Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-03

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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

File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

This photo was originally uploaded on the “Open Minister's Office”(열린장관실) homepage of the Ministry of Justice. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice three things.

  1. “COPYRIGHTⓒ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. REPUBLIC OF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.” — This claim is on every website of the South Korean government, even on the page of the KOGL. This is just a general disclaimer only.
  2. Logo of WebWatch in green color — A web standardization certification that has nothing to do with copyright. (It's like W3C or HTML5 logo)
  3. The KOGL Type 1 logo ({{KOGL}}, File:KOGL 1.svg) — It is clearly indicates that the entire content of the this subdomain of MoJ is released under KOGL Type 1. Please note “Open Minister's Office” homepage is separated from the original homepage of MoJ. It is only accesiable by click "법무부 소개" > "장관소개" from top menu and it will be open in new tab. You can obviously see that it's separated from the original site with diffrent logo, title and web design.

Average Pennsylvanian mentioned that he couldn't be sure because each photo didn't have the KOGL logo, which is not true. Here's an example of a misuse of the KOGL logo. This is the homepage of the Office of the President. It also displays the KOGL logo(File:KOGL wordmark (Korean).svg at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't say what kind of KOGL it is at all. In this case we cannot use the image unless there is KOGL logo and specified type on each page.--Namoroka (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Namoroka: Could you please give the picture URL on the Open Minister's Office homepage? All links do not load for me. Yann (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
@Yann: Maybe they are all region-locked. Internet Archive, Archive.is.--Namoroka (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
@Namoroka per Ox1997cow before, KOGL has several types. Which type of KOGL are you referring to? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
They are using KOGL Type 1. Please compare it with the File:KOGL 1.svg. It's really small, but you can still differentiate it.--Namoroka (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose I don't think there's sufficient evidence as of now. It is a low quality picture which does not say who the source is (unlike other images in their galleries which specifies the author as "the spokesperson's office.") The disclaimer on their copyright policy page says that KOGL Type-1 only applies to content which the MoJ "fully owns," i.e. files that the MOJ created. In addition, their policy also says to "contact a MoJ representative for files which do not have a KOGL Type-1 disclaimer." [1] (The Open Minister's website leads directly to MoJ's copyright policy so I doubt the two being seperate websites particularly matters.) TL;DR I'd say it would be OK to use images from their gallery which specifies a source [2] but not the image in the question unless we get confirmation from their office. Takipoint123 (💬) 01:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. No consensus to undelete. --Yann (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Gary (SpongeBob) character.png

Please undelete this file, which is a file derived from File:SpongeBob SquarePants character montage.png. Per this previous undeletion request: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-02#File:SpongeBob SquarePants character montage.png. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franco Brignone (talk • contribs) 17:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Георгий Николаев из семейного архива.jpg

Прошу восстановить этот файл и добавить его на страницу Николаев, Георгий Викторович.

Файл является собственностью жены Георгия Николаева - Любови Александровны Аловой. Она поручила мне загрузить это изображение на страницу. В любой момент она подтвердит это. Напишите, что для этого нужно сделать.

Я - Михаил Дьяченко (ник Михаил Дьченко), почта: smyatka@yandex.ru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Михаил Дьченко (talk • contribs) 10:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Restoration requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)


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

File:McQLonnieJohnson.jpg

Regarding the picture McQLonnieJohnson.jpg - We (JTEC Energy) hired a photographer to take this photo, and we own all rights to it. We have supplied it to publications, including the Atlanta Business Chronicle, for use in their articles about us.

--Snicholson13 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that in the upload, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you claim they were hired. It is hard to know what to believe, but please understand that if you continue to break Commons rules, you will be blocked from editing here.
Although you may have the rights to use this image, it is very unusual for a photographer to allow customers to freely license their images to others. In order for this to be restored either {a} the actual photographer must send a free license using [[VRT] or (b) you must send a free license together with a copy of the written contract with the photographer that allows you to freely license the image to others. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Marta Hoyos.jpg

Hi, I have both the permission of the public figure and the photographer to publish this image on the Marta Hoyos article, if there's anything I should do to get this published and never delete it again please let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvadrosss (talk • contribs) 11:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that in the upload, you claimed that the photographer was unknown. Now you claim you have the photographer's permission. In any event, restoration requires that the actual photographer send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Third in a series published at subject's Instagram profile, here. My guess is that Niccolo Guasti is the photographer. Thuresson (talk)

Hi, so tell me how to get the VTR, I talked to the photographer and he gave me his permission so I didn't thought I ned to use any legal requirement, so tell me how should i do the VTR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvadrosss (talk • contribs) 09:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Alvadrosss: Please read the information above (and see COM:VRT), and the warnings on your talk page. Do not upload anything without having a formal written permission before hand, or you will be blocked. Yann (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Villa Hintraeger Gries Bozen.jpg

Hi everyone. I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Villa Hintraeger Gries Bozen.jpg, deleted in 2016 after this DR. The villa and small hotel was built in 1905/06 by the architect Carl Hinträger for his family (see here and here). Carl Hinträger died in 1913 (see here). Therefore, all its works fell under Template:PD-old-70 in 1984. It is a building built way before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support Clearly PD in Italy and not eligible for US copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

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

File:SageBravura and Lexi (Minecraft Character Render) USING Mine-Imator 2.0.png

This is a frame of an animation that can serve as an example of a 3D render of Minecraft skins in animations. This is very much in scope because Minecraft animations are very popular on YouTube and can be used for any educational purpose discussing them. We don't have any similar image currently. It looks like Mine-Imator license is fine so the only question is whether these skins were really created by @SageBravura who currently can't respond due to being blocked by @Bedivere.  REAL 💬 ⬆   20:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

If these Minecraft animations are as popular as you say, wouldn't it be possible to find a version that's freely licensed that isn't promotional in nature like this? I'm inclined to believe the uploader created the skin. Abzeronow (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Bravura is an obvious self-promoting troll who should just be ignored. More over, I'm sure they'd use this illustration as a means of self-promotion. Bedivere (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't see what was self promotional from the user, some stuff about NEFFEX but that is a rather popular music project that releases free licensed music and even if this file was not in scope wouldn't it be Commons:WEBHOST not Commons:ADVERT  REAL 💬 ⬆   21:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
His userpage containing links to their Instagram and YouTube profiles. Their only edits on Wikidata were to create an item about themselves and this. Obvious NOTHERE. Bedivere (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
For the license to be valid we need to ensure the skins are original work of the uploader, animation doesn't use official Minecraft textures, the skins are not derivative of another skin (This is the problem with many minecraft skins and texture packs, people reuse others textures) and the animation software allows free licensing.  REAL 💬 ⬆   21:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per this discussion and previously closed request. If you open this request a third time, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Borut Kržišnik - foto Jure Eržen - interview, Delo, 14.9.2013 HiRes.jpg

Permission now received and processed in VRT (see ticket #2025022110006716). — Yerpo Eh? 10:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Yerpo: FYI. --Yann (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Tutankhamun necklace.jpg

My photo was deleted for no reason. I got the photo from Flickr under CC BY-SA 2.0 license + there is no good photo like it on WikiCommons Egyptiankeng (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted, so out of place here. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tutankhamun necklace.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Have been requested directly by Greg Errico to change the picture picture and full rights of picture was given to him over 50 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deerich300 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Your only deleted picture is a 1995 image copied from the Internet, i.e. not in the public domain. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Not done, per Yann. Probably concerns File:Greg Errico playing the drums.png. Thuresson (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Frans van Woerden.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per ticket:2025022710008169 Nemoralis (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nemoralis: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)


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

File:MBTA Silver Line dual mode bus going from diesel to electric Feb 2023.webm

Hi,

I was the original uploader of this file.

I had requested the shorter version of this video I previously uploaded be deleted [3], and this file (the longer version) was somehow deleted as well (probably because I included a link to it in the reasoning, which I did not realize could also trigger its deletion). It was used on Trolleybuses in Greater Boston. Could this file (File:MBTA Silver Line dual mode bus going from diesel to electric Feb 2023.webm, not File:MBTA Silver Line dual mode bus going from diesel to electric trimmed Feb 2023.webm) be undeleted? I assumed it was by mistake. If not I will reupload it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4300streetcar (talk • contribs) 21:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Thuresson (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I must have mis-clicked when working on that DR. The file is back, so time to close here. --Rosenzweig τ 09:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 09:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Brasão de Guadalupe Piauí.jpg

File:Brasão de Guadalupe Piauí.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo240683fg (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Procedural close, not a request. Thuresson (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:2023-ArthurHnatek-byMariaJarzyna.jpg

i forgot to release it as such {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} --Drumboy1990 (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I see no reason why you have the right to freely license this image. The metadata says that the photographer is Maria Jarzyna and there is no free license at the source site, https://www.arthurhnatek.com/. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Hugh Scott Robertson, footballer born 1975.jpg

This "potential copyright violation" has been alleged on the basis that the referenced image was found on an alternative social media, X / Twitter. However - as proven time and time again, everything on the internet is subject to being reuploaded; just because another social media user has reuploaded the photo, this does not suddenly apply a new license / new state of ownership.

The photo in question was photographed by myself; although there is no formal "license" as such, the photo still belongs to me and it's presence on other social medias does not alter this fact. Additionally - the photo was not being uploaded as ORIGINAL works; user "StaggieArchive" had reuploaded the photo in tribute to Hugh, this is a photo that has done the rounds and has been circulated very often within the fanbase from that era.

Should anybody wish to dispute this fact and prove otherwise, then that is a discussion that should be had closer to the time; but to subject this image to deletion purely on the basis of an internet reupload would be unjust.

Thank you, Footballfanatic95 (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Copied Twitter/X. If you are the photographer, please confirm the license via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose As a new user with only one upload, perhaps you should do a little reading before posting angry notes such as this. The fact that an image has been posted widely does not affect its copyright status. Commons policy is clear -- we assume good faith if an image is uploaded here and nowhere else, but in the case of images that have appeared elsewhere, particularly images as small as this one, we require that the original photographer provide a free license using VRT. This is policy because we see far too many images lifted from X and posted here as {{Own}}. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion, requires COM:VRT as it is previously published. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Bandera de Chile y del imperio alemán (1871). Inmigración alemana.png

request the recovery of the "File:Bandera de Chile y del imperio alemán (1871). Inmigración alemana.png". This file was relevant because it was linked to the article "German Imperial Influence in Chile", providing a symbolic representation of the cultural and historical links between Chile and the German Empire. Unfortunately, I was not notified of the deletion discussion. I believe this file is informative for wikipedia commons.

 Not done: No hay ningún argumento que logre desvirtuar lo ya establecido en Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kömmur. Además, es absolutamente falso que no se te notificó de la discusión de borrado pues participaste en ella. ¿A quién pretendes engañar? --Bedivere (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:SaturnCurveConceptrear.jpg

This photo was initially deleted among a set of other photographs uploaded to Flickr due to the uploader not using Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic images. However I believe this photo deletion was a mistake as this photo (https://www.flickr.com/photos/joeross/3104783413) does in fact have a Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license.--PityCruiser (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)PityCruiser

 Support peer requestor ,in the Flickr history i see before CC-BY-NC and now changed the license to CC-BY-SA 2.0 Generic ,the change of license is non-revocable ({{Change of license}}) (Google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request and discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)


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

2021 Pepsi Blue bottles

The files were deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/2021 Pepsi Blue bottles. I suppose they could probably be undeleted per the recent Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-02#File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request and Fanta UDR. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:عدنان رضوان.jpg

من فضلكم أي مخالفات وضعتها عن غير قصد و معرفة سيتم حذفها من قبلي لكن من فضلكم إنها صفحة حقيقية و لا يجب أن تحذف شكرا لتفهمكم

عدنان رضوان --Adnan K. Radwan (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: User blocked, personal image, abuse of COM:WEBHOST. --Yann (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:José Clemente Orozco, 31 salvajes 1945.jpg

1) WHAT PERIOD DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW COVER? The Current law says: Artículo 29.- Los derechos patrimoniales estarán vigentes durante: I. La vida del autor y, a partir de su muerte, cien años más. [...] II. Cien años después de divulgadas. (Article 29.- The property rights will be valid during: I. The lifetime of the author and, from his death, one hundred more years. [...] II. One hundred years after they were made public.) See: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

2) NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR: "Determining whether or not a work has entered the public domain is a task carried out by those interested in its use and exploitation. It requires a rigorous legal study since it is necessary to analyze the specific case in relation to the provisions that have been valid in Mexico on the matter. The protection of copyright in our country [Mexico] has been regulated by various legal systems, which granted different validity: 20, 25, 35, 50, 75 and currently 100 years, and different criteria were considered to begin the calculation of the term, in some cases the publication of the work, in others its registration or the death of the author, which is why it is essential to review the background of the work under study." See Page 152 in this document: https://bibliotecas.uaslp.mx/NACO-Mexico/archivos/eventos/10a%20conferenciay8oseminario/Talleres/Taller6%20--%20Marco%20Legal%20del%20Derecho%20de%20Autor%20en%20Mexico.pdf

3) IN 2009, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT JOSÉ CLEMENTE OROZCO'S WORKS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN IF THEY WERE MADE BEFORE JUANUARY 29, 1945: https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html https://azteca21.com/2010/07/04/curador-miguel-cervantes-obsesionado-con-la-fuerza-gestual-tematica-tonal-y-el-genio-matematico-de-jose-clemente-orozco/ This was established for a 2010 national exhibition of Orozco's works at Museo Cabañas and at Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. The exhibition was called 'José Clemente Orozco: Pintura y verdad'. https://www.sanildefonso.org.mx/expos/orozco/creditos.html Orozco made most of his works before the 100-year period was established in Mexican copyright laws. THE CURRENT LAW (last amended in 2020) IS NOT RETROACTIVE OR EX POST FACTO. Orozco didn't take the initiative to register the copyright of his works. In most of his lifetime, it was necessary to register it explicitly in order to not have it turn into public domain. Before the enactment of the Mexican Copyright Law (Ley Federal sobre el Derecho de Autor) published on 14 January 1948, "according to the [Mexican] Civil Code, the condition for acquiring copyright on a work was to register within a period of three years from the publication of the work. If the registration had not been made within that period, the works would enter the public domain." https://miabogadoenlinea.net/el-derecho-y-mexico/9010-defienden-obra-de-jose-clemente-orozco-en-el-icc That's how the Instituto Cultural Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (both belonging to the Mexican state, and favoring public knowledge, and according to all Mexican authorities and laws) could organize the 2010 Orozco exhibition in spite of the opposition of one of Orozco's sons.

4) WHAT ABOUT THE WORKS THAT OROZCO MADE AFTER JANUARY 29, 1945? In his last four years and a half of life (he died on September 7, 1949), Orozco made many other works. Mexican law doesn't consider those works to be public domain. NEVERTHELESS: The photographical reproductions of his works are covered under the Article 148.VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law? - schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day. You may legally take selfies that include those works and upload them into social media. That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrillo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by Mexican government's institute called INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums. The works are publicly, openly, universally accesible. Mexican law permits to show Orozco's images online in said museums' websites. It is legal and the copyright holders have not only NOT complained, but also willingly enabled it.

5) DOES THE MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW PERMIT MAKING PUBLIC THE REPRODUCTIONS OF WORKS WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS' PERMISSION? Yes, when it's parts of the works, and when it is done for research and with an educational goal. See Article 148.III: https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFDA.pdf

6) PLEASE UNDELETE THE IMAGE.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inti Rosso (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to copy and paste the same argument for a group of images, you should just consolidate the request into one request so it wastes less of our time and yours. COM:Mexico says 1928 had a copyright term of 30 years from publication of artistic works. 1948 specifically says "All terms became life plus 20 years.[1948 Art.8] Registration no longer required for works first published Jan 14, 1948 or later; six-month grace period to register old works to regain copyright" Now your argument hinges on these being published before Jan. 14, 1948 which we cannot assume AND that Orozco failed to register his old works in time to regain copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Abzeronow, I've consolidated the requests below:

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m learning to reply on Wikimedia Commons because of my recent signing up as user. I’m sorry to have wasted people’s time, as I’m thankful somebody has consolidated the request.
Actually, I was told about the deletion requests not in bulk or in a consolidated way, but as separate requests (notified in multiple emails) claiming exactly the same thing in each case, so I assumed I should reply the same way: case by case, claiming exactly the same thing in each instance.
Anyway, the point is – I interpret that all Mexican works made before 14 Jan 1948 are in the public domain if not registered explicitly.
The 2009 interpretation of Instituto Cultural Cabañas (a cultural authority in the Mexican state of Jalisco) and Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (a national, i.e. federal authority) for the 2010 national Orozco exhibition is that Orozco’s works before 28 Jan 1945 are public domain.
If I were cautious, I would stick to the 28 Jan 1945 threshold, because Mexican authorities of national culture & arts have stuck to it.
That’s the argument.
Thank you, and sorry again for my ignorance of Wikimedia procedures. Inti Rosso (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I mean, 29 January 1945. Inti Rosso (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
One more thing. I've found an Orozco image that Wikimedia Commons accepts as public domain both in Mexico and in the USA.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Orozco_wheel.JPG
Please I beg you use these same criteria to undelete the deleted images. Inti Rosso (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Another case of Orozco being justly considered of public domain:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:José_Clemente_Orozco_-_The_Dismembered_Man,_from_the_Los_teules_series_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg Inti Rosso (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
A Wikimedia Commons user called Infrogmation claims that Orozco's work is covered by the Mexican copyright law as it is written now, last amended by the Mexican Congress in July 2020.
Nevertheless, this is subject to interpretation, because Infrogmation is applying a 21st-century law to Orozco, a man that died before the middle of the 20th century.
Applying Mexican copyright law to Orozco, an artist born in the 19th century, amounts to LAW RETROACTIVITY. There isn't anything clear in Mexican law about it. People should interpret law.
Here is an article about written by Arturo Reyes Lomelín, of a law firm called Reyes Fenig Asociados, in Mexico City. He says that there is no immediate retroactivity in Mexican copyright law:
“Unlike the ordinances of 1947 and 1956, the transitional provisions of the Federal Copyright Law of 1963, and the 1982 reform failed to provide for the retroactive application of the new terms of validity of copyright established in said ordinance and reform.
”Interpreting Article 14 of the Constitution, a rule can validly be applied retroactively as long as it is not done to the detriment of any person. However […] retroactive application of the law is not automatic, even if a benefit is intended; it is necessary that the law itself explicitly provides for [it] […] [11].
”Without transitional or substantive provisions authorizing the retroactive application of the terms of validity of copyright indicated in the Federal Copyright Law of 1963 and the 1982 reform, I find it very difficult to maintain that the rights of exclusive exploitation of the work of a deceased author under the rule of the Federal Copyright Law of 1956 extended their term of validity to that contemplated in the 1963 legislation or in the reform of 1982.”
https://reyesfenigesp.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/vigencia-da/#_ftn11
Infrogmation has asked me to show a document or an evidence proving that Orozco's work is of public domain. It will be very difficult to find such legal proof in a univocal, universal and crystal-clear sense, because such decision is subject to a particular interpretation of the law. You know, laws don’t cover special cases unless an authority applies said laws to such cases at a particular time.
What I can provide is journalistic evidence that the Instituto Cabañas and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes decided in 2009 that Orozco's work is of public domain.
https://www.informador.mx/Cultura/Obras-de-Orozco-realizadas-antes-de-1945-son-de-dominio-publico-20100704-0183.html
I'm currently looking for the document by the Larrea law firm that made such decision in 2009, but it has not been made openly public, so I have to research more.
I’m asking Infrogmation now: how is it to be established that the Mexican copyright law could be retroactive? Must the Mexican copyright law always be retroactive? According to whom? If there is no clear and definitive answer to that, it is my opinion that Wikimedia should undelete the Orozco files. Thx. Inti Rosso. Inti Rosso (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Please read the final paragraphs of this article:
"A. Para obras de autores fallecidos el 11 de enero de 1982, o antes, la vigencia de los derechos de explotación exclusiva de la obra caducaron el 11 de enero de 2012."
("A. For works by authors who died on January 11, 1982, or before, the validity of the exclusive exploitation rights of the work expired on January 11, 2012.")
https://reyesfenigesp.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/vigencia-da/ Inti Rosso (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral You need to read the whole article, not a single statement. As I can see, the problem is if the 1982 law was retroactive or not. The article author states that he does not see any reason for the 1982 law to be retroactive. But the form of his statement suggests that this is only his opinion, not an established legal interpretation. We do not know if courts will follow his opinion, or not. Other lawyers may have a different opinion. I think, that before we accept the opinion in this article we need either (1) discuss this issue in COM:VPC in order to decide if the doubts about retroactivity are reasonable enough to apply COM:PCP, or (2) wait for a published court decision in this matter. Ankry (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with you. I am currently writing to the legal team of SOMAAP (Sociedad Mexicana de Autores de las Arges Plásticas) to see whether they know particular rulings by a Mexican judge/court about the Orozco matter. I hope they reply to me this week. Thank you very much. Inti Rosso (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
    Artes Plásticas*, not "Arges" Inti Rosso (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
    Hello, good day. Just to keep you posted.
    I've had a brief reply from SOMAAP (Sociedad Mexicana de Autores de las Artes Plásticas). It was by telephone, and it was the secretary who answered.
    SOMAAP can answer phone calls in these Mexico City numbers:
    (55) 5531-2082
    (55) 5531-4067
    It's from Monday through Thursday between 10:00am & 3:00pm, México City time.
    More SOMAAP info:
    Website: https://www.somaap.mx/
    Email: contacto@somaap.mx
    Orozco's work IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN in Mexico. His copyright is handled by SOMAAP.
    Nevertheless, SOMAAP can permit his work to be reproduced as long as we give due credit. Reproduction of Orozco's works is free, open & universal as long as there is no monetary gain or interest, as I understand it is done by Wikimedia Commons.
    I'm now waiting for a reply from SOMAAP's lawyers so they can assert all of the above in a written document that is legally binding.
    I wrote an email to them on Monday, but they haven't replied to it. It was just today that the secretary explained to me all that I'm saying here. (They have been too busy so they are not replying to emails immediately.)
    So, please hold on — I beg you don't delete or undelete anything until I get hold of that legal document & share it with you.
    Thank you very much. Inti Rosso (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Note that "as long as there is no monetary gain or interest" is an NC license which is not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, understood. The person who explained that to me was the secretary. When the lawyers themselves reply, I'll ask them if a CC BY/BY-SA license can be obtained for those Orozco images. Thank you. Inti Rosso (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose too. Works by Orozco, unless public domain for other reasons, are protected 100 years post mortem. Undelete in 2050 unless files are PD for other reasons (i.e. FOP, etc.). Bedivere (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Bedivere. --Yann (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Bubikopf lokomotive 64.jpg

Bitte um Wiederherstellung der Datei. Die beiden Fotos zeigen meinen Vater auf seiner letzten Fahrt mit einer Dampflokomotive.--Langoktavian (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose We cannot host copyrighted photos without a free license from the copyright holder whe is presubanly the photographer. Ankry (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Chas A. Stevens Interior Window Display.jpg

Hi, sorry, I hardly ever login to wikipedia. I think it's against the original intent of the place to lean on authority and reputation, though maybe I haven't been keeping up. I get that people worry a lot about IP ownership and real level of expertise and for good reason. But this was a photo of a window display I purchased for (IIRC) $10 per panel (so $20 total) when the store closed in the 1980s. I have no doubt spent more moving these panels around the world with me; they are pictured in their present location in Berlin. I had thought that the photo contained enough indirection to justify inclusion of what was obviously (to me) a significant addition to the article. I was careful to take a picture that while not disclosing too much information about my living situation, also was clearly not intended as a perfect replication of the original photograph (e.g. it was slightly distorted by my photographing it from below, the photo includes framing, there are pencil lines drawn across the panels by the people composing the original window display, the cardboard it's printed on is tatty.)--Joanna Bryson (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Joanna Bryson: Who is the original photographer and where was this originally published? We would need this information to correctly determine the actual copyright status of this image. Abzeronow (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Nvidia CUDA Logo.jpg

Previously deleted due to the Nvidia logo being established as above the ToO. However, the logo is actually available under the Apache License. See File:NVIDIA logo.svg for licensing information. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for copy of description of deleted files

Please could I have a copy of the captions and coordinates for File:Chamberlain Clock and Saudade mural in October 2022.jpg and File:Saudade mural in October 2022.jpg. I have local copies of the files but I forgot to save the descriptions. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thryduulf, the description of both the files is "A view looking south along Vyse Street in Birmingham's Jewellery Quarter in October 2022 showing the Chamberlain Clock and, on the wall of the HSBC Bank, the mural Saudade by Aashti Miller, painted in Summer 2022" and the camera location coordinates of both files is 52° 29′ 14.4″ N, 1° 54′ 45.6″ W heading south. Ratekreel (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Not a request to undelete. --Bedivere (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:JudgeCrawfordHeadshot.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JudgeCrawfordHeadshot.jpg

Not sure what happened, permission was received by VRT last month and has been pending ever since in the queue.. Just resent the permission email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by VietPride10 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Karsten Borgwardt.pdf

Hi,

I hereby request the undeletion of File:Karsten Borgwardt.pdf. The file was deleted due to lack of licensing confirmation from its author, Susanne Vondenbusch-Teetz. She has now sent the appropriate email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the corresponding authorisation and licensing details (sent on 3/4/2025 at 10:23 AM), which to our understanding should clear any licensing problems.

Best wishes, and thank you very much for your help! Lucas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasmiranda42 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)


 Not done: This file has not been deleted, so this request is meaningless, but we do not generally accept photographs in PDF format, see Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats. Therefore please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karsten Borgwardt.pdf. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)


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

3 images from NASA

While these 3 images are licensed as cc-by-nc-nd-2.0 on Flickr, the pictures have been created by NASA photographers and therefore PD-NASA should apply. @Wdwd doesn't see it this way. cc @Huntster as they have handled such files in the past. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Info link to the preceding discussion: [4].--Wdwd (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
If these pictures are to stay deleted, then these pictures should be deleted too: flinfo incategory:"PD NASA" insource:/NonCommercial/. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: obvious PD-Nasa. --Bedivere (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

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

:File:Bantu Holomisa Charcoal Portrait done by Amitabh Mitra

The Charcoal Image of Bantu Holomisa done by Amitabh Mitra as a thumb image should be put back on his Wiki profile as this is the only portrait done by charcoal on a South African politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhoshreemitra (talk • contribs) 08:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably about File:Major General ( Rtd.) Bantu Holomisa.jpg. Please ask the copyright holder, i.e. probably the artist, to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:LFG-Con 2024 in Hof (Saale) HOF3425 RAW-Export.png

I request undeletion of the most recent version of the file. Another user wrongly marked this as copyvio (not revdel etc.), but the motif was already blurred of the most recent version. There have been controversies about the policy of the tagging user, this is another one. Thanks --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK. --Yann (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Close-up of testis.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files were kept at deletion requests on scope grounds, but then deleted as part of a mass COM:CSD#F10 deletion. For reasons I cannot comprehend, they remain deleted despite Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 40#User:CalusUse, which has much more information. Brianjd (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request, were previously found in scope. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Blason Mgr Franck Henry Javary - 106e évêque de Châlons.svg

Estimados, Espero que estén teniendo un buen día. Solicito la restauración del archivo en cuestión, ya que no infringe derechos de autor, dado que soy la autora del mismo. Trabajo como diseñadora gráfica en el Servicio de Comunicaciones de la Diócesis de Châlons, y fue Monseñor Javary quien me encomendó personalmente la creación de su heráldica. Intenté actualizar la página de Wikipedia correspondiente, pero el usuario "SajoR" había sustituido el escudo original por una versión que no representa fielmente la intención ni el significado de su diseño. Dicho usuario basó su recreación en nuestro sitio web, modificándolo sin nuestra autorización. Cabe destacar que el Servicio Diocesano de Comunicación (SEDICOM) también funciona como una casa editorial, y todos nuestros documentos cuentan con ISBN y están archivados en la Biblioteca Nacional de Francia. Agradecería que esta situación se aclare y se resuelva a la brevedad. Quedo atenta a su pronta respuesta.

Cordialmente,

--

I hope you are having a good day. I kindly request the restoration of the file in question, as it does not infringe on any copyright since I am its author. I work as a graphic designer for the Communications Service of the Diocese of Châlons, and Monsignor Javary personally entrusted me with the creation of his heraldry. I attempted to update the corresponding Wikipedia page, but the user "SajoR" had replaced the original coat of arms with a version that does not accurately reflect the original intent or meaning behind its design. This user based their recreation on our website, modifying it without our authorization. It is also important to note that the Diocesan Communications Service (SEDICOM) functions as a publishing house, and all our documents have an ISBN and are archived in the National Library of France. I would greatly appreciate it if this matter could be clarified and resolved as soon as possible. I look forward to your prompt response.

Best regards,

--Lorena.andrea.reyes (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Lorena Reyes Chargée de communication PAO Sedicom 20 rue de l’abbé Pierre Gillet 51000 CHÂLONS-EN-CHAMPAGNE 03 26 68 07 03 lorena.reyes@chalons.catholique.fr

@Lorena.andrea.reyes: Bonjour, Pourriez-vous confirmer la licence par email en suivant la procédure à COM:VRT/fr (en français) ou COM:VRT (en anglais). Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Lofblad portrait.jpg

This is my own picture, yes I screenshoted it to take out the other people in the picture, but it is indeed mine.--Jared Wite (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I suggest you send a copy of the whole image to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Autoportret w lustrze.jpg and others in this series

A proper agreement from copyright owner has been sent to VTR to the title file and the listed below. See: ticket:2025022510006307. Polimerek (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Polimerek: FYI. --Yann (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:진주중앙중 전경.webp

처음에 진주중앙중학교 사진을 올려는데 문서편집할때 사진을 중복으로 편집하여 kdr이라는 자가 삭제를지명했고 그 다음에 출처와 설명을 남겨는데도 아무 이유없는 삭제를 합니다. --Dgkdkskw (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that you uploaded this file a second time after it was deleted. That is a violation of Commons rules and wastes your time and that of Admins. If you do it again you may be blocked from editing here.

The file is small and has no EXIF. Please upload it again using the same name at full camera size and with full EXIF. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: This seems to be a screenshot from a video made using a drone. I do not think that video has EXIF, so your advice seems to be useless. Ankry (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
According to a Google search, most video has embedded data similar to EXIF. I found this to be true in a random search on YouTube. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Chelle-Lis-2024.jpg

Hi,

I noticed that the files above were deleted due to copyright reasons. However, the image owner permits their use as long as credit and a link are provided. Both requirements have been fulfilled on the wiki page where they are used. If the images are restored, I will ensure the appropriate license is added.

ToPSURJ4311 (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that the copyright owner, usually the actual photographer, must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I completely understand. The artist originally uploaded the image on Facebook, and I received permission to use it on her Wikipedia page. However, if she updates the license to explicitly state, "I agree to publish this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license," would I then be allowed to re-upload the image? ToPSURJ4311 (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Permission has to come from the photographer, you claim to have received permission from the depicted person instead. Jcb (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
The artist licensed the picture under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license. As I have repeatedly mentioned, she took the photo herself and posted it on her Facebook page under the same license. Check it out for yourself: Facebook post ToPSURJ4311 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support The subject/photographer has posted a free license on FB. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

She did not state that she herself would be the photographer. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't seem to be a selfie. Yann (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello guys, the artist has licensed the picture under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license. Yet, you are still searching for a photographer. Just to clarify, it's not only selfies that can be taken by yourself. I trust that with the artist's licensing of the image on her Facebook page, I will have your approval to restore the file. ToPSURJ4311 (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. It is not clear who the copyright holder is and the photo does not look like a selfie to me (unless it is taken with a timer). Permission from copyright holder (usually the photographer) is required, preferably via COM:VRT. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: permission is insufficient as the picture most likely was taken by a third person. Have that third person send a permission email. --Bedivere (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Torri ex Finanze, EUR.jpg

Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Torri ex Finanze, EUR.jpg. This image was deleted in 2023 after this DR. It depicts the it:Torri Ligini a skyscraper in Rome designed by the architect it:Cesare Ligini. The skyscraper was commissioned to Ligini by the EUR entity, at that time still a public entity part of the state administration, and it was inaugurated in 1961 (see here). Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1982. No issue with US copyright, since it's a building built before 1990.--Friniate (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Big Red bottle.jpg

Hello,
File:Big Red bottle.jpg was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Big Red bottle.jpg. It could probably be undeleted per the recent Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-02#File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg.

Could you please have a look also at these four other files to see if they might meet the same condition to be undeleted:

They are files uploaded by the same user. Given that photos of bottles by that user seem to always be photos of full bottles (examples: 1, 2, 3), I'm guessing that it might be the case also for those deleted files, although in the "sixpack" photos, the logo might be on something other than bottles, which would not meet the condition.
-- Asclepias (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. The Coca Cola bottles pictures should never have been deleted, as there is nothing under a copyright there. We probably need a template to explain this situation. --Yann (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Institut Català d'Ornitologia logo 2007.svg and File:Catalan Ornithological Institute English logo.svg

These two files got deleted without any discussion, they both were marked as under TOO, one of them was own work, derivative from the other. I think discussion should have been held before deleting them and therefore I'm requesting undeletion. It's moon (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose It's definitely a complex logo, and the source is this PDF per the upload history. Unless you can present evidence that the organization released their logo under a free license, I don't see grounds to undelete this one. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
This is less related to wether the files should be deleted or not and more to how they got deleted. Both files had a TOO notice. You could argue that they are copyrighted, and I'm not necessarily saying that you are incorrect, but still, according to COM:CSD "Clear copyright violation does not apply whenever there is a reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research or a plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality".
Even if it could be considered a clear copyright case, COM:CSD states that "There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination", which I didn't get notified for –I almost didn't notice those got deleted.
When I uploaded the files I thought they were below COM:TOO (With my reasoning being that complexity doesn't matter for copyright but rather originality, the logo features not a character but a bird, animals are not copyrightable). I get why someone would think of them as copvio but I still don't think that they got deleted according to policy. It's moon (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The named source has an explicit copyright notice. Since I agree with TSC that the icon is well above the ToO, it seems to me to be a proper speedy. Also, I'm not sure what you want here. If we restore the file, I will put a DR on it and, after seven days, it will be deleted. That's a waste of everybody's time. Finally, I take issue with your comment, "animals are not copyrightable". Do you seriously believe that a drawing or a photograph of a bird does not have a copyright? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion is not a waste of time. I said that "animals are not copyrightable" was my first reasoning when I first uploaded the file, but yes, you can argue that an illustration of such can be copyrighted, and I'm not claiming you are wrong here. What I'm saying is that the file was deleted without any type of discussion nor notification to the original uploader which is against COM:CSD. I'm not arguing wether the file should be deleted or not, but rather how it got deleted. Discussion is valuable, specially for newer editors like myself, and needed to comply with COM:CSD when there's a possibility of the file being under TOO, even if the outcome is deletion. Being notified about a speedy deletion is valuable and needed to comply with COM:CSD. So yes, I would like to request an undeletion for discussion to be held, which again, is not a waste of time. It's moon (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

We get around 10,000 new images a day and must delete around 1,500 of them. While it is true that more discussion would be good, the 25 Admins that do most of the work simply do not have time for it. Our current backlog of DRs is several thousand. If we could get that under control, we might have more time for discussions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair. Will move on to contacting the organization so they can send permission to VRT then. It's moon (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per The Squirrel Conspiracy and Jim. Way above any threshold of originality, so no need to discuss it further. --Yann (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:2. POLBENG.png

Hello, I would like to request for undeletion of the image file I previously uploaded. I have made sure that the image has no copyrigt issue since I am representing the institution the image belong. The image I uploaded was a logo of the institution I worked at and it represent the institution in the profile page in Wikipedia. Please consider this request. Thank you. Friday, March 7th 2025. Humas Politeknik Negeri Bengkalis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humas Politeknik Negeri Bengkalis (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment There is a ticket ticket:2025022010001259 but the permission was not completed. Yann (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Photo by - Laura Gallant (3).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per ticket:2025030510003917 Nemoralis (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nemoralis, kindly update permissions and licensing information. signed, Aafi (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Antigua.news.jpg File:Antigua.news small icon.jpg

File: antigua.news.jpg File: Antigua.news small icon.jpg

Hi,

I noticed that the above files have been deleted for copyright reasons. However the owner of the images authorizes the use of them with credit and link. Both requirement have been met on the wiki page where there are used.

Please note that on antigua.news website there is this copyright message on the bottom of the page, which confirms what I wrote above:

“All contents of this site including images, texts and other assets are copyrighted and owned by Antigua.news. No contents of this site may be reproduced, altered, or distributed except you give appropriate credit and provide a link to the copyright holder, and indicate if changes were made.”

Therefore, I kindly request to undelete the images.

Thanks and regards.

--Mediascriptor (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The requirement for a link cannot be met in print use, so the permission cited is not enough for Commons. These are fairly simply and probably don't have a USA copyright. We know nothing about the Threshold of Originality in Antigua, but as a former UK colony it is probably very low, so these probably have a copyright there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Can the requirement for a link be met in print by simply including a URL in the printout? I'd hope so. In this case, that's probably moot (in the U.S. sense) because of your salient point about COM:TOO Antigua, but it's still worth a thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Probably above ToO in Antigua, so PCP applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Calle de Zac 1914.jpg

Works published before 1918 are public domain in Mexico so this must be undeleted inmediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by The New Foxy (talk • contribs) 20:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Gustavo Casasola died in 1982 so this photo will be protected by copyright until 2083 (1982 + 100 + 1). Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. Thuresson (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
It does not matter when he died, what does watter is that this is a work published before 1918 and is public domain in Mexico The New Foxy (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Mexico had a term of 30 years since publication until 1948 for artistic or literary works so the only question is they would be public domain if these are artistic works published before 1918  REAL 💬 ⬆   22:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Photography is art The New Foxy (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
I'd say this would be an artistic work rather than a scientific work but you're also making an assumption that this photograph was published in 1914. If it were published in 1919, it would still be in copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@The New Foxy: Where and when exactly was it published before 1918? The website provided as a source is definitely post-1918. Ankry (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No concensus for restoration after two weeks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Panoramica Zac 1914.jpg

Works published before 1918 are public domain in Mexico The New Foxy (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Gustavo Casasola died in 1982 so this photo will be protected by copyright until 2083 (1982 + 100 + 1). Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico. Thuresson (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
It does not matter when he died, what does watter is that this is a work published before 1918 and is public domain in Mexico The New Foxy (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, this probably was published before 1918. Abzeronow (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@The New Foxy: Where and when exactly was it published before 1918? The website provided as a source is definitely post-1918. Ankry (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Ankry, according to the website cited as the source (archived version), the file seems to have been taken from the book Anales Gráficos de la Historia Militar de México, 1810-1970 published in Mexico in 1973. It doesn't mention whether it is the initial publication of the photo or not though it states that the photo was taken in June 1914. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
If it was first pulished in 1973, it is still copyrighted in Mexico and you need a free license from the photographer's heirs in order to host the photo in Commons. Ankry (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No concensus for restoration after two weeks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Poljanski camino (c) Bojan Schnabl.jpg

The picture I uploaded is from me. I made it with my mobile phone. I have the author's rights on the pic as well as on the item photographed. I gave to Wikimedia Commons with a specific right to use but not the right to delete to any unqualified police with lack of scientific method. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. Furthermore, the article in question is fully documented with sources as the book described is included in Slovenia's national library system. In addition, in the whole 1400 years of cultural history of the Slovenian language in the area treated as a literary subject (the Klagenfurter Feld / Celovško polje) by the book, this is the second book of its kind and gives valuable insights of a dying and disappearing language community. In the Western scientific community, publishing is based specifically on qualification and scientific ethics, and not on non-relation to the subject as in the Slovenian Wikipedia community, where unqualified pupils without knowledge of the subjects treated and without scientific qualification nor method are systematically asked to contribute to Wikipedia which leads to a huge number of errors and unscientific results. Evidently, this regulation is due to the communist past history and mindsets, where science was always subject to power and less to ethics and method and therefore writing about one own's fields of "scientific" qualification would always be related to subjectivity. In the Western science, the leading principles are scientific qualification and ethics and the present article is based on both principles and is relevant for a larger public. I urge to undo the deletion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojan2005 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Any content previously published needs a confirmation of the license via COM:VRT. Alternatively, you can upload the original image with EXIF data to prove that you are the author. Yann (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Bojan2005, all of your diatribe above is completely irrelevant to the question here. Commons does not make judgements on the contents of books. We certainly have no "regulation is due to the communist past history and mindsets". The issue here is twofold.
  1. We often get imposters claiming that they are author of books when they are not. We have no way here of knowing who User:Bojan2005 actually is.
  2. It is rare for the author to have the right to freely license the cover of a book they wrote. That right usually rests with the designer of the cover, the photographer, and/or the publisher.
Therefore it is policy that images of book covers must have a free license from the actual copyright holder. We use VRT to obtain this information with privacy for the sender. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:"Maldición" de Rosalía.jpg

Hello, I would like to request for undeletion of the image file I previously uploaded. The image is freely licensed for sharing. Please consider this request. Thank you. --Mariopr23 (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose We need a confirmation of the license by the copyright holder via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Escudo de la Asociación Atlética Quimsa.svg

Hi there,

I hope you’re doing well. I’m reaching out to appeal the deletion of the file "Escudo de la Asociación Atlética Quimsa.svg". I understand that recreating deleted content without following the correct process is not ideal, and I apologize if my actions caused any confusion. I want to clarify that I did not intend to disregard Wikimedia Commons' policies; my goal was simply to contribute an official image I believe to be of public interest.

The file in question is not recreated content—it’s a legitimate image of the official logo of the Asociación Atlética Quimsa, an Argentine professional basketball team. The logo was sourced directly from the official website of the Liga Nacional de Básquet (National Basketball League of Argentina). I’m confident this is a public domain image that meets the goals of Wikimedia Commons.

I also wanted to mention that this file has been deleted several times without clear explanation. I’ve tried to follow the right process and have uploaded the file based on its authenticity and relevance, but it keeps getting removed. This has left me somewhat confused, especially since the logo is a public domain image, as I mentioned. I would really appreciate some clarification on the proper steps to follow to avoid this happening again, and to ensure that everything is in line with Commons’ policies.

To support my case, here are a few key points:

  • Public Domain Status: The Asociación Atlética Quimsa logo is a symbol of a sports club (a civil association in Argentina), and it is publicly used to represent the team in official materials. This makes it public domain, particularly since the logo is used by the club for non-commercial purposes.
  • Legitimate Source: The logo I uploaded was taken directly from the official website of the Liga Nacional de Básquet (LNB). The LNB’s website is a reliable source for images of the league’s teams, and I made sure to use the logo exactly as it appears on the site.
  • Freedom of Use: The Liga Nacional de Básquet and the club itself do not restrict the use of the logo for informational or non-commercial purposes. The image is publicly available and used by the team in official communications, which I believe aligns with the free use standards of Wikimedia Commons.
  • Wikimedia Commons Policies: I believe this file is in compliance with Commons:Licensing, as it represents a culturally significant sports club and is publicly available without restrictions. I feel it fits the mission of Commons to provide freely accessible content that serves educational and informational purposes.

I understand the importance of following proper procedures and apologize for not going through the correct process initially. I now realize that the right course of action would have been to request restoration of the file, and I’m fully open to following that process and making any necessary changes if needed.

I’d really appreciate it if you could consider restoring the file, as it meets the public domain criteria and would be a valuable addition to Wikimedia Commons. Also, I’d be grateful for any guidance on what I can do to prevent future deletions and ensure the file is fully in compliance with all guidelines.

Thank you for your time and understanding. I really appreciate your consideration of this request, and I’m looking forward to hearing back from you.

Best regards, JuanjoAvalos2.0 (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose You say, "The file in question is not recreated content" -- it is, in fact recreated content as you recreated an image here that had been previously deleted.
You also say, "it is publicly used to represent the team in official materials. This makes it public domain..." That is also not correct. Most pages on the Web consist of materials that represent one thing or another. The fact that they appear in many places does not affect their copyright status. An image can be public domain:
  1. because it is old -- usually that 70 years have passed since its creator's death.
  2. because it lacks creative complexity -- it fails to pass the the Threshold of Originality.
  3. because it was created by a person whose status makes it PD -- a US Federal Government employee, for example.
  4. because it has been explicitly licensed with CC-0 or the equivalent. The source site has, "Copyright © 2003/2016 - Todos los derechos reservados."
None of these apply here and there is no reason to believe that the image is PD.
In order for us to restore it, an authorized official of the club must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Dr Sumita Misra.jpg

This image has been uploaded by the consent of the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacktt25 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose We don't need the content of the subject, but the copyright holder's permission. If you have it, please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Also for the first version, you said that the author is "unknown", and for the later you claim ownership. Do not do that again, or you might be blocked from editing here. Yann (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes you are right this image is shared with me by Dr Sumita Misra how can I know author but I told here that picture had been removed by community so she authorised me to use this picture even she gave me authorised letter for that Jacktt25 (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose(Edit conflict) The first time you uploaded this image you said the author was unknown. The second time you uploaded it, you claimed that you were the photographer. Several problems here:

  1. It is a violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after it has been deleted. It is also a nuisance, wasting both your time and that of Admins.
  2. Making false claims about authorship is a serious violation of our rules. Given that you said "unknown" on the first upload, the claim on the second is plainly false. Commons depends on trusting its editors. If you make more false claims, you will be blocked from editing here.

Since the photographer is unknown, the image cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear, i have been authorised by Dr Sumita Misra in written Jacktt25 (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
@Jacktt25: The permission should come from the photographer, not from the subject, unless the copyright was transferred. But in this case, a proof of that will be required. And the permission should be sent by email. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Also do not post duplicate request. Yann (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license, but the photographer is unknown. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:SA SG logo.png

Non-free use rationale for Star Awards logo:
1. Description: This is the official logo of Mediacorp Star Awards, an annual television awards show in Singapore.

2. Source: The logo is taken from official Mediacorp promotional materials or website.

3. Purpose of Use: The image is used only in the infobox of the Star Awards article to help readers visually identify the event.

4. Minimal Use: Only a low-resolution version is uploaded to avoid unauthorized commercial use. It is not used in multiple articles.

5. No Free Alternative: No freely licensed alternative can accurately represent the branding of the Star Awards.

6. Context and Significance: The logo is critical for illustrating the branding and identity of the Star Awards, which words alone cannot convey.

7. Not Replaceable: A textual description cannot adequately replace the logo for reader recognition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown152438 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose That may or may not be sufficient for keeping the image on WP:EN, but Commons cannot keep fair use media. In particular, your #3 and #4 are not true of images on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Josh O'Connor Sundance.jpg

This image is in the public domain posted by an X/Twitter user. There is no problem using it. --Mashirokick (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose No, it is probably not in the public domain. We need a permission for a free license from the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose While it is possible that it is PD, there is no way that it can be restored to Commons unless you can find the actual photographer as Yann suggests. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Derek-Pratt-Oval-Pocket-Watch.jpg

Also:

I would like to request the undeletion of these files.

Reason: the creator of the images, Tony Baggenstos, intends to re-attempt the release of the copyright of that work to Wikicommons.

--Louisetarp (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

If all the requests you have are for the same reason, you can make a single request with multiple files.  Oppose Requires VRT. Abzeronow (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Ah! thank you!
Questions:
1. When I email the author, do I share the link with him to those deleted images?
2. How long should I wait for the images to be undeleted?
Thanks, Louisetarp (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Tony Baggenstos must send a free license (not just a license for use on Commons) using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Jim, thank you, and yes, understood. This one, yes?
I hereby affirm that I choose one: [am name] or [represent copyright holder's name], the choose one: [creator] or [sole owner] of the exclusive copyright of choose one: [the media work] or [the work depicted in the media] or [both the work depicted and the media] as shown here: [exact URL of the file uploaded on Wikimedia Commons], and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 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.
[Sender's name]
[Sender's authority (if applicable. E.g. "Copyright holder", "Director", "Appointed representative of", etc.)]
[Date] Louisetarp (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
One more question for both you kind helpers @Jameslwoodward @Abzeronow
Does the copyright holder need to do one release per image? Or can they do one release for multiple images?
Thank you so much for your guidance Louisetarp (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
@Aafi: since they are a VRT agent. (I'm not a member of VRT) My understanding is that multiple images can be on one ticket. Abzeronow (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
@Aafi ok thank you! Do you know how long it takes for the undeletion process? In other words, do I have to wait until the images are undeleted before inviting the copyright owner to the Release Generator?
Or can they submit the release before the images are undeleted? Louisetarp (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
@Louisetarp: Ask the copyrights holder to send a permissions-release to COM:VRT, and the files will be subsequently undeleted once permissions are confirmed by a VRT agent. They can release as many images as they want to in a single ticket. There is no need to send a bulk of releases when a single one could suffice. signed, Aafi (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: should be undeleted post VRT-release. signed, Aafi (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:مفتاح الحياه.gif

Image of the key of life (ankh) an ancient Egyptian symbol like the cross is not a private intellectual property — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redaking (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose while an ankh is a public domain symbol, the animation of which you are not the author is copyrighted. We need COM:VRT from the animator. Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Mia Khalifa in 2019.png

I'm requesting undeletion of this file. Courtesy pinging @Yann: (the user who deleted the image). Here is the original deletion request discussion, just in case.

User:D&Dr initially tagged this image for deletion for a copyright vio reason. When I responded, saying that the image was derived from a YouTube video that does indeed have proper CC licensing (which can be seen through this archive of the video). The channel is a "highlights" channel, a common practice in the podcasting space on YouTube, in which shorter-form clips of a podcast are uploaded. The channel made the video private, but the licensing is still verifiable through the archive. The archive makes it difficult to watch the actual video, but mirrors (such as this one) of Khalifa's appearance on the podcast exist, which can be matched to the image, proving that it does indeed come from the podcast clip which has appropriate licensing.

The user who tagged the image for deletion has not made a contribution on Commons since, and when I responded in the original deletion request discussion, their response did not address what I said nor provided any relevant information about the file, instead saying Playboy fired Khalifa due to her words in X, after she had supported terrorists, asking them to take snuff videos horizontally. I assume Commons may dismiss her either. This to me sounds adjacent the "I Don't Like It" argument?

Yann, who ultimately deleted the image, said Not own work, no evidence of a free license, but the evidence of the license was and is still present in the archive of the video I had linked to in the discussion. This has left me confused and so I am politely requesting an undeletion of the file. Soulbust (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK fine, license reviewed. --Yann (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Guybrator Penile Vibratory Stimulation(PVS).gif

If the deletion was due to licensing concerns, I would like to clarify that: 1. The file was uploaded under [mention the license, e.g., CC BY-SA 4.0]. 2. [If applicable] I am the original creator/copyright holder of this work and can provide permission if needed. 3. The file was intended for use in educational or medical contexts, contributing to the understanding of penile vibratory stimulation.

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Hunts-Barbecue-Sauce.jpg

Hello,
File:Hunts-Barbecue-Sauce.jpg is a photo of a plastic bottle of, as the filename judiciously suggests, Hunt's barbecue sauce.
The file was deleted in October 2011 as including non-free parts. It was undeleted a month later, in November 2011, per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-11#File:Hunts-Barbecue-Sauce.jpg. The Ets-Hokin principle was raised in the undeletion discussion, but no decision was taken about that part of the discussion, because the discussion ended when a user made a pixellated version of a part of the image, which seemed to satisfy the participants.
However, nine years later, in 2020, the file was deleted again in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hunts-Barbecue-Sauce.jpg, on the basis of the opinion of one user who disagreed with the 2011 undeletion consensus. The user argued that the pixellation did not solve the issue and that it was an unauthorized derivative. The user may have had a good point there, if we consider that the incidental inclusion of a non-free work can be acceptable when it is faithfully reproduced as such in its context, but not when it is modified or reused out of context.
Anyway, it would probably be useful to complete the undeletion discussion about the initial unaltered version of the file, in light of other discussions such as Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-02#File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg. The point may be to know if the principle about a bottle of vodka can be applied to this particular bottle of barbecue sauce.
Thirteen users participated one way or the other in the deletion and undeletion discussions of that file in 2011 and 2020. I do not know if it is necessary to notify them here. They can be notified if you think it is useful.

-- Asclepias (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per UDR and previous Fanta UDR. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Maciej Banaszak Voster ATS.jpg

I own this photo and I took it myself. Please do not remove it from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macban944 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose One of the version has "Getty Images" in the metadata. Please confirm the license via COM:VRT, and do not reupload delete files. Yann (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
How do I prove that this is my photo? Macban944 (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
@Macban944: Could you please read what I wrote above, and the warnings on your talk page? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Not done, uploader instructed on how to proceed. Thuresson (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Tour de l'Avenir 2024 Maciej Banaszak.jpg

Please bring back the photo. This is my own work and I am the author of this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macban944 (talk • contribs) Yann (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This image appears on Facebook. Policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. If you upload a deleted image again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Jumbo at WWW in July 2024.png

Hello. I have read the reason for deletion and here is my response. The website is not the owner of the photo. As noted with the initial photo upload, the photo was sourced from the artist social media page and it is readily used on various articles online. Further, I had originally cited that particular website in the wiki draft/page for same artist which is still being reviewed. Again, the website does not own the photo, it is on multiple articles (not just that one) online. source is artist social media. Further source is the artist's management website page: https://www.truflowhub.com/jumboaniebiet

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyanfeBeloved (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Copied from social media, no evidence of a free license. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Sorry, but you can not steal other people's works and make up that something is both public domain and Creative Commons licensed. Thuresson (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann and Thuresson. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Mohrehn.webp

Image of Mohammad Rehan Mulla- Singer-songwriter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewhayana (talk • contribs) 07:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Procedural close, no reason stated for undeletion. Thuresson (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:萊姆薄荷圖片.jpg

我已經過作者同意授權在維基百科使用此張照片 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-KS3sVqtJ9WN473j5E4HjJ6zAolaW79Z/view?usp=share_link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin1202 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Copied from X/Twitter, no evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Logo bicentenario de Colombia.jpg

Hi, why are you continue deleting my file, I'am the creator and designer of the logo, I 'am the copyrights holder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvio Vela (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Copied from [5], no evidence of a free license. If you are the copyright holder, please send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Don't know how to do that, please explain, thanks. Silvio Vela (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
@Silvio Vela: Please read the page I have given you above: COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Ok. I just did it, I sent you the mail with the permission for a free licence Silvio Vela (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission now OK. --Yann (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Josef Matěj Gottlieb scéna Dimitrij 1948.jpg

permission delivered to VRT (Ticket#2025021110008742) --Gampe (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Gampe: FYI. --Yann (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Dr Subhash Chandra.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was deleted because of me putting an incorrect tag on it. This image is publicly available on various websites and is a more recent image of his that is the reason it was uploaded by me. Here is the link to the official brand page with his image: https://www.zee.com/about-us-leadership/ ACExtrm (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose "publicly available on various websites" is not a valid reason for hosting the file on Commons. We need a free license, and a permission from the copyright holder. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose The cited page has, "© Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited". Unless you can locate the unknown photographer and have them send a free license using VRT, it cannot be restored here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Stazione ferroviaria Savona Mongrifone.JPG

Hi everyone. I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Stazione ferroviaria Savona Mongrifone.JPG. This image was deleted in 2013 after this DR. It depicts the en:Savona railway station, commissioned by the italian Ministry for public works to the architect en:Pier Luigi Nervi (see here). It was built between 1959 and 1962. Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1983. It's a building built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)


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

Christina Zurbruegg 2024_©GAMSfilm&music.jpg

dear wikipedia team,

on february 28 2025 i uploaded the picture Christina Zurbruegg 2024_©GAMSfilm&music.jpg together with the permission of GAMSfilm&music that our company has the copyright for this picture.

why is now again deleted? i simply don't understand this if we are the copyright owners of the picture.

thank you for further information!

best, christina zurbrügg — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCatWithTheHatBerlin (talk • contribs) 13:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Previously deleted as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christina Zurbrügg 2024.png. We need a confirmation of the license via email. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Please do not recreate deleted files. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Prof Andrew Eder.jpg to undelete

The photographer submitted an email, as required, as did the subject seen in the photo (see below), but the photo was removed anyway. Why? What more do they have to do? Zozoulia (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)--Zozoulia (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Zozoulia: Do not copy content of emails here. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Not done. Check with Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard about ticket:2025022810006267. Thuresson (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:J. M. Gottlieb scéna Aida 1912.jpg

permission of the copyright holder received (various tickets) --Gampe (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Gampe: please update permission for these files. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Poljanski camino (c) Bojan Schnabl.jpg

I am the photographer of the picture of the book with the cover on the table, and I also have the copyright over the picture of the original cover, as it is written in the mentioned book "Poljanski camino", otherwise I would not have been able to publish it on the cover. The author is Boštjan Mali. The cover was edited by Mohorjeva (Hanzi Fillipič), copyright mine.

I hereby declare that I, Bojan Schnabl (name of copyright holder) am the author and sole copyright holder of the File:Poljanski camino (c) Bojan Schnabl.jpg. It represents a photography of a book and its cover on a table and I made a genuine new fotograph of it.

I agree to publish the work under a free "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International" license.

I acknowledge that, subject to the terms of the license and compliance with all other relevant laws, I grant to anyone the right to use the work, including for profit, and to modify it to suit his or her needs.

I understand that this consent is not limited to Wikipedia or its related sites, and may be used outside Wikipedia and its related sites under the same conditions.

I acknowledge that I nevertheless retain the copyright and the right to attribution under the licence I have chosen. Changes made to the work by others will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that the free licence relates to copyright only and I reserve the right to take action against anyone who uses this work in a defamatory manner or whose use of this work infringes personality rights, trademark rights, etc.

I understand that I cannot revoke this consent and that the work may be permanently stored in or deleted from any Wikimedia project.

Bojan Schnabl, Vienna, also [Bojan2005] Photographer of the picture and owner of the original authors rights to the original picture (already alternated by bein used as a cover with different inscriptions such as author, title, subtitle, editor and logo). 10.3.2025

 Oppose As you were carefully told in your previous request for this restoration, in order to restore an image of a book cover, the actual copyright holder for the cover must submit a request using VRT. That cannot be done here as there is no way of knowing here who you actually are. We get many imposters here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

it's a picture of a book on a table, not only the cover. However, it's too complicated for me. Bojan2005 (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
True, but irrelevant. The book is clearly the main focus of the photograph and therefore the photograph is a derivative work and infringes on the copyright for the book. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per James - the book is 80% of the photo. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Gabriyiel.webp

Ola , essa foto que estava no meu artigo é permitido por mim , pois se tratava de minha pessoa no artigo meu , poderia trazer ela de volta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriyiel (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Other files deleted, requestor indeffed. The proper response to being blocked on es.wiki for spamming is not to come to Commons and resume spamming. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:MiroslavCisler 8 9 2024 Vyrava.jpg

author's permission delivered to the VRT system (Ticket#2025022510004078) --Gampe (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gampe: VRT request, done.

✓ Done: Permission received added. --Yann (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Rabbi Nachman Seltzer portrait.jpg

The copyright holder sent an email to the VRT releasing it under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeshivish613 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Pisces-Film-Poster.jpg

The file "File:Pisces-Film-Poster.jpg" was given to me by the producing studio itself ("The Hive"), including permission to be used for Wikipedia as fair use. בעל חי (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair use is not possible on Commons. In order to restore the image, an authorized representative of the studio must send a license using VRT. Licenses for use only on Wikipedia are not acceptable -- images here must be free for any use by anybody anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Mother 2 Boxart.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I disagree with the reasoning of the file being above COM:TOO Japan. The logo having "depth" does not make it above TOO in japan. There are some logos with more artistic than the Mother logo (see, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nikon_Logo.svg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asics_brand_logo_(1977%E2%80%932003).svg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cup_Noodles.jpg.) The "O" as apart of the Mother series logo is also in the public domain: It's the the blue marble, an famous photo from NASA, which are in the public domain. Per COM:PDARTREUSE, "Wikimedia Commons explicitly permits the hosting of photographs that carefully reproduce a two-dimensional public domain work". TzarN64 (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't think the "O" is the Earth -- I could be mistaken if it has been rotated, but there are several distinctive features that I don't think appear on Earth. That alone will put it above the ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Jim, compare that to File:MOTHER 1989 Boxart (Nintendo).png, it's more stylized for Mother 2 so there may be enough creativity for it to not be allowed but it's also derived from the same image (NASA's the Blue Marble). Mother 2 is also known as Earthbound in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I disagree- The "O" in the earth is clearly The Blue Marble. The logo for the mother series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mother-series-Earth-gold.jpg), which every Mother game boxart (with the exception of Mother 3) has in the "O". It's simply just a upside down version of The Blue Marble. TzarN64 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
How can you confirm this is the Blue Marble? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support Thank you both. I agree that it is the Blue Marble and that the logo is therefore below the ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Swimming with Wings Poster.png

The deleted file "File:Swimming with Wings Poster.png" was given to me by the producing studio itself ("The Hive"), including permission to use for wikipedia. בעל חי (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to restore the image, an authorized representative of the studio must send a license using VRT. Licenses for use only on Wikipedia are not acceptable -- images here must be free for any use by anybody anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jameslwoodward. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Collier_Prize_for_State_Government_Accountability_award_statue.jpg

Have gotten in touch with the sculptor who created this award and captured the photo and they will be providing approval for public use of this image, so I would like to make this file live again. --Kapparently (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Kim Freda March 11 2025--Kapparently (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The sculptor would need to contact COM:VRT so that they could grant a free license that anyone could use the file for any purpose. Abzeronow (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Subject: Confirmation of Image Authenticity & Copyright Status

Dear Wikipedia Commons Support Team,

I am writing to confirm that the image I am uploading to Wikipedia Commons is authentic and not subject to any copyright restrictions. The image is either: • Created by me and I am the original copyright holder, or • Released under a free license by the rightful owner, allowing unrestricted use, modification, and distribution.

The image is not copyrighted under any condition and fully complies with Wikipedia Commons’ licensing requirements. If any further verification or declaration is required, please let me know how I can proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karan3344 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Karan3344 does not have any deleted uploads. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Brooklyn_Brewery_Logo.png

Hello, I am requesting the un-deletion of the file "Brooklyn_Brewery_Logo.png". This image was taken down due to copyright claims. However, The Brooklyn Brewery Corporation owns the rights to that logo, as it is their band's logo.--Zackeaton (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Zack Eaton 03/11/2025

It was deleted because the file didn't have a license. The cursive B would be the only copyrightable part of that logo. @IronGargoyle: to check if it is below US ToO. Abzeronow (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Commons already has a svg file of the logo. Is that png logo different? (There are also photos of the cursive B in the category.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The png is the same, thanks. Abzeronow (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: license added. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Tadeusz Debski.jpg

This file was deleted due to its license being incompatible with Wikimedia Commons licensing policy. The Flickr user has since changed the license to CC0. I'd like to undelete the file and indicate that its license is CC0 (rather than CC-BY-SA-2.0 as previously indicated). Thanks for considering! --Fernsebner (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Fernsebner: You are correct that the Flickr uploader changed from a NC license to CC-0. But what is the Flickr uploader's relationship to Tadeusz Debski, the actual photographer? https://www.flickr.com/photos/cbaksik/albums/72157627088106552/ Abzeronow (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose From the description of the photos, it is clear they were scanned from a book titled "Chicago 1967-1969". Corinna Baksik is a librarian at Hardvard [6] and doesn't seem to be related to the photographer who died in 2011. The Flickr account used is not institutional, so it is likely Flickrwashing. Günther Frager (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Hiba Kamal Abu Nada.jpg, File:Hiba Kamal Abu Nada (cropped).jpg

The black-and-white artwork is so strongly abstracted in comparison to the copyrighted original photo as a result of processing with a computer programme and/or manual drawing that there can be no legitimate claim to property rights. In German copyright law there is a corresponding passage in Section 23 (1) sentence 2 UrhG. --Kompetenter (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This argument was put forward in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hiba Kamal Abu Nada.jpg. The subject has no known relation to German legal jurisdiction. Thuresson (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
However, judging by the stated reason for deletion, this argument was not taken into account. The reference to the German paragraph was purely exemplary since the copyright situation in the not generally recognised State of Palestine is unclear. Kompetenter (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Our policy for unclear copyright status is COM:PCP. Ankry (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I see no reasonable “significant doubt about the freedom” of the file, as it is neither the original colour photo nor does it contain important copyrightable elements of it. A photographer does not own image rights to the face of a person portrayed. Kompetenter (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if this is over a threshold of originality (which one?), but we should not use COM:PCP over the slightest thing. Yann (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't think there can be any question here that the drawing is derived from the color photograph. The head angle, the expression, even the folds in the hijab are very close to the photo. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus to undelete. --Yann (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Friedrich Erdmannsdorffer sen.jpg

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2024/11/22#File:Friedrich Erdmannsdorffer sen (cropped).jpg. --Kompetenter (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Info {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} requires an evidence that the image was published more than 70 years ago. I see no evidence for that and the decision in the abovementioned DR may be wrong. Ankry (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
We usually assume that such images were published at the time of creation, but the description says "circa 1930", so we may have to wait one more year to undelete it. Yann (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
This is ultimately beside the point, as the rights holder (heir) has made the image available. Kompetenter (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
The heir of the photographer? Copyright holder is the photographer, not the subject. Ownership of the photo print is irrelevant here. The publication date is crucial: per copyright law the photographer has 70 years since publication to reveal his/her authorship and make the copyright term for the work 70pma or decide to remain anonymous and leave the term 70 years post-publication. Ankry (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
@Yann: You claim it multiple times, hewever I am unable to find any basis for this interpretation. Can you please, point out a community decision or a legal opinion that supports what you say? Per my knowledge, most private photos remain unpublished and this is the real reason for handling this grey area works in EU law in some way (that is in most cases not free however). Ankry (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
This looks like a print to me, and so I think we could reasonably say that it was published around 1930. However, I disagree with the decision to keep the crop. A 1930 German photograph cannot be licensed under PD-EU-no author disclosure because pre-1995 German works cannot be anonymous, German law says if the creator was ever known, the work cannot be anonymous. Additionally, 1930 works from Germany are restored by URAA as Germany was PMA 70 on January 1, 1996. so I  Oppose restoration of this and think the crop should also be deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Could you please name the paragraphs/court judgements you are referring to? Kompetenter (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: whom I learned this information from. (The URAA matter is simple math. Germany's URAA date was January 1, 1996 and Germany implemented retroactive 70 PMA copyright in 1995 and thusly works from authors who died before 1926 were exempt from URAA and 1930 is after 1926.) Abzeronow (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
The "Cannot be anonymous" part actually refers to works of art like drawings, paintings, sculptures, architecture etc. from before July 1995 (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works), it does not refer to photographs. The other bit though ("if the creator was ever known, the work cannot be anonymous") does refer to all works including photographs, meaning that publication without a credited author does not necessarily make a work anonymous. So while photographs from before July 1995 can be anonymous works per German law, in reality it's rather murky because you cannot really rule out that the author is known in some way. That is the main reason why the German wikipedia does not accept anonymous works 70 years after their first publication (there is a 100 year rule instead). --Rosenzweig τ 19:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
@Kompetenter: If we had a more precise date, we could take a better decision. I would support undeletion if we had some evidence that this is from before 1930, so free of US copyright. Otherwise, we may have to wait... Yann (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I have asked the original uploader on his discussion page for further details. My assumption that he is the copyright holder is based on the fact that the poor quality photo was probably not taken by a professional photographer, but by an amateur from the closer family, as the photo was found in a family album. Kompetenter (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree that it is very unlikely that a professional photographer would have had the background change color behind his ear. However, knowing that it came from a family album does not help unless it can be proven who the actual photographer was and that they or their heir has given a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus for undeletion. I suggest to ask again if some proof of publication is found. --Yann (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Rex Hunton in a hat.jpg

I took this photo. It is my own work. I have previously used it in a publication: Obituary: Rexley Blake Hunton https://nzmj.org.nz/media/pages/journal/vol-133-no-1518/rexley-blake-hunton/87da3202b9-1696478754/rexley-blake-hunton.pdf If you look at the bottom it says Author information: This obituary was written by Felicity Goodyear-Smith URL: www.nzma.org.nz/journal-articles/rexley-blake-hunton

Authors of a wikipedia page have requested use of this photo, and have asked me to post it on Wikimedia so that they can get it. I offered for them to just use it but they write 'In my experience Wikipedia is very pedantic about copyright clearances, so I think it would be safest if the upload to Commons comes directly from your account as the original photographer and rights-holder' Please can you undelete it. thanks Felicity Goodyear-Smith--PhotosfromFGS (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Photo found on the web, we need a valid explicit authorization form the copyright holder. @PhotosfromFGS: please follow the instructions in COM:VRT. Günther Frager (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission now OK. --Yann (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Kevin Marx Noren Media Day, (2024).jpg

Hello,

I’m requesting the restoration of the following file: File:Kevin Marx Noren Media Day, (2024).jpg

This image was previously accepted on Wikimedia Commons. I reached out to the author, Mikaela Engström, who confirmed permission for use via email. Both Mikaela and I (Rickard) would like to share this project on Wikimedia Commons, but the image was recently deleted. Could you please clarify the reason for the deletion, as we both confirmed that all necessary permissions were provided?

Thank you for reviewing this request.--Rickard Elofsson (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The file was deleted because it had an invalid VRT (see deletion log). Günther Frager (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Kissi Agyebeng Special Prosecutor.jpg

I kindly request the undeletion request for this particular file since i am the originator of the picture . it was mentioned that it was found else where on the web and the only place it was found was on the website of the office of the special prosecutor which is where it was and the only place to have been uploaded apart form this wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigilante eye 1 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

 Info The photo is available here . Thuresson (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Thuresson, the cited page is behind a wall that requires me to download software onto my machine. That looks a lot like a phish to me, so I haven't done it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that we have a free license via VRT for all images that appear elsewhere on the web. Alternately you could upload the image at full camera resolution using the same file name. The very small image you uploaded is immediately suspicious. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Ameles fasciipennis.jpg

The license has been changed to CC-BY. https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/243515670 LinicMarino (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Julio César Valentín

Request for Julio César Valentín Jiminián

I am requesting the restoration of the Wikipedia page for **Julio César Valentín Jiminián**, a prominent Dominican lawyer and politician. His extensive career and public service demonstrate significant notability and meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for politicians. Below are key highlights of his career, supported by reliable sources:

      1. 1. **President of the Chamber of Deputies (2006–2010)**

Valentín served as the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Dominican Republic, where he played a critical role in shaping legislative policy and advancing key reforms. → Source: [wikidata.org](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5955209)

      1. 2. **Senator for Santiago Province (2010–2020)**

He represented Santiago Province in the Senate for two consecutive terms, leading efforts on social justice and economic development. → Source: [wikidata.org](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5955209)

      1. 3. **Superintendent of Insurance (2024–present)**

In August 2024, Valentín was appointed by President Luis Abinader as the Superintendent of Insurance, underscoring his ongoing influence in Dominican public administration. → Source: [DR1](https://dr1.com/news/2024/08/26/julio-cesar-valentin-named-superintendent-of-insurance)

      1. 4. **Political Leadership**

Valentín is the founder and president of the Social Justice Party (Justicia Social), a political movement advocating for equity and inclusion in the Dominican Republic. → Source: [Cachicha](https://www.instagram.com/cachicha_news/p/C7wfLWbOHrZ/)

      1. 5. **Academic and Literary Contributions**

He holds a law degree and a master’s in political science. Valentín has authored several books on Dominican political history, including: - *"Los movimientos sociales dominicanos en el siglo XXI"* - *"Constitución, reforma y democracia. De la imposición autoritaria al pacto político social"* → Source: [DR1](https://dr1.com/news/2024/08/26/julio-cesar-valentin-named-superintendent-of-insurance)

      1. **Rationale for Undeletion:**

Julio César Valentín's political career, leadership roles, and published works clearly establish his notability. His influence in Dominican politics, both in legislative and executive branches, meets Wikipedia’s criteria for politicians. Restoring his page will provide a valuable resource for researchers and the general public seeking to understand Dominican political history and governance.

ForeignWire (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Procedural close, this is not Wikipedia. Thuresson (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:KASHO SANZEN Logo.svg

This file was deleted for the following reasons

Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): Non-free logo above threshold of originality

However, the design used in the image is a Japanese coat of arms called “kamon” which is a “Marunikenkatabami” design. Under Japanese law, “kamon” is not registered or controlled by any specific party, such as a public institution, and therefore there are no legal restrictions on its use, and anyone is free to use it. (See also)
In fact, a large number of family crests have been uploaded to “Category:Mon (emblem)”, so it is not considered a “Non-free logo above the threshold of originality .” 七厩拓 (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Deletion request started as this should not have been speedied Commons:Deletion requests/File:KASHO SANZEN Logo.svg. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Tadeusz Debski.jpg

Starting a new undeletion request, as the previous request was closed before I was able to reply. Tadeusz Debski is flickr user cbaksik's grandfather. The photograph was scanned from an unpublished family album of photographs that Tadeusz Debski gave to cbaksik with explicit permission to distribute on the web. --Fernsebner (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll state that I did find that Debski did have a granddaughter named Corinna Baksik (I found that out after I wrote my statement). So Baksik could have been using her grandfather's photographs, but we still don't know if she is his legal heir and therefore able to license her grandfather's photographs. We could presume that she did have the permission of Debski's heir to do so or those wanting to use Baksik's uploads could ask her to contact COM:VRT so we could have more clarity in the situation. Abzeronow (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll ask her to contact COM:VRT. Fernsebner (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Fernsebner, if I understand this correctly, this is an image from a family album. Please remember that the owner of a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not have any right to freely license it unless they were the photographer, the heir of the photographer, or have an explicit free license from the photographer or the photographer's heir. As far as I can see, no one knows who the photographer was and therefore such a license is not possible. Unless the photographer is known or the image is more than 120 years old, it cannot be restored to Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Marta Velilla.jpg

Es una sesión de fotos que la actriz Marta Velilla contrató con el fotógrafo Asier Corera, por tanto le pertenece a ella. He puesto el nombre del autor de la fotografía para que se reconociese. Ruego que restauren la fotografía o qué quiten el nombre del fotógrafo del pie de foto. Por otro lado, si es necesario, borren la foto y subo otra, pero déjenme editar la página y no perder toda la información que ya guardé. Muchas gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mu383 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  •  Oppose La única persona que puede asignar una licencia es el poseedor de los derechos de autor. Claramente la persona que subió el archivo no es dicha persona. Para restaurar el archivo necesitamos un COM:VRT ticket válido. Günther Frager (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In virtually all countries, having a professional photo shoot does not give the subject any right to use the images for anything other than family and personal use. As a general rule, while the subject may have requested and received a license to use the images for her own publicity, such licenses very rarely include the right to freely license the image to others as required here. Therefore either (a) Asier Corera must send a free license using VRT or someone else must send a license together with a copy of the license from Asier Corera which allows that person to freely license the image to others. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:HEROIC AIRMEN ARE KEY TO VICTORY - 9 August 1918.pdf

This file is not copyrighted (in the United States), and is in use on the English Wikisource, which is only concerned with U.S. copyright. It was deleted without discussion or notification. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The speedy rationale according to Special:Diff/942853705 was:

Image is a remake of the original Daily Mail article, maybe for some commemorative issue. You can see in the photo credit that it credits Getty Images, which was founded in 1995, so the photo could be in copyright.

I have no access to the deleted image, so I cannot give my opinion on it. Günther Frager (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: I {{Temporarily undeleted}} the file. Please copy it to the English Wikisource. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Even if it's a "remake", what can be in copyright? The font, the look of the page? The included elements are public domain. The Wells text is PD-old-70 + PD-US-expired. The McLellan photo from IWM is on Commons as PD-UKGov. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
 Support per Asclepias, Wells's text is public domain in the US and the UK, and the photograph is also public domain. Any claims by Daily Mail or Getty are copyfraud. Abzeronow (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Asclepias and Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Hamilton Cardinals 2023 Primary Logo.png

We own this logo and grant permission for upload to Wikipedia to serve on the Hamilton Cardinals team page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5pearInt (talk • contribs) 23:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose We believe that a Wikipedia-only license is unacceptable. Thuresson (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Fitnessgeräte von Kieser.jpg, File:Kieser-Studio Oerlikon Zürich.jpg

Bitte macht die Löschung von File:Fitnessgeräte von Kieser.jpg sowie File:Kieser-Studio Oerlikon Zürich.jpg rückgängig. Der Rechteinhaber Kieser hat sein Einverständnis für die Verwendung gegeben und das Foto unter eine freie Lizenz gestellt. Siehe Mail an permissions-commons@wikimedia.org von Jeanine Minaty, Chief Communications Officer of Kieser, vom Montag, 10.03.2025.

Vielen Dank,

Eure --Schreibmaschine1993 (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Schreibmaschine1993

________


Please revert the deletion of File:Fitnessgeräte von Kieser.jpg and File:Kieser-Studio Oerlikon Zürich.jpg. The copyright holder, Kieser, has given their consent for the use and has placed the photo under a free license. See email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from Jeanine Minaty, Chief Communications Officer of Kieser, dated Monday, 03/10/2025.

Thank you very much,

Yours, --Schreibmaschine1993 (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Schreibmaschine1993

 Oppose a member of the VRT team will undelete it once they review and accept the permission submitted. Günther Frager (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Ivan Pavlovsky.jpg

The photo is an official portrait -> {{PD-RU-exempt}} Filipe46 (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose It does not appear to be a government site and has a strong copyright notice. Images are not included in {{PD-RU-exempt}} because they are not "documents". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Watanabe rei.jpg

の即時削除撤回依頼

即時削除の理由に見当がつかないため削除を撤回していただければ幸いです 渡邉 麗 (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Image copied from Instagram, no evidence of permission, and probably out of scope. Do not reupload deleted files. Yann (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Quinley Quezada.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: YouTube videos or screenshots can be used for "fair use". The photo has very limited use to identify the subject of discussion. Medforlife (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair use is not accepted on Commons. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Katrina Guillou.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: YouTube videos or screenshots can be used for "fair use". The photo has very limited use to identify the subject of discussion. Medforlife (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair use is not accepted on Commons. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)


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

Images of Palazzo ENI (Rome)

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

All the images were deleted in 2013 after this DR. They all depict the en:Palazzo Eni, a skyscraper in the EUR district in Rome. The skyscraper was commissioned by en:Eni (at that time still a public entity part of the state administration, before its privatization in 1992) in 1959 to the architects Marco Bacigalupo and Ugo Ratti, and it was built between 1960 and 1962 (see here). Therefore it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1983. It's a building built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:KVDELUXELOGO.png

Hi, I wanted just to let you know that all the logos they I’ve uploaded are my own logos. Nobody else. And it’s not for neither for marketing or promotional through this platform. They’re 3 of them, two was already deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by THEKVDELUXE (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It is out of scope regardless. Abzeronow (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. Please read COM:SCOPE. --Yann (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Guteras.jpg

Text translated by Google This image was taken by me on a hike on a different date than the one I uploaded the file to Commons. I upload all my photographs to Wikiloc, and I don't store them all on my computer. The images correspond to walks and hikes taken between 2008 and the present, so it's logical that the dates and devices used to capture them may differ. I have also previously downloaded them from Wikiloc if I can't find the file on my computer.--Cerviarenc (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:桂林国贸益华城.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deleted for “No FoP for 2D works in China”. However, this photo depicts a building, and {{De minimis}} should apply. dringsim 15:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The 2D image in the middle of the image would need to be blurred IMO. Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The image is the only reason we might keep the image -- the rest of the building is in deep shadow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Three pics for kk-wiki

Good Day! Can I ask you to restore this files:

Those are illustrative pictures for the article "Әл-жәбрдің атасы" in Kazakh wiki and were made, if I understand it right, by staff of the magazine, about which the article is. --Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ерден Карсыбеков: Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. The files will be undeleted if and when the permission is validated by a volunteer. Yann (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:AMB Photography Divinity 05-26 0106.jpg

User Jay8g‬ flagged this photograph as a copyright violation because it was used on this website: https://www.njarts.net/divinity-roxx-tells-story-of-own-life-in-starchild-the-ballad-of-debbie-walker/

However, I am the owner of this photograph and have uploaded it to wikicommons and therefore have the right and authority to authorize its use anywhere.

The owner of this photograph has made it available for use on wiki commons and while it did appear on this website (https://www.njarts.net/divinity-roxx-tells-story-of-own-life-in-starchild-the-ballad-of-debbie-walker/) that does not make it a copyright violation. --Diviroxxon (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The photo was available on the web 18 months before the upload in Commons. We need a valid COM:VRT ticket to restore it. Günther Frager (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File: Noa Leatomu.webp

Saya mengajukan permohonan untuk mengembalikan (undeletion) foto Noa Leatomu yang sebelumnya dihapus di Wikipedia. Saya meyakini bahwa foto tersebut merupakan foto publik yang dapat digunakan secara bebas. Foto tersebut tersedia di platform yang mengizinkan penggunaannya untuk keperluan publik dan sesuai dengan ketentuan lisensi yang berlaku. Oleh karena itu, saya meminta agar foto tersebut dapat dikembalikan, mengingat bahwa gambar ini relevan dan memberikan kontribusi terhadap artikel mengenai Noa Leatomu, serta tidak melanggar hak cipta atau kebijakan penggunaan gambar di Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojoandawashere (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Published at instagram on May 7, 2022. If you continue to make up licenses or distribute photos in breach of copyright you can be permanently blocked. Thuresson (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
@Thuresson: the user uploaded the same photo under a different name 20 minutes after this posting this undeletion request. Günther Frager (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:José Clemente Orozco, 5 La verdad torcida deformada 1945.jpg

The photographical reproduction of this work is covered under the article 148, VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». See COM:CRT/Mexico#Freedom of panorama for more information.

What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law?

- schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs.

See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama

Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day.

That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrilo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums.

Wikimedia Commons has several images by Orozco (not uploaded by me) that are portable prints on paper in such techniques as lithography, etching, aquatint, and drypoint. I reckon there must be good reasons for those works to remain in Wikimedia, since those images have not been deleted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inti Rosso (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: already declined before. --Bedivere (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:CollabNet-logomark-RGB-450x150.png

Assuming this is the same logo displayed in the top-left corner of the company website at the time, it's almost certainly ineligible for copyright protection as below the US threshold of originality. Looks like it had been tagged incorrectly at upload (based on talk message) but I can't see exactly how it was marked. Adding that it was in scope as it was used in an English Wikipedia article at the time. Ajpolino (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support undeletion and opening a DR in order to look for a consensus if the cloud-like arrows are eligible for US copyright or not. Ankry (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Ankry. Commons:Deletion requests/File:CollabNet-logomark-RGB-450x150.png. --Yann (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Brooklyn East India Pale Ale.jpg

And File:Brooklyn East India Pale Ale (cropped).jpg

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brooklyn East India Pale Ale.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brooklyn East India Pale Ale (cropped).jpg. Apparently, Krd still disagrees and does not address the objections. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request (Ets-Hokin decision) and prior UDRs. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Keren Hayesod poster 1946.jpg

Per {{PD-Israel}} and {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, because this file was uploaded before 1 March 2012. Absolutiva (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose We no longer show any files that have a URAA copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} was for images where URAA status was unclear; it was expected to be further investigated and then either the image deleted or a correct copyright tag added. Requesting undeletion here requires resolving the URAA status prior to the request. Ankry (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:A. Zaidenberg, Lamp, c. 1936, NGA 24529.jpg

Deleted as having no license in 2019, but is in the public domain per {{PD-USGov-WPA}} much like everything in Category:Index of American Design, National Gallery of Art (Washington, D.C.) (some examples: File:A. Zaidenberg, Lamp, c. 1936, NGA 24478.jpg, File:Bernard Gussow, Sofa, c. 1940, NGA 29520.jpg and File:Joseph Leboit, Lamp, 1935-1942, NGA 29688.jpg.) There should be no artwork template or relevant licensing information upon undeletion but I have the entire file page information ready for whenever the file gets undeleted. --Nutshinou Talk! 12:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support Aside from probably being created by a Federal employee, it has no notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: please fix the licensing @Nutshinou: . --Bedivere (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Sam Pura.jpg

I am the original author of this image and have provided permission via email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The file was mistakenly deleted under a copyright concern, but I confirm that I own the rights and have released it under a free license. Please restore the file. PhaseAlignedUser (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose No need for any action here. After the permission is verified and eccepted by a VRT volunteer, the image will be either undeleted or requested to be undeleted by them. Ankry (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

لم اخترق حقوق النشر وتم السماح لي لماذا تلغونها!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaleedKhalid6 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: per Squirrel. --Bedivere (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Dr. Shubhash Chandra.png

This undeleted request is for a file that was uploaded by me which is :File:Dr. Shubhash Chandra.png. This is an image which is freely available on the internet on their main website where all the leadership is mentioned. Here is the page where i got the image from https://www.zee.com/about-us-leadership/ and the resource link is https://assets-prod.zee.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/leadership/Subash-chandra.png. I would need your help with exactly what certification do i need to put so that the image doesn't get instantly deleted. Also I work for the agency on record of the organisation that Subhash Chandra the said person whose image i am uploading is the Board member of.

--ACExtrm (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: obvious copyright violation. The photo is not yours = you can't upload it here unless it's freely licensed (this isn't). --Bedivere (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:ExampleAppleIntelligence.jpg

File was deleted primarily because of a claim that it was COM:OOS, however there are literally a page on Wikipedia that has been translated to multiple languages regarding Apple Intelligence.
While yes, there has been dispute over the copyright status of the file in question, I stand by the rationale that I laid out in the original deletion request that this is, in fact, a free file. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

How, exactly, does the existence of articles on Apple Intelligence make a person's profile image in scope? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
We currently do not have any file generated from the Image Playground in particular, it was highlighted by Apple as one of the big features. The main demonstration Apple used was, in fact, to generate images of people from an album. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
@TansoShoshen: Is there an accepted Wikipedia article that the needs this file? If no, the DR decision is still valid. Ankry (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the aforementioned Apple Intelligence article. It's important to note that the original file I uploaded is not just the image (in this case a headshot which was never used as a profile image as claimed above) generated using the software, it's including part of the interface too. TansoShoshen (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: sorry but we are not restoring your ai-assisted profile picture based on such poor excuses. --Bedivere (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Movie machine.jpg

Its my photo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccan Sanchez (talk • contribs) 12:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Photograph has a QR Code, so I could see why User:Trade tagged it as "No Permission". Abzeronow (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose @Moroccan Sanchez: If this is indeed your photo, upload the original, non-photoshoped version as an evidence or follow the VRT procedure. Ankry (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
It's ok thank you! Ive tried to upload the original raw file...not accepted. I've tried to insert a wetransfer link here... not accepted... I've upload a jpeg without watermark... its a jpg non edited, check it out please... The qr code on the image is my website... Have a nice day! Moroccan Sanchez (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Image reuploaded without QR code. --Yann (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:«‪MAEKAWA-centro-juventud-1523-M.jpg‬»

Hello, as I've already mentioned a couple of times, I took that photo: "MAEKAWA-youth-center-1523-M.jpg" myself in 1979. The one that appears on the blog http://architectureofjapan.blogspot.com/2019/01/ is the same one, as that blog is my property: Javier Vives Rego, alias Bigjap on Wikimedia. Furthermore, on the blog, I clearly state that "all photos in this article were taken by Javier Vives Rego under a Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license." For this reason, I think the photo should be reposted on Wikimedia. Thank you very much. I look forward to your response. Javier Vives Rego, alias Bigjap j.vives@outlook.com

 Not done: duplicate request, respond in the request above. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:AbensonIcon.png

Please don't delete the Image since we will be using this image in one of our systems project. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdlimon (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Please read COM:SCOPE. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Shahar Bador.webp

This is a picture of me that i took for my Linkedin and hence shouldn't have any copyright.

Thanks. https://www.linkedin.com/in/shaharbador/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaharbad (talk • contribs) 19:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Aside from the copyright question, User:Shaharbad has a grand total of 11 edits on all WP projects. We do not keep personal images of non-contributors. Commons is not Facebook or LinkedIn. And, by the way, the image will have a copyright until 70 years after the photographer's death. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Not done, per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:MAEKAWA-centro-juventud-1523-M.jpg

The file MAEKAWA-youth-center-1523-M.jpg is my property, and if it appears on the blog http://architectureofjapan.blogspot.com/2019/01/, it's because that blog is my property. My name is Javier Vives REgo, the author of these photos and all those that appear on that blog. I have uploaded some of them to Wikimedia. My nickname on Wikimedia is Bigjap, as I did not give my real name. For this reason, I ask that this photo be reposted on Wikimedia. Please notify me if this photo has been reposted or the reason why. I believe it does not infringe any rights. Thank you very much. Javier Vives, Bigjap <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjap (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose For previously published inmages the policy requires either a free license evidence at the original publication site, or a free license permission via email as descriped in VRT. Ankry (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
We may also need some evidence that you are the person who made this photo 45 years ago. Ankry (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The blog now has this at the bottom "Todas las fotografías y dibujos de este blog han sido realizados por Javier Vives Rego y están bajo una licencia CC BY-SA 4.0 de Creative Commons." Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
But this does not resolve the doubts about authorship related to the age of this photo. Ankry (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I think we can assume good faith that Javier Vives Rego took that photograph in 1979 unless we somehow have evidence that Rego was not alive then. 1970s is still within range where I wouldn't question an own work claim and as User:Jmabel can attest we do have users that were taking photographs in the 1960s. Abzeronow (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Indeed. Smiley.toerist was already photographing then too, I believe. I completely support undeletion here. Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
 Support See my File:CNSM 700.jpg 1958. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Jmabel and Jim. Source shows its freely licensed and I've license reviewed it. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by @RyanRai11

To address any copyright concerns, I am willing to provide the necessary documentation, includinI am writing to formally request the undeletion of all files uploaded by the user @RyanRai11, which were mistakenly claimed as own work and subsequently deleted.

The deletion was based on an unintentional misunderstanding regarding the authorship or licensing status of the uploaded files. Upon reviewing the matter, I would like to clarify that either the required permissions were overlooked, or the files were indeed in the public domain or properly licensed.

g OTRS permissions or any other evidence required to verify compliance with Wikimedia Commons' licensing policies. If any corrections or attributions are needed, I am prepared to make the necessary amendments to meet the platform’s requirements.

I kindly request that an administrator review this appeal and consider restoring the deleted files. If th**Dear Wikimedia Commons Administrators,**ere are any additional steps needed to facilitate this process, please do let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanRai11 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Procedural close, double request. Thuresson (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)


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

Files by Canadian Radio Company fm 103.3

Please restore:

We have permission per Ticket:2025031910004462

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Already undeleted by Reinhard Kraasch. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Uploaded by @RyanRai11

kindly undelete all my files i mistakenly claimed as mine but it is old and free to use by anyone with copyright claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanRai11 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@RyanRai11: Hi, For each of the files, please give a proper date, source, author, and license. (Duplicate message of Commons:Help desk). Yann (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
As Yann says, please provide us with dates, sources and authors so we can check if these files are actually public domain. Copyright terms are long, for India only photographs from 1941 or before are allowed due to URAA and India is PMA 60 years so artworks have to be from an author who died before 1965. Abzeronow (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done As per Abzeronow. Ankry (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Samar Crow.jpg

Have received VRT Release email frow owner. Photo was deleted less than 30 days from posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetatata (talk • contribs) 09:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The image will be undeleted after the permission is received and verified by a VRT volunteer. Even if a permission is sent, information abount the license granted in the permission is required. Lack of this information may result in faster deletion. Ankry (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Please note that VRT messages must come directly from the copyright owner. We have seen too many forgeries to allow otherwise. 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 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Final Headshot Jack 03 2025.png - Consent was sent

Good morning,

Please undelete the above-mentioned file. The Declaration of Consent was sent today to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

Thanks in advance, --AgroLover (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose A member of the VRT team will request its restoration once they review and accept the permission sent. Günther Frager (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Catedral de Obidos.jpg

Gostaria de obter a imagem para uso novamente, visto que a mesma é de minha autoria e gostaria de usá-la. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsandroclaudino92 (talk • contribs)

@Alexsandroclaudino92: If it is indeed your image, upload it with full camera resolution and with complete camera metadata in EXIF. Ankry (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Eu carreguei direto da galeria a primeira vez. Como faço para saber se a resolução esta correta sendo que peguei direto do celular? Alexsandroclaudino92 (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
0.78 Mpx is unlikely to be the original camera resolution in any modern phone. Also, such devices generally provide information about phone model in EXIF in the original image, which is missing here.
Alternatively, you can provide an evidence of your authorship using VRT. Ankry (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Catedral de Uberlândia .jpg

Gostaria de recuperar a imagem visto que a mesma é de minha autoria --Alexsandroclaudino92 (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose You may upload the original image with complete camera metadata in EXIF or provide an evidence of your authorship using VRT. On-wiki authorship declaration by a user who lied about authorship earlier, cannot be relied on. Ankry (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Logo of UNICA.jpg

== [[File:Logo of UNICA.jpg|thumb|協会のロゴマーク]] ==

thumb|協会のロゴマーク to undelete.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcticgray (talk • contribs) 04:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Procedural close, file is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Reopened -- file was deleted, reloaded out of process, then deleted again. Is this in scope? It doesn't appear on the web site..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:South Pointe Park Lighthouse.jpg

Dear admin, lighthouse should be considered as a building, but not an artwork (despite created by a sculptor, not an architect), and therefore covered by FOP in USA. --121.202.27.210 03:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per King of Hearts and Jim, not a work of architecture. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Jdjfkdkdj.jpg

It is general image and can be used and it is genuine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhddgyu9 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Copied from the Internet, no permission. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Τάσσος Παπαδόπουλος.jpg

They are public photos, focusing on the face of President Tassos Papadopoulos. They do not violate any intellectual property rights, they simply want to give a better impression of former President Tassos Papadopoulos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPalates2001 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Professional photographers like Georgios Konstantinou need to be able to buy food and pay their monthly bills too. From hellasjournal.com Thuresson (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. Greece is a member of Berne and photographs are automatically copyrighted. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Vazquez Pasaporte 2023.png

My file was erroneously deleted, as a "Personal photo". I could "nominate" it to regular deletion, as I did, and as the template suggested it. However it was removed anyways.
The photo it is an example of a passport, and not a real one, please check the references. It is for a Wikipedia article, and it is from here.--VictiniFan360 (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:HosseinSafa.jpg

This photo is taken by me and I want it to be uploaded on Hossein Safa Wikipedia page.

Maryas.kb 21 March 2025 Maryas.kb (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: I blocked the uploader for repeatedly uploading non-free files - the latest was mirrored and with a watermark cropped out. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Bartın Lisesi Logosu.png

My file deleted because of missing permission, but I was a student of Bartın Lisesi. I asked my school's authorities, and they accept my request to use our school logo in Wikipedia. However I didn't take any written permission, because I spoke verbally with my school authorities. I didn't need to ask permission from my school as well. This logo can be used by students freely. --Alperen Çoşan (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Don't bother with a permission to use in Wikipedia; all images must be licensed to be used by anybody for any purpose. See COM:LICENSING. Thuresson (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Logo Universitas Bahaudin Mudhary Madura.jpg

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request the retention of the logo currently associated with [insert company/organization name]. It has come to my attention that there has been a proposal to delete the logo, and I would like to provide clarification and supporting evidence regarding its authenticity.

The logo in question is indeed the official and recognized emblem of [company/organization name]. I have provided a reliable source to substantiate this claim:

https://unibamadura.ac.id/page/images/logo_unibamadura.png

This logo is actively in use and represents [company/organization name] in various public-facing materials, including official websites, products, and marketing campaigns. Removing the logo would not only misrepresent the brand but also cause confusion for those seeking to recognize or engage with the organization.

I kindly request that you reconsider the decision to delete the logo based on the provided evidence, which clearly demonstrates the authenticity of this emblem. Should you require further documentation or clarification, I am happy to assist.

Thank you for your time and understanding. I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, Anak Madura--Anak Madura (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose peer "Copyright © 2019 Universitas Bahaudin Mudhary Madura" (https://www.unibamadura.ac.id/page/). The only exception that can be accepted is if you remove the symbol on the left side, it is below too (text only "UNIBA MADURA") or need a permission via VRT (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per AbchyZa22. --Yann (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:SBA-logo.gif

The rights were not mentioned be this was corrected by the reupload. Aynagasi (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:SBA-logo v2.5.gif

I reuploaded with rights

 Not done: Not an UDR. --Yann (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Dr Marat Ressin 2025.png

I am requesting the restoration of the file **"Dr Marat Ressin 2025.png"**, which was previously deleted due to copyright concerns.

The copyright holder, **Dr. Marat Ressin**, has now sent official permission to Wikimedia Commons. The permission has been received and logged under **VRT (formerly OTRS) Ticket #2025031910008762**.

I kindly request that the file be restored now that the required permission has been verified.

Thank you.

Oleksandr Makarov (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The deletion reason stated was Personal photo by non-contributors (Commons:CSD#F10)  REAL 💬 ⬆   19:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
== Second request to undelete "Dr Marat Ressin 2025.png" ==
This is a follow-up request to restore the file "Dr Marat Ressin 2025.png", previously deleted.
The copyright holder, Dr. Marat Ressin, has submitted permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license.
The permission has been registered under **VRT Ticket #2025031910008762**.
Kindly review the permission and consider restoring the file.
Thank you.
Oleksandr Makarov (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Oleksandr Makarov, please do not file duplicate requests. We are all volunteers and sometimes things take several days to happen. Also note that it is unlikely that the subject has the right to freely license the image. While he probably has the right to use the image for his own publicity, photographers rarely give the right to freely license an image as required here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See York Entrepreneurship Development Institute for notability. 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 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Golda43.jpg

Possibly a higher-resolution version of File:Golda Meir 1943.jpg. JayCubby (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It is the same photograph and higher resolution as you say. Abzeronow (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Are you able to undelete it, given it's quite likely PD-Israel? JayCubby (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I could but the file does need a source. Abzeronow (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @JayCubby: please add a source. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Soniq Circus 2025.jpg

This is my picture that a friend took of me and my band. I have the permission to use it. I can releasie to public domain if that is possible. I just do not know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Abrahams (talk • contribs) 09:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Alex Abrahams: Ask your friend to follow the instructions at COM:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Kurdistan LGBT pride flag.png

Dear Commons Administrators,

I respectfully request the undeletion of File:Kurdistan LGBT pride flag.png. The file was deleted prematurely under an ambiguous rationale that misapplies Commons’ policies.

  • Hasty Deletion Process: the nomination was closed just hours after being filed, denying the community adequate time to discuss. This violates the spirit of Deletion discussions, which require good-faith deliberation.
  • Misinterpretation of "Political Initiatives": the deletion rationale (“Commons is not the place to support your political initiatives”) misrepresents Commons’ scope. Per COM:Project scope, files documenting symbols used by identifiable groups—even politically aligned ones—are permissible if they have educational value. Countless hybrid flags (e.g., File:Philadelphia_Pride_Flag.svg) are retained despite political associations.
  • COM:INUSE: The file is actively used across Wikimedia projects without dispute, including the Central Kurdish Wikipedia where the nominator campaigned for its' deletion due to ideological misalignment. On ckb wiki, an admin tells the nominator that the motive's for the deletion are COI. She mention's, and I'm paraphrasing, that the nominator sees the mixture of the two flags disrespectful because he disapproves of LGBT individuals. Deleting it disrupts existing content.
  • Real-World Usage: the flag is documented in use by Kurdish LGBTQ+ activists (see here, and here). This meets notability thresholds for grassroots cultural symbols.
    • Keep in mind that it is a crime in Iraq to be seen holding such flags. It is a matter of life and death for a lot of individuals, so the excuse that it was not widely adopted by government institutions is hilarious, it's like nominating the Ukraine flag for deletion because the Russian government has not endorsed it.
  • Prior Consensus: The file survived a previous deletion discussion, establishing precedent for retention.

This deletion sets a harmful precedent for suppressing marginalized voices. I urge administrators to restore the file and allow a full, fair discussion per Commons’ policies.--Épine (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment See also reports on ANU. Yann (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Regardless of the behavior of the requestor, please give me a reason why I should not immediately restore this file since the deletion was against Commons policy in multiple ways. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Isn't it a fictional flag? These are out of scope. That's why it got deleted. The only use of the flag, that's been documented in the request, is one that was published after this so called flag was uploaded here, suggesting it might have been induced to be an "official" flag for the movement. Bedivere (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
that said, I will temporarily restore the flag to allow better discussion. Bedivere (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you.  Support permanent restoration because COM:INUSE means it's automatically in scope. Real life usage is still real life usage, and this file survived two previous DRs. Abzeronow (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
This report is false and is only an accusation. I encouraged Zemen to report at RFCU on 4 times. I would actually really like for that to be cleared and out of the way. Épine (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
 Disagree It is weird to compare the official flag of a sovereign country like Ukraine with this imaginary flag. When you say "in Iraq", the reader thinks that those who requested for the flag to be deleted are illiterate people, which makes you think of homophobia again, but it's not. Why isn't anyone going to delete this file? Because it is known, because it is a flag that has been used widely, because no one created it on its own. Those who thought it was not eligible for deletion in the previous deletion request have decided to keep it only considering the "use of the flag in other projects". Épine seem to be upset that there wasn't a good discussion on the request page, well I'd say just use one account and don't ask anyone for support then come and discuss. I want to respectfully tell the admin that the claims that it's used on ckb and some other wikis are the speeches of some organizations owned by the flag creator. This flag is completely fantasy and has not been popularly used anywhere. Épine cited two Instagram links as evidence! and say that this flag was used in public. both Instagram posts are dated after Épine uploaded the flag on Commons, which indicates that those who used the flag in Instagram saw the flag on the Internet and printed it (Ofcourse because there are very few Kurdish LGBT flags on the Internet). + I have one question: how did he find these videos?. And he has twice invited others to support keeping the file, here and at ckb. Also in this and this ckb talkpages five users were in favor of removing the file from articles and templates. Zemen (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Regardless, it is not Commons job to decide for Central Kurdish Wikipedia and other Wikipedias which files they should use, that is up to ckbwiki and other wikis. Even if the flag was invented here first, if there is widespread acceptance of this flag about the LGBTQ Kurdish community about it, that would count as real life usage. Abzeronow (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
That means I can create an imaginary flag then publish it on X, then upload it to Commons and use X as my source? I haven't heard of such a policy. how has that been accepted? Zemen (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
I fully agree with User:Abzeronow and support undeletion per COM:INUSE. COM:INUSE doesn't mean anything if the identity or actions of the uploader, someone's disagreement with their politics or questions of inaccuracy override the autonomy of sister sites such as Wikipedias. The solution to the problem you lay out should be agreed upon on the Wikipedias, not due to one person's objection and one admin's decision on Commons when no Commons policy makes it essential to delete a file for inaccuracy and on the contrary, a relevant Commons guideline exists that should cause us to keep the file. I say all of this without prejudice toward any appropriate measures that have been or might be taken against any user. Bad behavior should have consequences. However, deletion of files in use is not an appropriate punishment for the uploader, but instead a violation of an important guideline that applies to files rather than uploaders. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I see, but aside from what you say, the file if used by several Instagram and social media accounts, is still an unofficial flag, not like other LGBT flags. I ask, is it possible for anyone to create an LGBT flag of their own free will and bring it to this project and we support it? We have a Kurdish LGBT file here that we can use instead of this fantastic flag in projects. and please don't compare this to other famous LGBT flags. Let's make the point clearer: the creator of the flag wants to advertise his unofficial organization's flag through Commons. Zemen (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: thank you for reopening this discussion. I will address the concerns raised and reaffirm why this file meets Commons’ policies for retention.

Post-upload adoption is still valid: the Instagram posts may have been shared after the file’s upload, but this does not negate their evidentiary value. Grassroots symbols often gain traction after being documented in open repositories like Commons. For example: Progress Pride Flag was designed in 2017 and later adopted globally around 2020. It's creation predated it's widespread usage, yet it is retained as a notable symbol.

What I consider notable is files which demonstrate verifiable use by an identifiable group, not pre-existing fame. Kurdish LGBTQ+ activists’ adoption of this flag satisfies this criterion. As for Zemen's question on how I found the videos, the answer is simple: it had to do with one of those 28 LGBT related hashtags on the post and knowing how to use Instagram's search function.

As noted, displaying such flags in Iraq carries severe risks. Marginalized communities often rely on digital platforms like Instagram to organize discreetly. Dismissing this evidence as “fictional” ignores the lived realities of Kurdish LGBTQ+ individuals.

The file is actively used without opposition in Wikimedia projects. Per Commons’ mission, files in active use should be preserved unless they violate specific policies (e.g., copyright, harassment). No such violation exists here. Deleting this file disrupts existing content and discussions across projects. Zemen’s objections to the flag’s use on the Kurdish Wikipedia should be resolved locally, not through Commons deletion.

Hybrid flags are commonplace: Commons hosts thousands of hybrid/flags. These are retained despite being “unofficial” because they document cultural movements. Double standards here risk marginalizing underrepresented groups.

The report referenced by Yann at ANI appears to stem directly from my participation in this discussion. Following this, Zemen started threatening to get my account blocked on ckb wiki.

Critically, the Commons deletion of the flag was initiated by Yann based on unsubstantiated claims of sockpuppetry. These accusations are demonstrably false and lack evidence, violating the foundational principle of assuming good faith. Administrators have a responsibility to verify such claims before acting, especially when deletions disproportionately impact marginalized communities.

This is part of a broader pattern of cross-wiki harassment:

  1. Zemen, after failing to secure consensus for removal on the Kurdish Wikipedia, filed a deletion request here on Commons to undermine local discussions.
  2. By deleting the file on Commons, they sought to retroactively invalidate its use in the Kurdish Wikipedia’s templates.

Such actions constitute en:WP:FORUMSHOP, exploiting global platforms to suppress content deemed unfavorable on a local wiki. The file’s deletion not only disrupted active projects but also set a dangerous precedent where politically motivated users can weaponize and misuse admins' trust through malicious attempts as seen above to achieve their favored result.

This file survived deletion discussions, not once, but twice. Retaining this file aligns with Commons’ mission to document educational content. I urge administrators to:

  1. Restore the file permanently, given its compliance with Commons policies.
  2. Investigate Zemen’s cross-wiki harassment and disruptions.

Thank you.--Épine (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

You still think I and those who oppose the flag are LGBT hateful or uncomfortable about the flag? As I said, if we were against it, I would request to delete this file too, please read my texts well. You still say cross-wiki harassment? I don't like that you are not speaking the truth to others and trying to mislead the topic, I have completely won the topic on ckb according to the unanimous votes of other users. But as User:Abzeronow said, conflicts in cbk are useless for here. You are still skeptical about how a user after 7 years comes to support your file keep, or a user created a few days ago and supports for keeping the file; Of course, this is also worth taking to Checkuser, so that this dubious matter can be settled. Zemen (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
@Zemen Why do you automatically assume that it has something to do with me? I reiterate it for the 5th time, please go file a checkuser request. It would have been more dignifying for yourself if you had proof when you made such a serious accusation rather than just baseless speculation. None of these accounts are related to me whatsoever, therefore I neither feel threatened nor intimidated by your threats. Anyone in Wikipedia can voice their opinion on any topic, the gap in their edit history does not revoke them of the right to express their opinion. You maybe mistaking Wikipedia for an authoritarian hellscape. You have won nothing by the way, there is no winning in Wikipedia, and the fact that you view this whole drama you started as a game to be won tells all that we need to know about you. Épine (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Please stop accusing me when you can't defend yourself about this, and please don't try to bring the decency you showed in ckb here. Yes, everyone can see who won and who failed, I'm sorry for you, but that's the truth. and whenever the time comes, I will raise the request, even someone with very little understanding about this project, will know that these accounts are someone else's puppet. Zemen (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
@Zemen let’s stay descent and do not derail the conversation at hand, please. You had a doubt, I presented you with the solution myself. You’re very welcome to go confirm your suspicions. Any other problems you have we can discuss locally at ckb. You’re welcome to think Wikipedia is about winning. Épine (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
No one has mentioned 'winning'. I just refute your claim that the project consensus "is null and void". It's sad to you, to use those phrases and then blame me for using it. Agree, if you don't keep bringing up more ckb discussions, and make up words by those discussions and use it to defend yourself. Zemen (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Following the repeated accusations of sockpuppetry by User:Zemen, I ran a CU on the several opponents of deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kurdistan LGBT pride flag.png whom I didn't know. I found nothing suspicious except that User:Elias Ziade created and used a fake signature as Eli+ (note that this is not CU information -- it became obvious when I clicked on the Eli+ username and came up blank and then looked at the history). While we don't who most of us really are, concealing one's user name in a controversial discussion is a serious violation of Commons transparency. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward I changed my username and forgot to change my signature, it refers back to my previous user name. Eli+ 14:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
there you go Eli+ 14:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support We have two fictional creations here, both of which would like to become widely used. I think we should keep them both (or perhaps delete them both since we don't generally keep fictional flags) and let them fight it out in the real world. I think the question of which is more widely used is impossible to answer at this point. And, BTW, accusations of homophobia or other political bias here are almost always wrong and insulting. Almost all serious editors on Commons are apolitical or at least avoid working on files where they have strong opinions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Abzeronow, Ikan Kekek, and Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Brücke der Einheit Vacha mit Haus Hoßfeld Philippsthal.jpg Löschung nicht gerechtfertigt

Dieses Foto wurde von mir selber geknippst. Ich bin der Urheber diese Bildes. Die Löschung bitte ich daher aufzuheben; sie ist nicht gerechtfertigt.(Richardiberg (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)). Gruß, Richardiberg

✓ Done: per request, the no license tag was never removed. File is fine now. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Female Vulva Rear View.png

Need access Jenlannister46 (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Commons is not responsible for your not backing up your own files. Abzeronow (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)


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

Second request to undelete "Dr Marat Ressin 2025.png"

This is a follow-up request to restore the file "Dr Marat Ressin 2025.png", previously deleted.

The copyright holder, Dr. Marat Ressin, has submitted permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license.

The permission has been registered under **VRT Ticket #2025031910008762**.

Kindly review the permission and consider restoring the file.

Thank you. Oleksandr Makarov (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This duplicate request was copied to the first request above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:슈당연의.djvu

This book is a Korean translation of the Ming Dynasty novel "隋煬帝艷史" (Sui Yang Di Yan Shi). It was published in Korea (which was under Japanese rule) in 1918 by Hoidong Publishing (회동서관), which was both a bookstore and a publishing house. The claimed author, Go Yu-sang (고유상, 1884–1972) was actually not the real author (or translator) but simply the owner of the publishing house. He did not actually translated text by himself, he was the one of the person who was just compiled the old Korean translation written in Joseon-era (around the 18th century). [7] [8]

National Library of Korea explains as follows for another book published by the same publishing house: "However, the bibliography lists the author and publisher as Go Yu-sang, the head of the publishing house Hoidong Publishing. At the time, it was common for the head of a publishing house to be listed as the author." [9] It means that he was not the actual author of the books, including this one.

So this anonymous work is public domain in South Korea (and also in Japan). (1918 + 30 years = 1948) It is also PD in US per Template:PD-anon-expired. This request is based on a copyright discussion on kowiksource.--Namoroka (talk)

 Support Certainly not URAA, so probably OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: I've reversed my deletion of this file per request and Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Parth Siddhpura at an event in 2023.jpg

Dear Wikimedia Commons Administrators,

I am requesting the undeletion of the file File:Parth Siddhpura at an event in 2023.jpg, which was recently deleted. The contributor who uploaded this file was unaware of Commons’ licensing and copyright rules, and they did not intend to violate any policies.

If there were issues related to licensing or permissions, we are willing to provide the necessary clarifications or permissions to comply with Commons’ requirements. Kindly let us know how we can rectify the issue so the file can be restored.

We appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you.

--Heerasmani (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was deleted as an out of scope personal image. However, the subject appears at IMDB and Amazon, so is likely notable enough to warrant an image here. However, the image appears in many places on the web, so policy requires that either (a) the actual photographer send a free license using VRT or (b) someone else send a free license together with a copy of the license from the actual photographer permitting the sender to freely license the image. Note that in almost all cases, a license to use an image in the subject's publicity does not give the licensee the right to freely license it as required here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I have sent the required licensing confirmation to photosubmission@wikimedia.org as per Commons policy. Could you please review the submission and let me know if any further steps are needed? Thank you. Arjunpanchal (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I think admin should undelete this file and let it go because the uploader uploads the photo unknowingly without seeing commons wikimedia copyrights. Let it go!!

 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 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:QSLKarteLondonerRundfunk1973.jpg) Löschung nicht gerechtfertigt

Hallo,

ich bitte, die Löschung aufzuheben. Das Foto ist eine Quellen-Angabe. Sie dokumentiert, welche Sendezeiten der Londoner Rundfunk im Jahre 1973 hatte. Es ist der blanke Nachweis für die Richtigkeit meiner im Text gemachten Angaben zu den Programmzeiten dieses Senders. Damit nicht jemand daherkommt und sagt, ich würde Nicht-Nachweisbares behaupten. Es ist zudem eine Originalquelle, nichts aus 2. Hand. Zudem lediglich ein Bildausschnitt einer QSL-Karte, somit keine urheberrechtlich belangvolle Sache. Ich bitte die Löschung aufzuheben. Gruß Richardiberg (Richardiberg (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC))

The depiction of London looks possibly above the ToO to me. @Rosenzweig: Abzeronow (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Not below COM:TOO Germany and certainly not below COM:TOO UK (if published in the UK, which would not seem impossible given that it's from the BBC). If from 1973 as claimed, it is also less than 70 years old, so certainly still copyrighted. --Rosenzweig τ 19:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
The top part could be pixelated or cropped off. --Achim55 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose I understand the uploader's reason -- it documents a fact. It's a QSL card -- a card sent to a listener at the listener's request, showing broadcast times. However, if we remove the top, it becomes just a sheet of paper with some times, which proves nothing. It is in scope only if intact, but it clearly has a copyright and therefore cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Rosenzweig and Jim, only in scope if intact and still under copyright if intact. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Full erection of circumcised 76-year-old.jpg

This image depicts a 76-year-old male (it used to be in the category Nude 76-year-old male humans per Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/05/Category:Nude 76-year-old male humans and the preceding CfD linked there). A 76-year-old male would be an ‘old man’ (per the de facto Commons categorization scheme).

The mere fact that this image depicts an erection of an old man seems to make the image notable.

It is not clear how many other images Commons has depicting this topic, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that Commons lacks such images. There is no category Nude old men with erect penis. There is a category Nude old men, which contains (directly or indirectly) a total of 5 files, none of which depict erections. There is one image that I am aware of, File:00000 An Erect human penis viewed from the front 190mm.jpg, and even that image narrowly escaped deletion after a dubious discussion. Brianjd (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

And now that one image has been deleted too (despite having survived a deletion request). What the hell is going on here? Are erections of old men in scope on Commons or not? Brianjd (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Apparently it was caught up in a bulk deletion. Brianjd (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Any reason why the photo that survives a DR discussion should be speedy deleted? IMO, this is out of process. Ankry (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. --Bedivere (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Artwork_k_písni_Pan_Pyroman.jpg and others

permission delivered to VRT (Ticket#2025032410023388) --Gampe (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gampe: some of the file names are not correct. I've undeleted and am undeleting per request. Please update permission. Abzeronow (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I've also undeleted File:Videoklip Kdo se bojí, musí do lesa (S Michaelem Kocábem) 2025.jpg Abzeronow (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Also File:Stroy - Videoklip k albu Kids.jpg, File:Stroy - Masters Of Rock 2015.jpg, and File:Michal Skořepa - Masters Of Rock 2015.jpg Abzeronow (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
File:Stroy - Lucerna Music Bar 2016 v3.jpg is a reupload of a file that was deleted. In this list above as "File:Stroy-Lucerna_Music_Bar_2016_v3.jpg" Abzeronow (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Male partsss.gif

I am asking for my post to be undeleted because I uploaded it for educational purposes and that is it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landonmb (talk • contribs) 19:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose: Extremly poor quality, thus no COM:EDUSE. --Achim55 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per -Achim55. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Seal of Fulton County, Georgia.svg

Seal Fulton County --TG-tdw (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Does not match any seal that I can find in a web search on Fulton County, Georgia. Looks fictitious to me. Abzeronow (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: request made by LTA and per Abzeronow. --Bedivere (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)


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

Wiederherstellung meines Beitrags

--Hermann Selchow (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No image named -- the user has no deleted images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Bensdorp kakao.jpg

Hello. This picture was taken by me, with my own camera. I am not sure if the license was correctly applied. Please correct the license if possible. Thank you for your help. --R9363 (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

There wasn't a license applied to the photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
how can we know what is the license you are going to use to release that photo? that's your choice in the first place. I'm not sure of the educational use of the image. Bedivere (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose With no description and no categories, I don't see any educational use of this file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@R9363: Please indicate what is the license of the file, give a description and in which categories it should be placed. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
 Info This photo was used in nl:Bensdorp. Thuresson (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @R9363: please add description and license. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)


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

Gelöschte Dateien. Skizzen über die Von Graben Familie

Guten Tag!

Ich beantrage hiermit die Wiederherstellung unterstehender Datein. Diese wurden gelöscht, weil ich, der Uploader, ca 1 oder 2 Jahre nach dem hochladen der Bilder aufgrund der illegalen Verwendung von mehr als einem Konto auf Wikipedia gesperrt wurde.

All diese Uploads haben aber die Genehmigung des Erschaffers > https://www.matthiaslaurenzgraeff.com/kontakt/ und sind die einzigen vorhandenen Darstellungen der Familie von Graben (in historisch adäquaten Posen, Gewändern, Begebenheiten).

Datein: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Drawings_of_the_Von_Graben_family_by_Matthias_Laurenz_Gr%C3%A4ff

Danke!

Mit einem freundlichen Gruß, Gelöschter Benutzername (Donald1972)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.119.83.238 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

In english:
Good afternoon!
I hereby request the restoration of the files below. They were deleted because I, the uploader, was banned from Wikipedia approximately one or two years after uploading the images due to illegal use of more than one account.
However, all these uploads have the permission of the creator > https://www.matthiaslaurenzgraeff.com/kontakt/ and are the only existing representations of the von Graben family (in historically adequate. 91.119.83.238 22:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment The files were nominated as out of scope spam “uploaded by a globally locked user”. --Rosenzweig τ 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Content Translation new-dashboard.png

From Commons:Help desk#File:Content Translation new-dashboard.png - I haven't given this enough look but for what is apparent, this should fall under {{Wikimedia screenshot}} - hence deletion seems out of order. What do fellow admins say? signed, Aafi (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like a Wikimedia screenshot to me. Abzeronow (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Undelete it. It's clearly licensed and marked appropriately. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 01:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Why is this or most other screenshots of WP pages in scope? Why not just link to the actual page? Even if the page is changed, every version of it is always available in the history. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Demonstrating an error, which may be transient. Demonstrating a template transclusion, which may be transient. Use in Wikipedia articles. Use in documentation, help pages, etc. Use in WMF blog posts. Demonstration of a particular skin. Demonstration of the effect of being logged in, or out. Demonstration of the effect of being a new editor; autopatrolled (or not) and admin (for not) or of having some other user-right. Demonstration of a certain user-language preference. Demonstration of a certain system-language preference. Demonstration of the use of particular gadget, or user script. Demonstration of a user CSS. Demonstration of using a particular browser, or browser-plug-in. Cropping to just a part or a page. Demonstration of a certain operating system. Demonstration of a certain screen resolution. Demonstration of a certain window size. Demonstration of how something used to look. Demonstration of a proposed change. Inclusion of annotation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Seems Dyolf77 has undeleted and uploaded one with certain parts blurred. Those images could have been checked on Commons, if available here under a free license? For example File:Change in Average Temperature With Fahrenheit.svg, File:Biochar pile.jpg, among others. signed, Aafi (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
This image is a screenshot of a Wikimedia test project, under development, that demonstrates a design of a new feature to be shown in several wiki talkpages. It is not the current feature and may be different in the future, so that's why we can't link to the actual page. Thanks! — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 09:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
My question was about the DW part. The poritions that you have blurred are available on Wikimedia Commons under a free license, mostly. signed, Aafi (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
@Aafi, yes they are free, but we have to give a seperate credit of every single image, that's why I blurred them to avoid that (images are not very essential for the sake of the demonstration). — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
The image is or was in use, so it's in scope. There can be many reasons as listed above to have a selection of that type of an image -- though we certainly wouldn't need one of every article. Unsure where the images come from, but not sure they needed redaction, particularly if they are already Commons images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Already undeleted. In use, therefore in scope. --Yann (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:14 Heimer og folk i Stiklestad-s328.jpg

I have spoken with the creator and owner of the photo. He is also the person who originally gave permission for it to be used in the book, as the photo was specifically made for that purpose. He has now given me permission to use the photo in this Wikipedia article as well. I was considering uploading it again with the correct credits, but I'm not allowed to do so since it has already been uploaded and deleted previously.

--Pederw95 (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that the photographer must provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Fossils (25226023079).jpg

I am requesting that this file (Asset ID: 8bd4778c-8864-45a7-bb53-d23a14fb2ef3) be undeleted because in its online metadata in the NPGallery Digital - Asset Management System, it is written:

"PhotoCredit: NPS Photo by Cassi Knight, Paleontology Guest Scientist Constraints Information: Public domain:Full Granting Rights"

This means it is Public domain and qualifies for addition to the Wikimedia collection. It offers a different example of fossil stromatolites from the Bass Limestone, in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Paul H. (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose On Flickr, it has a PDM. We do not accept the PDM unless the actual photographer uses it. In this case the photographer is a "Guest Scientist" which means they are not a Federal employee. I suspect that there is actually no free license from the actual photographer -- that the PDM and the declaration on DAMS is just what the NPS uses for all its images because the vast majority of them are from Federal employees. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Stanley A. Dunham, Grandfather of Barack Obama, 1947.tif

The deleting then-admin (INeverCry) has been office banned, so discussion is out of the question. It has the same source, most likely, as File:Stanley Armour Dunham in 1947.jpg, but is possibly much better quality. I can't tell from the 640px thumbnail TinEye has archived. JayCubby (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The source might be http://homepeanuts.gq/r307219.php but the Wayback didn't get that in time :( JayCubby (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
The file was claimed as an own work. Abzeronow (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. Based on the user's other contribs and interest in Dunham, it might be a scan in their personal collection? JayCubby (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The subject image is a studio portrait from Sanders Studio, Ponca City OK. The 2016 newspaper article cited as the source of File:Stanley Armour Dunham in 1947.jpg says that their image, which is the same photo, came from the Dunham family. Dunham was born in 1918, so he was 29 at the time of this photo. Therefore this is not a high school or college image and may not have been published until the 2016 article. Unless someone can come up with a pre-1990 publication, we must assume it is still under copyright. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stanley Armour Dunham in 1947.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:President Joe Biden presenting the Collier Prize for State Government Accountability award.jpg

The White House Correspondence Association has submitted an email approving the use of this photo. I'd also like to rename it to: President Joe Biden congratulating the Collier Prize for State Government Accountability award winner.jpg

Thanks so much! --Kapparently (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)March 26 4:18pm

This will be restored if and when COM:VRT approves permission with this file. Abzeronow (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
 Info Deleted with the file name File:President Joe Biden congratulations the Collier Prize for State Government Accountability award winner.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 10 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)


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

Photos by María Herrera

Please undelete

File:Manifestaciones del 9 de enero del 2025 en Juliaca 01.jpg

and all the following ones through

File:Manifestaciones del 9 de enero del 2025 en Juliaca 31.jpg

We have permission per Ticket:2025031010010953.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: They were not deleted, but permission received added. --Yann (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Dogal portraits by Domenico Tintoretto

I would like to present these files that portray some Doges of the Republic of Venice. these portraits are all part of the set of portraits painted by Domenico Tintoretto:

(Category:Portraits of Doges of Venice (series by Domenico Tintoretto - Doge’s Palace))

two files in this list were recently restored by @Abzeronow Wiltronius (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

For transparency sake, this user had emailed me about undeleting those two files and I had discussed the matter with User:MGA73 before making the decision on that. Abzeronow (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Abuse is not a reason for deleting files or refusing undeletion. Commons care about if files are usable and free. If an abuser have given false information about copyright etc. then we can ofcourse delete because the copyright claim is doubtful. But if there is no reason to doubt that the files are actually free then we should keep the files. --MGA73 (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Unfortunately restoring files that were created by a blocked long term abuser when requested by the same long term abuser (whose new incarnation, Wiltronius, is now subject to a {{Checkuserblock}}) simply encourages more of the same behavior. The only hope we have of stopping A3cb1 from their continued harassment is to make it useless. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2020/04#Request_for_comment:_Deletion/undeletion_of_uploads_by_banned/blocked_users "I count 20 support and 83 oppose votes. This may be a little bit off in either direction as a few votes are not clear, anyway the result is clear. Result: Block/ban evasion/sockpuppetry on its own is not a valid reason to delete media or reject a request for undeletion." seems very clear to me. --MGA73 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I would agree to restore these files only if requested by a user in good standing, not by a sock. But usually, it is often better to upload afresh from the source. So basically I agree with Jim. A3cb1 is quite good as trapping other people to support them. I also fell for that. Yann (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Why is uploading again better? It will only require more space. Besides there was a discussion with clear concensus so we should follow that or start a new discussion to see if concensus has changed. --MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
It's better because it doesn't encourage a long term abuser -- both the uploader of the files and the user making this request are A3cb1. I have spent many hours sorting through my share of their 251 sockpuppets. I'd rather spend my Commons time on useful things. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Files by A3cb1 can be restored when the restoring admin verifies (!) that the files are free, without trusting any of the user's or sock's claims, as the user has been proven to intentionally make wrong claims all the time, and to support their wrong claims by e-mail. Paintings of history figures can be old or can be contemporary art. Krd 05:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree. And downloading a file and reuploading it will not make it better. If admin verify that the file is free then just undelete it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
@MGA73: Well, I am not going to do that. It would just legitimate this LTA. Yann (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus to undelete, per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Logo SMKN 1 Blitar.svg

Dear Wikimedia Commons Administrators,

I am writing to formally request the undeletion of the Logo SMKN 1 Blitar that was previously removed. I am the original uploader and creator of the file, and I have the necessary rights to publish it.

As someone working on the school's official social media, I uploaded the logo to Wikimedia Commons so that it can be easily accessed and used by students, teachers, and the school community. Currently, there is no proper logo available, and restoring this file would help in maintaining a consistent visual identity for the school.

If any additional documentation or permissions are required, I am happy to provide them. I kindly ask for a review of this request and appreciate your consideration.

Best regards, Abdullah Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdllhli (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder, presumably the school, send a free license using VRT. I note that your reason for wanting the logo on Commons is not consistent with our rules -- Commons is not Facebook. I see no reason why you need a copy of the logo here -- presumably anyone who wants it could simply take it from the school's web site -- except, of course that the web site has "Copyright © 2025. SMKN 1 BLITAR. All Rights Reserved". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Scuola dell'infanzia poggibonsi.jpg

Hi everyone. I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Scuola dell'infanzia poggibonsi.jpg. This image was deleted in 2013 after this DR. It depicts the it:Scuola dell'infanzia di Poggibonsi, a kindergarten in en:Poggibonsi, designed by it:Mario Ridolfi. It was commissioned by the Municipality of Poggibonsi and it was completed in 1964 (see here). Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1985. It was built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)


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

Category:Building sites

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: undelete all old revisions, because I wanna understand the circumstances under which the category is defined as such. RoyZuo (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK. --Yann (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File: University of Tokyo logo, basic, horizontal.svg

Dear Administrators: This file was uploaded before 2010.This logo is componented by just leafs of a Ginkgo tree. I believe this logo's has too simple shapes to have copyright. According to here, This logo is a slight improvement on the coat of arms created in 1948 and is the same, so I believe it is not copyrightable. Thank you. Luke atlas (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:UnivOfTokyo logo.svg - anything previously kept at DR cannot be speedily deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Minecraft Wiki 2021.png

Could you undelete this file, I asked the creator to license it in a free license and he licensed it in CC BY-SA. Thank you. VitAlv13 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support This logo does not use the official Minecraft textures and the creator has released it under the free license CC-BY-SA 3.0  REAL 💬 ⬆   23:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: has a cc-by-sa license and doesn't use official copyrighted textures. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Padma Shri Rajan Devadas.jpg, File:Rajan Devadas OOI.JPG

Requesting undeletion, as per Deletion request 1 and Deletion request 2, subject is listed as "non-notable person" but subject has their own Wikipedia article here: Rajan Devadas. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support as per SerChevalerie. Yann (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request and Yann. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Zdjecie_do_dowodu_final_2.png

it was not a photo, it was a painting and thus it should be unremoved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oka119 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Selfie by non contributor. Wikimedia Commons is not a social media, and we do not accept personal images unless people contribute somehow. Please read Commons policies, and particularly COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Not done per above. "Zdjecie do dowodu final" = most recent ID photo. Thuresson (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:0B7A0026.tif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: valid permission received in ticket:2025031010001114. whym (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Whym: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Comparativa_etnográfica_talla_de_hórreo_asturiano.png

Hi. I´m new to wikipedia. I´ve created an article an some of the images have been deleted. I would like to ask to de undeletion of this one image, since both images of the compound are taken from the Museo del Pueblo de Asturias archive and the collage was done by me. I believe the issue might be that I didn't do the copyright declaration correctly. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afayadizuu (talk • contribs) 11:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Afayadizuu: We need, for each image, the source, date, author, and a proper license. The best practice is to upload and list them in the montage. Yann (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. Please ask again once you have uploaded the source images will a proper license. --Yann (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Iscrizione lingua falisca pietra arenaria necropoli rupestre foglia valle del tevere.png

E' UN IMMAGINE PUBBLICA DI UN REPERTO ARCHEOLOGICO TRAFUGATO CITATO DALLE PUBBLICAZIONI ARCHEOLOGICHE UFFICIALI

File:Iscrizione_lingua_falisca_necropoli_rupestre_di_foglia_valle_del_tevere.jpg

--Patatebollenti (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iscrizione lingua falisca pietra arenaria necropoli rupestre foglia valle del tevere.png. File:Iscrizione lingua falisca necropoli rupestre di foglia valle del tevere.jpg is OK as {{PD-ineligible}}. Yann (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Professor Latafat Gardashova.jpg

Hello. The image was taken from the public domain, which does not apply licensing or privacy policies. The website from which it was taken is tagged as the owner of the image. As you can see, the website belongs to the university, and the person represented in the image is a worker at that university. The person also allows the use of her image. I do not see any problems with copyright in this case. Please help me deal with licensing and copyright in this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelKosov99 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: not currently deleted. Needs COM:VRT permission from the university as the photograph is copyrighted and no explicit free license is stated. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2025-03&oldid=1015417938"