Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Ruthven: @Friniate: for their Italian language skills and Italian copyright expertise. Abzeronow (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Tcr25: source is https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detail/ArchaeologicalProperty/1100094920#lg=1&slide=1 Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [1]. --Ruthven (msg) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The reference for that part of the page is a broken link. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Wayback machine link for that reference: [2] 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 [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Asclepias Ah, my bad, I had misunderstood sorry. Friniate (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

File:Fortepan 213815.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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 [4].
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
{{Temporarily undeleted}} per Carl request. Ankry (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Adding VRTS ticket templates is currently restricted t VRT users by abusefilter. Ankry (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also over 1900 other photos are not categorized in that category. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

File:JDC 2024 ESL Pro League Season 19 by BIG CLAN.png[edit]

This file got uploaded with a screenshot based on the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJhuFF-tvQ&ab_channel=BIGCLAN with the licence "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)". I am not sure if I made a mistake, but previous uploads from the same source with the same license are still available. For example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xantares_in_2020.jpg WikJonah (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikJonah: You provided another video ([5]) as a source. It is not under the CC license. Ankry (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. I also recognized that not all videos from this channel have a CC license. I think I just copied the wrong link after uploading the picture, but the uploaded picture is definitely from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJhuFF-tvQ&ab_channel=BIGCLAN with the licence "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed). WikJonah (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stema e Komunës Mitrovicë e Veriut.svg[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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: [[7]]; North Mitrovica's official site: [[8]]. AceDouble (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Placa_Simón_del_Desierto_-_Filmoteca_UNAM.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

  •  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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

Undeletion files Request[edit]

Undeletion files Request

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

File:جلد نمایشنامه همین امشب.jpg[edit]

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

@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)[reply]

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

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

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

File:TabukGold.jpg[edit]

Hi, it seems the file File:TabukGold.jpg has been deleted, according to reasons stating "A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license." However, the source of which the image was taken and uploaded to commons from the following: https://www.deviantart.com/marcusburns1977/art/TabukGold-1050089119 is actually visibly licensed as 'Creative Commons 3.0" and is thus in fact, free to use under those terms. Who-ever opted for its speedy deletion request probably did so mistakenly, possibly not having seen that written license. Paraxade13 (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade and Krd: Any reason not to believe that the license has been granted by the author / copyright holder? Ankry (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a real weapon or an AI creation? If it's an AI creation, it is out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is a different angle/perspective, but it appears Saddam Hussein had a gold AK-47 that is similar in appearance. Whether this is an original photo of that or an artistic rendering of it is unclear to me. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Deviantart is full of stolen photos. I don't believe the same Deviantart user owns the copyright both to this photo and and to the technical drawings of the F-4 Phantom. Thuresson (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though the site status regarding IP ownership between users may sometimes be questionable, it shouldn't be discounted that there indeed still exist many real users, even notable ones, who do indeed upload and keep, original artistic works there. Acknowledged user Thuresson's opinion against is made in good faith, but doesn't seem to provide much objective information as to the particular IP status of the work currently in discussion, outside of just a blanket generalization? Paraxade13 (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pendatang.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

(s) 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

File:Peugeot logo (1991-1998).png[edit]

I apologize, I don't see any intention of uploading images without permission, it was a misunderstanding.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=880765938"