Commons:Undeletion requests

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

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: alsarbarbnbebe-taraskcaeleneteofafifrfrrhehrhyidisitjalbltlvmkmsptroruslsrthtrttukvizh+/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file had been deleted per this DR due to "Logos are not covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} or {{GWOIA}}" and then it was re-uploaded by User:人人生來平等.

However, according to the email response by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office "故政府機關之部徽、署徽或局徽,如其形式係依法所制訂者,依著作權法第9條,不得為著作權之標的。" (English Machine Translation: "Therefore, the emblems of ministries, departments or bureaus of government agencies, if their forms are made in accordance with the law, shall not be the subject of copyright in accordance with Article 9 of the Copyright Law." ) Since this logo is the Seal of Ministry of National Defense, in my opinion, it is not copyrighted and is covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} . The previous delete decision should be overturned and the previous page history also need to be recovered. cc @Wcam, Mdaniels5757, and Ericliu1912: Thanks. SCP-2000 18:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SCP-2000: If the emblem is made in accordance with the law, such law needs to be specified. In the email you quote, the national flag is defined in 中華民國國徽國旗法第4條, and the Taipei City's seal is defined in 臺北市市徽市旗設置自治條例第4條. A seal/emblem/logo is only in the PD if it is based on a law. Wcam (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, it is based on 《陸海空軍軍旗條例施行細則》第五條. Looks ok to keep. --Wcam (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. (And should recover all revision history altogether) —— Eric LiuTalk 23:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The revision history of File:Seal of the Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of China.svg should be merged with this file if the latter get restored. —— Eric LiuTalk 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only this file (to request restoration of all deleted revisions) or for all deleted files of that DR? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only this file. Wcam (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bonjour, désolé je ne suis pas un spécialiste de wikipedia mais je ne comprends pas pourquoi la photo dont je suis l'auteur a été refusée sur la page de "Nicolas et Bruno" que j'actualise régulièrement.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_et_Bruno

Je me suis sans doute trompé dans la définition de la licence. Je souhaite que cette photo soit libre de droit, dans le domaine public, sans restriction d'un quelconque copyright.

Parallèlement on m'a informé que ma photo a été utilisée sur le site Focus-cinema, mais à l'époque avec mon autorisation. >>>> Reason for the nomination: file under copyright (See https://www.focus-cinema.com/7741868/what-we-do-in-the-shadows-vampires-entre-toute-intimite-sortira-fin-octobre-en-france/)

Pouvez-vous m'aider et me donner la procédure pour que ma modification soit possible? Ou pouvez-vous le faire vous-même?

Merci d'avance pour votre aide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmsChecker (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FilmsChecker: Bonjour,
Avez-vous l'image originale ? Si oui, vous pourriez l'importer pour prouver que vous êtes bien le photographe. Si non, il faudra confirmer la licence par email en suivant la procédure à COM:VRT/fr. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merci Yann pour votre réponse! Ça y est, je crois que ça a fonctionné!! Merci beaucoup. FilmsChecker (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The image as uploaded has a black border and appears in a number of places on the web. It is only 640px square. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Question Isn't this resolution a standard for this camera model? Ankry (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha -- I think you are probably right, but it does appear in a number of places without a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do any of those other places include the EXIF? The one I found does not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support undeletion of the deleted version as the uploader was able to upload the version with EXIF. However, this is probably not meaningfull at the momen as the original version is not deleted~and I see no reason to do so. Ankry (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ankry has a valid point. Unless there is an indication from any uploaders site, appearances on other places doesn't matter. The higher version is here and the uploader is of course not spamming (or wrongly regarding others work as own). ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And also:

I created the picture myself. So please restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User85521 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The image was deleted by User:MGA73 together with some copyvios, however, in my opinion it qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}} as well as File:Infinity Train series logo.png. The image was used in plwiki. Ankry (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support This isn't probably a complex logo. Michalg95 (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support The logo is just text and some lines. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: See above. @Ankry: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reason: The original reason of the delete was it's an "exact or scaled-down duplicate of File:Jebi Aug 03 2013 0605Z.jpg." However, the image in question was a scaled-up version I made in MS Paint, and did not have good quality. Therefore, I request for the original image to be brought back. 👦 14:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, How a scaled-up version made in MS Paint in in scope for Commons? Yann (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I got confused by my wording there. The deleted image was the original file, while this file was the scaled-up one, although I reverted it. It should be within COM:EDUSE. 👦 03:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image was taken during Baldó's military service during World War I, between 1914 and 1918, and Carlos Meyer Baldó died in 1933. The image's age means that it already is in the public domain per {{PD-old}}, and in the worst case scenario media enters in Venezuela's public domain after 60 years of its publication ({{PD-Venezuela}}). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NoonIcarus: When was this photo first published in Venezuela? Thuresson (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NoonIcarus: Who is the photographer and has she or he been dead for 70 years? Thuresson (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment If the above questions remain unresponded, {{PD-old-assumed}} can be applied in 2039. Ankry (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The picture was first published in 1918, along with other pictures ([1]), during Baldó's service as an instructor (Fluglehrer) at the Fighter Squadron School Nr. II to train Jasta pilots. The copyright law in Venezuela does not consider the author's death for media such as photographs (unlike music, for instance), but rather its publication date. At any rate, {{PD-US-expired}} also applies given that the picture was published before 1928. Best wishes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deleted file appears to have a modern colorization, which could have its own copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Was it already in its original version or was it added by an user? In the case of the former, I can withdraw my request and ask for undeletion to be applied in the respective years (like 2039). --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is only one version that we have (the colorized version). Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose The template "PD-Old" can not be used without knowing who the photographer is and when she or he died. "PD-Venezuela" can not be used without providing the authorship and publication details. If the photo was first published on Twitter, it may be undeleted in 2081. Thuresson (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image was not first published in Twitter (Twitter's version is black and white while the deleted one is colorized, for instance). It was simply provided for context about the other images it was first published with. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Peer NoonIcarus --Wilfredor (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

... as well as the entire batch of photos that was deleted with it on December 24th. Please consult Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Athenee_Palace_Hilton.JPG --Bukarester (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bukarester: Probably support, but could you find Théophile Bradeau's death date? Yann (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Information is unavailable, but
2024 - 70 = 1954
Life expectancy for a male in France in 1954 was 67.69 according to this
Means he must have been less than around 25.69 years old at the start of the construction of the hotel in 1912, which, as an established French architect who had the opportunity to build a world class hotel abroad, he was not.
My work can be deleted if you can prove otherwise. --Bukarester (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bukarester: The file is deleted, so your permission is irrelevant at the moment.
It is up to the uploader to provide an evidence about the copyright status, not up to anybody else to prove otherwise.
Life expectancy is an average value; about 50% people is expected to live longer. Why do you think that he is in the other 50%? For unknown cases we have {{PD-old-assumed}} as a policy. But this needs us to wait till 2033. Ankry (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be useful if we have a date when Théophile Bradeau started working. So if for example, he started working before 1900, we can assume that he died before 1954. Yann (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least, he is not in the database of death in France (from 1970 onwards). Yann (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry I didn't know about {{PD-old-assumed}} being a rule, it's not mentioned or linked on any of the informative pages on the topic. I thought common sense would prevail - to have you understand my point from before, Bradeau couldn't have possibly been under 40 years old designing a project of such importance and technical/logistical difficulty in 1912. --Bukarester (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if we agreed with this guess at Bradeau's age in 1912, he could have lived to 95 and died in 1967 per your logic. There are too many unknowns to be certain Bradeau died before 1954. Abzeronow (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose per Ankry. If we don't know the death date, the cutoff is 120 years from creation. So we would need to wait until 2033 unless a death date that we can verify is found or if Romania introduces a FoP that is acceptable to Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done, Théophile Bradeau (Q20870685) has a Wikidata entry since 2015, please make a new request if information about year of death can be found. Thuresson (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Predlagam (PROSIM ZA OBNOVITEV) preklic izbrisa fotografije - File:Natalija-seruga-golob-2023.jpg – ki je bila del Wikipedijine strani o slikarki (Natalija Šeruga Golob) Fotografijo sem posnel sam osebno. Na fotografiji je Natalija Šeruga Golob (moja žena - ki soglaša z objavo fotografije) pred svojimi slikami na njeni razstavi v MMC KIBLA/KiBela, Maribor 2023. Fotografijo sem posnel 19. septembra 2023 s fotoaparatom FUJIFILM x20 in jo malo obrezal s Photoshopom. PROSIM za preklic izbrisa fotografije. Milangolob (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 OpposeYou are not your wife and while you have given a free license for the photograph, she must give a free license to the copyrights for the paintings using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PLEASE advise what I (the author of the photo) and my wife (the author of the paintings) need to do to get this photo published on wikimedia (wikipedia).THANK YOU. Milangolob (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is also link to exhibiton of Natalija Šeruga Golob in MMC KIBLA/KiBela Maribor 2023. Milangolob (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Milangolob: The artist (your wife) must send a proper permission by e-mail, following the guidelines you can find at COM:VRT. --Rosenzweig τ 21:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THANKS. I will inform my wife, tha she must send permission by e-mail. Milangolob (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My wife sent permission for this photo. Thank you. Milangolob (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My wife sent permission for this photo. Thank you. Milangolob (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 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 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Predlagam (PROSIM ZA OBNOVITEV) preklic izbrisa fotografije - File:Razstava-natalije-seruga-golob-kibla-2023.jpg – ki je bila del Wikipedijine strani o slikarki (Natalija Šeruga Golob). Fotografijo sem posnel sam osebno. Na fotografiji je del (detajl) razstave Natalija Šeruga Golob (moja žena - ki soglaša z objavo fotografije) v MMC KIBLA/KiBela, Maribor 2023. Fotografijo sem posnel 18. septembra 2023 s fotoaparatom FUJIFILM x20 in jo malo obrezal s Photoshopom. PROSIM za preklic izbrisa fotografije. Milangolob (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose You are not your wife and while you have given a free license for the photograph, she must give a free license to the copyrights for the paintings using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PLEASE advise what I (the author of the photo) and my wife (the author of the paintings) need to do to get this photo published on wikimedia (wikipedia).THANK YOU.
Here is also link to exhibiton of Natalija Šeruga Golob in MMC KIBLA/KiBela Maribor 2023. Milangolob (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Milangolob: The artist (your wife) must send a proper permission by e-mail, following the guidelines you can find at COM:VRT. --Rosenzweig τ 21:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THANKS. I will inform my wife, tha she must send permission by e-mail. Milangolob (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My wife sent permission for this photo. Thank you. Milangolob (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My wife sent permission for this photo. Thank you. Milangolob (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 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 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Team, Regarding the next uploads from the user IchibanNOAH, I propose undeleting his first upload of Dr Death Steve Williams. --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg

Buenas, necesito que algún administrador restaure la imagen por que la Bandera del Municipio Libertador de Caracas, Venezuela es una invención por eso está en el Dominio Público según el Articulo 325 de la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, Trabajadores y Trabajadoras en Venezuela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Commons:Coats of arms, each rendering can have its own copyright. Was this a user-drawn version or copied from a copyrighted source? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg:Buenas, pero en el artículo 325 dice:Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras en el sector público
La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora.
El {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} aplica directamente a los Logos, Banderas y escudos de Armas por que son invencionales (significa se basa en la imaginación de los autores osea personas.) AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned in the other discussions you started last week about art. 325 at HD and VP/C, that argument is not necessarily convincing without authoritative interpretation by courts or doctrine and without evidence that these artworks by independent artists meet the factual conditions. Even if hypothetically it applied, that would be for the Venezuelan copyright, not for the United States copyright. However, the concept of the flag designed in 2022 by María Jiménez and Víctor Rodríguez might be (or not) too simple for copyright, but even then, each particular artistic rendering of it can be copyrighted. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg:Aquí esta las fuentes https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-04-21/el-chavismo-entierra-el-legado-espanol-del-escudo-de-caracas-400-anos-despues.html AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the source for the escudo at File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png. The question by Clindberg was what is the source of the particular rendering of the bandera in File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas aquí esta la fuente:https://eldiario.com/2023/10/12/nuevos-simbolos-de-caracas-concejo-municipal/amp/ AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of the particular svg rendering in File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statement by the uploader in the original upload log was "own work". Pinging the uploader User:Salvadoroff. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Echando una mano: Buenas y Feliz Año, por favor una pregunta es posible restaurar la foto de la Bandera de Caracas (2022) con respecto a este tema??
AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: lo siento, no lo sé. Feliz año a usted también. Echando una mano 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's truly a vector version drawn by a contributor, I'd lean towards keeping it. If it was extracted from a PDF of a government source (or is an SVG wrapper around a bitmap taken from another unlicensed source), then I'd go the other way. I would treat each drawing as its own copyright (even the choice of vector points in an SVG can in theory have a copyright, if complex enough, beyond the rendered image). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg:Buenas, con respecto a la Bandera, aquí esta las fuentes:https://eldiario.com/2023/10/12/nuevos-simbolos-de-caracas-concejo-municipal/amp/ AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Given that any drawing must be derived from the original 2022 design by Jiménez and Rodríguez, do you evaluate that their work is below or above the threshold for copyrightability? The composition with the triangles of colour, the star and the mountain is not as simple as bands of colour, but it's not very complex either. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Often the design is an idea, with each drawing a particular expression of that idea. That is more straightforward with seals with a written blazon -- a drawing cannot be derivative of the written description. But in general we seem to allow self-drawn images of flags too. Furthermore, as far as the design is part of law, that part would be {{PD-EdictGov}}. Any additions done by a private party (even particular vector points) may qualify for copyright though, so we often look at the history of the specific drawing. If it's the flag as seen here, the only part which may be copyrightable is the very specific outline of the mountain or hill or treetops or whatever that is, which likely differs a little between versions and so they may well not be derivative of each other. If that image was self-drawn without slavishly copying the outline, I would restore it. A lot of this gets into highly theoretical territory, as it would probably be near impossible for a country or city to sue over copyright infringement of a flag, where the scope of fair use and PD-edict is probably pretty wide. I think as such, we would respect any copyright of a privately-drawn version, but if self-drawn it's probably fine. (Individual government drawings may not be OK though; we tend to not copy those from websites.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas ,por favor lee el Artículo 2 del Derechos de Autor en Venezuela,en que está sometidos los derechos del Autor?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: Hi, What about it? If it's still about its scope, I already commented in your thread last month at Commons:Help desk/Archive/2023/12#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas, una pregunta que pasaría si el Artículo 325 de la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo los Trabajadores y Trabajadoras en Venezuela es Constitucional, es posible restaurar la foto de la Bandera?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: A) Constitutionality is only one of several questions to which we do not have answers for now. Other questions, already mentioned above, are B) can the intended goal and scope of 325 include this type of artistic works and, if so, C) does the particular work meet its conditions of application? (Did the two authors get any money and, even then, would their flag proposal be considered "financiada" solely for winning the first prize in the contest?) Again, all that sounds like specialized matters of Venezuelan law. Getting reliable answers require research in court decisions and doctrinal texts or the help of jurists in Venezuelan law. However, and fortunately, we probably do not need to consider that at all here. From the above discussions, if the original flag is considered to be below the "Umbral de originalidad" ("threshold of originality"), both in Venezuela and in the United States, and if the subsequent svg drawing is considered to be the own work of the uploader, then this file with the flag could be undeleted under that rationale only. (It is different for the other file with the coat of arms, wich is above the threshold of originality and directly reproduced.) -- Asclepias (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iris_Browser.png

The logo does not appear to go over the threshold of originality. It is just a simple circle of shapes in a nondescript color of red with no other identifying features. Looking at the TOO page, a similar example logo that was allowed to be uploaded was the Car Credit City logo which is also just a series of shapes in the color red. The original deletion request also seems noncommittal about whether it, or the other logos included in the request, went over the threshold. I wish for this logo to be reinstated so I can put it on its article again for archival purposes. It's a defunct web browser for a defunct operating system made by a defunct company. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Bonjour, vous avez supprimé une image que j'ai créé moi même et déposé sur wikipedia commons, pourriez-vous la restaurer s'il vous plait ? Si j'ai mal suivi une étape serait-il possible de restaurer l'image et me dire quoi corriger svp ? merci d'avance (Nicolas4853) 10:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment No source, no date, no author, no license, no description... Yann (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Serait-il possible de restaurer le fichier pour que je puisse ajouter les informations manquantes s'il vous plait ? (Nicolas4853) 16:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nicolas4853: Merci d'ajouter la description et la date. Yann (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Les informations que je viens d'ajouter correspondent à ce qui est requis s'il vous plait ? (Nicolas4853) 20:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under the threshold of originality. Strakhov (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to file usage in es.wikipedia, this advertising should have been published in Diario de Cádiz before 1915. Strakhov (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

This is a video still from my footage at Comic Con in NYC, I'm not sure why it was deleted or even flagged. Please let me know, thanks. Tduk (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tduk: Please check with Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard why ticket 2023051510000991 was not accepted. Thuresson (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Closing, OP must check with OTRS to get requested information. Thuresson (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

這個照片是來自個人的當年照片的電子掃描副本— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloped3846 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 6 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google translate: "This photo is an electronically scanned copy of the individual's photo from the current year"

 Oppose You need to put forth arguments relating to copyright before this photo can be undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I confirm that I'm the owner of this opera, and I have necessary rights in order to publish the mentioned photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlemmi (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mlemmi: How did it came about that you have those rights? Thuresson (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, as i wrote I'm the owner of this opera. I received it with a notarial deed. At the moment the mentioned opera is on loan to the Futurism exhibition in Matera until april 2023.
Il Futurismo meridionale in mostra a Palazzo Lanfranchi (museimatera.it) Mlemmi (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but how did you acquire the copyright? Thuresson (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose OP do not respond to a relevant question concerning copyright. Thuresson (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

als Vorsitzender des Wissenschaftlichen Beirates der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Ordenskunde e. V. beantrage ich hiermit die Wiederherstellung des oben benannten Digitalisates mit nachfolgender Begründung: 1. Die Abbildung des Covers von Heft 93 des OuE-Magazins ist insoweit urheberrechtlich unbedenklich, da a) die Zeitschrift von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Ordenskunde herausgegeben wird und daher keine Urheberrechtsverletzung vorliegt, d. h. die Rechte für die Veröffentlichung der Zeitschrift liegen automatisch bei der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Ordenskunde und b) die Farbabbildung auf dem Cover ist einer Publikation aus dem Jahr 1868, so dass auch hier alle Urheberrechte abgelaufen sind. Vor diesem Hintergrund bitte ich Sie, die Löschung der Abbildung rückgängig zu machen.

--MBPen (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support The cover shows this 1857 illustration by Ludwig Burger, who died in 1884, so no copyright problems there. The logo on the upper left is File:DGOLogo.png, which is below COM:TOO Germany in my opinion. It's not older than 1974 though because the de:Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ordenskunde was founded in that year. --Rosenzweig τ 21:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: as per Rosenzweig. @DGO e.V. and MBPen: Please add categories. You could upload to Commons the source image mentioned above, it would be useful. --Yann (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Matthias Alward am Orgelpositiv in der Sakristei der St. Marienkirche Beeskow

Hello why is this Picture delete? Sorry, ma Englsih ist not so good and I do'nt understand everything. This Phot o is my own, I am the photographer.


 Not done: as per Infrogmation. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The image is that of my own copyright and was taken in 1961 while the subject of the photo was in the Government. As the image is under the copyright of me, and it's been 60+ years (as accordance to Indian copyright laws), there is no need to delete this image. --Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said in Commons:Deletion requests/File:HKL Bhagat Gov Photo.gif, it could be public domain in India, but there is also the matter of URAA which would have restored the U.S. copyright of this image. And the only way you could have the copyright to the photograph is if you were the photographer, which for a 1961 photograph I find unlikely. Abzeronow (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photograph was taken in 1907 as part of the GWR standard procedure for recording new (or in this case rebuilt) locomotives. The name of the photographer was never recorded, and in any case since it was taken in the course of their employment, the copyright was held by the company. This photograph has been published in 'Churchward Locomotives: A Pictorial History' (Haresnape & Swain 1976 ISBN 0711006970) p102 with no photographer's name. -- Verbarson  talkedits 21:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support as original nominator. This was first published way before 1976, and there is now evidence that a reasonable search cannot determine the original photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: PD-UK-unknown. --Yann (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Greetings!

Photo was taken by the relatives of the passed away Sayfullo. This photo is from family archive and has no copyright terms. Therefore, kindly ask you to undelete it.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardasher92 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 6 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saidov Sayfullo - portrait photo.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per Thuresson -- Even family album photographs have copyrights and the USA copyright for this will exist into the next century. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

This file uploaded under common share and like policy because this file is uploaded in social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and news. This file has no copyrights and originally published in 1971.

For example:- In Facebook and news

  1. 1.The Bhinmal city नगर पालिका https://www.facebook.com/share/p/49fkfix9quAZztsb/?mibextid=qi2Omg
  2. 2. जालौर-राजस्थान https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100070912986755&mibextid=ZbWKwL
  3. 3. रावणा सरदार
  4. 4. Jalore News https://www.jalorenews.com/2023/06/Kanha-and-Valiya-dacoits-Story-of-Khukhal-dacoits-of-Jalore-district.html?m=1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by P S chalukya (talk • contribs) 03:45, 7 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Indian images from 1971 are under a copyright at least until 2032 in India, possibly longer in USA due to COM:URAA. Yann (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is not any copy rights on this file. This file was published in many news paper and many site
. It was under free of copy right. P S chalukya (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see Commons:Deletion requests/File:The last photo dacoits of Bhinmal.jpg .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

--P S chalukya (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This file uploaded under common share and like policy because this file is uploaded in social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and news. This file has no copyrights and originally published in 1971.Reply[reply]

For example:- In Facebook and news

  1. 1.The Bhinmal city नगर पालिका https://www.facebook.com/share/p/49fkfix9quAZztsb/?mibextid=qi2Omg
  2. 2. जालौर-राजस्थान https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100070912986755&mibextid=ZbWKwL
  3. 3. रावणा सरदार
  4. 4. Jalore News https://www.jalorenews.com/2023/06/Kanha-and-Valiya-dacoits-Story-of-Khukhal-dacoits-of-Jalore-district.html?m=1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by P S chalukya (talk • contribs) 03:46, 7 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Indian images from 1971 are under a copyright at least until 2032 in India, possibly longer in USA due to COM:URAA. Yann (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Dear Team, This Image is a scanned image. And the Clip is my fathers collections from late 1980's. Even, today we retain it. But, it is considered to be old magazine, which can be made available in a library for public access. I assure you that this wouldn't violate any copyrights please. Kindly make this image available for everyone's knowledge. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midchak97 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 7 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Indian images are under a copyright for at least 60 years in India, possibly longer in USA due to COM:URAA. Yann (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Flickr images that were deleted due to license changes

Please restore the following images, as they were ever released under permissive CC licenses according to their Flickr license history pages.

0x0a (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The last one looks like it was licensed CC-BY for only a couple of minutes (i.e. a mistake quickly corrected). We need to make sure these were copied from Flickr at a time they were freely licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Support CC licences can't be revoked. Michalg95 (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It turned out that only one image had a valid license. And I couldn't find any freely licensed copies for the other images. 0x0a (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: except one. --Yann (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

This file was once deleted on Commons, but it's now in the public domain because its autor died over 70 years ago. Please undelete it. Michalg95 (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done: PD now. --Yann (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: es ist mein Tochter das Bild entstand Sofia Bulgarien nach der Finalkampf wo sie Europameisterin geworden ist in der Zeit raum wahre ich auch dort habe die Medaille und die Urkunde Adsız.76 (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Oppose - One does not own a copyright because their offspring is the subject. This was previously published, thus requiring additional evidence of permission per COM:VRT. Such permission must be provided by the copyright holder (initially vesting in the author), which is reported to be the Boxing Federation ("Foto: Boxing Federation"). Эlcobbola talk 19:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image represents a 3D sofa set modeled in the Blender program and its coverings adjusted. It is an example of 3D models created for video games in the Blender program.

It was reported that the reason for deleting the image was because the products sold on the website were spam.

The sofa set in the image is a mod made for The Sims 4. And these mods are offered for free on the website. The image uploaded here is not taken from the game. They were made in the open source blender program.

The purpose of the images here is not advertising. It is an example of 3D objects made by fans for games. Pentapixel (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The terms of service at the source site are far from our requirements. They are explicitly revocable and explicitly forbid commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward There is a statement saying "Do not use without a license", but the necessary permissions have been given to Wikipedia in writing. Still, I informed the site that they should update that section to be more clear. You can check again. Pentapixel (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While they show a CC license for the images, the site explicitly states that they may change anything on the site at any time. Such a spcific statement overrules the fact that CC licenses are ordinarily irrevocable. Specific always overrules general. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jameslwoodward Yes, I didn't realize that. I talked to the site management and they admitted that there was a discrepancy and said they would update it. Pentapixel (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please undelete File:Kirk Shaw.jpg. This was a photo commissioned by Kirk Shaw, taken by his photographer Mark Maryanovich. Please advise what the next steps should be. Thank you.

Best, KK --Ambitious KK (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The uploader should contact Mark Maryanovich, the photographer, and request him to send an explicit permission to the VRT team. The instructions and sample emails are available at COM:VRT. Once the VRT verifies the permission, they will undelete the file. Günther Frager (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 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 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Dear Wikimedia Commons editors, this image: (File:Logo Sisteplant Dream Innovate Challenge.png) was created by a corporate account of the company Sisteplant (User: Sisteplant Media) by C. Aznar from the communication department.

The copyright of the logo belongs to the company Sisteplant itself, so it has the power to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Anyway, we want to include the template with information about copyright licenses: {{Self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

Please restore the file that was deleted. If you consider that more information or express authorization by email is needed, please let us know. Thank you very much,
--Sisteplant Media (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose An authorized official of the copyright owner must send a free license using VRT..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Dear Wikimedia Commons editors, this image: (File:Javier Borda, presidente Sisteplant.png) was created by a corporate account of the company Sisteplant, by C. Aznar from the communication department.

The copyright of the logo belongs to the company Sisteplant itself, so it has the power to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Anyway, we want to include the template with information about copyright licenses: CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED

Please restore the file that was deleted. If you consider that more information or express authorization by email is needed, please let us know. Thank you very much
--Sisteplant Media (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose An authorized official of the copyright owner must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: To me, this seems like a fairly reasonable case of Template:PD-textlogo, particularly considering the promotion (company) is American and in America, File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg has been ruled to be below the threshold of originality.

The reason for deletion was "Possible copyvio: Logo of a professional wrestling company"; again it should be fine (in my view) it's tagged Template:PD-textlogo but also a Template:Trademark

All of this logo is (geometric) text in different colours; although the colours give the illusion of being "3D", it's still just 2D white text surrounded be two borders in two different colours. The exact same text in surround by rainbow colours would not be considered auto copyrighted. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support This is simply text and in the USA pure text does not have a copyright unless the words are creative enough to have a copyright. Fancy fonts do not have any copyright in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

HC Punk Más Allá de la Gral Paz.jpg

I hereby affirm that I, Juan Godoy, 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.

Juan Godoy 2024-01-08


 Not done: Not deleted - nothing to be done here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The license distinguishes between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs". It does not distinguish between commercial works and amateur works. For example this is a "work of photographic art": File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg with elaborate staging and costuming. Works of art are in museums, as is the the Dali image. "Simple photographs" are sold to the sitter. Simply using a flash does not elevate a portrait to a work of art. If the law was meant to protect anonymous "commercial photography", it would have used that phrase in the law. --RAN (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done: as per RAN. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete per ticket 2024010810004952, thank you! janbery (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done: @Janbery: , FYI. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Metamorforme42 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment This is public domain in the U.S. but this appears to be from when he was living in Spain (1914), and this would not be PD in Spain yet. 22:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
    It was stated on frwiki that this work is from after 1916, when he is living in Paris (France). Do you have any serious reference about 1914 or is it just a guess? — Metamorforme42 (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 1914 is the date that was on the file before it was deleted. If there is evidence that this is from 1916 or after, yes, it would be public domain as a French artwork. Abzeronow (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't find any precise date.
    From the color version, we can see a decoration on the top left which seems to be the insign for Chevalier of the Legion of Honnor he received on April 1915… — Metamorforme42 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That would certainly disprove 1914 as a date. I'm inclined to  Support restoration as evidence seems to suggest this is from 1916 or later. Abzeronow (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The uploader states that they create the maps they share themselves, while not specifically stating the source of the image can certainly be a problem when verifying the credibility of the image, there are other methods to find if an image is sourced elsewhere. I propose a temporary un-deletion of the image to conduct an image search on the internet (through multiple tools, not just one). Dasymutilla (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Info Uploader of this map has been asked about sources for maps but has chosen not to give any answer (user talk page). Thuresson (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Docks of New York

Previously deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CerroFerro. Despite the file names, The Docks of New York was actually released in September 1928 and images from it are now in the public domain. hinnk (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support And after undeletion year in fdiles' names should be changed to 1928. `Michalg95 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: I had missed these when I undeleted the others. Renamed the files that had the wrong year. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hi! the poster is free to use to promote this drama.. i put this poster in that page because its official poster that relate — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriTelevisyenMalaysia (talk • contribs) 09:52, 9 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Movie posters are copyrighted. There is no evidence of a free license at the source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hi, a valid release came in as ticket: 2024010710001199. Can you please undelete the file (and ping me once done), so that I can add the permission tags? Thanks, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done: @Martin Urbanec: FYI. This should be renamed IMO. --Yann (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

As the creator of the poster, image and its design, I have assigned its use to permanently be free and available in the public space. I give full allowance to free use of its copyright in perpetuity, worldwide and for use on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia.

Christian Cargill Christiancarg (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiancarg (talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Because User:Christiancarg could be anyone and we do get imposters, Commons Username policy requires that you confirm that you are actually the film maker. You can do that with an email from christiancargill@icloud.com to VRT or by noting your WP username in the "About" section of your web site. After you do that, a Commons volunteer will put a note on User:Christiancarg so you will not have to do it ever again ..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Jim - thanks for your help. Sending the VRT an email now. Christiancarg (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Not done: File will be undeleted when the permission is validated. --Yann (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting temporary undeletion to allow transfer as fair use content to English Wikipedia. Assuming it is what I think it is, i.e. a freely-licensed photo of a non-free object, it can be uploaded with en:Template:Photo of art/Non-free 3D art and a non-free content rationale, which I can write. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source of this file says "Own construction according to [3] and File:Karl-Marx-Orden.jpg" Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this particular file appears to be from [4] and not own work, can you please check if any of the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Order of Karl Marx are plain and simple own-work photos? Thank you. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Teppich-Museum Oelsnitz Karl-Marx-Orden.jpg appears to be an own work photograph. It would need to be made lower resolution for non-free use on English Wikipedia though (2,334 × 3,753 is the resolution on it). Abzeronow (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please undelete that one? en:Template:Non-free reduce can be slapped on it after upload and that'll take care of the resolution. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Finnusertop: It's been temporarily undeleted. Ping me when the transfer is complete. Abzeronow (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Pavel Bednařík (WMCZ)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete per ticket 2024010910008036. Thank you, janbery (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done: @Janbery: , FYI. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Permission was sent by the copyright owner, but misplaced. The ticket #2023102910002097 was reviewed and confirmed now. — Yerpo Eh? 20:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done: @Yerpo: , FYI. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have a Creative Commons release which I will be submitting as well. PandaExp (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Check with Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard why ticket 2023110710012017 was not accepted. If the ticket is accepted the image will be undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: Permission OK now. --Yann (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The logo has no license, according to a subject close to The United Holy Church of America, Inc. TheEditorIAm (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Well, it was deleted because it does not have a license. Thuresson (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Thuresson. Complex logo (specially the cross), and no permission from the copyright holder. --Yann (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP in the Philippines, and requested to be undeleted before. Now, requesting for permanent undeletion for use at meta:Freedom of Panorama page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While the file was probably not uploaded quite right (sorry for that I am new to this) The owner of the picture is not the owner of the website I got the picture from, i just thought it to be mandatory to leave a link. The original photographer is Marko Pletikosa. Mia Pečnik (the person on the picture) is a personal friend and has allowed me to upload the picture. I highly doubt, that the website I named as source had permission to use it themselves. I am truly sorry for anything i have done.--SimonIMichel (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also if I should then upload it someway else, please advise. As I said, I'm very new to this stuff... SimonIMichel (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose The requester should contact Marko Pletikosa, the photographer, and ask him to send an explicit permission to the COM:VRT team. Once they check he is the copyright holder and the permission is fine, then the file will be undeleted. Günther Frager (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source of the file was provided and it's under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam691 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Info Source is CC-BY-3.0. Ten Asia is an established Korean Youtube channel. Thuresson (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

著作権のない画像が削除されます。

削除撤回お願い致します。

2024/01/11 Yukihiro Tomimura

Undelete the page Sfurti Sahare, The user owns the copywrite of the image as she herself is the author of the book The Monkey Theory

--Sfurti Sahare (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Hello Wiki team,Reply[reply]

This message is from Sae the PR Team of Sfurti Sahare. She is an respectable Indian author and is quite popular in youngsters for her work.

Some User has deleted her page saying below.

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: https://www.amazon.co.uk/MONKEY-THEORY-Conquer-Mental-Chatter-ebook/dp/B09ZPT1WM5/ref=sr_1_7?crid=2SCY3VIAX48DC&keywords=the+monkey+theory&qid=1668851979&s=books&sprefix=the+monkey+theory%2Cstripbooks%2C321&sr=1-7 No indication that it's free to use Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Our response to it is,

1. The Author owns the Copywrite of the book and to prove this, we have added a document. Click to see the proof that we hold the copywrite. https://drive.google.com/file/d/19aMZv1O9lqMUDEFvBy-eUi4gWNwGhUkb/view?usp=drive_link

2. We are okay not using the images ( If that's the new rule) but we need to be undeleted as soon as possible. We are ready to follow the new guidelines too. Please need a positive revert on this Regards, Sae Supnekar--Sfurti Sahare (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)- ( 11th January 2024) Team Sfurti Sahare www.sfurti.inReply[reply]