्रीरामरक्षास्तोत्रम्.jpg

It was all my own work including photographs. I have original photos with me. Therefore it was not fair on me that this file is deleted where I have already declared my own work. Thank youkatyare (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Katyare: If you are the author of original works, you may need to upload them under a compatible free license or provide as evidence following COM:OTRS process. Note, that only original, unpublished works can be licensed here as Own work. Ankry (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Are these dolls or humans? If they are dolls, then they are probably copyrighted and images of them cannot be kept without permission from the manufacturer or designer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. not response to query. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:На Солунском фронту 1917. године .jpg

This is an image published in 1917, {{PD-anon-expired}} can be applied. --219.78.190.8 14:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is a halftone, so the assertion that it has been published is probably correct. However, there is no evidence that it was published anonymously and 1917 is too recent to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Dominic MacGregor.jpg

Hello, the file Dominic McGregor is own work, not copyrighted material, the panel was created and claimed by Dominic McGregor himself and all the information from Wikipedia common are own work uploaded with no any third party material and is not violate any copyright policy.

Please undelete this panel it has been claimed already by the owner no violation of copyright. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earnestclark (talk • contribs) 09:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

There has never been a file named "File:Dominic MacGregor.jpg". I note that you spelled the name as "McGregor" in your request, but there has never been a file named "File:Dominic McGregor.jpg" either. None of your own uploads is anything like that.

Note that "not copyrighted material" is incorrect. All created works have a copyright from the moment of creation until it expires many years later unless they are very simple, utilitarian, or fit in other categories which are unlikely to apply here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: No valid rationale for undeletion. No such file exists. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Atiqur_Rahman_Fahad.jpg

This photo is a work of mine, RHS 02 or otherwise known as RIYADH HASNAT SARKER. The file in question is also used in Atiqur Rahman Fahad's facebook page (facebook.com/121.121.AtiqurFahad) which is taken from me. I would like to request undeletion of the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHS02 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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.
  • @RHS02: How can we verify (basing on public records) that:
    1. YOU (Wikimedia user RHS02) are the autor, and
    2. The license you granted to the FB user is non-exclusive?
If these cannot be verified basing on public records, COM:OTRS is the only path. Ankry (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Badgato1 durante su primer lanzamiento en paris.jpg

I tried to upload my image again (I repeat, my picture that I took and I edited. I can send u the original and the edited one) for my page of wikipedia of music artist, so I don't understand why is block. I want the picture as a profile picture of my wikipedia.

--Badgato (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:SARANG.jpg

Added information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr bond. .isaahmad (talk • contribs) 16:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: no valid rationale for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

hrithik 407 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrithik 407 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose File:Example.jpg is not deleted and no evidence provided that any deleted upload of the requested is in COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to do here. Please create a new request with the actual name of the file you would like to be undeleted. --De728631 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Pianist Olga Rotari.jpg

I own the subject file's copyrights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamer A.Al-Monim (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose From deletion log: "Non free image from youtube failed VTRS test ticket:2021062510010491. Thuresson (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Mast cell tumors treated with oncolytic Sendai virus .jpg

The file is from my open access paper, which is under the Creative Commons Attribution License https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2018.00116/full https://www.frontiersin.org/about/open-access Olgamatveeva (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support per CC-BY 4.0 license at https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2018.00116/full ; source information needs fixing. Ankry (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

How I can fix source information if the file is deleted?Olgamatveeva (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: I have undeleted the file and adjusted the source. I also changed the licence since the original paper is not "share-alike". --De728631 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Telemundo Kids website.jpg

It does own Telemundo's owner of the copyright, I will not being a copyright, so I was just put on image on Telemundo Kids, which is defunct in 2006.

The copyright has been removed last afternoon, because they won't be do removed as of copyright false.

Dora is owned by Nickelodeon, if having a does a copyright false, in defunct 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose While Telemundo Kids is gone, the copyright is still in force. We cannot keep these on Commons without a free license from Telemundo. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Queens logo.jpg

The file is a picture of the logo of an upcoming tv series on ABC. Would be so that the page could have a picture since it doesnt have one as of now. --4everbranfan (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose We cannot host copyrightable logos without a free license from the logo copyright holder. Fair Use logos may be hosted in some Wikipedies, but not in Commons. Ankry (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose Source page has "© 2021 ABC Entertainment". Restoration requires a free license from ABC. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:MCqasim (Qasim Khalaf) 2021.jpg

The File is from press and I write in the Description — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcqasim (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The file has not been deleted. so there is nothing to do here. However, on inspection, I created Commons:Deletion requests/File:MCqasim (Qasim Khalaf) 2021.jpg.

 Not done procedural close: image not deleted. Ankry (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Forcefire ao vivo em Mangaratiba, Brasil.jpg

Hi, File:Forcefire ao vivo em Mangaratiba, Brasil.jpg was deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Forcefire ao vivo em Mangaratiba, Brasil.jpg by Taivo who believed the file was a copyvio and of low res. They've since realised it wasn't a copyvio but have still refused to undelete it (They've been on since my reply),
Whilst the image is low res that in itself isn't a reason to delete as we have tons of low res images here and the image was taken in 2008 and was categorised accordingly - The image was still of use and was in SCOPE, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 19:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose. Apparently I was not enough clear. I wanted to say: while Davey says a lot of right things, I am convinced, that my decision was right. The file is copyvio not because it is small photo without metadata, but because uploader is himself depicted and the photo is not a selfie. Also the deletion is uploader's request. Taivo (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per Taivo. The license should be from the photographer, not from subject. If the subject owns copyright, we need OTRS. If the uploader's claims are not reliable, we also need OTRS. Ankry (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by ArtificeBoy

See the link in the permission field, he gave his permission and uploaded the pictures himself, he just forgot to change the metadata. In case you have any doubt, he's aware that one of his pictures is on Commons and he's aware of the CC BY-SA license. I sent him a tweet asking to confirm that the account belongs to him. --Thibaut (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that there was a previous request by Fugitron. Hopefully the author will reply to my tweet. I think he was quite upset by the deletion request, that would explain why he didn't follow the OTRS procedure (I'm not even sure if it's really needed here). --Thibaut (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
He replied. --Thibaut (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello? --Thibaut (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Strong support The restoration should be done. NC was not wished by the author: He is ok to use CC-By-SA. --Benoît (d) 14:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The situation was well explained by User:Fugitron in C:UDR/A/2021-04#Files uploaded by ArtificeBoy. The request was declined supposedly for doubt. IMHO, that refusal was not justified, because there was actually no doubt. Nothing concrete was presented in terms of doubt. The files were uploaded by their author. And the archive of the twitter discussion, linked in that previous UDR, allows a full understanding of the situation. It confirms that the author offers the files under CC BY-SA 4.0. His explicit decision to upgrade them to CC BY-SA 4.0 obviously prevails over the former CC BY-NC mention that remains in the EXIF. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per discussion. @Thibaut120094, Benoît Prieur, and Asclepias: can one of you kindly fix the license ?. — Racconish 💬 14:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Thibaut (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Charles Robert Jenkins.jpg

I'm asking that the photo be undeleted because it's the only known photo of Charles Robert Jenkins in the US Army before his defection to North Korea in 1966. It's also his last photo taken by the west until his return to Japan in 2004. Since Jenkins is now deceased, I think the photo should be undelete so it can be used again on Wikipedia. Angelgreat (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose All of that my be true, but it is not relevant. The copyright status of the image is completely unknown. Unless it can be proven that (a) it was taken by a US Government employee as part of their official duties, (b) it was published (in the technical copyright sense of the word) before 1989 without a copyright notice, or (c) for some other reason it was PD, then it cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Chocolate.jpg

please inform about publishing it — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 49.205.249.205 (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: Procedural close, nothing to undelete. — Racconish 💬 14:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Чокър.jpg

Моя снимка е от моя фотоапарат, както съм го посочил. Илиев2010 (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

 Support Ankry (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - Undeted, I am convinced this photo is made by Илиев2010. Metadata show the same date as date of original upload. Elly (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Raül Romeva al Parlament de Catalunya.jpg

Hi! Can anyone restore File:Raül Romeva al Parlament de Catalunya.jpg? This is the specific source. Images from Generalitat de Catalunya websites can be used in Commons. Please, look at Template:Attribution-gencat: The copyright holder of this file, Generalitat de Catalunya, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted. Note that "Legal notice" from https://govern.cat/ links to https://web.gencat.cat/en/menu-ajuda/ajuda/avis_legal/index.html, which says: "The Government of Catalonia authorises the reuse of content and data worldwide, with no time limit or restriction, in the terms established by Creative Commons CC0". https://govern.cat/ is part of "gencat.cat" as you can see in the site map of the site. --Davidpar (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davidpar: https://govern.cat/salapremsa/notes-premsa/290306/romeva-la-diversitat-lessencia-deuropa-mes-necessaria-que-mai This] is not the source page of the image on Commons: this is a cropped version of the deleted image. Ankry (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: Please, look at the "Imatges" section in the page. There is a link to download full image: http://www.gencat.cat/big/img/675/BIG_675320017012516_02.jpg --Davidpar (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 Support then. Ankry (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Undeleted, no objections, Elly (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:World Press Photo 1962, eerste prijs in de categorie Sport, Gouden medaille winn, Bestanddeelnr 914-5550.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is under {{Nationaal Archief}} with {{Cc-zero}} A1Cafel (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Josef Pillmann is a living person; no evidence that he ever granted {{Cc-zero}} license for this photo or transferred his copyright to the Nationaal Archief. Evidence needed; likely through COM:OTRS process. Ankry (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@A1Cafel: Please note that the terms of use of Nationaal Archief specify that the public domain dedication "only applies to images that feature a download button and are marked as Public Domain or CC0". They also specify "Images not available as download: [...] photos for which the National Archives is not the copyright holder". This photo is marked "Copyright owner unknown", is not marked for PD and is marked "Not available for download". Also please note that this file could not have been validly on Commons under the template Nationaal Archief, which is reserved specifically for files uploaded by the NationaalArchiefBot and included in the set of the 2010 donation. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Not a CC0 licensed image. Ankry (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Валери Стефанова - Мис България Вселена 2020.jpg

I want to add copyright info for this picture are re-upload it to the wikipage I want to create. --MinerHQ (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose You need to provide an evidence that it is free, first, as required for any previously published image. Ankry (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:John Behan 02.jpg

This photo was posted on a public website and did not constitute an infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schinhu (talk • contribs) 14:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because an image is publicitely available does not mean it is not copyrighted. See Gratis versus libre and COM:NETCOPYVIO. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done, "© 2021 THE IRISH TIMES". Thuresson (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Wave-Esports Logo.png

Hello,

I am working at Wave-Esports and have to do their Wikipedia Entry. The Logo is obtained from their website on the media package, which is free for everyone to see. You can find it directly here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1W9n60hM4SMsei7F2DGp30HkXWzkZBCDC Or go to their page https://wave-esports.gg/ Go to "MORE" and then "Media Kit" I also have a Licence Number from the logo - I just don't know where to put it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessisch (talk • contribs) 08:44, 14 July 2021‎ (UTC)

 Oppose "Copyright © Wave Esports 2020". "Free for everyone to see" is not an acceptable license. Thuresson (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Where can I put the Licence Number for it to get accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessisch (talk • contribs) 10:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tessisch: files on Wikimedia Commons must be free for anyone to use, even commercially. See COM:Licensing. "Free for everyone to see" is not enough - files must be freelt reusable for commercial reuses by anyone in the world. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Tessisch: COM:OTRS is likely the appropriate procedure. But this is not you who needs to follow it. And be aware of section 4 of TOU (last subsection). Ankry (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done nothing to do: non-free logo. Ankry (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Restore files from Mateo Chaves H Vimeo account

Hello, I recent notice that some files that I have upload ago 3 days were deleted with Speed deletion request, so, I was absent when they were deleted and I request that the following files will be undeleted as they came from videos from a Vimeo account of Mateo Chaves H that is the director of these shorts films where came the screenshots:

So, that videos were published on Vimeo under the CC-BY-3.0 licensed, so I Made this request yo restore these files, If anyone consider that is copyright violation, so can made a Deletion request for them, so, I would grateful If restore these files, thanks RevengerTime (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Question This is the link to Vimeo listed on one of the images: https://vimeo.com/mateochavesh . Can you indicate where you found that the films are published with CC-BY-3.0 licence? Elly (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Vimeo hides the license of their videos under the section "more", if you click there, yo can see the license --RevengerTime (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 Support per CC-BY 3.0 license at source. And pinging @Racconish: Ankry (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: My bad. — Racconish 💬 06:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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

The set of files to undelete

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olgamatveeva (talk • contribs) 02:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC) These files were created using some elements of the figures from my open access paper, which is under the Creative Commons Attribution License https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/12/12/3659 Olgamatveeva (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Support I can confirm that all these deleted images are based on graphics published in said free paper (CC by 4.0) where Olga Matveeva is the primary author. De728631 (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per De728631. Ankry (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:WestVerkehr1421 2021-03-11.jpg

I request the undeletion of File:WestVerkehr1421 2021-03-11.jpg. I have made this image with my phone. I used the same phone to make the following photo: File:Schoorsteen NIFA Chemelot.jpg. Felixschiffler (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Felixschiffler: And what about three other cameras mentioned in this DR? Unless this is also resolved, we cannot rely on your {{Own}} declarations per COM:AGF and COM:OTRS is needed. Ankry (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: Those other photos were taken with different cameras, yes. As you can see two of them are from 2009 and 2012, the other one is even older if I remember correctly. I hope you understand I switch phones or cameras regularly. Felixschiffler (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 Weak support, but pinging @Gbawden and Didym: for an opinion whether we can apply AGF here. Ankry (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 Weak support - the uploader admitted that the others they uploaded were taken by others, so I think we can AGF here. Lets hope the uploader has learnt something Gbawden (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:UA032.09(1).jpg

Also:

This file is the postage stamp. It is published under the license {{PD-UA-exempt}}. Why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djboz (talk • contribs) 10:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support They were deleted because you used {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} instead of {{PD-UA-exempt}}. That should be corrected when they are restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Samsung Galaxy S Duos-2.jpg

Imagem do Samsung Galaxy S Duos 2, Telefone Celular, Preto, Imagem de trás e frente Quero pedir para recuperarem este arquivo, pois ele não tem nada de ilegal, é apenas uma imagem representativa do aparelho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jherehmias (talk • contribs) 18:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair Use images cannot be hosted in Wikimedia Commons per COM:L. You need to provide information about license granted by the photo author and Google (the copyright holder of the presented Android interface) and point out where exactly this can be verified basing on public records. Ankry (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Schloss Meerholz Luftbild.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission with Ticket:2021052210004905. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Katrina Kaif IIFA 2019.jpg

I want to oppose the nomination for speedy deletion for a photo that I have created. It's my own work and I have waivered all licenses. Please allow the photo for uploading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharth Keswani (talk • contribs) 12:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Found on insta and very low quality. plus I see what looks like a text watermark Gbawden (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose The watermark on the photograph says "(C) Gaurang Inamdar" who first published this photo at a much higher quality on his Instagram on September 18, 2019. Gaurang Inamdar is a professional photographer working out of Mumbai. It is not surprising that a photo from a professional photographer is available all over the web. Thuresson (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:A Short Writing Guide.pdf

I wrote the guide to help students with their work. I do not understand why it was deleted. Since I wanted this to be free to everyone, I listed it here and Barnes and Noble's website. If there are any questions about the guide or who wrote it, contact me directly. (Redacted). Jesus Beltran II 07/15/2021 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.84.209.4 (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Short Writing Guide.pdf. Thuresson (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Violates COM:ADVERT, problematic image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Photos by Juan Carlos Lorente Castillo

Please undelete

We have permission with Ticket:2021052010009726.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Explicit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Apologies to Esad58, ZLEA, and Stefan2. These coin images were deleted on the basis of their designer being an Artistic Infusion Program (AIP) contractor. For reasons explained at Commons:Determining if U.S. coins are free to use, AIP coin designs are not freely usable. While true that these coins' mint webpages ([11][12]) did (and still do) have "Donna Weaver, Artistic Infusion Program" written in the design credit line, she was employed (not contracted) by the mint when she designed the coins. According to her artist page, she worked at the mint from 2000 to 2006 before becoming an AIP contractor, and designed these coins as part of her employment. They are therefore PD.  Mysterymanblue  00:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support Good catch. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Luis Barra y Pablo Silva Amaya 1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per Ticket:2018061610004501 A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@A1Cafel: Is the painting visible here PD? COM:DM cannot be applied for the requested image. Ankry (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done unresponded. Ankry (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Adler Arena 2013.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adler Arena 2013.JPG. However, there is now commercial FOP in Russia since 2014. {{FoP-Russia}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done rubin16 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Отделение Олимпийский проспект.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Отделение Олимпийский проспект.jpg. However, there is FOP for architecture since 2014. {{FoP-Russia}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done rubin16 (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh no, I just found that this file was involved at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Crediteuropebank. @Rubin16: , please redelete the file as it seems the photo itself is problematic. My apologies,  I withdraw my nomination. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
okay, thanks for info rubin16 (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Калининград Kaliningrad roof of the House of Soviets. (7410452686).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{FoP-Russia}}. Also it may have educational scope as showing the roof of the building (therefore I dispute the claim of lack of scope. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose I disagree with the above. Out of scope, IMO. Ankry (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree. There is nothing educational or even of any interest here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Institut d'art et d'archéologie 2009.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: architect of this French building has been dead for more than 70 years (the DR indicates he died in 1942), thus this is acceptable here since 2013. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, 8 years late, but ✓ Done. Ankry (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:R142 6 train at 33 street (2).jpg

This picture is not violation, fake, or claim is just original picture there's no evidence for violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturn planet 42 (talk • contribs) 2021-07-16T17:46:08‎ (UTC)

Procedural closure. Please discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/File:R142 6 train at 33 street (2).jpg instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Philippine 4.jpg

J'ai les droits d'auteurs --Tomato2003 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per elcobbola; requester is blocked - no need to wait 24h. Ankry (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Univision TDN 2019.svg

Por favor no lo borren — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarWongLara1999 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close, not deleted. Please discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by OscarWongLara1999. — Racconish 💬 18:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Univision TDN 2012.svg

Tampoco borre el logo porfavor.

 Not done: Procedural close, not deleted. Please discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by OscarWongLara1999.— Racconish 💬 18:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:TDN 2010-2011.svg

Quite mi nombre y puse el de Televisa Así que no lo borren.

OscarWongLara1999 (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC) --OscarWongLara1999 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close, not deleted. Please discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by OscarWongLara1999. --Эlcobbola talk 18:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Tdn-logo 2009.svg

Mejore tambien ese logo y ni siquiera lo piensen borrarlo por favor.

OscarWongLara1999 (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC) --OscarWongLara1999 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close, not deleted. Please discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by OscarWongLara1999. --Эlcobbola talk 18:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:TV Azteca logo 1994-1996.svg

Tampoco borren este y quiten mi nombre y pongan el de TV Azteca

OscarWongLara1999 (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC) --OscarWongLara1999 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close, not deleted. Please discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by OscarWongLara1999. --Эlcobbola talk 18:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:TV Azteca logo 1993-1994.svg

Por favor no borren este logo

OscarWongLara1999 (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC) --OscarWongLara1999 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close, not deleted. Please discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by OscarWongLara1999. --Эlcobbola talk 18:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Televisión Azteca 1992-1993.svg

Tampoco borren este.

OscarWongLara1999 (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC) --OscarWongLara1999 (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close, not deleted. Please discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by OscarWongLara1999. --Эlcobbola talk 18:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:কুংফু পান্ডা লিজেন্ডস অফ অসামনেস.png

This is the logo of kung fu panda in Bengali, exact transliteration of this one [13] which is an allowed non-free picture. It is by a legal distributor. --Greatder (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that the file hasn't been deleted yet. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Now deleted by User:EugeneZelenko. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Non-free logos are incompatible with COM:L. Ankry (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Laolu Senbanjo.jpg

I was granted permission by the Artist to use all the files deleted from his page. Some of them are also free on his website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljiljana16 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose You need to ensure that the license either has been granted on the image source page or sent by the actual copyright holder to OTRS/VRTS; see COM:OTRS. Reuploading deleted images is against policy. Ankry (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done, nothing to be done here without verified information about the copyright status. Thuresson (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Files deleted by Fastily

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Images of Russian architecture. The 4th, 5th, and 7th files were determined via their upload logs. {{FoP-Russia}} applies to these four files. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: files where FOP seem to be the only issue undeleted. The remaining one was (C) on Flickr. They still may need some information to be aded. Ankry (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: I'm ✓ Done adding FOP-Russia tags and relevant information for those with incomplete information. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per FOP-Russia. Ankry (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Kontinental.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: possibly {{FoP-Russia}} applies, if both show architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support for File:WorobioweGory1.jpg,  Oppose the others: they are likely promotional photos, uploaded mostly by SPAs, unlikely {{Own}}. Ankry (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree. The first three look very much as if they are professional promotional photos. They have a variety of named authors, including User:Radisson Royal Hotel, Moscow which account does not exist. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done one image and  Not done the rest. Ankry (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Villa Natacha.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the last-involved architect died in 1950, which means this French building is already in public domain since January 1, 2021 (70+1 years p.m.a.). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Villa Natacha.jpg. Ankry (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done By Ankry, close this section, Elly (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Afb9 Streekbord - Roosdaal.jpg

Normally this picture should fall under freedom of panaroma as it is permanetly placed in public space (it's a street sign). Hilke Arijs (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - This is not a street sign, but a billboard. Belgian FoP applies to works installed on a "permanent basis"; billboards are seldom permanent installations as, for example, the images depicted change periodically. There is no evidence here that this is permanent. Эlcobbola talk 16:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support non-permanent bilboards are most often paid advertising. This one seems to be a regional bilboard, most likely permanent. Its shape and border colouring suggest that it was not designed for poster changing. Ankry (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done : Conform nomination and Ankry. Board appears permanent. However, the image should not be cropped. Elly (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

This file is entirely my own work (tecomprendo.org) as the creator of the videogame. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.38.66.118 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done no deleted file specified. Ankry (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

This file is entirely my own work (tecomprendo.org) as the creator of the LOGOS Bible Video Game. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.38.66.118 (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done no deleted file specified. Ankry (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Moses in the Pharaoh's palace.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Those files are my own work as the creator of the LOGOS Bible Video Game. I'll really appreciate it if you don't delete them. TeComprendo (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @TeComprendo: , I think it would be helpful if you can identify yourself as the owner of the copyright of the game and these images (and the poster above) by sending an email with permission to publish with the CC-BY-SA4.0 licence to the COM:VRT, system. Please use the email template you may find on COM:VRT. It is advised to send your email from an email adress of the game website. Elly (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 Support We now received permission via Ticket:2021071710006991. In my opinion, the files can and should be restored. --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Hörbiger Aufgebotsverweigerung.jpg

Siehe hier, das fällt unter Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Austria#Official_works, daher wiederherstellen und mit einem korrekten Lizenzbaustein versehen, welcher das auch immer ist, da findet sich ja sowieso niemand zurecht in den bürokratischen Fallstricken zur Bildvermeidung. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: Da gab es eine ganze Menge Dokumente, die offensichtlich ebenso gemeinfrei sind, die der gleiche Hochlader hochgeladen hat als eigenes Werk (was das Foto ja auch zweifelsfrei war, nur das abgebildete Dokument nicht). Wegen des dezentralen LD-Chaos hier ist ads aber nicht einfach, die alle zu finden. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Reicht das so, wie ich das gerade gemacht habe? Kirchenurkunden waren damals gleichzusetzen mit anderen behördlichen Urkunden, ich denke also, das passt so. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 Keep Der Text hat keine urheberrechtliche Schöpfungshöhe, und für die Bilder dürfte sowohl "Amtliches Werk" als auch "Anonymes Werk" (mehr als 70 Jahre alt) zutreffen. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 Keep This is an official document which is not copyrightable in Austria. De728631 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Closing as ✓ Done. Ankry (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Kaiserkanal01.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: User:Hph's own work. RZuo (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

{{O}} As this is a low resolution image, an evidence of authorship is needed (eg. the original full resolution photo or a photo with complete camera settings info in EXIF). Ankry (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
this photo came from sometime before 2005. its resolution and lack of EXIF were typical of old photos from that time.--RZuo (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
{{Temporarily undeleted}} for discussion. 343×223px is not a standard resolution of a digital photo from that time. While it may be {{Grandfathered}} we need at least some explanation why it is so low resolution and whether so low resolution image is (still) useful. Ankry (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
it could well be a photo from a film camera. the photographer was born in 1946. consumer-grade digital cameras would not be available until his 50s. without credible claims of copyvio it shouldnt be deleted.
it's been used on a large number of wikis for more than a decade.--RZuo (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @RZuo: HPH was active on deWP as late as February this year. They also link a personal website from their user page where contact information is found. You may want to contact them by email to let them know about this discussion and ask about the source of this image. They may also be able to provide OTRS confirmation and even a higher-resolution scan.
    The image was clearly not born-digital: you can see a black border due to incomplete cropping in several places. To me it looks most like the black cardboard(ish) pages of photo albums popular among "prosumer" (advanced hobbyist / casual professional) photographers up to about the mid-nineties (depending on where you were in the world). The right edge could also possibly be construed to look like the curling of a magazine page toward its spine, suggesting the image was scanned from a magazine, but at this resolution it is impossible to tell anything for certain. --Xover (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per COM:PCP no consensus about Own work status. Ankry (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Whenwewereveryyo0000unse i2b7 orig 0046.png and File:Whenwewereveryyo0000unse i2b7 orig 0048.png

Scan of a book in the PD in the USA. Languageseeker (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

When We Were Very Young is listed as first being published in in 1924 by a London-based publisher. The 1924 year makes it PD in US. But it's a UK country-of-origin, so Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom is also in play. As User:Tagishsimon tagged, that law is "life+70", so the illustrator's rights would not expire until 2046. Took be a bit to decipher that before I ultimately deleted the file. DMacks (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Is there anyway to transfer these files to en Wikisource that accepts material in the PD-US? Languageseeker (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Let us know when you've copied them so we can re-delete them here. I think the automatic clock is 2 days but obviously that can be flexible as necessary. Are there any others from this source that need similar transfer+deletion? DMacks (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@PawełMM, Xover, and Inductiveload: A huge thank you. I was really sad to see those images go. It’s probably going to be all the images from this book. Is there anyway to get a little more time so that PawełMM can finish working on them prior to being transferred to enWS? Also, does anyone with more rights or technical skills know of a better way of transferring 122 images to enWS? Languageseeker (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: As I mentioned elsewhere, there are bot scripts to do that task but they are currently broken, so right now it'll have to be done manually. Xover (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@User:Xover what script is used to go from Commons to other wikis? Inductiveload (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload mw:Manual:Pywikibot/imagetransfer.py. It's currently blocked on T267535. Xover (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@DMacks: Inductiveload transferred the files to Wikisource. All file with the name "Whenwewereveryyo0000unse i2b7" can now be deleted and marked for undeletion it 2046. Thank you for helping us out. Languageseeker (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Note to processing admins: According to the requester, all the temporarily restored files have now been safely transferred to enWS and can be deleted again here. They were originally deleted because they are not PD in the country of origin (UK), and that deletion rationale still holds true. The files affected are those in Special:PrefixIndex/File:Whenwewereveryyo0000unse i2b7. If it would help I can bot-add a temporary category to them, or make a PWB delete.py-friendly list of them.

Transfer ✓ Done and images redeleted. Ankry (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:БРЦК - Стаа Загора.png

Моя снимка е от моя фотоапарат, както съм го посочил. Илиев2010 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

{{O}} per above. It is a COM:DW. Ankry (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Медальонът на паметника е печата на Българския революционен централен комитет от 1870-те г. Минали са 100 години. Винаги ли първо триете и след това се запознавате с фактите!?? Илиев2010 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 Unsure then. Maybe it is relevant when the monument was established. Ankry (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry:  Info per wikimapia.org/18959789/Monument-of-Vasil-Levski, it was constructed in 1976. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, so it cannot be considered PD due to age. However, it may still be disputable whether it is original copyrightable creative art or a copy of the original seal, a work of craftmanship. If someone wants to open a DR discussion to discuss this, I would  Support. However, we may need an image of the original seal in order to take a decision that is not based on COM:PCP. At least the lion shape may be considered creative. Ankry (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done nobody wanted a new DR discussion. Ankry (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:2004 Thomas Alva Edison Silver Dollar (Reverse).png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I mistakenly nominated the public domain reverse of the coin for deletion instead of the non-free obverse and would like this file to be undeleted. Sorry to Keeleysam. At the DR, you can see that I (correctly) marked the Thomas Alva Edison Commemorative Coin's obverse as non-free because it was designed by an Artistic Infusion Program contractor. For reasons explained at Commons:Determining if U.S. coins are free to use, AIP coin designs are not freely usable. The reverse of the coin is freely usable, however, because it was designed by John Mercanti, a mint employee.  Mysterymanblue  22:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support As explained above. User:Mysterymanblue, I found the interaction of the three posts above confusing, particularly since the third one contradicts the first. May I suggest that you strike through the portion of the first post that is incorrect -- the second and third sentences?.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks for the tip!  Mysterymanblue  16:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Microsoft Edge logo (2019).png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The Edge logo has been released on GitHub under the {{MIT}} license: https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/edgevr/blob/main/assets/img/edge-logo-128x128.png

MIT license: https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/edgevr/blob/main/LICENSE Njzjz (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done MIT license seems valid, but likely to the 128x128 version only. Please, discuss this issue in COM:VPC is you think otherwise. Ankry (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Tore Storehaug YEPP council of Presidents Vienna.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per ticket:2017010510008477 A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Info OTRS-based requests should be made by VRT agents. Ankry (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Note that there is what appears to be a crop of this image at File:Tore Storehaug YEPP council of Presidents Vienna (cropped).jpg which has been hosted since 2017. The OTRS tag was added by krd in this edit shortly after upload. Whatever the licensing situation is for the original it probably applies to the crop as well, and vice versa. Xover (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
A permission for a cropped image is not obviously valid for the non-cropped image. Also cropped out parts of this image are blurry and of no value. Ankry (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I should have expressed that better. We obviously can't just assume that the permission for the crop applies to the full image. What I was trying (and failing) to convey was that since the two files are so closely related there is a high probability that once the ticket is actually checked it will be relevant to both files; and that if there is a problem with the permission as it applies to the full image that problem is also likely to apply to the crop. And since Krd checked the ticket for the crop they might want to check it against the full version as well. I have no real opinion on the issue as such: I just wanted to note the related file so they could be handled together, iff relevant. Xover (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Dariatotskaya.jpg‬

File:Dariatotskaya.jpg This file is from the profile on facebook of Daria Toski and she can sign that it is free for use in Wiki.

Brigeeta (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Brigeeta

@Brigeeta: : Free for use in not the same as freely licensed; we require tha latter on Commons. And per COM:DW we need a free license permission from both: the photographer and the painter. Ankry (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ankry, this photo of Daria Toski is made by Daria Toski. She is an author of a photo. It is made on her Canon and she provides it for free use in Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 178.176.213.244 (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose First, I am not at all sure that this is a selfie -- if it is, it is very well done. I strongly suspect that someone else actually pushed the shutter button and therefore owns the copyright. Second, "free for use in Wiki" is not broad enough to keep it on Commons. Images here must be free for use by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. Such permission must be given by the copyright holder herself, not a third party. Third, the painting or photo in the background, which is repeated on the cover of the book, is probably still under copyright. We will need a license for it from its creator. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jim and others... This photo was taken from the Canon Mark III of Daria Toski. Nowadays, you know. you can put your Canon on the stick or smth like it and it will take a photo after 30 or more seconds! Than, THIS PHOTO IS FREE FOR USE IN EVERYWHERE BY AUTHOR AND PAINTER DARIA TOSKI, and the picture on the wall is her own ant the photo of it is free for use everywhere! It is really free, the author gave her permission! I still can't believe. that to put the photo in Wiki is such a difficult thing. if I will give you a photo of her permission, you will probably talk me in 100500 comments that it is not the form you wanted. All this makes me really feal unhappy. Brigeeta (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Brigeeta

@Brigeeta: As noted in the closing message below: OTRS permission is needed, especially as there was no free license granted when the photo was published on https://formasloff.ru/ A photo can be licensed on-wiki in Commons if (1) it is unpublished, (2) it is original, not preprocessed and (3) the photographer is anonymous and cannot be identified as a real person. All three need to be met and according to your claim none is met. Ankry (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 Not done per above; COM:OTRS needed from both: the artist and the person who pushed the button. Camera ownership is irrelevant for copyright. As well as ownership of the linen and paints. Ankry (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

ok. she gave it - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/6URq/K6NRqzYKc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigeeta (talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigeeta (talk • contribs) 15:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

File:imos_Logo.png

File:imos_Logo.png

We would like to have the logo restored by our company imos AG, as we own the rights to it. Unfortunately, it came to a deletion because we did not react fast enough.

--Senada Memic (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Senada Memic 11:12, 16. Jul. 2021 (CEST) Senada

Note: This has been reuploaded as File:Imos Logo.jpg. Can an admin please determine if the orignal image had a OTRS release? Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 Info No OTRS information at the description page. From the image description page:

{{Information |description={{de|1=Logo der Firma imos AG aus Herford}} |date=01.07.1993 |source=https://www.imos3d.com/ |author=imos AG |permission= |other versions= }}

=={{int:license-header}}== {{Remove this line and insert a license instead|year=2021|month=07|day=02}}

[[Category:Software companies]]

Thuresson (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Thuresson: If the file is exactly what I found from their official site, then IMHO it might be below COM:TOO Germany but we need other people that are professors of that topic. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Senada Memic: We cannot host an image without appropriate template describing its copyright status. Which licensing or Public Domain status template is appropriate here in your opinion? Ankry (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry and Ankry: It's done. I saw that an old co-worker used the logo years ago for the "Imos CAD/CAM" entry. I will then simply use this logo, because otherwise it would be duplicated. --Senada Memic (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Senada Memic 11:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done nod responded. Ankry (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:ErectYoungPenis.jpg

Hello. I would like to see my personal photos please. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoldMyGroza (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose this is not a valid reason for undeletion. Ankry (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose. Files should be under the scope of COM:EDUSE. Personal photos with no educational value are out of scope. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose. By @JWilz12345: . We have more than enough pictures of human genitals. --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

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

(File:Angelo Tsagarakis - Shooting.jpg)

Hello. I gave permission for the file to be used freely on the wikipedia and wiki commons platforms. I own the copyright of the picture and do not understand why it has been deleted.

Please undelete the picture.

Thank you

Onepercentclub (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC) Onepercentclub

@Onepercentclub: In order to undelete the photo, a free license permission needs to be received and accepted by OTRS/VRT volunteers. There is a ticket number 2021042810008152 related to this image. If you have questions concerning the ticket processing, you can ask in OTRS noticeboard. Ankry (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission need to be accepted first. Ankry (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Personaje de Roblox de Bruno Olivera.png

Hi, this file is only of my Roblox character/avatar, it is not any copyright infringing image, I hope the deletion of this image will be cancelled, thanks.

Bruno44101 (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bruno44101: (1) Where did Roblox Corporation grant you the right to relicence their work under GFDL / CC-BY-SA licenses? If they did not, your licence declaration is blatant copyright violation. And (2) per policy, for images used anywhere else previously, we need a written free license permission from the actual copyright holder. You neither liinked a webpage providing the permission, nor declared that it has been sent. Ankry (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done no answer to the crucial question. Ankry (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

It is my own logo. Designed myself. It is my own club. I have the rights. I fail to understand what copyright issues may arise. The logo is formally registered as part of the Club registration process with the Commissioner of Sports, Ministry of Youth, Sports and Community Welfare of Maldives. It is my right. I am the Founder and Chairman of Kings BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mundhu Kings (talk • contribs) 13:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done unclear request. Ankry (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Logos Poster.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is entirely my own work as the creator of the LOGOS Bible Video Game TeComprendo (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Self-licensing does not work here for non-original images. License evidence is needed. Ankry (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above: COM:OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Lý dynasty files by Fataobstant

If these are simply scans then they are not copyright © violations, if they are not scans then don't undelete them. This user was simply nuked without any community discussion as most uploads were copyright violations, but all. I am requesting this with the assumption that these are 2D paintings. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

{{Temporarily undeleted}} one for discussion (the others are similar). IMO, they are photos of engravings made on come bronze plates, but unsure. Ankry (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: , first of all thank you for undeleting so I can what I am working with.  Don't undelete, these are all photographs. Look at the angle and the lighting. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Political and government files from Fataobstant

Construction sheets for PD flags.
Political party flags and other symbols from before or during the war (World War II).
French Indo-Chinese government works.

Please always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: The first six images are missing correct copyright status templates (the ones provided there seem to be false: {{PD-VietnamGov}} as they are not text documents, and {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} as they does not seem to be copyrighted by the uploader. Please advice, which copyright templates should be used instead.
The latter six images are photos of some kind of 3D medals. While the medals themselves are likely PD due to age, their photos are copyrighted. They are claimed to originate from an extermal (already non-existent) webpage and the uploader claims to be the photographer. Due to external source and as the photos are preprocessed, not original ones. we need authorship/license evidence. I did not found such evidence on an archived source page, so likely OTRS permission from the photographer seems to be the right way. Ankry (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: , well  do not undelete any medals, those are 3D objects, I was under the impression that the user drew them based on works, medals are not PD-scans. These medals by any chance? Often this sockmaster uploads those with bullshit filenames and descriptions, usually I nominate those for deletion, so I am withdrawing the latter six (6) files if so.
Any medals from this globally locked Sockmaster should remain deleted for now, withdraw those. Regarding the flags they are PD-Vietnam per "anonymous work first published more than 75 years ago" "anonymous work first published more than 50 years prior to January 1, 2010" as political parties were run mostly anonymous or pseudonymous due to French oppression, so rarely can any actual authors be known.
Just to be clear, you can see how a deleted image looks like, right? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: I am sorry, my bad: I did not notice that 3 of the first 6 are also photos of 3D objects with unclear photo copyright status. Please, fix the info for undeleted images. Ankry (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Note also that images that were not PD in Vietnam 1n 1998 are likely copyrighted in US per URAA. I am not sure if the 75 pd term was valid in 1998, please advice. Ankry (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: ,1998 - 50 = 1948, but Vietnam had much laxer copyright © laws in 1998, so I will find an English translation about the history of Vietnamese copyright laws back then for you and how it changed, until fairly recently most Socialist states (except for Chinese) had extremely unencompassing copyright laws, for example "things against the state" were copyrightable until only a few decades ago. What I wanted undeleted from this request is undeleted, I will fetch the article for you. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:Vietnam there was 50pd (post publication) term 1n the 1995 law. So anonymous works published 1947 and earlier are OK. Published 1948+ fall under URAA unless not copyrightable in US. Ankry (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: , then this section is resolved and can be closed. So is "the first Fataobstant request", you can close these. I will continue in "the middle request". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done partially. Ankry (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Senator Bill Weber Minnesota.jpg

Requesting to undelete so I can upload a photo of the Senator since it meets copyrights requirements and I'm uploading it through flickr. https://flickr.com/photos/185048151@N02/48916788507/ It tells me that the picture is identical and I'm not sure if the picture deleted before is the same one or a different picture of the Senator.

Dillon251992 (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dillon251992: Yes, this is the same image. Ankry (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per license at Flickr. Ankry (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Measles virion.tif and others

Please undelete the following files: File:Receptors MV.tif File:Measles receptors.tif File:MV genome.tif File:Sendai virus virion structure for Wikipedia3.tif File:Sendai virus cell entry receptors.tif File:Sendai virus receptors.tif These images are from the open access paper https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/12/12/3659. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess / Olgamatveeva (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Olgamatveeva: The images has already been undeleted a week ago and the source info fixed. Unclear request. Ankry (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done not deleted. Ankry (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:StormDennisfloodMap.jpg

Image adopted data from Copernicus Sentinel data 2020, {{Attribution-Copernicus|2020}} can be used as permission — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.79.96.71 (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide an evidence of cc-by-sa-4.0 license at the source site (link to the page where the license has been granted) or ensure that the image copyright holder has followed COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 Comment Original link is https://www.twitter.com/CopernicusEMS/status/1229351383784136706 --A1Cafel (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No proper licensing info provided; no CC-BY-SA 4.0 license at twitter. Ankry (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:10 Merton Street, Oxford, April 2007.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Public Domain Mark 1.0 is accepted on Commons now, per {{PDMark-owner}} A1Cafel (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Info The original photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/61686932@N00/3435936992/ has been deleted by the Flickr user. Ankry (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Stale feel free to request again if you believe someone will handle this case. Ankry (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Ninette de Valois.jpg

This image is licensed as public domain in the UK per {{PD-UK-unknown}}, and in the US under {{PD-US-expired}}. --2001:4452:458:800:8186:8513:6574:5886 13:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The source publication is from 2017. What is the evidence for PD-US-expired (pre-1926 publication)? Ankry (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Because this photograph that was published in the Irish Free State, then part of the British Empire as a dominion. --2001:4452:458:800:C9E3:4FA9:DBA4:C4B9 04:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Such general claims are just waste of time. We need more information (date, place) of the publication you mention in order to go on. Ankry (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done, this looks like a professional studio portrait. From {{PD-UK-unknown}}: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." Thuresson (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Meagan Good.jpg

File:Meagan Good.jpg

Pic is a selfie, that she set up; then we marketed the pic as her Royal perception --1fluidphysics (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Meagan Good is a member of the Royalist Party; Work has been legally created with the consent Of @MeaganGood ; (1fluidphysics (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC))

 Oppose @1fluidphysics: (1) This is not a selfie and (2) we need a written free license permission from the actual copyright holder, who can prove that they are the photographer or that they own copyright transfer contract with the photographer. Ankry (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Note, that you initially claimed to be the author, now you claim this is a selfie: this way your claims become unreliable and we need an evidence for your claims. Moreover, COM:OTRS permission is needed for any previously published images that was not freely licensed while initially published. Ankry (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Akry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Bulletin board in Kerch, Crimea, Aug 2014.jpg

the photo is mine. --Pozytyv (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pozytyv: I doubt the photo on the poster or the poster itsellf is also your work. See COM:DW. Ankry (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Ankry can you please send me the file so i can tell? i do not remember what it was. shouldn't the person who deleted it first ask me? best, --Pozytyv (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
This is an electorial poster of Генадий Зюганов. You were notified of the deletion nomination. You should have been provided an evidence of the poster free license status of your poster authorship 7 years ago, when uploading, not waiting whether anybody notices this violation of policy, or not. Ankry (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Ankry, I'm unable to see where i have been notified. can you please cite this? what i see is that A1Cafel simply deleted the file and then gave me "the last warning" which i find quite strange since i never had at least the first one. i find his behavior quite unfriendly and against the spirit of Wikimedia. i acted in a good faith, and certainly was not "waiting", why you write these is unclear for me. best, --Pozytyv (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
You were notified in Special:Diff/575689042 and the file was deleted five hours and a half after the notification. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
ludicrous world of wiki bureaucracy... --Pozytyv (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@Pozytyv: you were notified via your talk page so that you can fix problems or issues surrounding your files. As the notice was in the form of speedy deletion notice, it may range from a day in a minimum to 7 days in a maximum before it gets deleted. As per the flow of this UNDEL thread, the problem appears to be the subject of your photo. You may own your photo and that's not being questioned. The problem is the object within your photo. Posters are always objects of copyright if they are the works of living graphic artists or production companies. To clear things up, everyone is free to take photos of posters like that, but no one has the right to publish them commercially except the copyright holders of the posters. COM:VRT permission of correspondence from the copyright holders of that graphic work may be required to restore your photo. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
"it may range from a day in a minimum to 7 days in a maximum". not "five hours and a half" with a subsequent "last warning". thank you for reply. best, --Pozytyv (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Pozytv: then this is not a proper venue for filing complaints to other users. The correct venue is COM:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Do you intend to restore/undelete the image? Please follow instructions at COM:VRT (formerly called OTRS). Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
afaiu, it is not possible. have no intention to engage too much here.. thank you. request closed. best,--Pozytyv (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:PoornaJagannathanWikipedia2021.jpg

Poorna Jagannathan has received permission from the photographer to use this photograph on her Wikipedia page. She has permission in text and email format. How can we reinstate the use of this image? PoornaJagannathanWikipedia2021.jpg

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchickphoto (talk • contribs) 23:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The image must be free to use (and not only "to use") by anybody in the world for any purpose, not just by Poorna Jagannathan. We need a written free license permission from the actual copyright holder; see COM:OTRS for details. Note: claiming a photo authorship while you are not the photographer is a serious violation of commons policies and law. Ankry (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - 1) Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission; 2) such permission cannot be merely "to use this photograph on her Wikipedia page," indeed per Ankry; and 3) why would we believe your purports when you had previously claimed this to be your work, which you now acknowledge to have been a lie ("Poorna Jagannathan has received permission from the photographer to use this photograph")? Эlcobbola talk 16:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Midnapur-Keranitola.jpg

The image is not a copyright violation. I am the owner of the image in the social networking site which has been referred fir copyright violation, Please visit the Facebook post where the photo credit has been given to me by mentioning Photographer- Mainak Chatterjee, Who is the same person who has uploaded the image on Wikipedia. Please visit the link for details https://www.facebook.com/AmarMedinipur/photos/469731566433595 (Mainakchatterjee.tech)

Explanation of why its not a copyright violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainakchatterjee.tech (talk • contribs) 09:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mainakchatterjee.tech: Please follow the instruction at COM:OTRS. --Tim Wu (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mainakchatterjee.tech: this falls under the case of previously-published images. You published them on social media before publishing them here. In such cases, you need to send a correspondece via COM:VRT process, for verification that you are indeed the copyright holder and that you confirm your use of the free license as indicated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Please let me know the process of how to send and format to send COM:VRT. If would be really helpful if you can send it on my behalf . Or if you want I can delete the social networking post from that facebook page which has been indicated https://www.facebook.com/AmarMedinipur/photos/4697315664335 Mainakchatterjee.tech (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mainakchatterjee.tech: it is you who will send the correspondence since you are claiming copyright. There are two methods which are found at Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries: email method or the gadget ("Interactive Release Generator") where you just follow the step-by-step instructions there. Deleting that post won't help. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close: File is not deleted. Please enter any comments at the DR. --Эlcobbola talk 16:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:ちゃんQ.png

これは僕が作ったんですよ本当ですよまじで 許してください使わせてください！！！！ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 人参の世界だね (talk • contribs) 11:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Commons:Project scope/ja#別のウィキメディア_プロジェクトで使用されているファイル: We do not host personal images of users who have little or no contributions to Wikimedia projects. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Model si.png

== [[:File:Model si.png]] cancel the deletion request - this file does not violate copywrites ==

This is a graphic I created to explain the phrase "dynamic strategy", it appears on my website because i explain about this phrase there too. it is not a copywrite violation because - its my file.

Regev 21/7/2021 Regev Sela (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Commons

Procedural close, please discuss this file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Model si.png. Thuresson (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of the United States of Perú and Bolivia.png

He requested the restoration of this file, which was classified as FanArt, when it is only the design to graph according to the description a flag of a federal union project.--Htz67 (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC) https://archive.org/details/basespreliminar00perugoog https://repositorio.umsa.bo/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/7359/BC-F-00777.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

@Htz67: Why anybody who would like to use this flag is required to attribute YOU? Ankry (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, if the image is your own, personal creation that was never used anywhere, we need good explanation, why it is needed here (scope issue); if it was used elsewhere, we need good explanation why a Wikimedia user should be attributed as its author (copyright issue). Lack of explanation means closing this request as not done. We do not host personal art unless used in another Wikimedia project. Ankry (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per lack of explanation. Ankry (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Intellivision_Amico_Controller.gif

The image file was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by an employee of the owner who did not realize the owner himself had to send in the OTRS release form to a permissions e-mail. After speaking to the reviewing who was involved in deleting the image, the owner plans to send in the OTRS release to the correct Wikimedia commons e-mail.--Daltonsatom (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Probably about File:00000000Amico.jpg. This must be resolved through Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Per above. There is nothing to be accomplished here; please read the instructions at the top of this page (!!!): "If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed." Эlcobbola talk 20:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close; resolved through Commons:OTRS as per above. --Эlcobbola talk 16:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Render amicoWhite 3quarterRight NoBG 2K 2021 06 11.png

These files were uploaded by an assistant of the owner and were deleted, but on the OTRS page it says it is better to upload the images before filling out the OTRS forms. So, we uploaded it and it got deleted, so now we are going to submit the releases for the images soon. It ends up being a chicken and egg thing.--Daltonsatom (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Notwithstanding that previously published images require OTRS evidence of permission, the very first option of the UploadWizard (which you used) after selecting the file is the binary choice of "This file is my own work" and "This file is not my own work." This is not an obscure question, nor one that reasonably could be gotten wrong or confused. Why, then, did you claim this to be your own work, which you now acknowledge to have been a lie ("These files were uploaded by an assistant of the owner ")? Эlcobbola talk 20:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close; resolved through Commons:OTRS as per above. --Эlcobbola talk 16:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Australian_Embassy_in_Paris.jpg

The extraterritoriality of foreign missions is well established. There is no way to support French French FOP on the embassy grounds of a foreign mission, even if it's in France.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Related DR is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian Embassy in Paris.jpg. IMO, relevant is the position of the photographer. As the photo was taken at some distance from the building, it's unlikely that this ground belongs to the embassy. --Túrelio (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
That logic doesn't work. It's not the location of the photographer but the location of the object/subject. Otherwise, I could stand within the grounds of an embassy or across an national border and take photos of objects subjected to french FOP and erroneously claim to not be in violation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose Actually, extraterritoriality is not applicable to copyright. This has been well established here in several cases. In fact, it's not applicable to much else, either. The laws of the host nation apply, although it is clear that they may not be able to enforce them on embassy grounds. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Can you please list the basis, or a case? My searches produced examples such as this one which contain no substance just statements. This seems to be a clear case of immunity of attachment but am happy to be schooled if the details can be presented.-Labattblueboy (talk)
Would the freedom from "all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission, whether owned or leased, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered" not render the consideration of royalty payments in any copyright dispute irrelevant?--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose applying Nat's input at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-03#File:US Embassy Athens.jpg (my undel attempt which I later withdrew): "The physical premises of a diplomatic or consular mission do not exist in a status of extraterritoriality -- and the land on which the mission sit is still the sovereign territory of the host state. Under the 1961 Vienna Convention and the 1963 Vienna Convention, the premises, persons, documents, etc. of a mission is inviolable, but both conventions do not grant extraterritorial status to the mission. Local laws still apply but they just cannot be enforced on diplomatic missions (the premises, the people, the documents, etc.) and in most cases on consular missions. Unless there is a specific agreement between the two states, Greek copyright law, therefore, applies to the Chancery of the U.S. Embassy in Athens." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
But this is the point, the application of legal penalties associated to copyright of a building on an embassy grounds would require the consent of that nation, or some form of bilateral agreement. We have nothing to show Australia would consent given they consider the property public domain, and unless I'm mistaken there is no associated bilateral agreement has been demonstrated.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Copyright law (Berne Convention) considers country of origin (first publication) as the relevant jurisdiction, which here is France. ("The country of origin shall be considered to be: (a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country" (underline added)). The extraterritoriality considerations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in no way make embassies territory of the sending nation (to the contrary, for example: "The receiving State shall either facilitate the acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its laws, by the sending State of premises necessary for its mission or assist the latter in obtaining accommodation in some other way." (underline added)(Art 21)). This is not controversial, and indeed is the very first sentence (!!!) of the Extraterritoriality section of the Diplomatic mission article. An architectural work first published in France (i.e., a French work) does not magically become an Australian work subject to Australian IP laws merely because it comes to be used as a foreign embassy. Note also that, per COM:EVID, "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed." (underline added) This has not been done and is not on offer here; that failure and simultaneous demand for evidence ("Can you please list the basis, or a case"; "no associated bilateral agreement has been demonstrated") from those who needn't prove anything is telling, and inappropriate. Эlcobbola talk 15:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Alfonso Domingo Álvaro .jpg

Esta foto ha sido entregada por el propio Alfonso Domingo para que aparezca en su perfil como escritor que he creado en la wiki. Por favor, lo tanto, ha decido sus derechos. Sería conveniente reestablecer la fotografía. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confin austral (talk • contribs) 16:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Male Reliquary Guardian Figure.jpg

I work for the institution that provided this image and I am uploading this and other photos as an institutional project. Before posting, I confirmed with my colleagues that I have permission to post this image under public domain. --Synatra0805 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. The museum's terms of use say "The Materials are provided in furtherance of the Museum’s mission and as such they may be used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, or any other “fair use” or personal use under U.S. copyright law." We do not allow fair use. Эlcobbola talk 18:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Añgokh-Nlô-Byeri.jpg

I work for the institution that provided this image and I am uploading this and other photos as an institutional project. Before posting, I confirmed with my colleagues that I have permission to post this image under public domain. I was in the process of adding additional information about the image and someone deleted it before I could save my edits and then marked my other upload for deletion. --Synatra0805 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. The museum's terms of use say "The Materials are provided in furtherance of the Museum’s mission and as such they may be used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, or any other “fair use” or personal use under U.S. copyright law." We do not allow fair use. Эlcobbola talk 18:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg O material pertence a mim. A foto foi tirada por mim.

O material pertence a mim. A foto foi tirada por mim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agtalves (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: procedural close. no file listed for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Ian Douglas Cochrane, Earl of Dundonald.png

The article was published in 1930, within copyright law (UK), copyright expires 70 years after the death of the publisher.. however, if the author is not known, the copyright expires 70 years from the date of the publication, but Who first owned the copyright in the work? This is effectively a redundant question as the work is likely to be out of copyright. That is, in accordance with the rules on the duration of copyright in works of unknown authorship; when the identity of the author cannot be identified by reasonable inquiry.. copyright lasts for 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first made available to the public, therefore, unless Ytoyoda can prove who the photographer of the image is, his deletion claim cannot be accepted, can this please be undeleted, thank you.Hogyncymru (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - The "source" you provided was "Clipping from an unknown old British newspaper from 1968." This "source" fails COM:EVID ("In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain" (underline added)); this "source" fails COM:L ("All description pages on Commons [...] should also contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status"); and this "source" contradicts the purport here ("The article was published in 1930") The burden is on you to substantiate claims, not for @Ytoyoda: or @Jameslwoodward: to prove otherwise ("unless Ytoyoda can prove who the photographer of the image is, his deletion claim cannot be accepted"). Notwithstanding that no evidence is on offer here, and that 1968 + 70 + 1 = 2039, even the 1930 claim would be 1930 + 70 + 1 = 2001, which is after the 1996 URAA date and thus the earliest it would be PD in the US is 2026 (1930 + 95 + 1). Эlcobbola talk 20:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


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

This picture is created by Fair Tourism, a Non-profitable organization in The Netherlands, free use to promote CBT projects and empower locals.

This picture is made for all visitors to learn more about locals and support the non-profitable organization, namely Fair tourism, to promote the CBT project in Huay Pu Keng. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fair Tourism (talk • contribs) 08:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: procedural close. no file listed for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Ayu Diandra Beijing.jpg , File:Dr. Ayu Diandra.jpg

File:Ayu Diandra Beijing.jpg I request to not delete this picture, because i got it from domain public: https://www.google.com/search?q=ayu+diandra+sari+miss+international+2009+di+beijing&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwi_7YaPqPfxAhVjwXMBHedqARwQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=ayu+diandra+sari+miss+international+2009+di+beijing&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQA1DArqMBWJu7owFgubyjAWgAcAB4AIAB0wGIAfYGkgEFOC4xLjGYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&sclient=img&ei=tLn5YL_DG-OCz7sP59WF4AE&bih=705&biw=1366&client=safari#imgrc=qF7-IbtkU3C_aM

File:Dr. Ayu Diandra.jpg I request to not delete this picture, because i got it from domain public:https://www.google.com/search?q=ayu+diandra+twitter&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwibloCNsvfxAhWXDysKHWJCA84Q2-cCegQIABAA&oq=ayu+diandra+twitter&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECCMQJzoECAAQQzoFCAAQsQM6CAgAELEDEIMBOgcIABCxAxBDOgIIADoGCAAQBRAeOgYIABAIEB46BAgAEBhQ0ZUKWP62CmDLtwpoAXAAeACAAUmIAY0KkgECMjCYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&sclient=img&ei=LMT5YJvQHpefrAHihI3wDA&bih=705&biw=1366&client=safari#imgrc=FW102r5ywq8caM

--Alana Mahira (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Alana Mahira

 Oppose Blatant violation of copyright. Thuresson (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 Strong oppose @Alana Mahira: see COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Their availability on public websites does not automatically make them public domain. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Jessica Lynn Live.jpg

I own all the rights to this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaLynnMusic (talk • contribs) 20:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: per Эlcobbola. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

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

：文件：Example.jpg

upload — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wktwofficial (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

No such file and you have no deleted files yet. Ankry (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


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

ali_azhar_damarrosydi_foto_biasa.jpg : name of the file to undelete . jpg

Orang orang biar bisa mencari foto Ali Azhar Damarrosydi di google untuk kebenaran di united nations — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 120.188.81.13 (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If you mean File:Ali Azhar Damarrosydi foto biasa.jpg, it is not deleted, and discussion should take place in the DR. If you mean another image, please advice. Ankry (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to do here -- comment at the DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:A deodorant or body spray.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm not expert to contribute in Commons. But I think the mentioned file should be undeleted. Because I uploaded a file like mentioned file. It was nominated for deletion but kept. Here is the discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Axe Bodyspray.jpg ImranAvenger (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:A deodorant or body spray.jpg: unlike AXE this is not a text-only design. Vendor's free license permission needed. Ankry (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: Can't the logo be blurred? If possible, please do it. Because in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Axe Bodyspray.jpg, the logo was blurred to be kept that file--ImranAvenger (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@ImranAvenger: Graphic design is also at the bottom. If you blur them, you can upload a new image, IMO. Ankry (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: Right now in my hand this file is not available to blur it. I think blurring-work can be done by an admin since an admin restores the files. I think it should be done otherwise creative works will be lost. ImranAvenger (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done - Please edit and reupload a new version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done blured by the author, and old version deleted. Ankry (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:EiffelTowerNight.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ordinary light are not copyrighted, per Yann's input. See also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-02#File:EiffelToweratNight.jpg and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-04#File:2011 Fireworks on Eiffel Tower 01.jpg. The actual court ruling refers to a particular illumination during the 90s and not all illuminations. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support I was the Admin who deleted this in 2011. I now agree that it is not covered by the court decision. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Adam Hoodie sticker logo.png

Please restore the following page:

Reason: As the creator of this original work, I grant anyone the right to use the work. I have also emailed OTRS my release of rights.

Background: Christian Ferrer deleted this file on 9 February 2018, notifying me it possibly violates copyright, even warning me I may be blocked from editing. I duly notified him I was the creator, but instead of provide guidance towards resolution, he ignored me for over two years. —Adaaaam (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Christian Ferrer did not ignore you, he responded the same day. "I have also emailed OTRS my release of rights." - on the topic of ignoring, please review the instructions on this page, including "If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed." (underline added) There is nothing to be accomplished here. Эlcobbola talk 21:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Wrong, I answered using of what I think a quite explicative template, by the way the text is still valid. The warnig message is a standard message sent automaticaly, but in the extend that everybody risk to be blocked, included you and me, if one persist uploading files with potential copyright issues, finaly it is a good thing that you receive such a warning template and that you are aware of that potential risk.  Oppose undeletion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Aside from the copyright question, on which I agree with my colleagues, there is the question of scope. A Google search on "Adam Hoodie" yields no relevant hits, so it is unlikely that the logo meets our requirement for notability. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jameslwoodward, Эlcobbola and Christian Ferrer. It is clear the user thinks they are right be everyone who disagrees with them is wrong and refuses to listen. Bidgee (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: done by King of Hearts, as per OTRS permission. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Work of Alexandre Raymond

For the following files, we received permission from the heirs per Ticket:2021070810006721. Please restore them. @JuTa: , since you were the one who deleted them, maybe you can have a look at this?

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

List of files:

I've restored all files and renewed all problem tags. @Mussklprozz please complete your OTRS task now. In far most cases the dtae, source, author and license need to corrected. There are some coruupt files as well btw. --JuTa 21:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot @JuTa: . I will correct the file descriptions in the sense you mentioned. Might take me the weekend to do it; tonight I have obligations in my chess club. – I wish you a nice weekend, --Mussklprozz (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done by JuTa. Ankry (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Myo Khin a Karenni weaver in Huay Pu Keng.jpg

Th[ese] picture[s are] owned by our organization, an NGO based in The Netherlands, Fair Tourism and already release copyright via CC-BY-SA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fair Tourism (talk • contribs) 10:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Both of these appear on the web with "Copyright Fair Tourism 2021 – All Rights Reserved". They cannot be kept on Commons without a free license given by an authorized official of the organization via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim. Ankry (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Holeg Spies.jpg

== [[:File:Holeg Spies to undelete.jpg]] ==

The Holeg Spies.jpg is not going against any copyright violation. This picture has been given to me by Holeg spies himself. This is a press picture ha has paid for and is the sole owner of this picture so there is no reason to delete it.

Thank you

Kinou Rapeneau July 23rd 2021 --Kinou Rapeneau (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose In the first place, it is unlikely that the subject owns the copyright and has the right to freely license it. Even though the subject paid for the image, his rights rarely go beyond use in his own promotional material. However, even if the subject does have the right to freely license it, policy requires that he give the license, not you. He must do that using VRT and must provide written evidence that he has the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Further, as copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the subject, permission from Spies would not be adequate. One notes that you had also claimed yourself to be the author, which you now acknowledge to have been an untruth ("This picture has been given to me"). Why then should we believe your purports now? Эlcobbola talk 21:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Ivo Müller Berlinale 2012.JPG

Hello there,

This photo represents myself and my own work, for this reason I request undeletion so we can use it for the wikipedia profile. Thanks, Ivo Müller--Blauengel (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC) Blauengel Productions July, 23th, 2021

 Not done as per elcobbola. Ankry (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Foolad-arena-membrane-roof-atlas-co 3.jpg

Hi, This photograph (Foolad-arena-membrane-roof-atlas-co 3.jpg) has been captured by me and in fact it is one the projects implemented by Atlas Tensile Structures Co. which I have been working in. Due to unknown reasons rival tensile structures company keep requesting for deletion of this photograph. I really appreciate it if you would be kind enough to consider my undeletion request. I thank you in advance. Sincerely, Ashkan Behnia, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ae1369 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the request for deletion, the image appears at https://www.ogol.com.br/foto.php?fk_galeria=0&nchapter=2&tpe=10&ide=515 with "© 2003-2018 ZOS, Lda. - Todos os direitos reservados." I doubt very much that User:Ytoyoda, who tagged the image, or User:King of Hearts, who deleted the image, have anything to do with a "rival tensile structures company". It was removed because it is a blatant copyright violation. In order for the image to be restored, either the web site must be changed or the copyright holder must provide a free license via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Geisterkickboarder-Logo für Kinderbuchreihe.jpg

I am confused why this file infringes copyright, could you provide more details? Many thanks!--Geisterkickboarder (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Because you claim that you, Wikimedia user Geisterkickboarder are the author and exclusive copyright holder of the logo. The logo is used on https://geisterkickboarder.ch/, and so we need an evidence for your claim. I see no information that Wikimedia user Geisterkickboarder is the author of their logo on this page; where the information can be found basing on public records? Note, if the logo is indeed freely licensed, providing the authorship information is required. Ankry (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done not an undeletion request. Ankry (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Logo-Resmi-SMA-Negeri-8-Denpasar.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ini resmi saya dapatkan dari pihak sekolah saya, dan mereka tidak mempermasalahkan jika logo ini disebarluaskan. Dan logo ini juga dibagikan gratis oleh pihak sekolah Bezaleel evan (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

procedural close: duplicate request. Ankry (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:PaysageMoscovite.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: file was deleted due to no FOP in Russia back then (Commons:Deletion requests/File:PaysageMoscovite.JPG). However there is FOP for architecture since 2014. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Support per {{FoP-Russia}}. Ankry (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - Per nomination and motivation of Ankry. Elly (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Guangzhou Metro logos

Please restore the following files:

Guangzhou Metro logos are below TOO China, and it was mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guangzhou Metro Line 3 Television New.jpeg. Liuxinyu970226 asked why these files were not meet TOO China in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SVG logos of China, and did not get a response from the nominator. However, these files were still deleted today. --Tim Wu (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rubin16 and 沈澄心: Plese advice, why do you think that these logos are above COM:TOO#China? They are indeed very simple. Ankry (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry I based my decision on a couple of samples from COM:TOO China: Gang Heng logo and K2 sports logo. The first is just text with the simplest geometrical shape of a circle with the text inside. The second logo is also just little bit stylised text "K2" but still copyrighted. I thought it would be borderline, probably, but decided it is copyrighted based on the red figure in the left part of the metro icon: there are curved lines, thus, similar to case above could be copyrighted. If there would be just two parallel straight lines, I think I would have kept them. rubin16 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I think this logo is even more simple than “K2” and that example doesn’t work for this case. —Tim Wu (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: COM:TOO China has few OK examples. Five SKECHERS logos (source) were decided NOT copyrightable for lacking originality by Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality last year. The court considered that the five logos are just simple deformations of the letter S. Then the metro logos can also be considered as a twisting of two parallel lines or the letter Y. --Tim Wu (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the first two are very simple and probably PD in both China and the US. I don't read Chinese, so I can't read the motto in the third one, but mottoes are copyrightable in the US, so that is probably not PD-US. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Thanks for pointing out that. I  I withdraw my nomination for File:GZMTR Logo with Motto.svg. --Tim Wu (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose Complicated enough to be copyrightable in China. --Minoraxtalk 14:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16, Ankry, Jameslwoodward, and Minorax: Please check the newly added OK examples in COM:TOO China. The Guangzhou Metro logo only has two simple curves, just like a pair of goat horns (Guangzhou is called City of Rams) or the letter Y after a simple transformation. I think this logo is as simple enough as the OK examples, and does not reach the threshold of originality in China. --Tim Wu (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Note that all the OK cases were ruled by courts of municipality or district level. When considering China's TOO as a whole, more weights should be put on the Gang Heng logo example as the ruling was made by China's supreme court. --Wcam (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
The main body of the Gang Heng Logo is a circle divided into three parts, each filled with Chinese or English words. The logo of Guangzhou Metro has only two simple curves, which I think is not comparable to the Gang Heng logo. And please note that Beijing is a municipality directly under the Chinese Central Government. What Wcam called "court of municipality level" is actually a high people's court, the highest local court and just below China's supreme court. --Tim Wu (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion the two curves are more creative than a simple circle, especially that, as Tim Wu mentioned above, the curves are inspired by the shape of goat horns, therefore the logo reflects a higher degree of originality and creativity because the design reflects the creator's original thoughts and personality characteristics. Also per COM:PCP, if the supreme court rules a very simple logo to be copyrightable, there is significant doubt that similarly simple designs are free. --Wcam (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Wcam: Then how do you consider the SKECHERS case? that has several complexed curves. I'm afraid that by this timestamp, the TOO situation is changed, at least it could be Indian-like.  Support by anyway. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned goat horns is to illustrate that the logo is derived from a very common animal and is very simple, so no complicated design is required. The logos of SKECHERS and BIOU are also made up of curves. The complexity of these two logos (such as corners) is even more than that of the Guangzhou Metro logo. However, they were both ruled non-copyrightable by the High Court. --Tim Wu (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 Support undeleting both, they are well below COM:TOO China. Neither in the bulk deletion request nor in the oppose !vote above do I read any actual, well-supported argument for why the Chinese threshold of originality is met. Sam Sailor 07:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion: the logo seems too simple to be copyrighted even in China. However, feel free to renominate for deletion if a new court case concerning so simple logo can be provided. Ankry (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:MAXXI

Per renewed COM:FOP Italy: Works by deceased authors are now permitted on Commons (Zaha Hadid died in 2016)--A1Cafel (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of these images show other artworks, even artwork inside the building. Question: does the inner side of the building fall under the FOP of Italy or the exterior side only? Elly (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ellywa: Should be limited to exterior part of the building only. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @A1Cafel: , as you can see, I could undelete 11 images, and extract an older version of the last one, with new name File:MAXXI0.jpg. The others are images of the interior. The category is a bit of a mess, might be splitted in subcategories. Elly (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Elly (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:YarMohammadKhan.jpg

I personally know Mr. Yar Mohammad Khan and I didn't make any mistake by uploading any his picture. By deleting the images of Mr. Yar Mohammad Khan you are tampering his true identity and even google is showing a wrong image of Mr. Yar Mohammad Khan. Please help me by undeleting this image and other images of Mr. Yar Mohammad Khan which I have uploaded before. Rambunctious.man (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rambunctious.man: There are two photos uploaded here, both claimed to be own work by the uploaders that is doubtful for both (1953 & 1970) photos. In order to undelete we need proper authorship information and an evidece that a free license has been granted by them (or the authrs' heirs). Ankry (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yar Mohammad Khan is my grandfather and I just want to preserve the history. I created Yar Mohammad Khan's wiki page and uploaded his photo and wikipedia published initially. I thought I am done. But after some days wiki deleted his photo. So I uploaded the same photo another time. Hence I apologize. My grandfather passed away in 1981 and during that time there wasn't Internet or much photography. Please help me. Rambunctious.man (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Since you were not the photographer, you cannot freely license this image. Only the photographer or other copyright holder can do that. It is not clear whether this is a 1953 image or a 1970 image. If it is from 1970, it is under copyright in both Bangladesh and the United States. If it is from 1953, it is PD in Bangladesh, but will be under copyright in the US until at least 1/1/2049. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: Let me check whether I can manage a proper authorship and a free license granted by the photographer. Please give me some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambunctious.man (talk • contribs) 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: VRT needs to deal with this if any further evidence shows up. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Logo-Resmi-SMA-Negeri-8-Denpasar.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ini Resmi Saya Dapatkan dari pihak sekolah Bezaleel evan (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bezaleel evan: Claiming license that has not been actually explicitely granted is copyright violation. We need an evidence that the declared license has been granted in a written form that is required by law. If not on a public site, then COM:OTRS is the right path. Non-written permission is void. And a permission "to use" only is not enough. Ankry (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above: free license permission needed. Ankry (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:HummieConducts.JPG (340489909).jpg

This image was identified as a derivative work in the DR, because it contains a still from Cops (film), but that film is now in the public domain. See File:Cops (1922).webm, right at the start. The Earwig (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Good catch. I can see the still 20 sec into the film. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Bryan Atkinson at the CFC 25th Anniversary Celebration in LA.jpg

This image was kept, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bryan Atkinson at the CFC 25th Anniversary Celebration in LA.jpg. (1) uploaded it; (2) I initially argued it should be kept because the requester did not confirm their identity through OTRS; (3) Administrator Arthur_Crbz concluded the image should be kept, even though the requestor did figure out how open an OTRS ticket.

Their opening of an OTRS ticket makes me think we should have extended them a courtesy deletion, after all.

I contacted administrator Arthur_Crbz some months ago, seeking clarification as to why he closed the dicussion just two days after the opening of the OTRS ticket.

Mr Atkinson attended the prestigious Canadian Film Centre, which strongly suggested he was on his way to becoming a notable figure in the Canadian Film Industry. But, when I googled him, he seems to have switched careers, from film to web design. Which I think makes his SCOPE more marginal, making this an even better candidate for courtesy deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: the photo is not deleted. You can discuss the issue in the DR. Ankry (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Bootkinero

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Said files by @Bootkinero: were deleted because of either no proper licensing tag or no permission. However, these files, if coming from Philippine government agencies, regular employees, and/or instrumentalities, then these may fall under {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} license tag. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Talk! Yes those photos are made public by the Philippine government. Bootkinero (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The fact that "those photos are made public by the Philippine government" does not help -- the government can make public images for which it does not own the copyright. In order to restore these, someone must prove that the photographer was a government employee. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging the uploader Bootkinero for inputs on who were the photographers if they could still remember, and if the photographers were government employees during the time they took these photos (plus, if they took these during office hours and not outside of that period of the day). Also ping @Howhontanozaz, Pandakekok9, and P199: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is what I found:

Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I now concur with P199's inputs. So only one shall be restored and the rest remain deleted. As expected, it seems the Armed Forces of the Philippines' site (www.afp.mil.ph) is made private (for some reasonable reason). Perhaps existing images here that are found to be from AFP may need to be deleted too as failing COM:LR (and the "privacy" of AFP's site implies they do not allow unrestricted uses of their content). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: One restored, the others not, per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Bhashani-YarMohammad-SheikhMujib.jpg

Since you have deleted this image because of credibility issues so I therefore submitting a link of this image from internet. Please review my uploaded image by checking the following link https://view.publitas.com/amarboi/awami-league-utthanporbo-1948-1970-by-mohiuddin-ahmad/page/216 Rambunctious.man (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rambunctious.man: How can the image prove that Wikimedia user Rambunctious.man is the photographer who made the photo more than 50 years ago? Ankry (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This picture was taken by a hired photographer on 20th August 1970. It was my mother's wedding. In this picture my grandfather Mr. Yar Mohammad Khan along with other prominent invited guests are seen. I am not the photographer, I wasn't even born at that time, but I know all the faces in this photo. Please check this link: https://view.publitas.com/amarboi/awami-league-utthanporbo-1948-1970-by-mohiuddin-ahmad/page/216 Rambunctious.man (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose In almost all cases, hired wedding photographers hold the copyright to their images. The only right that the family hiring the photographer has is to enjoy the photos -- they may not themselves even make copies. Since this is a 1970 photograph from Bangladesh, it will be under copyright there until at least 1/1/2031 and in the USA until at least 1/1/2066. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rambunctious.man: We need a free license permission from the photographer, from the photographer heirs (if the photographer died) or an evidence of copyright transfer contract with another person sending us a free license permission. None of them can be provided on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: My grandfather paid that photographer which means we owned that photograph since 1970. Please correct me if I'm wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambunctious.man (talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, per section 13(b) of the 1962 Copyright Ordinance it is likely that you can own copyright if this was indeed a work for hire. However, we may need an evidenence that (1) it was indeed a work for hire and (b) that you are the heir of the initial copyright holder. These likely cannot be provided on-wiki, you need to contact VRT. Moreover, the photographer is still the author and in order to grant a license that requires author attribution, you may need to provide info who they are/were. Ankry (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that it is "likely" a work for hire. A similar law applies in the USA, but in almost all cases, wedding photographers' contracts explicitly retain the copyright. Until the digital age, wedding photographers made most of there money by selling additional prints to the wedding party and guests. I would be very surprised if the same were not true in Bangladesh. In any case, it's moot here, since this clearly requires a VRT volunteer to examine both the contract with the photographer and the status of the uploader as heir. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done the copyright status needs to be verified by VRT. Ankry (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:AUFI FOOTBALL 2021.jpg

Hello officials. I am here to retrieve this image in terms of non-violation of copyright. It contains the logo of a Moroccan club, so please restore the image. Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by غالي مسلم (talk • contribs) 13:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to keep a logo on Commons, an authorized official of the organization owning the copyright must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done, it is presumably up to the club to decide about the distribution of copies, not the uploader. Thuresson (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Logo of My Restful Mind Inc.png

Please restore the following pages:

The file was initially incomplete in terms of its licensing details and copyright details. I have now updated the copyrights and have personally contacted the organization of which this logo actually is and have their complete approval for this so deletion of this file makes no sense now. please approve this request as it's complete and adheres to all the guidelines. Thank you! Regards, Sl1mmy999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sl1mmy999 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to keep a logo on Commons, an authorized official of the organization owning the copyright must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Meagan Good.jpg

Princess Meagan Good

Pic can qualify as a selfie, marketed to Magazines & the Royalist Party among others; her Registration was accepted and her entitlement was granted:

Royalist Party member Royalist-Party.org 1fluidphysics (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Meagan Good can’t be the copyright holder; the selfie belongs to the Royalist Party and was sold by Meagan to multiple enterprises; Copyright in Wikipedia terms is the first time the pic was uploaded; this upload was after the selfie was marketed to all parties involved;

The upload parameters are controversial; the consistency is that Meagan Good has approved of the Sponsorship on her Facebook, & the Royalist Party owns the selfie as cited & sponsored on Royalist-Party.org 1fluidphysics (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A copyright comes into being at the moment of creation, not, as you say, the "first time the pic was uploaded". Your comment, "Meagan Good can’t be the copyright holder; the selfie belongs..." is self contradictory. If this is a selfie, Meagan Good owns the copyright. If it is not a selfie, then the actual photographer owns the work. If the actual owner of the copyright has licensed the work to someone else, then, if the terms of the license permit it, the licensee may freely license the work. In any event, either the actual photographer or the licensee must freely license the image using VRT. It cannot be restored by this request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This selfie has sponsorship; Royalist Party owns the selfie as Meagan is a member of the Royalist Party; according to you & Wikipedia... Copyright follows as Meagan good took a selfie, this own the copyright, then marketed that selfie (Copyright) to the Royalist Party and other entertainment entities, that selfie (Copyright) is then the property of the Royalist Party or magazine she sold it to; why have you not cited or quoted the sources I gave to verify the Copyright ( Facebook & Royalist-Party.org ) 1fluidphysics (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose If the photographer has transferred their copyright to the Royalist Party, you need to provide evidence of a contract that says so to VRT. Nothing can be done here. The photographer is almost always the initial copyright holder unless they made a photo as their duty as regular employee. Moreover, if the photo was used by the Party, written permission is required by Commons policy. Ankry (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)



Irrelevant quote from Facebook Terms
Facebook Sponsorships are legal and the below Ad Or Copyright terms are explainEd to VRT.

Self-Serve Ad Terms The following terms (“Self-Serve Advertising Terms” or “Self-Serve Ad Terms”) apply to your use of Facebook Products (such as the self-service advertising interfaces and APIs) for creation, submission and/or delivery of any advertising or other commercial or sponsored activity or content (collectively, “Self-Serve Ad Interfaces”) and any order you place through the Self-Serve Ad Interfaces (“Order”). You can target your desired audience by buying ads to be delivered on Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, our publisher network, or any place we serve ads. When you place an Order, you will tell us the type of advertising you want to buy, the amount you want to spend, and your bid. If we accept your Order, we will deliver your ads as inventory becomes available. When serving your ad, we use best efforts to deliver the ads to the audience you specify or to achieve the outcome you select, though we cannot guarantee in every instance that your ad will reach its intended target or achieve the outcome you select. Your ads must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines, as well as our Advertising Policies. Failure to comply may result in a variety of consequences, including the cancellation of ads you have placed and termination of your account. We may reject or remove any ad for any reason. You will pay for your Orders in accordance with the following: You will comply with our Community Payments Terms to the extent applicable. You will pay all amounts specified in each Order you place, along with any applicable taxes. The amount you owe for each Order will be calculated based on our tracking mechanisms. By placing an Order, you authorize us to obtain your personal and/or business credit report from a credit bureau, either when you place an Order or at any time thereafter. You are responsible for maintaining the security of your advertising account, and you understand that you will be charged for any Orders placed on or through your advertising account. If you are making direct debit payments, you agree that we can charge you any amount that falls within the range you agreed to upon signup. We will notify you in advance if any charge will exceed the agreed-upon range. You can cancel an Order at any time, but your ads may run for 24 hours after you notify us, and you are still responsible for paying for all ads that run. The amounts we charge you may be subject to and include applicable taxes and levies, including without limitation withholding taxes. You are responsible for bearing and remitting any taxes that apply to your transactions. You will indemnify and hold us harmless from and against any claim arising out of your failure to do so. If your payment method fails or your account is past due, we may take additional steps to collect past due amounts. You will pay all expenses associated with such collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Past due amounts will accrue interest at 1% per month or the lawful maximum, whichever is less. We may allow you to purchase ads with an “Advertiser Balance,” which is a pre-paid balance that can be used solely to purchase ads on Facebook. Advertiser Balances are only for business or commercial purposes. Advertiser Balances are non-refundable except where required by law. Facebook is not a bank and does not offer banking services; accordingly, Advertiser Balances do not earn interest, are not deposit obligations, and are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, or any other entity or insurance scheme, whether governmental or private. You will fall under one of two categories depending on your payment method: invoiced or non-invoiced client. Invoiced clients are those for whom Facebook sets a maximum spending limit and issues invoices on a periodic basis for payment in accordance with the applicable invoicing terms. Non-invoiced clients are those who must make payments at the time of purchase itself. In its sole discretion, Facebook may classify clients as invoiced clients based on factors such as ad spend and creditworthiness. From time to time, we need to test improvements to our audiences and delivery systems, which could impact your advertising. Our testing is designed to improve the effectiveness of your advertising performance. We reserve the right to test when we believe it will be beneficial for advertiser performance. We will determine the size, placement, and positioning of your ads. Scheduling of delivery is subject to availability and may not be continuous. We do not guarantee the reach or performance that your ads will receive, such as the number of people who will see your ads or the number of clicks your ads will get. We cannot control how clicks are generated on your ads. We have systems that attempt to detect and filter certain click activity, but we are not responsible for click fraud, technological issues, or other potentially invalid click activity that may affect the cost of running ads. Our license to deliver your ad will end when we have completed your Order. You understand, however, that: Once displayed, ads are public information. Ads may be re-shared and accessed outside of the targeted audience (including from the Facebook Page running the ads or within Facebook Products). If users have interacted with your ad, your ad may remain on our Products (e.g., shared until the users delete it or visible to users through their account tools). If your ad is about Social Issues, Elections or Politics, Facebook may display (at no cost to you) and provide access to the ad content and creative, and information about the ad campaign (such as total spend and delivery data, and targeting information) for a period of seven years from the completion of your order. You consent that Facebook may disclose your advertising content, and all information associated with your advertising, to a governmental entity or body if Facebook believes that disclosure would assist in a lawful investigation. We will provide you with reports about the kinds of people seeing your ads and how your ads are performing. Your use of these reports is subject to the Data Use Restrictions in our Advertising Policies. We may provide a business, and all those who advertise for the business, with information about the number of ads being run for the business across the Facebook Products and any applicable restrictions on those ads. We offer tools to provide transparency to our users about how Facebook advertising works and control over their ads experience, including information sufficient to show them why they are being shown specific ads. You agree that information associated with your advertising may be included in these tools, and that those tools may impact your ability to advertise to those users or to prevent them from seeing your ads. You will not issue any press release or make public statements about your relationship with Facebook or the Facebook Products without our prior written permission. If you are placing ads on someone else's behalf, you must have permission to place those ads, and agree as follows: You represent and warrant that you have the authority to and will bind the advertiser to these Self-Serve Ad Terms and the Terms of Service, and the Commercial Terms, to which you also agree. If the advertiser you represent violates these Self-Serve Ad Terms, the Terms of Service, or the Commercial Terms, we may hold you responsible for that violation. You agree that we may provide campaign reporting information to the end advertiser for whom you placed a campaign. We may ask you to review and accept supplemental terms that apply to your use of a specific feature or functionality made available through the Self-Serve Ad Interfaces. To the extent those supplemental terms conflict with these Self-Serve Ad Terms, the supplemental terms will govern with respect to your use of the specific feature or functionality to the extent of the conflict. We may change or update these Self-Serve Ad Terms from time to time and your continued use of the Self-Serve Ad Interfaces constitutes acceptance of those changes. Contracting party: If you reside or have your principal place of business in the United States or Canada, Facebook, Inc. provides the Self-Serve Ad Interfaces. If you reside or have your principal place of business outside the United States or Canada, Facebook Ireland Limited provides the Self-Serve Ad Interfaces. Notwithstanding the above, advertisers in some countries may be subject to special provisions regarding Orders they place, including, under certain circumstances, that they contract directly with Facebook affiliate companies solely for purposes of placing Orders. If applicable to you, you can find these special provisions applicable to your Orders here. For the avoidance of doubt, regardless which entity you contract with (as described in Sections 16.a, 16.b and 16.c), Facebook’s Advertising Policies (and its Community Standards as incorporated) are enforced under the Terms of Service by the entity that provides the Facebook Products under the applicable Terms of Service in your region. Any claim, cause of action, or dispute that arises out of or relates to these Self-Serve Ad Terms is subject to the disputes resolution clause in the Commercial Terms. These Self-Serve Ad Terms will terminate in the event of any termination of the Commercial Terms, but the following provisions will still apply: the lead-in paragraph, Sections 2, 4, 8-12 and 15-18.

Effective Date: June 28, 2021.

~. Other than Facebook sponsorship guidelines, the Princess has a her own public figure accommodations that features File:Elevyn Crown.jpg


1fluidphysics (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from creator or licensee via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Rieisch-holzverdeck geschlosssen 29601486.jpg

Foots are made by my self --johann (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jpascher: You claimed that the author is "Alois Riesch", not "User:Jpascher". So we need an evidence for this. Also, this is a small resolution photo, not the original one from the camera: this also mean that we need an evidence of authorship/license. Please contact VRT to provide them. Ankry (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

OK my fault is quit some time, i did get the Foto from Alois Riesch. --johann (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Requester admits there is a problem with the file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Perko-perko 49A5920-web.jpg

No need to undelete, but could someone please confirm that File:Perko-perko 49A5920-web.jpg is identical to File:Shraiman, Boris - photographer Matt perko 49A5934-web.jpeg? Thanks, FASTILY 01:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not. They appear to be two very similar portraits from the same session. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. -FASTILY 06:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to do here -- Fastily's request has been answered. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 27 July 2021 (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 Olgamatveeva

Under Ticket 2021071110004922 I can confirm, as a VTRS agent, that user Olgamatveeva = Olga V. Matveeva and she claims that all deleted photos - Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Olgamatveeva - are of her authorship and she has the rights to post them on Wikipedia under a free license. Ping Wcam, Racconish -- --NoFrost (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Image of Sendai virus.png is "courtesy of Dr. Takao Senda", so clearly not by Olgamatveeva. --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Коллега Rubin16, я в силу определённых причин вышел сегодня из состава VTRS агентов. Не могли бы вы дообработать этот тикет? Тут надо по списку восстановленных файлов проставить VTRS тикет на те, которые вы сочтёте однозначно принадлежащих авторству Olga V. Matveeva. Остальные же (те, что в статьях с соавторами и/или содержащие на ваш вкус DW (предположительно производные работы других авторов ) вынести на обсуждение сообщества и участницы Olgamatveeva, которая вероятно прокомментирует, какие у неё есть основания их лицензировать под свободной лицензией. Заранее спасибо. --NoFrost (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    @NoFrost Окей, подхвачу. I have marked those files that were mentioned in the permission ticket (this is a shorter list than mentioned in DR request). She released them under GFDL, so, I asked to add CC-BY-SA-4.0. Waiting for answer, when affirmative, I will remove remaining files. rubin16 (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Кроме её письма в VTRS, где действительно упущена лицензия, надо (кмк) принимать во внимание, что загружала то она сама и лицензию указывала сама. Это её действие и при загрузке она указала правильную лицензию. Поэтому я дополнительно не стал спрашивать в переписке про лицензию. --NoFrost (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose restoring all remaining files as some are not created by Olgamatveeva nor released under a free license, e.g. File:RIG-1 mediated SeV IFN-beta stimulation.png. --Wcam (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Olgamatveeva: This paper is not published under CC BY-SA 4.0 as you claimed. Not all articles published in EMBO reports are under a free license. Here is an example article where the CC BY 4.0 license is explicitly stated on the bottom of the pages, whereas this paper does not have such a declaration. --Wcam (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wcam Thank you for clarification. Indeed this article is marked as a "free access", which is not the same as an "open access". Olgamatveeva (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: Because all files were temporarily undeleted to facilitate the discussion, now that you closed the case they should remain deleted except for those with a valid VRTS ticket or license reviewed. --Wcam (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wcam: Thanks for pointing this out. I wrongly assumed that they were {{Temporarily undeleted}} and so have a timeut set. Some files have also CC-BY source provided already, they need not to be redeleted. Ankry (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying for the record that this is partially ✓ Done. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:AIT New Office Complex 2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{PDMark-owner}}. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 13:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose We accept the PD Mark only when the actual owner of the copyright uses it. The AIT is not Fabian Ortiz, the photographer and we have reason to believe that Ortiz has authorized PD status for his images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support photos by federal govt employee Fabian Ortiz Gutierrez = pd-usgov.--RZuo (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

While the AIT is the de facto US Embassy in Taiwan, it is a "U.S. Government-Sponsored Nonprofit, Private Corporation", so its employees are not federal employees,. Note also that the EXIF reads "Copyright:Fabian". PD-usgov does not apply unless it can be shown that the photographer was actually an employee of the US Government. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
instead of writing so much, spend 10s googling: https://www.linkedin.com/in/fabian-ortiz-gutierrez-a1128118/ . RZuo (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
First, it is not at all clear that it is the same person -- the one is "Fabian Ortiz" and the other is "Fabian Ortiz Gutierrez" and both names are reasonably common. Second, there is nothing in the Linked-In listing to suggest that he is a photographer for the State Department -- far from it. Please remember that in order for an image to be PD-USGov, the photographer must have taken the photograph as part of his job for the US government. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I've sent the e-mail to the AIT (ticket:2021071410007629) and is waiting for the response. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 14:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Feel free to request again if the PD-USGov status is confirmed. Ankry (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Sherni_film_official_poster.jpg

File:Sherni film official poster.jpg

--FilmyInsaan (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Procedural close, double entry. Thuresson (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:ABC 7161 Antonio Pedone, Felice Roberto Pizzuti.jpg

sono io l'autore della foto 27/07/2021 Augusto Frascatani (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support I have restored this so that I and others can see the EXIF. User:Gbawden deleted it because the author named in the EXIF, Augusto Frascatani, does not match User:Codex01bin. However, it appears that User:Codex01bin is Frascatani and the image is large, 5,746 × 3,835px, well above internet size, so I think there is not a problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support my mistake Gbawden (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jim. Ankry (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:XA-MHA ExcelAire Embraer EMB-135BJ Legacy 600 31.8.15.jpg

Please re-add this picture into Wikimedia Commons as now the Privacy terms have been made more lenient to make it compatible with Wikimedia Commons after a request I had made with the author[14]. Username006 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Rwanda 3717 r11.1 sep18.jpg‬ Undelete this file. It is licensed for sharing by UN Geospatial

© The copyright holder of this file, UN Geospatial, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.
Attribution:
United Nations Geospatial. Rwanda, Map number 3717, Rev 11.1, September 18. UN maps are open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. We request however that you delete the UN name and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map…


If you want to use the UN map (or maps) as a UN document, i.e. without modification in specific publication, book or article we can issue publication permission on behalf of the UN Publication Board. It is free of charge and is conducted via email. Please tell us a few words about your forthcoming publication along with a list of the UN maps you would like to use.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Honest Egret (talk • contribs) 17:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The copyright page for the source site is https://www.un.org/en/about-us/copyright It says:

"Copyright © United Nations
All rights reserved.
None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, except as provided for in the Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites, without permission in writing from the publisher."

Also note that the text in the green box above is not a free license -- it requires that a user obtain permission to use the maps. While that permission may be free of charge, the requirement for obtaining permission makes the license above less than free. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate request, see above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Chris Gobrecht and Jane Albright in 2016.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: @Túrelio and Yann: See also Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2018-09#US_Air_Force_Academy_Flickr_photos A1Cafel (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Support The title of this image on Flickr is "160210-F-KB029-037". That is a VIRIN number. The "F" after the date taken (YYMMDD) indicates that the image was taken by a uniformed member or civilian employee of the US Air Force. In either case, the image is PD and we can safely ignore the "All Rights Reserved". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Undeleted. But I am afraid, the Flickr bot will nominate it for deletion again. If anyone knows how to prevent this, please do. Ankry (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


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

VP Tran-van-Huong's letter to scholar Vuong-hong-Sen, 1971.jpg

When I requested deletion I wasn't aware of the questions regarding South Vietnamese government legality (please see: "{{PD-South VietnamGov}}"), as the discussions about this template are ongoing only undelete if the discussion ends in its favour. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I, too, do not read Vietnamese, but this is a handwritten letter written on personal stationery, not a government letterhead, so I am inclined to think that it is not a government work, but simply a personal letter and therefore will be under copyright until 1/1/2022. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence that the provided PD rationale can be applied here. Ankry (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Sherni film official poster.jpg

Hi.

Request you to undelete the file as a delete request was sent by mistake. Instead, other relevant changes and tweaks were aimed to get the required result. Please undelete the file.

Thanks.

--FilmyInsaan (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a copyrighted film poster. It can be kept on Commons only if an authorized official of the production company sends a free license via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done, per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:SophiaDiMartino2018.jpg

Está imagen está libre de derechos de autor, por lo cual quiero una revisión inmediata para confirmarlo, para que otros usuarios no sigan editando dicha información de la imagen poniendo avisos simultáneamente de incumplimiento de Copyright. Espero halla sido claro y puedan tener una solución. ¡Gracias!

This image is copyright free, so I want an immediate review to confirm it, so that other users do not continue to edit this image information by simultaneously putting copyright infringement notices. I hope I've made myself clear and you can find a solution, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeankispanki 13 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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 The linked YouTube video the screen grab is from is not licensed under Creative Commons, but rather the standard YouTube license which does not permit reuse. It was a clear copyvio and not suitable for Commons. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You have made yourself very clear, but unfortunately, what you say is incorrect. The source video is not copyright free -- almost all works, including this one, have a copyright from the moment of creation. In order for an image to be kept on Commons, it must be freely licensed by the copyright holder. The source video is not freely licensed, so the deletion was correct. Also note that your repeated removal of deletion tags from this image is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you remove such a tag again out of process, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done as per above. Ankry (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Christoph Schambach 2019.jpg

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des Fotos. Ich habe das Foto selbst gemacht, alle Rechte liegen bei mir selbst. Ebenso liegt das Einverständnis der dargestellten Person vor. Ich habe versucht, alles korrekt anzugeben und verstehe nicht, warum es gelöscht wurde. Mit bestem Dank und herzlichen Grüßen, AnnePavarotti--AnnePavarotti (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose There has never been a file named File:Christoph Schambach 2019.jpg.

You have uploaded a file named File:Christoph Schambach.jpg which is in use in WP:DE.
Your only deleted file, File:Komponist Christoph Schambach 2019.jpg, is the same image as the image above and therefore cannot be restored to Commons -- we do not keep two files with the same image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done no valid reason to undelete a duplicate. Ankry (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Alumni oro cmyk 600 dpi tiff.tif

sono io l'autore dell'elaborazione grafica 27/07/2021 Augusto Frascatani (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The file is the logo of an unidentified institution. In order to restore it to Commons we need to know what institution it represents and to have a free license from an authorized official of the institution. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence of free licence nor an evidence that the image is in scope provided. Ankry (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Añgokh-Nlô-Byeri.jpg

My images do not violate the copyright policies of Wikimedia Commons. I linked the specific policy on the Philadelphia Museum of Art website that explains images are public domain in the permission section specifically to avoid you deleting all of my uploads again. You have done this in the past and referenced "fair use" as an inappropriate copyright for this platform but failed to scroll down on our Terms of Use page before deleting everything. The text in the "Use of Images of Artworks" section specifically states "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain." [15] The statement referencing "fair use" is in a different section that does not refer specifically to images from the museum website. I have also met with Philadelphia Museum of Art leadership to confirm that our images are in the public domain and was referred to the page I linked above and in the permissions section of my image. Please undelete my images.

Synatra0805 (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Nonsense request and out-of-process recreation after previous UDR request was declined. As has already been explained to the requestor, the terms of "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain" speaks to the works depicted, not to the photographs of the works. This is precisely why the museum references fair use, as fair use and public domain would be mutually exclusive if there were only a single copyright. The photographs themselves have copyright and no evidence is on offer that they are freely licensed. The "Philadelphia Museum of Art leadership" can submit COM:OTRS permission. Эlcobbola talk 16:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as elcobbola: the Terms of Use clearly states that presented artworks are PD, the photos are not. In order to host the photos on Commons we need a written free license permission from the museum. Ankry (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreed. The museum gives a list of the permitted uses: "they may be used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, or any other “fair use” or personal use". The list pointedly does not include commercial use or the making of derivative works, both of which are required for use on Commons..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Eyema Byeri.jpg

My images do not violate the copyright policies of Wikimedia Commons. I linked the specific policy on the Philadelphia Museum of Art website that explains images are public domain in the permission section specifically to avoid you deleting all of my uploads again. You have done this in the past and referenced "fair use" as an inappropriate copyright for this platform but failed to scroll down on our Terms of Use page before deleting everything. The text in the "Use of Images of Artworks" section specifically states "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain." [16] The statement referencing "fair use" is in a different section that does not refer specifically to images from the museum website. I have also met with Philadelphia Museum of Art leadership to confirm that our images are in the public domain and was referred to the page I linked above and in the permissions section of my image. Please undelete my images.

Synatra0805 (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Nonsense request. As has already been explained to the requestor, the terms of "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain" speaks to the works depicted, not to the photographs of the works. This is precisely why the museum references fair use, as fair use and public domain would be mutually exclusive if there were only a single copyright. The photographs themselves have copyright and no evidence is on offer that they are freely licensed. The "Philadelphia Museum of Art leadership" can submit COM:OTRS permission. Эlcobbola talk 16:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as elcobbola: the Terms of Use clearly states that presented artworks are PD, the photos are not. In order to host the photos on Commons we need a written free license permission from the museum. Ankry (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Kifwebe (Element of Masquerade Ensemble).jpg

My images do not violate the copyright policies of Wikimedia Commons. I linked the specific policy on the Philadelphia Museum of Art website that explains images are public domain in the permission section specifically to avoid you deleting all of my uploads again. You have done this in the past and referenced "fair use" as an inappropriate copyright for this platform but failed to scroll down on our Terms of Use page before deleting everything. The text in the "Use of Images of Artworks" section specifically states "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain." [17] The statement referencing "fair use" is in a different section that does not refer specifically to images from the museum website. I have also met with Philadelphia Museum of Art leadership to confirm that our images are in the public domain and was referred to the page I linked above and in the permissions section of my image. Please undelete my images.

Synatra0805 (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Nonsense request. As has already been explained to the requestor, the terms of "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain" speaks to the works depicted, not to the photographs of the works. This is precisely why the museum references fair use, as fair use and public domain would be mutually exclusive if there were only a single copyright. The photographs themselves have copyright and no evidence is on offer that they are freely licensed. The "Philadelphia Museum of Art leadership" can submit COM:OTRS permission. Эlcobbola talk 16:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as elcobbola: the Terms of Use clearly states that presented artworks are PD, the photos are not. In order to host the photos on Commons we need a written free license permission from the museum. Ankry (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Mbulu Ngulu (Element of a Reliquary).jpg

My images do not violate the copyright policies of Wikimedia Commons. I linked the specific policy on the Philadelphia Museum of Art website that explains images are public domain in the permission section specifically to avoid you deleting all of my uploads again. You have done this in the past and referenced "fair use" as an inappropriate copyright for this platform but failed to scroll down on our Terms of Use page before deleting everything. The text in the "Use of Images of Artworks" section specifically states "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain." [18] The statement referencing "fair use" is in a different section that does not refer specifically to images from the museum website. I have also met with Philadelphia Museum of Art leadership to confirm that our images are in the public domain and was referred to the page I linked above and in the permissions section of my image. Please undelete my images.

Synatra0805 (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Nonsense request. As has already been explained to the requestor, the terms of "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain" speaks to the works depicted, not to the photographs of the works. This is precisely why the museum references fair use, as fair use and public domain would be mutually exclusive if there were only a single copyright. The photographs themselves have copyright and no evidence is on offer that they are freely licensed. The "Philadelphia Museum of Art leadership" can submit COM:OTRS permission. Эlcobbola talk 16:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as elcobbola: the Terms of Use clearly states that presented artworks are PD, the photos are not. In order to host the photos on Commons we need a written free license permission from the museum. Ankry (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Chi Wara.jpg

My images do not violate the copyright policies of Wikimedia Commons. I linked the specific policy on the Philadelphia Museum of Art website that explains images are public domain in the permission section specifically to avoid you deleting all of my uploads again. You have done this in the past and referenced "fair use" as an inappropriate copyright for this platform but failed to scroll down on our Terms of Use page before deleting everything. The text in the "Use of Images of Artworks" section specifically states "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain." [19] The statement referencing "fair use" is in a different section that does not refer specifically to images from the museum website. I have also met with Philadelphia Museum of Art leadership to confirm that our images are in the public domain and was referred to the page I linked above and in the permissions section of my image. Please undelete my images.

Synatra0805 (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Nonsense request. As has already been explained to the requestor, the terms of "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain" speaks to the works depicted, not to the photographs of the works. This is precisely why the museum references fair use, as fair use and public domain would be mutually exclusive if there were only a single copyright. The photographs themselves have copyright and no evidence is on offer that they are freely licensed. The "Philadelphia Museum of Art leadership" can submit COM:OTRS permission. Эlcobbola talk 16:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as elcobbola: the Terms of Use clearly states that presented artworks are PD, the photos are not. In order to host the photos on Commons we need a written free license permission from the museum. Ankry (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Mbulu Ngulu.jpg

My images do not violate the copyright policies of Wikimedia Commons. I linked the specific policy on the Philadelphia Museum of Art website that explains images are public domain in the permission section specifically to avoid you deleting all of my uploads again. You have done this in the past and referenced "fair use" as an inappropriate copyright for this platform but failed to scroll down on our Terms of Use page before deleting everything. The text in the "Use of Images of Artworks" section specifically states "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain." [20] The statement referencing "fair use" is in a different section that does not refer specifically to images from the museum website. I have also met with Philadelphia Museum of Art leadership to confirm that our images are in the public domain and was referred to the page I linked above and in the permissions section of my image. Please undelete my images.

Synatra0805 (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - Nonsense request. As has already been explained to the requestor, the terms of "These images are generally of artworks in the public domain" speaks to the works depicted, not to the photographs of the works. This is precisely why the museum references fair use, as fair use and public domain would be mutually exclusive if there were only a single copyright. The photographs themselves have copyright and no evidence is on offer that they are freely licensed. The "Philadelphia Museum of Art leadership" can submit COM:OTRS permission. Эlcobbola talk 16:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as elcobbola: the Terms of Use clearly states that presented artworks are PD, the photos are not. In order to host the photos on Commons we need a written free license permission from the museum. Ankry (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Musical artist Shlomo Simcha.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2021060110011711 regarding File:Musical_artist_Shlomo_Simcha.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. Ganímedes (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Question Who is the ticket from -- the subject or the photographer? If from the subject, did you see a copy of the contract that allows the subject to freely license the photographer's work? I ask because that would be unusual -- most portrait contracts allow the subject to use the image for their own promotion, etc., but do not allow the subject to freely license the image -- that right is reseved to the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Ganímedes: Ankry (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment There are 22 emails in that ticket. In the 17th from 22/7 14:33, the photographer has sent some files, including a pdf named "Wikipedia for SSS" which includes the permission template refilled and signed. Please check. After all these years, I thought I deserve some credits for know my job, but apparently I've been mistaken... --Ganímedes (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: -- apologies -- I pulled a mental blank and thought you were a newbie VRT person. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Done, temporarily undeleted. @Ganímedes: , please check if license templates etc. are correct on description page. Thuresson (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Category:Invalid scripted SVG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This category is used by Template:Scripted SVG. As noted on Category:Invalid SVG, it is generally preferable that SVG files be valid, and so we should expect it to be empty much of the time (compare Template:Systematic_header)—but there may be entries from time to time, either awaiting cleanup to become valid or ones that are intended to remain invalid. Perey (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @JuTa: as the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored and amrked not to e deleted if empty. --JuTa 10:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Pubic and anal hair.jpg

A clear example of hair growths in the human private part: pubic hair, anal hair, and thigh hair. The photo was taken in the view of textbook illustrations for the external appearance of the pubic and perineal areas. These hair growths are easily confused with only textual descriptions even though they are functionally and physiologically distinct. The picture had also been used as an example in Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbrburjurz (talk • contribs) 05:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Generally low quality; it is not wrong to use a photographic studio with professional lighting. Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pubic and anal hair.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:2012-12 Final Grand Prix 1d 007.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012-12 Final Grand Prix 1d 007.JPG (FOP related). However, Russia has full FOP for architecture since 2014. {{FoP-Russia}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that the German wiki copy de:Datei:2012-12 Final Grand Prix 1d 007.JPG exists which means that if this file is restored then that local copy must be deleted as a duplicate. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Piazza ognissanti, Ercole che lotta con il leone, romano romanelli 1.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: FOP-related deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ripa-san Saba - Scanderberg a piazza Albania 020102.JPG). However, its sculptor died in 1969, and as a work of a deceased author, it is now accepted here as per updated COM:FOP Italy (Italian FOP-reliant objects by deceased authors are now permissible on Commons, per a Parliamentary pronouncement from 2008, but works by living authors are still subject to restrictions not compatible with Commons' licensing policy). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Riceshower.JPG

削除理由とされている (Screenshot of non-free content (F3): https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1bs411J7YM?from=search&seid=11114409030519809983) が不当である。 上記動画内にFile:Riceshower.JPGに一致する箇所は無い。— Preceding unsigned comment added by TRJN (talk • contribs)

@Shizhao and Royalbroil: The image was on Commons since December 2013: I see nothing strange that it is widely used elsewhere. I found no evidence of pre-upload publication, so I tend to  Support undeletion. Any comment?

✓ Done nobody opposed. Ankry (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:RODOLFO-SOLANO-1400x1400.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission of CC license is https://www.presidencia.go.cr/organizacion/politicas-de-confidencialidad/ A1Cafel (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done A valid freeely licensed source is needed. Ankry (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:Pfarrkirche Allerheiligen (Innsbruck), Altarmosaik.JPG

Why was this file deleted without discussion? In Austria, Freedom of Panorama also refers to the interior of public buildings. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Info This was deleted after public discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pfarrkirche Allerheiligen (Innsbruck), Altarmosaik.JPG. Thuresson (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Where do you see a discussion? There is an empty page, no discussion. I had the file on my watchlist and didn't get any notification. Or maybe it drowned in all these meaningless bot changes of Wikidata stuff. There has to be a better was of informing people about files threatend to be deleted. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose Austrian FOP covers 2D works. According to the file description, this is an altar mosaic, so it is presumably permanent. However, Austrian FoP does not cover art works that are inside buildings. The only interior things covered by FoP are "works, which themselves are components of the structure". An altar mosaic is not a component of the structure. Please refer to the check list at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Austria#Freedom of panorama..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a very narrow interpretation of FoP, maybe according to the wording, but not the spirit of a reasonable copyright law. By the way, official language in Austria is German, not English as in the page you link to. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to do. The question has been answered. Ankry (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Which question? The discussion is being shut down before it even started... Luftschiffhafen (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
(Reopened UnDR) Ankry was referring to your original question, "Why was this file deleted without discussion?" which was answered above. I also note that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pfarrkirche Allerheiligen (Innsbruck), Altarmosaik.JPG was open for a month and a half -- there was plenty of opportunity for discussion, but there is no way to force discussion when no one raises one.
Of course Austrian law is in German, not English. If you think that the translation is incorrect, please give us the German. As far as the spirit of the law, as I read the law in English, Austrian FoP for interiors applies only to the architecture and not to works of art which are inside a building. If your interpretation were correct, then all 2D works in museums and elsewhere would be covered by the FoP and images of them could be uploaded to Commons. That is plainly not our understanding of the Austrian law. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 Comment it appears this is because of our FOP map and COM:Freedom of panorama/table listing Austria as one of the countries with liberal FOP provision. The country is labelled as dark green, in the same manner as UK, Ireland, India, Australia, HK, NZ, Canada, and a few others. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Portrait Marianna Gillespie.jpg

I am the author of that image. It can be used for a wikipedia article "Marianna Gillespie" under a free licence. --NeLiBrian Ferro (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)28072021

 Oppose The stated source of this image is https://worldchampionfreediver.com/. That page has:

"© Copyright 2021 - Marianna Gillespie | Tous droits réservés"

According to your original upload, the author of the image is Nejc Likar. Unless User:Brian Ferro is Nejc Likar, you have given incorrect author information in one place or the other. That is a serious violation of Commons rules. Reloading the image out of process is also a serious violation. If you make similar violations in the future, you will be blocked from editing on Commons.

Because the image has appeared on the Web without a free license, in order for the image to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


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

logo of the company Zone300 deleted

Zone300 logo has been deleted, but this image can be find on Google image, so why we couldn't find it on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuntingWriter (talk • contribs) 07:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose You uploaded File:Zone300 logo.png, which was deleted as a copyright violation. You later uploaded File:Logo Zone300.png, which I have deleted. Both come from the web site https://www.zone300.com/, which has:

© Copyright 2021 Zone300 - All Rights Reserved

As a general rule logos cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from an authorized official of the organization owning the logo, given using VRT. That is true in this case. Uploading an image a second time after it has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:PelileoSC.png

This file is 100% free of copyright, I crate it for the soccer team (I´m the publishing manager of Pelileo Sporting Club)

Alex Carrasco (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose It is incorrect to say that the "file is 100% free of copyright." Almost all created works have a copyright until it expires, including this logo. Policy requires that logos of organizations must have a free license from an authorized official of the organization using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alex Carrasco: If it is free of copyright as you claim now, why did you claim at upload that it is copyrighted by you and anyone using the logo is required to attribute you at the author? Ankry (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

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

File:ABC 123 currently MN plate from my collection.png

Has been deleted for no reason without even the matter being decided. Some here should think before making hasty decisions ... see discussions during the first deletion and in particular details of Taivo. These are my pictures that are ALWAYS targeted by the same people while other IDENTICAL pictures posted by other users are tolerated. I would like to understand this relentlessness. Thanks Drake317 (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The artwork on the license plate is complex enough so that it has a copyright. There is no evidence that the state of Minnesota has issued a free license for this copyright. Therefore the image infringes on the copyright and cannot be kept on Commons.

As for the "hasty decision", I note that Commons:Deletion requests/File:ABC 123 currently MN plate from my collection.png was open for discussion for almost four months. Since the rules call for closure in a week, i wonder how you can possibly believe that this was a hasty decision. As for your being targeted, you are known for having uploaded a variety of copyrighted license plates and therefore one or more of our colleagues keeps an eye on your uploads. So, yes, in a sense you have been targeted.

You don't give us any examples of copyrighted license plates that have not been deleted. Please remember that very simple plates, such as your South Dakota plate, do not have a copyright. Also, any plate issued before March 1, 1989 will usually be PD from lack of copyright notice. Finally, all copyrighted works of several states, including Florida and California, are PD by state law. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

In this case for these Minnesota plates they are the same since 1978, or even since 1987 if we take into account the slight modification of the design. Given the age of this design, they fit in the plates "without copyright" and that was the argument that allowed the restoration at the time.

"You don't give us any examples of copyrighted license plates that have not been deleted"... it's a joke ???? Very well. On example in this case, why does this plate still exist when my picture was deleted without the possibility of restaure it despite an undeletion request that I made, and that MOREOVER, Ankry had deleted the picture following my remark ? Uploads made by american users would be privileged over those made by non-american users ? I don't mean to be rude, but I feel like I'm being taken for a fool. Drake317 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Drake317, I agree that the Nebraska plate is a marginal case, but the only copyrightable element in it is the sower in the center and it is so obscured by the numeral nine that I think it is de minimis. And. by the way, what makes you think any of us have any idea where you are from? The only information we have that might tell us anything is the times you make edits, but that wouldn't be very accurate and none of us have the time to even think about it. Please remember that the 25 or so very active Admins who make more than half of the 2,000 or so deletions needed every day work very fast -- we don't have time to play the sort of games you suggest. An Admin who was not completely neutral in their work would sooner or later be an ex-Admin. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
(Jameslwoodward) Not a marginal case. We are also talking about the Kansas license plates that were removed and then handed over by others ? The sower in the center is clearly visible, but however not as much as in my picture. I therefore wish to know and above all to UNDERSTAND why an IDENTICAL license plate that I inserted knowing that my photo was of better quality, was deleted despite a request for restoration, while this one still exists despite a deletion made by Ankry. Even a Virginia license plate I put in was deleted and my restoration request refused because of a miniature boat that could have passed for a de minimis, without success. Just like you, I also don't have time to constantly make undeletion requests because some people stalk me with the blessing of others who delete without thinking and taking me for an idiot. Drake317 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done consensus to undelete. Ankry (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


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

File:E R Eswaran.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We are the IT Administrators of the website https://kmdk.in and we hold complete copyright over the image in question and we agree to post it to Wikimedia Commons. To verify our identity, we can send an email from the domain name. IT KMDK (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License has been added to footer of the website https://kmdk.in -- IT KMDK (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Support Some of the images on the cited page look like they are stock images, for which the CC license cannot apply. I therefore wonder whether this is license laundering, but on balance I think we can Assume Good Faith. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jameslwoodward: We try our best to not use stock photos on our organization's website. I had gone through the website and found one which has been removed. Please let me know which images you felt to be stock photos and I shall be happy to explain. Images used on our site are almost always created by the organization or by our members and we have been permitted to share it on our site. Other media works have been used on social media platforms but in the end the organization is the original creator.--IT KMDK (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done and LicenseReviewed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


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

Poster for film's Australian Theatrical Release. 2014.

Hello, This image is a film poster for a film that I have directed and produced (titled CANOPY). It is a work that I have also created and hold the copyright for.

I wish to upload it to the CANOPY film page in Wikipedia.

Please let me know what else I might need to do to not have this image deleted. Here is a link to the CANOPY page on my website, if it is help: https://www.aaronwilsonfilm.com/canopy

Best, Aaron Wilson --- Aaron Wilson director aaronwilsonfilm.com +61 417 376 088 --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armelb76 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Ankry (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2021-07&oldid=577662620"