Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive

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

Closed undeletion debates are archived here by SteinsplitterBot.

Recently archived requests

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

More deleted files by User:BMarGlines

Please also restore the following files as they are actually being used on air and/or on the stations' websites.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Info Use outside Wikimedia wiki is out of scope. If they need to be used in Wikimedia, please point out the exact pages. Ankry (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Manuel Ambrogioni.jpg

Potreste ripristinare l'immagine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdWiki56 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Info Deleted 10h earlier on uploader request. Ankry (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The requester blocked per sochpuppetry: thay cannot provide an undeletion ratiuonale. Ankry (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Halia Therapeutics, Inc. HQ.jpg

I am requesting to undelete this image because I took the picture personally for public use, description, and display of Halia Therapeutics Corporate Headquarters. Permission to use the image publically is given by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaliaTx (talk • contribs) 18:52, 28 May 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Image size is 260 × 202 pixels. Submission rejected at en:Draft:Halia Therapeutics, Inc.. Thuresson (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Pakistan-5-reverse.jpg

This Pakistan 5-rupee banknote is part of the 2005 series. However, it was only released in 2008, alongside the new 50-rupee banknote, 3 years after the series' first banknote, the first version of the 20-rupee note was issued. It was then withdrawn in 2011 and ceased to be exchangeable a year later.

The fact that it is a 2005 series banknote despite being released three years after the year of the series doesn't justify its deletion, as it's still part of the same series. The rest of the series that doesn't include the 5-rupee note is still legal tender in Pakistan today.

Āčēģīķļņsūž (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Pakistan-5-obverse.jpg

This Pakistan 5-rupee banknote is part of the 2005 series. However, it was only released in 2008, alongside the new 50-rupee banknote, 3 years after the series' first banknote, the first version of the 20-rupee note was issued. It was then withdrawn in 2011 and ceased to be exchangeable a year later.

The fact that it is a 2005 series banknote despite being released three years after the year of the series doesn't justify its deletion, as it's still part of the same series. The rest of the series that doesn't include the 5-rupee note is still legal tender in Pakistan today.

Āčēģīķļņsūž (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Per COM:CUR Pakistan. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Untitled-1968 surrealismo pintura simbolica.jpg

File:Untitled-1968 surrealismo pintura simbolica.jpg

Estimados Wikipedista, esta obra pertenece a el Pintor ivan tobar y se encuentra en WikiArt. Esta es toda la informacion de esa obra en cuestion que se encuentra en Internet a Dominio publico.

https://www.wikiart.org/en/ivan-tovar/untitled-1968.

Added: 18 Jun, 2014 by yigruzeltil last edit: 17 Jun, 2016 by xennex max resolution: 550x444px

--Shamalynr (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)shamalynr

 Not done: Not currently deleted. Please see COM:VRT to confirm the license. --Yann (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


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

File:OSK-geschlossen.png

the permission if the owner Stefan Oßwald, CEO of Orbitec, exits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Growbility (talk • contribs) 10:37, 31 May 2024‎ (UTC)

Procedural close, file is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

File:EdaEce1990.png

I noticed this image was deleted, but I think it should be undeleted. It was taken from an official distributor channel (FOX) as you can see here: [1] I see the nomination says "The director of this TV serie until March 2020 was Neslihan Yeşilyurt. Since this director didn't publish it on Youtube with CC, we don't use screenshot here with CC" but we can safely assume the official TV channel of the show has the necessary permissions from production crew/director before "distributing" it. I mean, when do you see a show or film release from director's own channels? The director works on the production and the production company/distributor/TV channel handles the release and the distributing part. So for this reason, "because it's not from director's youtube channel" is not really a good argument to delete, it's from official TV channel page after all.Tehonk (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The DR does seem to conflate the author with the copyright owner, which are not necessarily the same person or entity. If the director was employed by Fox, then Fox is the copyright owner. Article 10 of Turkey's law even states that for a joint work, the owner is the one who brings the collaborators together, and Article 18 is their work-for-hire clause. I don't know much about that television program. If there was production company, they probably own the rights. If Fox was just the distributor and not the copyright owner, they could not license it. But if Fox was the production company as well and as such owns the rights, it would seem to be fine. The question is if the YouTube account is the copyright owner of the material (which may be different than the author). Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose The video cited as the source, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qG-9LDLj-4, returns "Video unavailable. This video is private." The uploader did not request and we did not do a {{License review}}, so we have no confirmation of the license status of the YouTube page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
At least as of November 2021, that link had that license, per the Internet archive, which I think was a year and a half after the upload. Interesting that it has been taken down now, though. That often happens when Youtube gets a copyright complaint which is not defended. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there is confirmation of the license status from the archived link.
@Clindberg no, disappearance would be because of the recent rebranding from FOX to NOW, some old videos/channels were removed as part of it. Tehonk (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Open for a long time -- unanswered questions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Mana5280-GxoCbiR9C1w-unsplash-detail.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Uploaded with Upload Assistant under CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed (not CC-Zero), both the name of the author and the source have been added, along with many more infos. Rectilinium (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rectilinium: Please, provide the exact source of the files so that we can verify the CC BY-SA 4.0 license there. Ankry (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I did Rectilinium (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The source "Unsplash" is not sufficient, please try again. A url pointing to the file and its copyright statement would be typically what we seek.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done, no further response regarding source. Thuresson (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Anatoly Berezin with his son, 1976.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I request to restore this file, because here on the website of the museum: https://mrkm.ru/novosti/k-90-letiyu-anatoliya-ivanovicha-berezina/?sphrase_id=8151. It says that all materials of the website are covered by Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. FlorianH76 (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Info In order to consider this declaration valid, we would need explanation how did the museum received copyright to the photo from the photographer or from the photographer's heirs. It is unlikely that the photo was made by an employee of the museum. Ankry (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The museum has an exhibition dedicated to Mr. Berezin, probably they recieved these photos from his relatives. FlorianH76 (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The museum may have received the photos in order to display them but that is very different from having the right to freely license them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


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

Images of the Torre Branca

Hi everyone, I'm writing in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Milano Torre Parco Sempione.jpg (deleted after this DR in 2012), File:Torre Branca 2.JPG (deleted after this DR in 2012) and File:ParSemp S11.jpg (deleted after this DR in 2013). All these images depict the en:Torre Branca, a tower commissioned by the Municipality of Milan to en:Gio Ponti and finished in 1933 (see here). Therefore it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov at least since 1954. It is a building built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright. The copyright warning that is now present in the Category:Torre_Branca_(Milan) should also therefore be removed.--Friniate (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Friniate: Please add the template. --Yann (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Paul John Schwendel II (1941-1996) portrait.jpg

I do not see an actual reason given for deletion, just a link to Commons:Licensing. --RAN (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think speedy deletion was not appropriate for an early 1980s photograph of this kind but a DR would have been. Is this an American photograph? It also appears to be an unpublished photograph, RAN uploading it seems like first publication. Abzeronow (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Done. --RAN (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, as an unpublished photograph, it would enter the public domain in 2064. It is apparently licensed under a heirs license (which may need VRT since it appears to be extended family but I could be being overly cautious here). Abzeronow (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: needs VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Agenti di polizia in piazza Nicosia.jpg

This is photograph related to an event of 3 May 1979 [2], so the file is PD for [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Italy/it] --Bramfab (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose While it is PD in Italy, this photograph is not public domain in the US. 1979 photos were still in copyright in Italy on January 1, 1996. Abzeronow (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Artist Donald Renner.jpg

Requesting undeletion of photograph titled Artist Donald Renner. Photograph resides in the collection of the late artist's daughter, Gail Lynn Renner who gives her permission to publish the image on Wikipedia.

Also requesting undeletion of copies of artist Donald Renner's artwork samples. The late artist's daughter, Gail Lynn Renner, also gives her permission to publish these samples of his artwork on his Wikipedia page. The Lady in the Red Hat File:Lady in the Red Hat (Watercolor Portrait) by Donald Renner.JPG is an original watercolor in Renner's home collection. Chief James Billie File:Chief James Billie (Oil Portrait) by Donald Renner.JPG is an original oil painting likely in the possession of the Seminole Tribe, but the late artist's daughter has copies of the original in her personal collection.

Kate R. Farrell (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Permission must be submitted by whoever owns the copyright. Owning a paper copy of a photo does not make you the copyright owner. A permission from somebody who is not the copyright owner means nothing. Further instructions at Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson -- the photo needs a license from the actual photographer. The artworks need a license from an heir via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Maitreyi ramakrishnan.jpg Request of undeleting

Actress Maitreyi Ramakrishnan at the Vanity Fair's after Oscar's party, 2024

May the mentioned media be reconsidered on being deleted since it can be found on any sites that provide images of the actress in the picture due to it being pictures taken on an event made especially for the act of posting pictures of the celebrities in it, and it also can be found on the social medias of the actress, don't having any type of watermark from the fellow photografer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabfrajola (talk • contribs) 07:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Copied from X or Instagram. We need a permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Gabfrajola: In order to use Own work claim, you need to upload the original, high resolution, unpublished photo with coplete metadata as from your camera. Ankry (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Logo SKBR.png

{{Rasional kegunaan bukan bebas<!-- BUANG templat ini JIKA anda menggunakan FAIL BEBAS  -->
| Pemerian = 
| Sumber =Facebook
| Rencana  = SK Bukit Rangin
| Bahagian  = image
| Tujuan  = Logo
| Peleraian rendah = Tidak
| Kebolehgantian = Tidak
| Maklumat lain = 
}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anak Syurga11 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

 Oppose Complex logo. A formal written permission from the copyright holder is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. Yann (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done as per Yann. Ankry (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:The Haukers.jpg

The Haukers - a group of four dogs barking out the greatest hits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.140.17 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 31 May 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Previously published at youtube.com. Thuresson (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Ruben Dattebayo Profile.jpg

--Ruben Dattebayo (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ruben Dattebayo: Why the image should be undeleted? Images for use on userpages can be hosted here for significant Wikimedia contributors only. Ankry (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Chandragupta Maurya with Selucid Princess bride Helena.jpg

@Túrelio: User Túrelio deleted this image claiming it to be a "copyright violation" saying "Claimed as own work but can be found on the internet before upload date.". He deleted it without even notifying me about a possible deletion. This image is a colorization of an image from a book that is already out of copyright status "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chandra_Gupta_Maurya_entertains_his_bride_from_Babylon.jpg". This deletion was unjustified, and needs to be undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aearthrise (talk • contribs)

@Aearthrise: Note that both claiming Own work for images already published or made by someone else as well as reupload of deleted images are serious violations of Wikimedia Commons policies. You may be blocked if you do so again. Ankry (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Ankry: Don't play this pompous attitude with me as you are incorrect in your thought process; this colorization is my own work, adapted from another work with no color, and it was deleted unjustly from faulty logic unchecked by the reviewer Turelio. He claimed it can be found on the internet before upload date, which is a complete lie. Aearthrise (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Aearthrise, Using things like the {{Derived from}} template or including more information with the uploaded file, including noting the source file's copyright status, can make it clearer why you're making an own work claim when you're uploading something that is clearly not 100% your own work. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Tcr25, i'll implement that template. Aearthrise (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, reuploading the deleted file is against policy. Even if the deletion was out-of-process. You should wait for undeletion decision here. Ankry (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The original from this was made is under copyright, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chandra Gupta Maurya entertains his bride from Babylon.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


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

Files deleted by Krd

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There appears to be FoP in Palestine, based on the 1911 Copyright Act. The "private copyring provision" at Ordinance 1924 only targets different sections of the 1911 law, not the FoP provision at Section 2, so FoP is still applicable in Palestine. See COM:FOP State of Palestine (which I just corrected now). See also my input at VPC. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per JWilz12345. No opposition. --Yann (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


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

Files deleted by Krd

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There appears to be FoP in Palestine, based on the 1911 Copyright Act. The "private copyring provision" at Ordinance 1924 only targets different sections of the 1911 law, not the FoP provision at Section 2, so FoP is still applicable in Palestine. See COM:FOP State of Palestine (which I corrected just now). See also my input at VPC. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per JWilz12345. No opposition. --Yann (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Mariaratkova.jpg

Ciao a tutti, ho richiesto l'autorizzazione al legittimo proprietario della foto. La foto è stata presa da Pinterest ed era in formato open e scaricabile liberamente. Ho richiesto alla diretta interessata di caricare la foto su wikipedia e mi ha detto di sì. Allego foto della comunicazione:

File:Autorizzazione.png

Chiedo cortesemente il ripristino della foto. Saluti

Hi everyone, I requested authorization from the legitimate owner of the photo. The photo was taken from Pinterest and was in open format and freely downloadable. I asked the person concerned to upload the photo to Wikipedia and she said yes. I attach photos of the communication:

File:Autorizzazione.png

I kindly ask for the photo to be restored. Greetings

--Anubi1984 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Anubi1984: The permission has to be sent by email via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Anubi1984: The standard Pinterest license is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. The copyright holder needs to grant a free license via email. Ankry (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
ok tks.. Anubi1984 (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


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

en:File:Panditani.jpg

The file is in public domain now. The creator Fred Bremner died in 1941. That was more than 50 years ago. Please see the article on Fred Bremner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaiya (talk • contribs) 23:50, 31 May 2024‎ (UTC)

It looks it was never deleted. My assumption that it was deleted appears to be incorrect. I willl go ahead and upload it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaiya (talk • contribs) 23:54, 31 May 2024‎ (UTC)

Procedural close. No file with that name deleted from Commons. Uploaded as File:Kashmiri Pandit lady in 1900.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Placa_Simón_del_Desierto_-_Filmoteca_UNAM.jpg

As you can see here, this picture shows a plaque in a monument located in a public place so, is protected by Mexico's freedom of panorama. So, I gently request for undeletion. Thanks in advance. --Salvador alc (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  •  Comment The plaque part, ok - except the inclusion of a large photo from the Luis Buñuel film Simon del Desierto (en:w:Simon of the Desert). As COM:DW, this photo retains the same copyright status as the film. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    • This is not contradicting: FoP is a copyright law exception that allows free use of certain copyrighted works. As the film is Mexican (the same country of origin as for the photo), I think, we can apply Mexican FoP here. We generally perit FoP-based works even if they are copyrighted in US and non compatible with US FoP, so  Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request and Ankry. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:جلد نمایشنامه همین امشب.jpg

This photo was photographed and uploaded by me!!Boghlat (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Boghlat: This work is not a photo, it is a book cover. Making a 2D copy of a 2D work does not make you its author. Not providing info about the original author is serious violation of the declared license. Not providing an evidence that the cover copyright holder did grant the free license for their work is serious violation of Wikimedia Commons policy. If the license was not granted by them, your upload is blatant copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:جلد نمایشنامه همه چیز می‌گذرد، تو نمی‌گذری.jpg

This photo was photographed and uploaded by me! Boghlat (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

See above. Ankry (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Pendatang.jpg

The source of this file is screenshoted from this link, which they give CC licence for their works. - Zahirulnukman (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Support The specific license is not named, but the intention is clear. The source appears to be the official site of the production company. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

We would need an actual license though Bedivere (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Isn't "License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" enough? While the version is not named, as I said above, the intention is clear. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request and discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Peugeot logo (1991-1998).png

I apologize, I don't see any intention of uploading images without permission, it was a misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flexingflex1224 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 2 June 2024‎ (UTC)

Procedural close. Please do not ask for undeletion of files that have not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Undeletion files Request

Undeletion files Request

We need a reason why you want these files undeleted. Abzeronow (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. No evidence of a free license, and advertisement. --Yann (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Lake Effect Snow Dumps on the Great Lakes Region (49592585943).jpg

The licence is Template:PD-USGov-NOAA, see https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/lake-effect-snow-dumps-the-great-lakes-region — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don-vip (talk • contribs) 11:51, 2 June 2024‎ (UTC)

 Support It has a NOAA icon in the lower left corner. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Replaced by Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#NASA_and_NOAA_files_deleted_on_2020-12-14 I didn't realize the amount of NASA/NOAA files deleted on that day. vip (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. Added license and FlickrReview. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


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

Images of Palazzo delle Poste (Massa)

Hi everyone, I'm writing in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Massa-palazzo delle poste1.jpg, File:Massa-palazzo delle poste2.jpg, File:Massa-palazzo delle poste3.jpg, all depicting it:Palazzo delle Poste (Massa) and all deleted after this DR in 2013. As already pointed out in the two previous UDRs (here and here), this was one of the general post offices designed by Angiolo Mazzoni in his capacity as engineer at the Ministry for Communications (see here and here for more informations). It is therefore a work for hire for the Italian State Administration and it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1954. It is a building built before 1990 so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per previous UDRs. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:William Francis Norton (1857-1939) memoir.pdf

In use public domain document. A grandchild of the author does not want it in the public domain, but that isn't how United States copyright law works or how Wikimedia Commons rules work. Nothing would enter the public domain if a single person could have veto power over the expiration of copyrights. The rational for the deletion was per User:Consigned, but their argument was that it is "not in scope", but our rule is: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose". The rational for the deletion was per User:Ankry: "not published prior to its upload to Commons". We host over 1,000 documents and images under the {{PD-US-unpublished}} license. There was an argument that the 1970 introductory paragraph and addendum had limited distribution, even though it it did not comply with a copyright symbol or copyright registration, as a compromise the 1970 annotations were removed. --RAN (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  •  Oppose It seems the closing admin deleted it due to unadressed or acknowledged COM:SCOPE issues, not anything to do with copyright. Although the claim it was PD was (and is) still questionable anyway, but at least a couple of people made good arguements for the file not being in scope. Your whole "but its in use on other projects" thing is just a circular self justification in the meantime. One that at least IMO goes against the "usage done in good faith is in scope" part of the guideline. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose The file was in use on a Wikidata item that you created. As Consigned clearly exposed there is a problem in both projects policies when they can be exploited this way. A non notable memoir, linked on Wikidata, cannot be automatically in scope here. Likewise a non notable memoir should not have a Wikidata item just because it is linked internally. Bedivere (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
"A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." I don't see any exceptions to the rule. Perhaps the rule should be changed to give people veto power first. I do not see the exception to the rule you are claiming. --RAN (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Common sense still applies. You have not addressed and never said clearly that you created the Wikidata items yourself and that you're using that rule to artificially trying to keep the files here. Where is the good faith in that? Can you please elaborate that without deliberately avoiding the whole point in discussion? Bedivere (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) will you respond or continue to avoid the point? Bedivere (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
People use the phrase: "Common sense" to mean something an individual believes to be true that another individual does not believe to be true. It is just an empty phrase. --RAN (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
You still haven't answered anything Bedivere (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose I read through the document rapidly. It's a family memoir from a non-notable person. The claim made in the DR that it sheds light on railroad building and early telephones is nonsense -- he mentions working on several railroads, but gives no interesting details. He describes an early railroad telephone conversation -- so what? I agree that our policy that "in use is in scope" does not have to be applied when the uploader creates the use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "No interesting details" is subjective, we house over 1,000,000 books of fiction pre 1929 that I will never read, perhaps no one will ever read. --RAN (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like the absolute "[not] overrule other projects" is now "except when I disagree". --RAN (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE "any use that is not made in good faith does not count." How exactly does that make "[not] overrule other projects" an absolute? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
How is it in bad faith? There is no Commons description of "bad faith", it seems you can overrule an absolute by just claiming bad faith, without defining it. Can we now set up a bot delete every entry that links to another project by the uploader? --RAN (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question. How does "any use that is not made in good faith does not count" make usage on other projects an absolute? You can't just claim the exception can't ever be applied or that "usage on other projects" is an absolute just because words have no ultimate, universally agreed on meaning. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I already said you are just using the phrase to give yourself veto power. All you have to do is use the phrase "bad faith" without defining it. It seems that you are defining bad faith as "uploading a document to Commons and creating a Wikidata entry by the same person". Can we now set up a bot to delete every entry that links to another project by the uploader? --RAN (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't really see how I'm unilaterally doing anything when I wasn't the one who deleted the image and like 5 other people agree with that being the outcome, but then comments like that are exactly why I think this whole thing is bad faithed on your part. We'll have to agree to disagree though. But it does seem like your beating a dead horse regardless. Maybe try getting the point to start with next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
That just makes my point. You are moving the goalpost, now "bad faith" is citing policy: "comments like that ... I think this whole thing is bad faithed on your part". Unless you are willing to apply this new rule universally by having a bot scour Commons for entries that linked to Wikidata by the same uploader, you are just making up rules and applying them ad hoc with bias. --RAN (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
"any use that is not made in good faith does not count." Uploading this file, then creating a Wikidata item for it to be kept on Commons under the illusion it is in scope because "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose" is bad faith. Period. Bedivere (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The problem is you are just shouting "bad faith" then coming up with a unique one-time-only definition. Now for the third or fourth time: Are we going to create a bot to scour Commons for entries that are linked to Wikidata by the same uploader and have them all deleted? If not, then it isn't a real Wiki-rule, rules get applied universally. --RAN (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that you have failed to explain how is the file in scope without resorting to that argument nobody is buying that these are in scope because an item you created on Wikidata is using them. Stop the fallacies and running around without responding the valid questions we've made. Your relentlessness is only showing you would do the exact thing again. --Bedivere (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
You just keep shouting "scope" over and over. Here we go again: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." There is no rule demanding deletion if you also create the Wikidata entry. As I now point out for probably the fifth time: If this rule is a real rule, then we must delete every entry in Commons where the uploader also created the Wikidata entry, otherwise it is just selective enforcement of a real rule, or just a pretend rule to be used when you want to veto something you do not like. --RAN (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Here we go again too: "any use that is not made in good faith does not count." Your off-track suggestion on creating a bot to delete files is unrealistic and shows you're missing the point. --Bedivere (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd probably be down for creating a bot that deletes any usage that wasn't made in good faith. In a perfect world a lot of this stuff probably could (or should) be more automated. Your just deflecting by acting like this has anything to do with "every entry in Commons where the uploader also created the Wikidata entry" though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: out of scope on Commons. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:未行之路.jpg

為什麼會被刪除？ --GoogleRitz (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)（留言・原神工作組）2024/6/3

 Not done: Copyrighted manga, no permission. --Yann (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:GOES East Captures SpaceX Falcon Heavy Launch (32651783097).jpg

Another NOAA picture. Same as above, licence is Template:PD-USGov-NOAA, see https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/goes-east-catches-glimpse-of-spacex-launch . Thank you. vip (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Replaced by Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#NASA_and_NOAA_files_deleted_on_2020-12-14 I didn't realize the amount of NASA/NOAA files deleted on that day. vip (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close: withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Nishida-2.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: permission confirmed in ticket:2024052810002338 and ticket:2016041710002116. whym (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done @Whym: FYI. Ankry (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Török Máté.jpg

File:Name of the file to Török Máté.jpg

Tisztelt Illetékes!

Szeretnék érdeklődni, miért lett törölve az általam készített és korábban feltöltött fotó? {{Kettős-GFDL-cc-by-sa-3.0}}

Üdvözlettel, Török Máté Matetorok78 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Matetorok78: Because the permission in ticket 2024043010002791 has not yet been accepted by a VRT volunteer. Questions about VRT ticket processing can be asked at VRT noticeboard. Ankry (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Procedural close: not an undeletion request. Ankry (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Lion and sun Emblem2.svg There was no reason to delete it.

The file is useful. It's the best version of the Lion and Sun PNG, it's accurate the version that's on the flag of en:Pahlavi Iran.

Ironzombie39 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I tend to  Support undeletion: the file was used. @Trade and Kadı: Any comment why did you find this image to be suitable for deletion? Ankry (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ankry, and @Ironzombie39: I undeleted the image. Best wishes. Kadı Message 16:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

French national archives files deleted on 2020-12-15

Given that I found two NOAA files deleted on 2020-12-14 while the NOAA logo was clearly visible, I'm looking at public domain files deleted by mistake around this date. I found a bunch of files that appear to clearly be Template:PD-France given their source (French national archives) and their date (18th/19th century).

One of these files has already been undeleted: File:Billet de congé imprimé de François Noisot - Archives nationales - Y-18724-B.jpg

All these files should be undeleted as well:

Archives Nationales told themselves they were only importing public domain works in the frame of their partnership with Wikimedia France. They just chose the wrong licence, sadly the files were not undeleted yet.

vip (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The deletion reasons that I checked said these were a derivative work situation. What are the images showing? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Given the titles (I didn't check all of them), it should be scans of written works, papers, letters, official documents, architectural diagrams and maps from the 18th/19th century. vip (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
File:Copie de Henri Bergson au concours général de mathématiques – Archives nationales – AJ-16-799 page 1.jpg is a scan of a document from 1877. Was licensed as cc-zero. Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 Support The license was wrong (these files can't be under a CC0 license), but they are certainly in the public domain. Yann (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request, public domain files. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


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

Photographs of Paris by Olive Titus deleted on 2020-12-15

Another case of a large number of files deleted on 2020-12-15. Photographs of Paris taken by Olive Titus and released on Flickr using PD-mark. Many of them, if not all, were deleted on 2020-12-15.

Two of them have been since undeleted:

The other ones whould be undeleted as well:

193 files
* File:Vitraux, église Saint-Pierre-de-Chaillot, 16e arr., Paris (21892217509).jpg

vip (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree that the PDM was used by the photographer and therefore the images are all PD. However, it appears that many of them are images of the church Saint-Pierre-de-Chaillot, which was built in the 1930s. It and all of its details have at least a URAA copyright, and both its paintings and its sculpture have French copyrights as well. Therefore this UnDR should be closed as Not Done and a new one posted that does not include derivative works from the church and elsewhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Amb.Joanne Ou.jpg

Authorization from the public domain source:

https://roc-taiwan.org/uploads/sites/70/2023/01/230504-Amb_Joanne_Ou_CV.pdf

  • You declared that the image was published in US before 1929. I see no evidence for this in the abovementioned document, nor any free license from the photo copyright holder (nete that if the copyright holder is not the photographer, we also need an evidence of copyright transfer). Ankry (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence of free license or public domain status provided. Ankry (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:HaydenW-Wiki.png

The photo is of an individual who is a British Politician and it is to be apart of an existing article.

 Not done: Nonsense request. Teenager's selfie, out of scope. --Yann (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Mám ještě spousty přání.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete per ticket 2024053010008882. Thank you, janbery (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Janbery: FYI. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Prof. Marek Gosztyła.jpg

There is a proper agreement from author. See ticket:2024052710002992. Polimerek (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Polimerek: Please correct the file info accordingly. --Bedivere (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Kurdish Protest.jpg

This work originated in Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. Per Law No. 17 of 2012 on copyright in Kurdistan Region, protection for photographs end after 15 years of publication, and in this case the photograph was published 16 years ago. Relevant information on the matter is found here. Anwon (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  • @أنون: Do you claim that Flickr is hosted in Iraq? We need an evidence of publication in Iraq in order to skip US copyright requirements. Ankry (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Ankry I see. The photo was probably not published in Iraq, so the request can be closed. I assume if the photographer published while in Iraq then the local laws would apply, is that correct? Anwon (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    Frankly, I do not know how US courts interprets "country of publication" in such case in reference to non-signatories of Berne. Ankry (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done, request canceled. Thuresson (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Maimai 2019 logo.png

Uploaded about a month ago

 Oppose copyrighted logo with no evidence of free license. False authorship & copyright claim by the uploader. Ankry (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Philips_MASTER_LED_2.3W_830-827_E14-E27_lamp_candles,_lusters_&_bulbs.pdf

Dear Sirs,

The file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Philips_MASTER_LED_2.3W_830-827_E14-E27_lamp_candles,_lusters_%26_bulbs.pdf is my own work and not a Philips publication, otherwise I wouldn't have published it on Wikimedia Commons.

Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elena Regina (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Whether or not you arranged the sheet, the lightbulb images you used were created by Philips, such as this one. Please see COM:DW. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per The Squirrel Conspiracy. --Yann (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Big Girls Don't Cry featuring The Eastcoast Boys.png to undelete

This photo has been rejected, however I own the copyright to it. Please undelete so that our page can go live — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liannehird (talk • contribs) 14:09, 3 June 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This is a poster with at least two copyrights -- one for the photo and one for the poster design. Its copyright status must be reviewed using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Logo de l'Observatoire Jocelyn Bell de Toulouse.png

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024052810003088. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Stema e Komunës Mitrovicë e Veriut.svg

While yes, it is only used by Serbian parallel institutions, at the exact same time, it's used by Serbian parallel institutions. That means that it still falls in the scope. All it needs is a renaming to something like "Coat of Arms of Kosovska Mitrovica". Using a non-exact Google Images search, we find that it is somewhat similar to certain other pieces of Serbian heraldry. Using an exact Google Images search this time, most sources that isn't Wikipedia, Reddit or CRW, are Serbian. So we can assume that the coat of arms has been recognised by Serbians, that it is the real one. It seems that this place got the image that you got, was from kosmitrovica.rs. That seems to be a thing that claims to be the government of Mitrovica. This definitely falls in the scope of Wikicommons. This counts. (Assuming my research and reasoning isn't horribly flawed.) Kxeon (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It is irrelevant if the Serbian government recognises this organisation if it is not under Serbian government administration. Serbian copyright law is irrelevant for us here. In order to consider this image to be PD in US it must be either (1) an official symbol of a US-recognized authority [US recognize Kosovo administration here], or (2) be pre-2008 [so we could apply Serbian law here, but we need an evidence]. Ankry (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Alrighty. I sent a email to them asking if their coat of arms was made before or after Kosovar independence. There doesn't seem to be much I can really do other than this. All I can really do now if wait and hope that they respond. Аctually wait, I searched up "Грб Косовска Митровица" and got a result from ResearchGate. It implies that it was made in 2011. If the municipality actually gets back to my email and responds to confirm, then we may be able to use that as a even more reliable source for confirming this date. For now though, we can assume it's from 2011 and thus under Kosovo copyright. Kxeon (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Kxeon: This cannot fall under Kosovo-PD, It was never adopted officially as required per law on local self-government in Kosovo => https://mapl.rks-gov.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Law-On-Local-Self-Government.pdf Article 7 Symbols 7.3 "The symbols of a Municipality shall be approved and changed by the municipal assembly pursuant to the constitutional and legal provisions of Republic of Kosova and shall not resemble to symbols of other states or municipalities within or outside Republic of Kosova". For example: the Municipality of Graçanica which has a serb majority population, did approve its own symbols according to the law and they are included in their official site: [[4]]; North Mitrovica's official site: [[5]]. AceDouble (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done, per AceDouble. Thuresson (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


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

NASA and NOAA files deleted on 2020-12-14

My final request on the topic, I hope. Many Template:PD-USGov-NASA and/or Template:PD-USGov-NOAA files have been deleted on 2020-12-14.

Six of them have been since undeleted:

Other ones should be undeleted as well:

vip (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing… File:Mariner 10 (14411728696).jpg is not a NASA work. It's a work by UCL. Deleted again. Abzeronow (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC).
Lowering GOES-T into the Thermal Vacuum Chamber (50294348433).jpg and other Thermal Vacuum Chamber images by Lockhead Martin, not NOAA. Abzeronow (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Most of the files undeleted per request. A few non-NASA non-NOAA files are not done. --Abzeronow (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Famille de criminel - Affiche.png

Hi, the producers of the TV series Famille de criminel tried to upload this image and it was deleted. But I sent them the email template so they should give permission to use this file very soon. Please undelete it and use this template instead {{Permission pending|year=2024|month=June|day=3}} MaudeG3 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Waiting until the permission is received and verified by a VRT volunteer. Ankry (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:If You Can See Light At The End Of The Tunnel You Might Be Going The Wrong Way (136378299).jpeg

Not a duplicate, it has a different license. CC 3.0 licenses are more forgiving/flexible when it comes to attribution and better written than the old 2.0 licenses. The 3.0 license however is probably the more restrictive BY-SA whereas the 2.0 license is BY, so neither license is superior.
If the image is 100% identical perhaps it's possible to add both sources and licenses on a single file.
Pinging @Vcohen, JuTa, Omphalographer, Rodrigo.Argenton, Sreejithk2000 who participated in Commons:Deletion requests/File:If You Can See Light At The End Of The Tunnel You Might Be Going The Wrong Way (136378299).jpeg. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Adding both sources ans licenses does not require undeletion. Ankry (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Ankry, if the images are 100% identical (which I can't see now) and we go that route, true. However, someone who can see deleted content would be needed to obtain the source link from the deleted file page. (and in case of link rot also the license tag and license review, assuming there is one) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Here is the source of the deleted image: (link) --Sreejith K (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but they are not the same.

4 647 × 3 200 pixels is under cc-by 2.0 and 2048 x 1410 pixels cc-by-sa 3.0; many people here are nitpicked when deleting things; I will apply the same standards.

File:If You Can See Light At The End Of The Tunnel You Might Be Going The Wrong Way (136378299).jpeg should not be put as cc-by 2.0, as the author didn't select as this; analogously, the 4 647 × 3 200 version can not receive the cc-by-sa 3.0.

The deletion was a mistake, and the file should be restored. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 00:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

They are the same image -- the size difference doesn't affect the licensing, so the fact is that both versions are licensed under both licenses. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Jim is correct, the license applies to all sizes of the photograph. I've added the source of the deleted one to the file, and I've added the cc-by-sa 3.0 to the file so now reusers can choose which license they want. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Mickaël Gamrasni.jpg

Bonjour Je bénéficie de l'autorisation de l'ayant droit de l'image pour son utilisation sur Wikipedia et d'autres sites de référencement. Comment procéder afin d'obtenir la restauration de l'image sur la page wikipedia dédiée ?

 Oppose A permission "to use in Wikipedia" does not allow you to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons. We need a written free license. Ankry (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour Voici la référence Creative Commons de l’image utilisée, qui est libre de droit : Mickaël Gamrasni © 2023 by Mickaël Gamrasni is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (<a property="dct:title" rel="cc:attributionURL" href="https://images-film-documentaire.fr/personne/E7B/3EE5B7BE2FBC40E1A9993BEE9CE18E7B.jpg">Mickaël Gamrasni</a> by Mickaël Gamrasni is licensed under <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/?ref=chooser-v1" target="_blank" rel="license noopener noreferrer" style="display:inline-block;">CC BY-NC-ND 4.0<img style="height:22px!important;margin-left:3px;vertical-align:text-bottom;" src="https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/icons/cc.svg?ref=chooser-v1" alt=""></a> license abbreviation full license name)

Pourriez-vous svp restaurer l’image ? Merci !

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Nindha Telugu Movie - First Look.jpg

File:Nindha Telugu Movie - First Look.jpg Undeletion request Good day! I've recently created a Wikipedia article for the upcoming telugu film called Nindha,I'm working as the Script and Continuity department for that film! I understood the warning that was issued by @Wikishovel stating the Instagram source of the picture! But the picture where the source was shown is the same Production House official Instagram handle. I kindly request to remove the deletion notice for the image! I've already said to designer to come up with new Theatrical poster of the film!

Regards @thesazh --2401:4900:1CB1:CBDB:B55D:37E6:4972:68EC 17:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to host the poster image here, we need a written free license permission from the copyright holder of the poster following VRT instructions. Ankry (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Supriya_Sahu,_IAS.jpg

This photo has been clicked by me and I am sharing it on Wikipedia as commons so that it can be used by everyone. --Tejprakashyadav (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Tej

 Oppose The uploader needs to sends an explicit permission to COM:VRT. Once they verify and approve the permission, the VRT team will undelete it. Günther Frager (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


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

JOY CHRISTOPHER DULAY.jpg

I'm the sole owner of this photo. this is me. I'm also the original uploader of this photo and i never upload it on other socmed platform. If I did, its also me who uploaded it. Please don't delete it, instead just give me documents that I should provide for my authenticity.

Thanks

June 6, 2024 (Laydudulay21 (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC))

 Oppose Commos is not a COM:WEBHOST. Günther Frager (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Günther Frager -- Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:JCRD BUILDERS LOGO.jpg

Hello, I'm the sole owner of this logo. I'm the owner and company of this logo, and i have all the proof and documentation which i can send you if you needed it.

Laydudulay21 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  1. We cannot verify your identity on-wiki; in order to be able to host a copyrighted logo, we need a free license permission from the logo copyrigt holder, and
  2. Logos unused in Wikimedia are out of COM:SCOPE and cannot be hosted here. Ankry (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Marta Pazos 2024.jpg

Emilio Manzano--EmilioManzano (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Soy el representante de la foto que quiero publicar en la página y tengo el consentimiento tanto del autor de la foto, como de la persona que sale en la foto. Puedo enviar una solicitud con sus datos

The photo copyright holder needs to send us a written free license permission following VRT instructions. Ankry (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Foto_do_Elenco_da_série_Mal_me_Quer_2019.webp

The website “https://www.estrelando.com.br/nota/2017/02/08/klara-castanho-abre-mao-de-protagonista-em-malhacao-por-conta-dos-estudos-entenda-212796/foto-15” reposted an already public photo. This news site has no rights to the image, it is simply used as a photo of a group of actors. I had already reported this information in the image description, that this image was used a few times in news about the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAB232 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 June 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose If you are the photographer as you claimed at upload, yor need to follow VRT instructions. We cannot host photos that were already published without evidence of free license by the copyright holder or without evidence of PD status. If the image is PD, you need to point out the applicable copyright law exception; see COM:Brazil for details. "Publicly available" is not the same as PD. Ankry (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Nonsense request. Notwithstanding that requestor/uploader misrepresnted this to be {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}, their own source above says "Copyright - 2024 | Todos os direitos reservados". Verily, the "news site has no rights to the image"; news organisations are allowed to use publicity stills under fair use, which is not allowed here. Public availability is not to be conflated with public domain. Эlcobbola talk 17:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:KeineTrennungZwischenIslamUndIslamismus.png

File was a Screenshot from German TV of a YouTube Video that is online from a discuss in Michael Stürzenberger. It is public domain and thus not a copyright infringement, which does not exist for content in Public Domain within the jurisdiction of the Federal Republic of Germany. Especially not from our broadcasters that we pay for (GEZ-Gebühren). Please undo the deletion, as this is for historical and public purposes, not to sell or earn money with it. The Public Interest weights out all other interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staatsfunk1337 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 June 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The content broadcasted by the German public television stations is not in the German public domain. You can check for example the T&C from ZDF[6] »Die Inhalte der ZDF-Online-Angebote sind urheberrechtlich geschützt«. Also, the "public interest" doesn't weight out the licensing policy of Commons. Günther Frager (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
First of all, if it would be the case, the ÖR (Media) would have striked the YouTube Video, but it is still online. So it is permitted for that use-case. Everything that is produced in Germany is under "Urheberrecht", so it does not mean anything whether it is applicable for our use-case or not. We are allowed to use it as private person for non-profit purposes (Q1). For the public interest cases, we can still use it, please consult § 5 UrhG (Q2). The politician and extremist is a disputed man, thus he's of public interest. For addressing security and public interest needs, we are absolutely allowed to take screenshots of his saying. Furthermore we can argue that Wikipedia fulfill archive and educational purposes (see Q3). Also, we have paid for the content, does not matter what the public broadcasters are writing below it, (if we are strict) we have legal access to their materials, including public usage rights for non-commercial use-cases.
Additional legal complaint:
"licensing policy of Commons", wild deleting for legally invalid reasons does violate the German law for German users. The German law is above any policy which you could set up. Refer to the constitution (or basic law). For example, especially the Art. 5 Para 1,3 GG. The deletion violates my constitutional rights to present those facts to the public, which were essential in the discussion tab where they were used.
Q1: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__53.html
Q2: https://www.ipwiki.de/urheberrecht:amtliche_werke
Q3: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__60a.html Staatsfunk1337 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
also it is disputable whether a screenshot is part of the original work AND whether it can reasonably justify a "copy of the whole work" flagging (a copy right violation in legal terms or Urheberrecht infringement). Another solution would be to cover the Logo of the source (brand) that would not infringe the copyright (at all) actually Staatsfunk1337 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
You are talking nonsense on several levels. There is no German law that forces a private party to host media that a random user from the Internet wants to. Commons can decide what to host provided it is not hosting any ilegal content, and that choice is reflected in Commons' licensing and the scope policies. These images may fulfill Common's scope policy, but they don't fulfill Commons' licensing policy. You, as a German citizen, can set up your own server and host these images and you probably won't be prosecuted. That is basically what the German law grants you. Günther Frager (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose public television doesn't equal public domain. Copyvio of the German TV station. Also, COM:CARES. Abzeronow (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
In our case it does. Furthermore the screenshots are not part of the original work read § 24 UrhG Staatsfunk1337 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
BTW: copyright is not applied here. We talk about Urheberrecht (German law). Public interest would constitute a usage in the International and especially US laws (copyright).
Quote from Wiki:
> Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. Staatsfunk1337 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Fair use is not allowed on Commons. And the deleting administrator is German, and so I think they know enough about German copyright law. Abzeronow (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Just because "he [the admin] is German" it does not mean he considers all paragraphs, possible interpretations or violations. I showed the legal paragraphs WHY the deletion is unlawful and use is permitted (in this and only this case).
BTW: I found this nice piece. https://www.wikimedia.de/oeffentliches-gut/ Staatsfunk1337 (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The content was uploaded to Wikipedia. Furthermore the policies of Commons have no legal substance when the German law is violated by it. Staatsfunk1337 (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Fair use is allowed when claiming a "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)"
"A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status. Examples include: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content and https://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek. For information on US Fair Use, see meta:Wikilegal/Primer on U.S. Fair Use/Copyright Law for Website."
The German law supports it as quoted above. Staatsfunk1337 (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
You are citing the policy of the English Wikipedia, and the Polish Wikinews. They are different projects and don't have the same policy as Commons. The English Wikipedia allows hosting images that fall under fair use, but Commons doesn't allow them. Similarly, the German Wikipedia allows hosting images locally that are in the public domain in the DACH region, but are still copyrighted in the US. Günther Frager (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. These are screenshots and are copyrighted. ─ Aafī (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Daniel Lurie Headshot.jpg

Please restore this file because we now have a permission statement from the creator in Ticket: 2024060410013048. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ww2censor: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Vote 2929 - João Caproni Pimenta para deputado federal em São Paulo.jpg

This file is actually an artwork (thumbnail) from the video. Just search on Youtube. It fits on the criteria of free-license of Wikimedia Commons, since it was uploaded with this tag on it. If the video is uploaded with a free-license, isn't the thumbnail also a free art to use?

License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed).


https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Vote+2929%3A+Jo%C3%A3o+Caproni+Pimenta+para+deputado+federal+em+S%C3%A3o+Paulo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnrSh_20WV4 (official video - source with the license)

Sailoratlantis (talk)

✓ Done: per request on my talk page. --Bedivere (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Kumbalath sanku pillai.png

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to request the undeletion of the image/file titled "[File:Kumbalath sanku pillai.png]" which was previously deleted due to a claim of copyright violation. The image in question is a photograph of the social reformer Kumbalathu Sanku Pillai, and it is crucial for illustrating his Wikipedia article accurately.

The reason for the deletion was that the original uploader mistakenly claimed copyright status over the image. However, I would like to clarify that this image is unique and cannot be found elsewhere. It is the only available photograph of Kumbalathu Sanku Pillai, and its historical significance warrants its inclusion on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, as there are no alternative images available to depict Kumbalathu Sanku Pillai, the absence of this photograph severely impacts the comprehensiveness and accuracy of his Wikipedia article.

I kindly request that the image be restored to its original location on Wikipedia, or alternatively, if there are any necessary steps I should take to rectify this issue, please advise me accordingly.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukumar.v.nair (talk • contribs) 06:18, 6 June 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The source file is https://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%AA%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%AE%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%A3%E0%B4%82:Kumbalath_sanku_pillai.png and was uploaded to mlwiki because it was taken from the web. Some wiki projects allow to host copyrighted files under fair use, but that is not allowed in Commons. Günther Frager (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
the original uploader mistakenly claimed copyright status from http://www.reporteronlive.com/perspective/contentdetail/1/police.html, this website never exists or broken, which is freely available only picture of him. Sukumar.v.nair (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The website is currently unavailable, but you can check that it did exist in 2012 when it was uploaded to mlwiki [7]. That it is the only available picture of him doesn't imply it isn't copyrighted. Günther Frager (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no instance provided that the file is free. ─ Aafī (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Fortepan 213815.jpg

Please restore the file. There are many images on Fortepan that are legally unclear, Tamás Urbán's images are uploaded with a Cc-by-sa 3.0 license. On 2017031210011731 number ticket you can read his confirmation that his photos on Fortepan were provided by him under a Cc-by-sa free license. So the file is free to use. thank you! Translated with DeepL.com ) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hungarikusz Firkász: No, we can't. A VRT agent can. If a VRT agent confirms here that this permission covers the mentioned photo, we can go on. It is unclear to me if the permission covers (and even if it can legally cover) future uploads. Ankry (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


Ankry. so hundreds of Fortepan images may be up because their site says they are available under a Cc-by-sa licence, when in many cases they have been found to be there in an infringing way.

But! The images cannot be up if the author has confirmed that he/she has licensed them to Fortepan under a Cc-by-sa license, and we have a letter to that effect in VRT.

So why don't you delete all the Tamás Urbán images that come from Fortepan? Why just this one? Where and from where does the ticket apply to the images? Since when does it not apply to them? Where and from when is it possible to upload a picture of Tamás Urbán from Fortepan and from when is it not?

You can sense the strong contradiction in this, can't you?

I know what the letter contains, when we received it I was still the operator. The content of the letter has not changed because I am no longer an operator. The letter confirms that the author, Tamás Urbán, is the one who gave Fortepan his images under a Cc-by-sa licence. ( Translated with DeepL.com ) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, does not seem like this should have been speedied. Agreed that a VRT agent would be the only one who could confirm, but seems like it should not be deleted until that question is answered. If VRT permission was supplied, then the uploader did enough. A regular user being unable to read a VRT ticket is not grounds for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Hungarikusz Firkász: The problem is that administrators are not able to verify what is inside the ticket. We rely in this matter on VRT volunteers who make UDR requests if they need and add the appropriate ticket numbers to the images if this is needed. In this case, no ticket was added and I see no verifiable information on your homepage that you are a VRT volunteer. Also, maybe, we need a specific Fortepan template containing the ticket number for this author? But this page is not a venue to discuss it.
We are not talking about any other image, just about this one.
BTW1, the link to the image is [8].
BTW2, pinging users involved in the deletion: @Didym and Krd: It is standard to do so.
BTW3, I do not oppose undeletion; just pointing out that referring to a VRT ticket requires to involve a VRT volunteer. Ankry (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


Ankry, You don't seem to understand the situation.

In addition to this file, there are hundreds of Fortepan images and dozens of Fortepan images by Tamás Urbán uploaded.

For the hundreds or dozens of images, why are these conditions not expected? Why is this one?

Why is the ticket accepted for the templated images? Why not for this one? The same content of the letter applies in the same way to images of Tamás Urbán uploaded to Fortepan and taken from there.

For the hundreds or dozens of images that do not have a VRT template, but are Fortepan images and were taken by Tamás Urbán, neither VRT nor operators are required. Why? Why only for this one image?

Do you see why I see a very strong contradiction here?

Translated with DeepL.com Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I think all that happened was that the uploader accidentally put out a Cc-by-sa 4.0 license instead of Cc-by-sa 3.0. It would have been enough to put the correct template instead of the wrong one. Translated with DeepL.com Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hungarikusz Firkász: No. I understand. I do not think that any other image should be deleted and I do not know if this one should: that is why I think that the deleting users should be pinged and given time to answer (maybe thay made a mistake, maybe they have seen a reason that we do not see). The question why are these conditions not expected? Why is this one? should be directed to the deleting admins, not here. Here we do not know.
In my comments above I am referring strictly to your request and a VRT ticket reference in it: you suggested that a VRT ticket contains important information concerning licensing of this image - in such cases this ticket should be added to the description page (either by a VRT volunteer who verify that, or - as I suggested above - through creation of a specific template - if it is general permission ticket, referring to multiple files). If the ticket is irrelevant, just forget all my comments above. My intention was to point you, that referring to a VRT ticket as an undeletion argument by a non-VRT-member is pointless. Only that. Ankry (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ankry: We could undelete until a VRT response is gotten, or at least convert to a regular DR. If there is a significant question like this, it probably was not an "obvious" deletion. Seems like somebody marked it "no permission" and an admin just processed it, but that initial tagging was maybe not appropriate given there was a stated license from Fortepan. The guidance at Category:Images from Fortepan does say that images do need to be checked, so agreed there should be a VRT or a specialized template on the images, or a specific category of them, eventually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
{{Temporarily undeleted}} per Carl request. Ankry (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
We seem to have over 1400 photos of his in Category:Photographs by Tamás Urbán. If the VRT ticket seems to apply to all contributions to Fortepan, we should probably link 2017031210011731 in that category (and/or the parent, Category:Tamás Urbán). Would that need to be done by a VRT user? Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Adding VRTS ticket templates is currently restricted t VRT users by abusefilter. Ankry (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Also over 1900 other photos are not categorized in that category. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 2017031210011731, it seems that Tamás Urbán's permission is accepted. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Asclepias: Ah, thank you.  Keep then. Can we get a VRT agent to place that VRT template on the category? Maybe with that summary, to state that photographs of his specifically from Fortepan are fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Although I'm a bit puzzled by Ruthven's closing comment, "Kept: per Samat and Krd + discussion." But Krd was saying that the ticket was invalid. @Krd, do you remember why you thought that the ticket was invalid? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Probably why the images associated with the ticket were originally marked for deletion by Jcb: "It does e.g. not contain a specific license. It's not really clear to which files the ticket is supposed to apply, but it is stated that they are the author of only a part of the pictures."
Of course it doesn't contain a specific license, since it was just a request to have an answer from the author as to whether he really allowed Fortepan to publish his photos under the Cc-by-sa license. That is what happened in this correspondence. That correspondence is effectively a conviction as to whether Tamás Urbán's images are legally on Fortepan. So it is effectively not a license to the Commons or Wikipedia.
So it is strange that without any follow up we allow images to be posted from Fortepan (in more than one case it turned out that they are also illegal there, e.g. photos of József Hunyady), but for those images, there is a dispute going on for several days and several rounds, where we have received confirmation from the author that he gave his images under a free license to Fortepan, so their use is legitimate there, as well as here.
By the way, it's also strange that Tamás Urbán has the 2017031210011731 template exposed on many of his pictures and not on many of his pictures. Nevertheless, all of them are from Fortepan, but of all the uploads with no template and with templates, only this image caught the eye of the flag for deletion, and it was suddenly deleted.
Either we declare that the images from Fortepan are illegal and the confirmation letter is not valid, and then delete all the images from Fortepan, or we finally accept that there are images on Fortepan that are illegal and have been transferred to Commons, but that Tamás Urbán's images are not part of them, and leave them alone!
Translated with DeepL.com Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I think that no more investigation is needed on this case and that this request could be closed as done. Although the user who nominated the file for deletion did not respond to the ping to explain why they nominated it, now that the file is undeleted and its history can be seen, it can be reasonably guessed that the reason was merely because the uploader had indicated only a general link to the source website but had unfortunately neglected to add a precise link to the specific image on that source website. That has now been fixed by another user who added the precise source link that was previously missing. Nothing more should be needed. The start of this discussion, when the file was still deleted, and the absence of explanation from the deletion nominator, might have given the wrong impression that the ticket was somehow necessary or that it was somehow challenged, and that for some reason we would have to wait for a Hungarian-speaking VRT member to magically appear here and officially repeat one more time the same thing that has already been said multiple times by several Hungarian-speaking users who are familiar with the issue. (In short, the ticket is Tamás Urbán telling that he sent his photos to Fortepan and that all is fine.) But it seems to me that the ticket was not even disputed. The CC BY-SA 3.0 license at Fortepan is not challenged either. Also, as explained in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 2017031210011731, the ticket is probably not even necessary on the pages of the files. It's like if someone doubts the legitimacy of a flickr account and then the author confirms to VRT that the account is legitimate. It is useful to reference that ticket somewhere, e.g. on the talk page of the Commons category for the photographs by this author, but it doesn't need to be placed on each of the thousands of files copied from that account. If for some reason someone decides that they want to challenge the ticket, they can start a discussion at C:VRT/Noticeboard or at C:Village pump/Copyright or start a deletion request, but, IMHO, C:Undeletion requests would not be the place. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: File was restored. --Bedivere (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


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

Philips MASTER LED

Dear Sirs,

The file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Philips_MASTER_LED_2.3W_830-827_E14-E27_lamp_candles,_lusters_%26_bulbs.pdf is my own work and not a Philips publication, otherwise I wouldn't have published it on Wikimedia Commons.

I have used only non-copyrighted images, as all Philips depictions of light bulbs appear to be. For example:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=philips+LED+light&atb=v383-1&iar=images&iaf=license%3AAny&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.any-lamp.com%2Fmedia%2Fcatalog%2Fcategory%2FPhilips_LED_Lamp_E14_1.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works#Isn't_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone?_What_about_cars?_Or_kitchen_chairs?_My_computer_case?

[...] Instead of copyright protection, utilitarian objects are generally protected by design patents, which, depending on jurisdiction, may limit commercial use of depictions. However, patents and copyright are separate areas of law, and works uploaded to Commons are only required to be free with respect to copyright. Therefore, patents of this kind are not a matter of concern for Commons. [...]

Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elena Regina (talk • contribs) 07:05, 5 June 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose While bulbs themselves are not protected by copyright, photos of the bulbs, pictures of the bulbs and graphs presenting bulbs technical data are. So unless you made all images yourself (using real bulbs and/or numeric data; we would need an evidence of that) you are not the only author/copyright holder of the PDF file and we need a free license permission also from the authors of the works that your PDF is a derivative work of. Ankry (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Your claim that the images you use are not copyrighted is probably false. Otherwise, you need to point out the precise copyright law exception that applies to them. Unlike depicted objects, their images are copyrighted by default. Ankry (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose This request was addressed earlier with a "not done". Please do not make duplicate requests without any new information. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Clear copyvio of the Philips lamp images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Please Undelete File:Asia Carrera law school graduation day selfie.jpg

Please undelete File:Asia Carrera law school graduation day selfie.jpg

It is a SELFIE I took of MYSELF at MY graduation. No rights are owed to anyone but me, and I give full permission to Wikipedia to use it.

I uploaded the pic through the Commons Upload Wizard, and released licensing rights for public use as well.


Source: Own work I did release the rights: {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}

Jessica Steinhauser aka Asia Carrera JessicaSteinhauser (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose the uploader needs to send an explicit permission to COM:VRT. Once the permission is approved the VRT team will automatically restore it. Günther Frager (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The deletion reason in the log is that it was missing a license. Fixing the license should solve that. Why require VRT? Was it previously published? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
This image was uploaded a week after File:A selfie Asia Carrera took on her graduation day from Law School, May 18, 2024.jpg, also uploaded by JessicaSteinhauser, was deleted as copyvio. The link was to Reedit and it is now deleted, but Google cache suggests they were the same picture. Also, on the response to the copyvio request the userreplied that she also uploaded it to a message board (Reddit?) and to Facebook, see diff. Günther Frager (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the info. So, in her enthusiam, the person posted her selfie almost simultaneously to Commons and, a few minutes later or earlier, to Reddit. (Unfortunately, Reddit does not seem to indicate the exact time of day as Wikimedia does.) The doubt, if there is one, would be based on the hypothesis that the photo would have been posted first to Reddit and then the uploader immediately stole it from there and copied it to Commons. But then, from whom would an email be expected? VRT is useful if it provides information coming from the source which might have been illicitly copied by the uploader. In this case Reddit. The Reddit account is apparently this. So, an email would need to come verifiably from that Reddit account. Is that possible? Or someone could ask the uploader to post something to the Reddit account to prove that it is her account. But that's much trouble for what was essentially a simultaneous publication of a selfie that is almost certainly legitimate. Sometimes, it may be better to just assume good faith. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Why is this personal image of a non-contributor in scope? VRT cannot solve that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
There is an article on Wikipedia and a category on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
If previously published, we would need to follow the COM:VRT process, otherwise  Support. The deletion reason was that the license was missing, so either something glitched with the Upload Wizard or someone removed it. But the above license would be fine if this is an original upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The file did have a {{self|cc-by-4.0}} tag. It had been marked as having no source because someone had doubts about it being an own work; the precise deletion reason should have been something like "no source since ...". But as part of the overall effort to keep Commons going, sometimes things are less precise than we would wish. --Rosenzweig τ 12:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 Support This file had a source and license when it was uploaded. It should not have been speedy deleted for missing a source. If there are other reasons for deletion, make a deletion request out of it. Thuresson (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 Support Per Thuresson. The first file, File:A selfie Asia Carrera took on her graduation day from Law School, May 18, 2024.jpg, was apparently uploaded here a bit before the Reddit post. --Rosenzweig τ 12:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:My first pic with CH.jpg

I request the undeletion of this file (My first pic with CH.jpg) because it does not violate any Wikipedia guideline. That file is my personal file, my personal picture which I posted on one of my Facebook pages which is the source where you found it. I can't post my Facebook links on the article because that is a violation, therefore it's not my responsibility that one of the files is in there. I reiterate, it is my personal photography therefore I request the undeletion of said file. Thank you very much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rijomamo (talk • contribs) 11:23, 6 June 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Draft rejected at en:Draft:Ricardo Jose Martinez. Thuresson (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - 1) The image was previously published and thus requires additional evidence of permission per COM:VRT; 2) this is not a selfie and uploader purports to be the subject (per response of "Those are my own diplomas. I posted them in order to verify the info about my studies" regarding Ricardo Jose Martinez diplomas). Copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject, so aforementioned permission must be from the former; and 3) as implied by Thuresson above, this is vanity/self-promotion. Эlcobbola talk 14:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion -- Out of scope and copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Arezoo Tajnia.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: i own the image Parpapox (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Parpapox: Ownership of an image does not grant you any rights to publish or license it. Who is the author/copyright holder, which license did they grant for the image and where? Ankry (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


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

tritapa.jpg

--Sumitmula7 (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

 Info Probably concerns File:Tri Tapa.jpg. Reuploaded as File:TRITAP.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: If it is Own Work as claimed, then it is a personal image and out of scope. If not, it is a copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Marc Tedeschi in 2004.jpg

Please undelete this file. A copyright release has previously been provided to Wikipedia for this image, by the photographer Frank Deras Jr., on 3 May 2024, by email, using the "Wikimedia VRTS release generator". See copy of email below:

Begin forwarded message:

From: (Redacted) Subject: release of Marc_Tedeschi_in_2004.jpg Date: May 3, 2024 at 2:27:08 PM PDT To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby affirm that I, Frank Deras Jr., am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

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.

Frank Deras Jr. 2024-05-03

[generated using relgen.js]

Frank Deras Photography

(Redacted)

http://www.frankderas.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndmmeyhhsn (talk • contribs) 22:07, 7 June 2024‎ (UTC)

 Oppose When VRT agents handle the ticket, they will request undeletion with appropriate ticket info. DMacks (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: done by Krd per VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


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

Category:Meelick, County Clare

This category has now 4 files, so is no longer empty as stated in 2016. The Banner (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: You could have just recreated this yourself. But undeleted per request. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg

This file, a photograph of a bronze age helmet, was deleted by User:Jameslwoodward as a copyright-based restriction, but as I read the BCS license it is a non-copyright restriction, not a copyright-based one. I believe the image is allowable, though it may need a caution about possible limitations on reuse, such as {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} or {{Greek-antiquities-disclaimer}}. In discussing this with Jameslwoodward, he suggested there may be nuances in the BCS license that would benefit from review by a native Italian speaker. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I read the BCS as a restricted copyright license. If it is not a copyright license, then we have no license at all for the use of the photograph. As Tcr25 says, I agree that there may be subtleties here that I don't understand..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthven: @Friniate: for their Italian language skills and Italian copyright expertise. Abzeronow (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, in 5.2 they state that BCS is not a license : "Beni Culturali Standard (BCS) : Questa etichetta non è una “licenza” bensì si limita a sintetizzare il contenuto delle norme vigenti in materia di riproduzione di beni culturali pubblici, definendone i termini d’uso legittimo." -- Asclepias (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Asclepias, OK, but if isn't a license, then how do we keep the photograph? It's clearly a modern photograph of a 3D object, so we need a license in order to keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
With the file deleted, it's hard to know what other info was provided by the uploader. Is it a picture taken by the uploader? Is it from a museum? {{PD-art}} wouldn't apply since it isn't a 2D object, but does another valid license cover a photo of an ancient 3D object? —Tcr25 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Tcr25: source is https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detail/ArchaeologicalProperty/1100094920#lg=1&slide=1 Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I keep coming back to the BCS algins with NoC-OKLR 1.0 (No Copyright - Other Known Legal Restrictions). It doesn't appear that there is any assertion of copyright over the photo itself; the Catalogo generaledei Beni Culturali's terms and conditions mentions CC by 4.0 and the need to comply with BCS. (There is a mention of Law No. 633, but there's no indication of who the photographer is, implying that it is the property of the stated museum. If the "Data di Compilazione" (1999) is the date the image was created, then the museum's 20-year copyright would have expired, leaving just the non-copyright restriction in play. —Tcr25 (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Your conclusion seems correct. But I am not an Italian speaker either. The whole long document should be read in its entirety. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Tcr25 on the reading of the BCS license. The link to the NoC-OLKR statement contained in the BCS license is broken, but we can read it here (english version here), and it begins with Use of this item is not restricted by copyright and/or related rights. So it seems to me that the BCS license is a non-copyright restriction, since in the text of the BCS license is said that it complies to the NoC-OLKR. Adding the {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} should be sufficient for what regards the copyright on the object.
I'm much less sure about the copyright on the photo though. The terms and conditions mention indeed CC-BY-SA 4.0 (actually that is something that is valid for the entirety of the Italian Public Administration) but they also contain a specific exception for the photos, for which is clearly said that is necessary to obtain an authorization from the owner of the object (in this case the Soprintendenza Archeologica delle Marche), which will concede it with the same conditions that are applied for the photos of the object taken by other people (these). You can try to obtain an authorization from the Soprintendenza, asking if you can use these images with the Mibac-disclaimer, they may agree. Friniate (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to address the issue of the date of compilation. Yeah, it seems likely also to me that the photo was taken in the same occasion, but it's not clearly stated either... Friniate (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, I actually nominated the file for deletion because of the NoC-OLKR statement (something close to {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}). But, if it is just a request, and not a copyright statement (in fact, in the very same page it is written that BCS applies to public domain artworks), we should consider the file/photograph as published under CC BY 4.0 license, like the whole website [9]. --Ruthven (msg) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The general terms of use (which mention the CC license) begin right at the start with the familiar statement that it applies only "Dove non diversamente specificato", i.e. "Where not otherwise specified". The specific terms of use of this photograph clearly do specifiy otherwise with the BCS. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
And that's the Catch-22, the BCS says it's not a license, but if it isn't a license then the default license seems to be CC by 4.0 albeit with BCS as a non-copyright limitation on use. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The CC license is excluded by the specific terms of use statement. Not every work is under a license or another. (And if a work was not copyrighted anywhere, it could not be licensed.) If the BCS tag means that the image is not copyrighted in Italy, either because this type of image is uncopyrightable under Italian law or because a 20-year copyright has expired in Italy, the question for Commons is if and how could that unlicensed image be used in the United States? A photo published after February 1989 is directly copyrighted in the U.S. (If the URAA is added, the photo would need to be from before 1976.) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
"And if a work was not copyrighted anywhere, it could not be licensed" but that's part of the issue. The Italian cultural law, as I understand it, specifically looks to allow monetization through licensing of cultural artifacts that are no longer covered by copyright. It's not that a specific photograph requires a license, but any photograph of a cultural artifact would require a license. There is a current court case regarding the validity of this rule involving a German puzzle maker and Da Vinci's Uomo Vitruviano. Under Commons:NCR, "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia." I'm not sure where the right line is here, but I don't think that we can say there is a clear copyright-based reason to exclude the image. If the image, like other parts of the website is CC-by-4.0 with the BCS limitation, wouldn't that be the baseline for the copyright status, not an unasserted U.S. copyright? —Tcr25 (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • One thing is certain, it is that the image is not under CC BY 4.0. The photo might be in the public domain or it might be non-free, but it is not CC BY 4.0 because CC BY 4.0 is explicitly excluded by the website for such photos.
  • The nature of the BCS statement has some similarities with a "Public Domain Mark" (PDM) statement, plus non copyright restrictions. Commons accepts that the PDM can be considered as an equivalent of a release to the public domain by the copyright owner, if the PDM is issued by the copyright owner and if it is clear that the intention is to release the work in the public domain.
  • The problem with the source website Catalogo generale dei Beni Culturali is that it does not specify the initial origins of the photos, the photographers and who owns, or owned, the copyrights, including copyrights in countries other than Italy. The photos were possibly made for the respective museums. Depending on the contracts, the copyrights may have been owned by the photographers, the museums, or someone else. It is unclear how the BCS statement in the Catalogo can be interpreted. A possible meaning is something like "this photo is old enough to be in the public domain in Italy". But without details, it is not much use for Commons. If the ministry of Culture was not the owner of the copyright, the BCS cannot be interpreted as a release to the public domain by the copyright owner.
  • However, if we assumed that the ministry of Culture had somehow acquired the copyrights, we could consider the BCS as a release in the public domain worldwide. It is tempting to do so and to say that if they don't give details it's their problem. It is not very solid, but I would not object to that interpretation if there is a consensus for it. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Asclepias here it's said that the entity which classified the object (and almost surely made also the photo) was the "Soprintendenza Archeologia delle Marche", which, although local, is part of the state administration. Here we can have more informations: we learn that the card was drafted by D. De Angelis for Consorzio Skeda under the supervision of G. Baldelli, likely an employee of the ministry.
    But I agree with you that the whole claim remains not very solid. Friniate (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
If you think that it is safe to assume that one organism (e.g. a regional Soprintendenza) of the Italian governement was the owner of the copyright on a work, then if another organism (the ministry of Culture) of the same government marks that work with a BCS statement, and if there is no contradictory evidence and no stated copyright restriction, it may not be unreasonable to consider the public domain aspect of that BCS statement as applicable worldwide and equivalent to a release in the public domain in countries where copyright might otherwise have subsisted. At least, they would be in a bad position to complain that readers interpreted it that way. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'd like at least to know which was the contract between Consorzio Skeda (which is, as we can read here, a private company) and the Soprintendenza. The Soprintendenza probably supervised the process, but I think that we would need more informations in order to say that it's safe to assume that we can use the photo under US law. Friniate (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@Friniate: There is no question about the free nature of the object. The question is indeed about the nature of the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
@Asclepias Similar limitations as the BCS apply to all photos of objects classified as italian cultural heritage, also if you go to the museum and take one, for example. That is the reason why the Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer is embedded within all the photos taken within WLM Italy. Friniate (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, such photos taken by Commons contributors are not a problem because contributors necessarily release them under free licenses. Such photos by Wikimedia Commons contributors are even mentioned in section 2.4.1 of the Linee guida per l’acquisizione, la circolazione e il riuso delle riproduzioni dei beni culturali in ambiente digitale. But the photo in discussion, File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg, is not a licensed photo by a Commons contributor, but an unlicensed photo from an external site. The problem for Commons is not the Italian BC directive. It is the absence of license and the U.S. copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I just wanted to make things clear, since if the BCS license is interpreted as a copyright restriction, that would mean the deletion of all the photos on almost every italian cultural object.I let other people more expert than me in the US copyright judge if according to the US law the image is ok or not. Friniate (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, the very simple question: If the BCS is a copyright license then it is an NC license and not acceptable here. If it is not a copyright license, then we have no license for this photograph. I doubt very much that it is PD-Old, so on what basis can we keep it on Commons?

Also, statements such as "that would mean the deletion of all the photos on almost every italian cultural object." are not helpful. If we determine that this image is unlicensed then it cannot be kept. If we have many similar images that must also be deleted, so be it. We do not make decisions on copyright issues by talking about how many images will be deleted if we decide against keeping this one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I was not implying that we should keep the image for what you are saying, I only said that if commons deems as unacceptable hosting objects covered by non copyright restrictions as the BCS or the Codice Urbani, that means deleting the photos of almost all italian cultural objects. It's a fact, not an opinion, everyone can decide what to do with this fact. By the way, I was not even saying that in order to argue for undeleting this image. Friniate (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:GVT Italy, According to article 52, paragraph 2 of the Digital Administration Code, data and documents published by Italian public administrations without any explicit license are considered "open by default" (with exception of personal data). In this case, data and documents without explicit license can be used for free, also for commercial purpose, like CC-BY license or with attribution. Since the photo is a work of the Soprintendenza Archeologia delle Marche, the COM:GVT Italy statement would seem to apply. If the BCS considered a copyright restriction, despite its language, then this does become a wider problem, as Friniate noted. Regardless of the decision around this specific image, I think there needs to be broader consideration of how the BCS limitation is considered/handled. Also, this discussion, once it's closed, should probably be attached to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg to update/expand the deletion rationale. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
On this matter we have finally a verdict on the lawsuit of the Italian Ministry against Ravensburger for the usage of images of the en:Vitruvian Man, which has clarified that restrictions as the Codice Urbani or the BCS are non-copyright restrictions which can not be applied outside Italy. Friniate (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Again (third time) -- if the BCS is not a copyright license, then we have no license for the photograph. Apparently it is not a copyright license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
So how do you parse the COM:GVT Italy statement that such images can be used without an explicit license? —Tcr25 (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The reference for that part of the page is a broken link. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Here's a Wayback machine link for that reference: [10] I believe the pertinent part is on page 84: "In conclusione, ai sensi dell’art. 52 del CAD, la mancata indicazione di una licenza associata ai dati già pubblicati implica che gli stessi si ritengano di tipo aperto secondo le caratteristiche principali sancite dall’art. 68 del CAD, già richiamato nell’introduzione delle presenti linee guida (principio dell’Open Data by default)." The guidelines were updated in 2017 [11] and the executive summary seems to be stepping back from that broad statement, but I don't trust my Italian enough to understand the full thinking. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

A brave administrator will have to decide this difficult case one way or another. For consistency, the case also has the potential to impact many other files. A possibility can be this: Unless there is reason to believe otherwise, when a photograph is tagged by an organism of the Italian government with the tag "Beni Culturali Standard" (BCS), it is assumed that the organism has the legal right to make the public domain statement included in the BCS tag and that the public domain statement is meant to apply worldwide (i.e. equivalent to a release in the public domain by the copyright owner, if necessary), while the non-copyright restriction also included in the BCS tag does not prevent the hosting on Commons. It could be expressed, as the case may be, by the use of existing templates, such as "PD-copyright holder" plus "Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer", (or PD-Italy when clearly applicable), or by the creation of a new template specific for the BCS tag. Another possibility can be to decide that such photos cannot be hosted on Commons because of the precautionary principle. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

What was the original copyright tag for it in the United States and was or is it assumed to be valid? (I assume CC-BY-SA 4.0 but it doesn't seem clear from the conversation if the license actually applies or not). --Adamant1 (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This request has been open for 48 days. The topic did not attract comments on the Village Pump/Copyright. In the broader context, in which this file is one among many, the easier solution would probably be to undelete this file, instead of launching a massive investigation to delete other files. It would be better if the ministry was explicit about why the images are in the public domain. In short, do they know what they're doing? But maybe we were too cautious. After all, people can hardly be said at fault for believing the statement when the file is explicitly tagged copyright-free at the official website of the ministry of Culture. Must we assume that their statement might be wrong unless we corroborate it? Must we investigate each image that they state copyright-free? It's good to do more research when possible, but it may be acceptable to assume that their statements are correct unless proven incorrect. If this file is kept, the remaining question, which applies to other similar files, is what status tag can be used on Commons, in such cases where we're not sure what reason explains the BCS statement. The files could probably be tagged for what they are, with a template for the BCS statement. I suggested this possibility for a possible "Template:BCS". Maybe someone who is good at creating templates can do something with it. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Asclepias We have already Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer, that I'd say covers the issue pretty much. Friniate (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Friniate: "Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer" adresses only the non-copyright restriction, it does not address at all the copyright status of the files. The purpose of the first part of "Template:BCS" is to address the copyright-free aspect of the BCS statement. As you can see in my draft suggestion, "Template:BCS" would include integrally "Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer" as its second part. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Asclepias Ah, my bad, I had misunderstood sorry. Friniate (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This (allowing the image with a BCS template caution) is the solution that makes the most sense to me. The sandboxed template looks good to me too. —Tcr25 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd still like to know what license would be valid in the United States for these files since a BCS template caution wouldn't work on it's own because we need both. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
It would be the BCS statement "No copyright" for the United States as well. The official BCS statement explicitly links to the "No copyright-OKLR" statement of the International Rights Statements, designed by cultural institutions of the United States and Europe for international use. To schematize: [BCS] = ["No copyright" but "MiBAC non-copyright restriction"], which in standardized terms is [NoC-OKLR] = ["No copyright" but "other known legal restrictions"]. We prefer an explicit public domain rationale when possible, but Commons accepts, as valid tags, the statements of "No known copyright" by various institutions. As mentioned in the documentation of the International Rights Statements, a statement telling that there is "No copyright" is even stronger than a statement telling that there is "No known copyright". In principle, unless specified otherwise, an institution that issues a "No copyright" statement that explicitly refers to the standardized rights statements can be expected to mean "No copyright" including in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear: although a possible creation of a specific template for BCS could be useful in the future for many such files hosted on Commons, that is not necessary right now for a decision about the undeletion or not of this particular file. If the file is undeleted, the existing templates such as PD-because + MiBAC can do. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Asclepias. @Tcr25: Please add the necessary templates. --Yann (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:LogoJavad.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a historical coat of arms. Source and reference also available. Sword313 (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The original may be in the public domain, but there is no evidence that this design is also in the public domain. --Yann (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:KAIT 2023.svg

Not a fanmade logo; in actual use Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Support It is the logo of the TV station, see https://www.kait8.com/programming/. As only alphanumeric, it is ineligible for copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


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

Images of Colonia Rosa Maltoni Mussolini

Hi everyone, I'm writing in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

All these images were deleted after this DR in 2013. They all depict the it:Colonia Rosa Maltoni Mussolini, a summer camp built for the children of the railway and postal workers, commissioned by the Ministry for Communications to en:Angiolo Mazzoni (see here and here for more informations), who, as already pointed out in three previous UDRs (see here, here and here) at that time was chief engineer at that Ministry. It was therefore a work for hire for the national Ministry, and since the works were finished in 1935, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov at least since 1956. It is a building built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Friniate: Please add the template to the files. --Yann (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Rural settlements of Russia with the population over 10 and share of Ukrainians over 25 percent, 2002 census.png

Could you please tell me if it's possible to renew this file? I cannot find it on my laptop to upload it again and to add the missing info which was the reason of its deletion, but I'd like to make necessary changes if the renewal is possible. Thanks. --Andrijko Z. (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Andrijko Z.: The problem (as I see it) was that you apparently used some blank map of Russia for your file and did not say which map that was. Maps are generally copyrighted. There are some maps under free licenses which are acceptable for Commons, so if you used one of those, the file is fine for Wikimedia Commons. If you used a map which is not under a free license however, the map is not ok for Wikimedia Commons. Which map did you use? --Rosenzweig τ 22:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig I think it was this one. I used the same for other maps of regions, "cutting" them out of it. I added it as a primary source in my other maps. Thank you!--Andrijko Z. (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Andrijko Z.: Yes, that looks ok. Please add the source map to the file. Thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 23:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Thank you so much!--Andrijko Z. (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Red backgroung with text.jpg

i have edited and designed that phto and also there is no any company which has a trademark like that. so please undel the photo so that i can host it on my web page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivonyking777 (talk • contribs) 7 June 2024‎ (UTC08:51)

 Oppose If, as you say, there are no companies with this as a logo then the image is of no educational use and is out of scope. Commons is not a Webhost. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


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

File:Abdulqawiyusuf.jpg

File was deleted because of a copyright violation of some random tweet. The file originated from the ICJ website---not a tweet---so it is copyright exempt. See [12] and [13]Blindlynx (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The copyright exempt from the first link states "material is made available to the press, schools and universities free of charge for editorial use (copyrights exempt).", and the second one states "Publicly accessible material produced by the Court may be used free of charge for educational and editorial purposes, provided that its source is clearly cited, credit is given to the Court, and the material is not used in a way that alters its original meaning.". These are no free licenses. They should allow the usage to anyone not only educational institutions and the material should allow derivative works. Günther Frager (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:"Beautiful Erect human penis".jpg,File:00 human erect penis.jpg,File:00 human penis erection.jpg,File:Penis erection 877.jpg,File:" human male Pre-ejaculation".jpg

These pictures reveal the anatomy and the structure of human penis. They contribute to the understanding of human genitalia. These pictures contains some other penises of Asian. Wikipedia Commons has many pictures of penis but the most part of them are White's. Pictures I uploaded have unieqness and they contribute to the knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom-dom fi-fi (talk • contribs) 02:58, 8 June 2024‎ (UTC)

  •  Keep deleted I find nothing special about these photos and we already have lots of penis images. Asian, White, Latino or Black, the penis is still a penis. --Bedivere (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Bedivere, these are dick pics that don't have any educational value, and there's nothing unique about the penises or the photography of them. Abzeronow (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Swaroopinii Narayan.jpg

The image used, is from a photoshoot of the actor, for whom the Wikipedia page is being created. The image is available for usage by anyone, as it belongs to the actor herself, and doesn't involve any copyright issues. Usage of the image will enhance visibility for the actor's page as it is much needed in showbiz. Hence, request you to please undelete the image.


Ebook1190 (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose We need an explicit permission from the photographer via COM:VRT. Photographs are protected by copyright and that it is available in Facebook doesn't make it in the public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Ensign_of_the_post-ANC_South_African_Defence_Force.svg

This flag exists on Deviantart (link below)

https://www.deviantart.com/alexander517/art/1061489638 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander517 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 8 June 2024‎ (UTC)

 Info "Published:10 mins ago" at deviantart.com.
 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alexander517. Thuresson (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. Deleted again. --Yann (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

ARBITRARY DELETION OF MARINESE (SEALANDIC) HERALDRY

Arbitrary target towards my contributions on heraldry of planned municipalities to be created by your majesty Prince Michael I of Sealand, as well as the non-official coat of arms of Fort Roughs (the country's current capital city). All of the files were marked as fictional to note that, for now, those files ought to not be taken seriously by someone doing research through Wikimedia Commons, but the flag would be removed once the project your majesty has in place would eventually start. I therefore politely ask for the undeletion of said files, as the only reason provided for their deletion is in fact that, for now, they would not be able to be used in any Wikipedia article (obviously). Thanks for your time.

The list of deleted files is in my talk page, done by Enyavar.

Yours faithfully, Avelino Calvache (aka. Errioxako-Errepublica) Errioxako-Errepublica (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Info Files deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Errioxako-Errepublica as out of scope.
 Oppose unless the scope issues raised in the abovementioned DR are addressed (eg. pointing out accepted Wikipedia articles where the images can be used - one or two per article). Ankry (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry -- The images are out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive&oldid=837992578"